Philosophy Degree = Fewer Job Prospects?

Thank you in advance for any replies.

Unless you know you want to be an engineer, or a computer scientist then you are better off taking a degree with strong transferable skills - such as History, Philosophy, Literature --- rather than ending up studying engineering for three years, and coming out with a degree you can't use outside of the subject.

Go for it.

Thank you, your reply was extremely helpful.
I would like to eventually go into Journalism but would not study at University because I feel as though, as you stated may be the case, studying something which is purely vocational narrows the pathway for other future possibilities. Do you study Philosophy as a single honours degree?

Yes, single honours.

You can always choose pertinent modules to Journalism in the second and third years (to some extent).

If at University you pick up work on a number of Journalistic opportunities such as college / subject / private newspapers, this will support an application to Journalism, or indeed to MA courses specializing in vocational Journalism. If, indeed after three years you still want to be a Journalist.

I'd find, it is best to stick with what you enjoy now; keep an eye on the future - but don't rush towards something that is easy to put on a pedestal, a few years down the line ones opinion might be different.

A single honours degree is more flexible, as it has less core modules. If, for example, I studied "Philosophy and Physics", there would be less free module slots for me to choose from, as I would have to hit the "core" modules for both subjects.

Hello, I don't know if you remember me (I spoke to you on a thread about me studying philosophy at university). I have recently recieved a letter from my chosen university which contains a small essay to write and a reading list with suggestions and 'must have' books. Under philosophy it says that I should buy

- Descartes: Mediations on First Philosophy (translation but John Cottingham) and
- Existentialism is a Humanism by Jean Paul Sartre

I was wondering if you've read them in the past and whether they're any good and not too complex in terms of understanding what's being said?

Thank you

- Descartes: Mediations on First Philosophy (translation but John Cottingham) and
- Existentialism is a Humanism by Jean Paul Sartre

I was wondering if you've read them in the past and whether they're any good and not too complex in terms of understanding what's being said?

Thank you

The problem with Philosophy is it is not "vocational" - it doesn't suit any particular career, unlike say, engineering, law or medicine.

The same is true of any humanities subject. The problem with Philosophy is that people (wrongly) have the view that Philosophy grads have what is basically a degree in bull****.

- Descartes: Mediations on First Philosophy (translation but John Cottingham) and
- Existentialism is a Humanism by Jean Paul Sartre

I was wondering if you've read them in the past and whether they're any good and not too complex in terms of understanding what's being said?

Thank you

Good lord, where are you going that has Sartre on an introductory reading list!? I suppose you might say that one's pretty hard to understand insofar as he never seems to actually say anything. Or maybe you'd say there's just nothing there to be understood, I don't know.

Meditations is really short and pretty easy to follow. Not much of merit in that either, really.

First of all, Congratulations on your offer.

I have had the misfortune of reading Existentialism is a Humanism; it was both painful and unpleasant experience - the whole idea of ontological existentialism is grotesque, and is merely a complete rehash of nominalism (qua Ockham); the difference is Sarte does not give any compelling or rational reasons for this. It is not a difficult work to understand - it is a difficult work to tolerate.

Descartes Meditations are even easier to understand; but they must be given some credit for the time in which they were written - although their current value is somewhat debatable they do have an important position in the History of philosophy.

However... I was not aware they taught Sarte as philosophy... I thought it was bad enough that people such as Husserl or Kierkegaard were being taught.... Aiee, what is next - astrology?

As books by actual philosophers go, neither of those are too difficult, though of course it's always more difficult when you don't have anything to guide you. I'm sure there's a fair amount of stuff about both on the internet, and you can always come here and ask for advice if you don't understand what they're getting at. Broadly speaking the Descartes is an exercise in philosophical skepticism: Descartes wants to know that what he sees around him is real, so he starts off by figuring out what there is that we can definitely be sure of (the famous bit), and then tries to reason outwards from there. If I remember correctly Meditations is written as a sort of diary, which makes it a bit more readable. The Sartre on that list is a book that came out of lecture notes, so it's a lot easier going than most existentialism. Basically existentialism is about responding to the fact that we exist (hence the name) with no guidebook to the world, and have to figure out what it means to be a person and how we should live our lives. There's a fun café analogy (pretty sure it's in this one) that you can read in an exagerated French accent for amusement.

Thanks for congratulating me From the above comment Sartre doesn't seem very popular, but like I've stated above, I'm willing to take the effort and time to understand what these books aim to get a cross and hope I'm lured into the realms of philosophy. Kind of dissapointed that they haven't suggested any material by Plato or Aristotle, their way of thinking is so deep and fascinates me.

Good lord, where are you going that has Sartre on an introductory reading list!? I suppose you might say that one's pretty hard to understand insofar as he never seems to actually say anything. Or maybe you'd say there's just nothing there to be understood, I don't know.

Meditations is really short and pretty easy to follow. Not much of merit in that either, really.

First of all, Congratulations on your offer.

I have had the misfortune of reading Existentialism is a Humanism; it was both painful and unpleasant experience - the whole idea of ontological existentialism is grotesque, and is merely a complete rehash of nominalism (qua Ockham); the difference is Sarte does not give any compelling or rational reasons for this. It is not a difficult work to understand - it is a difficult work to tolerate.

Descartes Meditations are even easier to understand; but they must be given some credit for the time in which they were written - although their current value is somewhat debatable they do have an important position in the History of philosophy.

However... I was not aware they taught Sarte as philosophy... I thought it was bad enough that people such as Husserl or Kierkegaard were being taught.... Aiee, what is next - astrology?

As books by actual philosophers go, neither of those are too difficult, though of course it's always more difficult when you don't have anything to guide you. I'm sure there's a fair amount of stuff about both on the internet, and you can always come here and ask for advice if you don't understand what they're getting at. Broadly speaking the Descartes is an exercise in philosophical skepticism: Descartes wants to know that what he sees around him is real, so he starts off by figuring out what there is that we can definitely be sure of (the famous bit), and then tries to reason outwards from there. If I remember correctly Meditations is written as a sort of diary, which makes it a bit more readable. The Sartre on that list is a book that came out of lecture notes, so it's a lot easier going than most existentialism. Basically existentialism is about responding to the fact that we exist (hence the name) with no guidebook to the world, and have to figure out what it means to be a person and how we should live our lives. There's a fun café analogy (pretty sure it's in this one) that you can read in an exagerated French accent for amusement.

I appreciate the assistance everyone. I'm currently reading about Aristotle and I've just read an introduction about him wanting to investigate the nature of things and how we explain why things exist. However, there's a concept I'm finding rather annoying and difficult to grasp. I acknowledge that there's four causes as to why things and objects exist (material, formal, efficient and final cause). The precise concept that's baffling me is the 'prime mover', the book I have doesn't explain it well and what it does mention is rather confusing. Could you explain the me what the prime mover is and name any example if possible, if it's any help I've learned about the changing world 'motion' and how if something changes, it can exist in 'actuality', e.g.- a cow in a farm or has the 'potential' to be something else, e.g.-beef.

All I really know about the prime mover is that it exists by necessity, thus it cannot seize to exist. It's not capable of change, therefore it's actuality by nature (meaning it's good because it doesn't need to change anything, it's not lacking in anything).

But what is a prime mover in terms of what I've told you?

Thank you

rather than ending up studying engineering for three years, and coming out with a degree you can't use outside of the subject.

Don't be put off if you find Aristotle confusing, the ancient greeks might have been critical to the development of philosophy but they certainly didn't do what we would today call philosophy. If you think this stuff makes sense you probably didn't understand it!

Basically, you're talking abut gods in one way or another, but close examinations will differ on what exactly he was jabbering about.

Thank God, I've been reading over this chapter for the last few hours trying desperately to comprehend what the prime mover is, so what would you advise when I come across these difficult spots in my reading (like areas I cannot get my head around) because at the moment I'm trying to understand everything before turning the page.

Tar for replying so quickly aswell mate.