Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by !!mentor!!)
    Every subject can claim that it requires the art of thinking, asking the right questions etc etc. Philosophy is not even close to being unique in those areas. This is exactly the reason why whilst us STEM-inators make the world go round, you people live in your own bubble thinking up stupid ideas like, "Life is like a star-spackled unicorn because of inside out potatoes. Think about it".

    "Oh wow. That's so deep and meaning and explains the soul. Blah, blah."

    And philosophy needed STEM in order to come into fruition.

    STEM FTW.
    Firstly, it simply isn't true that every subject requires the art of thinking to the same extent. Philosophy, as I've said, is a process. Not a load of names to remember or tables to learn (though memorisation is of course necessary also). It's a process of (often verbal) reasoning. Other subjects, like Biology, require independent thought on occasion, but their emphasis is different, relying more on memorisation of facts rather than on the thinking process. I don't think this is a particularly controversial stance.

    Including the actual process of evolution as part of a STEM subject is obviously complete nonsense, though I know you're just kidding. We're discussing academia here, and starting a fire was primitive man's tool for survival. The operative word being 'primitive', i.e. before academia. If you were to start going down this route then it's far less clear than you think anyway - I'm sure that primitve humans were, while building their fire, considering why they were there, who they were and what purpose (if any) they had in their lives, among other basic philosophical questions. Similarly, do cave paintings make art just as important? This is such a silly argument - science has only existed for a few hundred years, so why you're bringing up relative ages of subjects I have no idea.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    For anyone doubting the employability of someone with a philosophy degree, see this (I'm soz it's a slideshow but it's not one that reloads every page) on the telegraph:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education...?frame=2282934

    #10th most employable degree; the only arts subject that beats it is languages and (depending on your viewpoint) law.

    That's from 2012, so yes it is still applicable to post-financial crisis times.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by SunnysideSea)
    When you tell someone you’re taking Philosophy, you often get the impression the person you’re talking to (especially, it must be said, if they’re a STEM Nazi) doesn’t know what the subject actually is, and assumes it’s just sitting (mainly in the reclined position) considering the meaning of stuff in a whimsical way. Oh the ignorance. So I’ve decided to give some reasons why Philosophy should be (and is, by employers and those who know), considered one of the most prestigious, challenging and rewarding subjects out there (yes, right up there with medicine, physics, law and maths):

    1) In terms of skill in logical thought and precision, Philosophy matches any science or quantitative subject. Formal Logic notation is notorious for its complexity, and on Oxford’s website, in the description of the Logic unit, it warns that even students who took Further Maths A Level ‘will struggle’.

    2) At the same time, it hones writing, argumentative and analytical skills to the same extent as any other humanities subject, like History or English Literature. Hence combining the best aspects of the arts with the sciences.

    3) It involves the study of, quite simply, the greatest minds to have ever walked the Earth. While Geography students are off learning about rates of coastal erosion on the Norfolk coastline, you’re learning about the intricacies of the work of Aristotle, Plato, Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Descartes, Nietzsche, Sartre, Hume, Socrates, Machiavelli, Aquinas, Augustine, Voltaire, Kant, Camus, Russell, Mill, Epicurus, Confucius and so many more. Philosophy's scope means it's near impossible not to find deep interest somewhere.

    4) Philosophy is the original and oldest subject. There’s a reason Newton named his work ‘Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy’. Science (formerly Natural Philosophy) is a child of Philosophy, and simply cannot function without it. Every day, budding young scientists carry out their investigations, all the while oblivious to the fact that they rely on the work of philosophers like Thomas Kuhn, Karl Popper and Francis Bacon to do so.

    5) Employers know that the soft skills many science students lack can be found in a Philosophy student. The subject is best done as a verbal process or through structured verbal argument, thus perfecting your communication, debating and verbal reasoning skills. Spend time studying syllogisms and analytic philosophy and, in all likelihood, you will be the most ferocious debater for miles around. If you want, training in philosophical reasoning can allow you to dominate your philosophically illiterate opponents (which, sadly, will be most of them).

    6) Philosophy has shaped our world more than any other subject. From every war begun in the name of a particular philosophy of religion, to every revolution caused by a philosophy of politics, to every scientific invention born of philosophy of science, Philosophy is there, in the background, always.

    Thanks for reading this; I’d be happy to have a discussion below. I leave you with my personal favourite Plato quotation:

    “There will be no end to the troubles of states, or of humanity itself, till philosophers become kings in this world, or till those we now call kings and rulers really and truly become philosophers, and political power and philosophy thus come into the same hands”.

    Here are some statistics from the USA for those people hardest to persuade:

    Source:
    http://www.physicscentral.com/buzz/b...19841346388353



    I'm thinking of doing a Philosophy(or Philosophy, Ethics and Religion) for uni but what university/or universities do you recommend me going to? I would also like to note what future employers do Philosophy graduates tend to attract and what job sector do they tend to go into. For e.g. would it be possible for a Philosophy graduate to become an humanitarian?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Defraction)
    I'm thinking of doing a Philosophy(or Philosophy, Ethics and Religion) for uni but what university/or universities do you recommend me going to? I would also like to note what future employers do Philosophy graduates tend to attract and what job sector do they tend to go into. For e.g. would it be possible for a Philosophy graduate to become an humanitarian?
    Hey there, I'll try my best:

    Recommended unis:
    This is pretty hard to answer without knowing anything about you. The main divide you'll find will be between unis which do Philosophy & Theology (a lot of them), and those which just do just Philosophy courses or just Theology (Cambridge, UCL and some others). Philosophy & Theology offers a great deal of breadth, so you'll be bound to find something that really interests you (it also has the rather funny nickname PhilThy)

    Future jobs:
    Basically any barring a doctor, scientist or engineer. Lawyer? Yep. Accountant? Yep. Marketing director? Yep. Do you see where I'm going with this?
    A Philosophy or Theology degree would probably be the ideal degree for humanitarian work - you'll be well equiped intellectually, and be used to seeing 'the bigger picture'. Also, if working with people from other faiths, a Theology degree would be invaluable.




    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Defraction)
    I'm thinking of doing a Philosophy(or Philosophy, Ethics and Religion) for uni but what university/or universities do you recommend me going to? I would also like to note what future employers do Philosophy graduates tend to attract and what job sector do they tend to go into. For e.g. would it be possible for a Philosophy graduate to become an humanitarian?
    I did some phil courses at Edinburgh and absolutely loved their teaching methods. Some of the lecturers are very famous too ( Andy Clark). However, there is more focus on contemporary philosophers rather than the classic ones like Aristotle, Descartes, etc.
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by SunnysideSea)
    Hey there, I'll try my best:

    Recommended unis:
    This is pretty hard to answer without knowing anything about you. The main divide you'll find will be between unis which do Philosophy & Theology (a lot of them), and those which just do just Philosophy courses or just Theology (Cambridge, UCL and some others). Philosophy & Theology offers a great deal of breadth, so you'll be bound to find something that really interests you (it also has the rather funny nickname PhilThy)

    Future jobs:
    Basically any barring a doctor, scientist or engineer. Lawyer? Yep. Accountant? Yep. Marketing director? Yep. Do you see where I'm going with this?
    A Philosophy or Theology degree would probably be the ideal degree for humanitarian work - you'll be well equiped intellectually, and be used to seeing 'the bigger picture'. Also, if working with people from other faiths, a Theology degree would be invaluable.




    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Graduate entry med.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    I love sociology for similar reasons. Sometimes it feels like applied philosophy because you're using abstract concepts to explain what is happening in life.

    Doing RS at AS level was meh but I enjoyed the philosophy unit I took in first year undergraduate.*
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Princepieman)
    Graduate entry med.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    From a humanities degree? Is that really a thing? I suppose you'd need extremely science-y A levels?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    I really would like to study Philosophy at a Russel Group Uni, and the subject itself interests me enormously. However, over the summer I've read a couple of recommended Philosophy books (Descartes Meditations and J.S. Mill's Utilitarianism) to get a taste of the type of reading, and I find the books relatively difficult to read. By that, I mean the syntax in these types of books is really unusual, with lots of separated clauses and double negatives etc. Would anyone have any tips on how to best read Philosophical texts? Or is it just something that takes time to get your head around? Thanks!
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by SunnysideSea)
    From a humanities degree? Is that really a thing? I suppose you'd need extremely science-y A levels?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    It is most definitely a thing and no you don't.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Princepieman)
    It is most definitely a thing and no you don't.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Wow, learn something new everyday and all that tbh even I find that a little surprising, and I'm mr big-up humanities!

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SunnysideSea)
    Firstly, it simply isn't true that every subject requires the art of thinking to the same extent. Philosophy, as I've said, is a process. Not a load of names to remember or tables to learn (though memorisation is of course necessary also). It's a process of (often verbal) reasoning. Other subjects, like Biology, require independent thought on occasion, but their emphasis is different, relying more on memorisation of facts rather than on the thinking process. I don't think this is a particularly controversial stance.

    Including the actual process of evolution as part of a STEM subject is obviously complete nonsense, though I know you're just kidding. We're discussing academia here, and starting a fire was primitive man's tool for survival. The operative word being 'primitive', i.e. before academia. If you were to start going down this route then it's far less clear than you think anyway - I'm sure that primitve humans were, while building their fire, considering why they were there, who they were and what purpose (if any) they had in their lives, among other basic philosophical questions. Similarly, do cave paintings make art just as important? This is such a silly argument - science has only existed for a few hundred years, so why you're bringing up relative ages of subjects I have no idea.

    Posted from TSR Mobile

    By the way, evolution is very much science. Evolutionary biology is the science that studies evolution and people.

    And there is no way that our earliest ancestors would've wasted their time thinking about philosophical nonsense. They had more important things to think about like, "How do I evade that predator? Where will I find my next meal? How can I keep my family safe?"

    Face it. Philosophy is one of the worst subjects to develop thinking processes and is also completely useless. How many who study philosophy go on to become philosophers? Barely any at all, if any!

    The same type of false importance that philosophy students apply to their subject is the same false importance applied by creationists, flat earth society members etc. These are the type of people who believe that praying to god is the most effective way to cure diseases rather than science.

    You people are absolutely free to waste your time with this subject because there's enough STEM academics that will continue to advance the world. DO yourselves a favour, study something more worthwhile, like 'David Beckham studies'.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by !!mentor!!)
    By the way, evolution is very much science. Evolutionary biology is the science that studies evolution and people.

    And there is no way that our earliest ancestors would've wasted their time thinking about philosophical nonsense. They had more important things to think about like, "How do I evade that predator? Where will I find my next meal? How can I keep my family safe?"
    Of course they did! Wouldn't you ask, why do I need to protect my family? Why do I need to survive? What's the point of committing mysef go provide for a family when there's so much scarcity?
    There is more to life than money and a career. I totally don't want to waste myself stacking penny on penny then getting with a gold digger. It's best to do philosophy and find the real purpose of your life and find the real values in life, then you'd always appreciate life whether you are rich or poor. You won't have to worry about losing the money that has no value to you. I go to university for an education, I want an education for the sake of being educated, not to make money and pay for prostitutes and cocaine.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dr Carlsberg)
    I really would like to study Philosophy at a Russel Group Uni, and the subject itself interests me enormously. However, over the summer I've read a couple of recommended Philosophy books (Descartes Meditations and J.S. Mill's Utilitarianism) to get a taste of the type of reading, and I find the books relatively difficult to read. By that, I mean the syntax in these types of books is really unusual, with lots of separated clauses and double negatives etc. Would anyone have any tips on how to best read Philosophical texts? Or is it just something that takes time to get your head around? Thanks!
    You need to grasp the main premises of their argument. I mostly use other sources to help me better understad the text (E.g google scholar). Philosophy is about arguments and each argument has some premises leading to a conclusion. For example, the statue (David) and the clay:
    1. David did not exist on Monday (but does exist on Tuesday).
    2.Lump did exist on Monday (and also exists on Tuesday).
    3.If (1) and (2), then David is not identical to Lump.
    4. [So] David is not identical to Lump.
    Then you should try to find errors with each premise or argue that they do not lead to the conclusion. Philosophy does not rely on evidence but logic. Hope this helped.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TrotskyiteRebel)
    Of course they did! Wouldn't you ask, why do I need to protect my family? Why do I need to survive? What's the point of committing myself go provide for a family when there's so much scarcity?
    There is more to life than money and a career. I totally don't want to waste myself stacking penny on penny then getting with a gold digger. It's best to do philosophy and find the real purpose of your life and find the real values in life, then you'd always appreciate life whether you are rich or poor. You won't have to worry about losing the money that has no value to you. I go to university for an education, I want an education for the sake of being educated, not to make money and pay for prostitutes and cocaine.
    No, they didn't. Our distant ancestors didn't concern themselves with the ' why's ', just the ' how's ' (You may want to believe that but it simply isn't true).
    The ' why's ' came later when they had sufficiently evolved enough to ask 'why'.

    The majority of people are concerned with obtaining money, not just enough for what they need, but enough for what they want. Money may not be the be all and end all for you, but for the majority of people it is what they want.

    People would love to be in a position where they can snort cocaine off the breasts of a high class hooker. If that's important enough for them then good for them. It's not important enough for you, other things are. The things you value above money are no more important than other peoples values i.e money.

    Some people like gold diggers. There's nothing wrong with a gold digger saying, "I'm only dating you for your money." And for the wealthy to reply, "I'm only dating you for your tits." If they're happy, then good for them.

    Most people find their purpose in life without philosophy, clearly.
    And most poor people would absolutely rather pursue money than education. It is money that will pull them out of their circumstance.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by !!mentor!!)
    No, they didn't. Our distant ancestors didn't concern themselves with the ' why's ', just the ' how's ' (You may want to believe that but it simply isn't true).
    The ' why's ' came later when they had sufficiently evolved enough to ask 'why'.

    The majority of people are concerned with obtaining money, not just enough for what they need, but enough for what they want. Money may not be the be all and end all for you, but for the majority of people it is what they want.

    People would love to be in a position where they can snort cocaine off the breasts of a high class hooker. If that's important enough for them then good for them. It's not important enough for you, other things are. The things you value above money are no more important than other peoples values i.e money.

    Some people like gold diggers. There's nothing wrong with a gold digger saying, "I'm only dating you for your money." And for the wealthy to reply, "I'm only dating you for your tits." If they're happy, then good for them.

    Most people find their purpose in life without philosophy, clearly.
    And most poor people would absolutely rather pursue money than education. It is money that will pull them out of their circumstance.
    Here guys. I made him say it all.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by !!mentor!!)
    No, they didn't. Our distant ancestors didn't concern themselves with the ' why's ', just the ' how's ' (You may want to believe that but it simply isn't true).
    The ' why's ' came later when they had sufficiently evolved enough to ask 'why'.

    The majority of people are concerned with obtaining money, not just enough for what they need, but enough for what they want. Money may not be the be all and end all for you, but for the majority of people it is what they want.

    People would love to be in a position where they can snort cocaine off the breasts of a high class hooker. If that's important enough for them then good for them. It's not important enough for you, other things are. The things you value above money are no more important than other peoples values i.e money.

    Some people like gold diggers. There's nothing wrong with a gold digger saying, "I'm only dating you for your money." And for the wealthy to reply, "I'm only dating you for your tits." If they're happy, then good for them.

    Most people find their purpose in life without philosophy, clearly.
    And most poor people would absolutely rather pursue money than education. It is money that will pull them out of their circumstance.
    I hope you realise you're making a whole bunch of philosophical assumptions here, like 'if they're happy then good'. This is literally a moral philosophy, akin to positive utilitarianism. Of course, philosophers have alalysed this sort of moral framework for centuries, but you wouldn't know that because you've never studied it. In fact, you actively showcase your ignorance by stating it like a fact, when any philosopher knows it is far from it. I assure you 'maximal happiness' has all sorts of problems as a moral framework, all you have to do is look it up, but of course you won't. From what I've seen you actually enjoy remaining closed-minded and naive, so perhaps Philosophy really isn't for you.

    'The majority of people are concerned with obtaining money'. Any evidence for this? Isn't evidence what you guys accuse others of not having? I come from a fairly wealthy background, and I can assure you the 'thrill', if there even is one, is in the chase. Most people think money will get them what they want, until they have money and don't know what to do with it. Please don't waste your life in search of something which only those who have realise is worthless next to, for example, a loving family, or love in God.

    As for most people finding purpose in life without philosophy: aside from it being another unsubstantiated claim, do you watch the news? Aren't teenage mental disorders at an all-time high? Aren't divorce rates at an all-time high? Everyone's always saying our society is broken (isn't this why Corbyn became leader, why americans latch onto Trump?), a society built in some respects by philosophically illiterate people. I say there is ample evidence that Philosophy deserves a chance, given that all else is failing.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by !!mentor!!)
    Philosophy has to be regarded as useless as Gender Studies or Art History because you can quite literally make stuff up to answer exam questions and get top marks.

    For example students in a Philosophy exam were also asked to use all their philosophical knowledge to prove why a chair, placed at the front of the room, didn’t exist. While many scribbled down different theories one student simply wrote ‘What chair?’

    In another Philosophy exam, a student was said to receive top marks when answering the one word question ‘Why?’ with ‘Why not?

    In another exam students are reported to have been asked ‘What is courage?’ One is said to have returned a blank page saying ‘This is.’

    It is reasons like this that most people don't highly regard Philosophy.

    But saying that, if I didn't have to work for a living, i'd likely study Philosophy also.

    ....

    I wouldn't concern yourself, I doubt it's the right course for someone who can't tell the difference between a university exam and old jokes circulated on the internet anyway....
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SunnysideSea)
    As for most people finding purpose in life without philosophy: aside from it being another unsubstantiated claim, do you watch the news? Aren't teenage mental disorders at an all-time high? Aren't divorce rates at an all-time high? Everyone's always saying our society is broken (isn't this why Corbyn became leader, why americans latch onto Trump?), a society built in some respects by philosophically illiterate people. I say there is ample evidence that Philosophy deserves a chance, given that all else is failing.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    this is an absolutely beautiful piece of writing. Can I share it on my fb page?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by !!mentor!!)

    For example students in a Philosophy exam were also asked to use all their philosophical knowledge to prove why a chair, placed at the front of the room, didn’t exist. While many scribbled down different theories one student simply wrote ‘What chair?’

    In another Philosophy exam, a student was said to receive top marks when answering the one word question ‘Why?’ with ‘Why not?

    In another exam students are reported to have been asked ‘What is courage?’ One is said to have returned a blank page saying ‘This is.’

    It is reasons like this that most people don't highly regard Philosophy.

    But saying that, if I didn't have to work for a living, i'd likely study Philosophy also.
    You don't really believe those were real, do you?
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.