Should Philosophy NOT be Taught in the University?

[speed]

The last thread was a thrilling piece of reasoning, discussion, and insight. Much was learned. However the question as to whether Philosophy should be required in schools was delightfully never answered or resolved. Thus--and this had been my intention--I wish to ask the reciprocal question: should philosophy NOT, and by no means ever, be taught in a university?

Many of you acknowledged that instruction was poor, enthusiasm was low, and in many cases, the instructors knowledge of the bigger picture of philosophy may have been lacking or too shaped by a zealous love of one form or belief in philosophy, over the very important whole. I would like to add that the scholasticism of the University setting, all but restricts and hampers any creative or original philosopher, and encourges professors who are mere doctrinaires or scholasticists. I've noticed those who actually take philosophy as a major seem rather possessed with minor scholasticism, and htis narrow thinking. To me, this is a serious problem, as philosophy up to really this century encompassed every facet of human knoweldge. Until the 18th century, persons such as Locke, Newton, Goethe, were as interested in science, law, or economics as philosophy, but still used philosophy to influence their other ideas and vice versa. Now philosophy is, and is taught as, some narrow little island that has no affect on, or importance to anything else.

What shall we do?

 

[کوڈانشی]

sounds a little like what has happened to islam in recent times

 

[Horus]

Personally, I think that Philosophy should be mandatory in schools, so an answer to the question to me is a solid YES!!

 

[ARC150]

During my sophmore year, I decided to add Philosophy as a second major. In order to do this, I needed permission from the head of the philosophy department.

I met with him and relayed my wish.

His response: "I don't think that's such a good idea."

Me: "Why not?"

Dean: "It is a rigorous course of study with very few job opportunities at the end of it all."

Me: "I just want to add it as a second major."

Dean: "Oh! OK."

Done. No further questions asked.

Why did I take philosophy classes?
Because I too often found myself in the midst of the stacks of philo-journals in the library, seeking written opinions on whatever fancy struck me that day - rather than pursuing my required workload - and I figured: If I am doing this anyway, I might as well get credit for it.

Those classes were the most difficult. Credit was not based on a right answer; it was based on the ability to make a point. Most of the philosophical text I know I read on my own....but the exercise in critical thought that allows me to engender said text is a product of that course of study.

::I need to leave, so I will have to end this diatribe::

/but the answer is "Yes." Teach it. Not the material, per se, but the skills to interpret that material, whatever it may be.

 

[Cythraul]

I've noticed those who actually take philosophy as a major seem rather possessed with minor scholasticism, and htis narrow thinking. To me, this is a serious problem, as philosophy up to really this century encompassed every facet of human knoweldge. Until the 18th century, persons such as Locke, Newton, Goethe, were as interested in science, law, or economics as philosophy, but still used philosophy to influence their other ideas and vice versa. Now philosophy is, and is taught as, some narrow little island that has no affect on, or importance to anything else.

I don't think you have a sufficient understanding of the contemporary philosophical climate. I'll grant you the point that some students and professors are "rather possessed with minor scholasticism", but I challenge you to show me a significant number of philosophy departments that don't have people studying and taking seriously philosophers of the past and don't tackle significant questions that have concerned philosophers since the ancients.

I'm not going to speculate as to why we don't have as many renaissance men these days, but then again 1) many contemporary philosophers are also mathematicians, linguists, scientists, etc. 2) Your claim that "philosophy is, and is taught as some narrow little island that has no affect on, or importance to anything else" couldn't be more inaccurate. In fact, philosophy is vastly more interdisciplinary than it has been in nearly a century. The line between philosophy proper and other disciplines is often blurred. You'll see philosophers not only discussing, but interacting with people from, cognitive science, psychology, physics, linguistics, law, economics, etc. Not only that, but even in the heyday of positivism and logic chopping philosophers were still interested in, and frequently discussed science and other disciplines. Ethics is even being taken seriously and being discussed very frequently in the contemporary philosophical climate, and an impressive literature has been developing.

I think you see contemporary philosophy as pedantic, concerning itself with merely shallow issues. This is not the case. The examples I gave should give at least some indication of that. Much contemporary philosophy is distinguished by the way it tackles questions, not the questions it asks.

 

[speed]

I don't think you have a sufficient understanding of the contemporary philosophical climate. I'll grant you the point that some students and professors are "rather possessed with minor scholasticism", but I challenge you to show me a significant number of philosophy departments that don't have people studying and taking seriously philosophers of the past and don't tackle significant questions that have concerned philosophers since the ancients.

I'm not going to speculate as to why we don't have as many renaissance men these days, but then again 1) many contemporary philosophers are also mathematicians, linguists, scientists, etc. 2) Your claim that "philosophy is, and is taught as some narrow little island that has no affect on, or importance to anything else" couldn't be more inaccurate. In fact, philosophy is vastly more interdisciplinary than it has been in nearly a century. The line between philosophy proper and other disciplines is often blurred. You'll see philosophers not only discussing, but interacting with people from, cognitive science, psychology, physics, linguistics, law, economics, etc. Not only that, but even in the heyday of positivism and logic chopping philosophers were still interested in, and frequently discussed science and other disciplines. Ethics is even being taken seriously and being discussed very frequently in the contemporary philosophical climate, and an impressive literature has been developing.

I think you see contemporary philosophy as pedantic, concerning itself with merely shallow issues. This is not the case. The examples I gave should give at least some indication of that. Much contemporary philosophy is distinguished by the way it tackles questions, not the questions it asks.

Thank you for the excellent reply. As you know, I have no connection to any university philosophy program; thus, I was really hoping to get some good answers on both sides of this question (the previous thread). I thought this was implied by my posts, and constant posing of questions, but anyway...

Thus it seems philosophy in the university setting is perhaps more dynamic than I thought. And im sure theres wonderful literature on a variety of different subjects (a architecture prof I know, quoted Heidegger's theory of place, and was apparently in close contact with a few philosophy profs.) And most academic departments are full of philosophy and theory references.

Yet, what you speak of Cythrual is that philosophy has permeated the academic environment--specifically theory. I know anyone with an advanced college degree knows this. But does this permeation have any greater influence on the non-academic world? Or is it confined to a few academic social sciences, and mathematical theories that exist only in academia, and are unusuable or ignored by the world? And Im sure something has been discussed, but I for one, have not come across any major new thinking on ethics, morals, or even the theory of knowledge and understanding in philosophy. I know in wretched economics--specifically classical liberal/rational self interest (our ruling philosophy in america)--realm, there has been little innovation in the last 70 or 80 years besides disgruntled academics writing papers only other academics read. All questions Im asking here.

Does anyone else have any thoughts or experience on this subject?

 

[Keltoi]

My two-cents would be the focus on more mathematical-logical disciplines, which are important in modern society to make a living, seem to make more classical studies, like philosophy, seem outdated and pointless to most people. While I'm sure everyone on this board realizes the importance of philosophy and the ability to reason, most major univerisities concentrate on more "in demand" studies it seems to me.

 

[speed]

My two-cents would be the focus on more mathematical-logical disciplines, which are important in modern society to make a living, seem to make more classical studies, like philosophy, seem outdated and pointless to most people. While I'm sure everyone on this board realizes the importance of philosophy and the ability to reason, most major univerisities concentrate on more "in demand" studies it seems to me.

Yes, I suppose I agree with you. However, classical studies allow one to ponder one's life, humanity, the inspire one to appreciate art and even create themselves. And nothing has been put in their place but self help books and tv shows.

 

[Cythraul]

Yet, what you speak of Cythrual is that philosophy has permeated the academic environment--specifically theory. I know anyone with an advanced college degree knows this. But does this permeation have any greater influence on the non-academic world? Or is it confined to a few academic social sciences, and mathematical theories that exist only in academia, and are unusuable or ignored by the world? And Im sure something has been discussed, but I for one, have not come across any major new thinking on ethics, morals, or even the theory of knowledge and understanding in philosophy. I know in wretched economics--specifically classical liberal/rational self interest (our ruling philosophy in america)--realm, there has been little innovation in the last 70 or 80 years besides disgruntled academics writing papers only other academics read. All questions Im asking here.

Well, I'm quite aware of philosophy's place in the academic world, but I'm not really sure how to answer your further question. I haven't really looked into the broader sociological impact of philosophy, but it would be interesting to investigate the issue. In so far as these other academic disciplines have any effect on the non-academic world, we might say that philosophy has effect indirectly. Methinks that philosophy's impact on the non-academic world is broad, gradual, and long-term. And I think it's always been that way, for the most part. It seems to me, just from a cursory look at the issue, that the ideas of philosophers gradually permeate the wider culture. Maybe it's easier to see these things in hindsight. I'm no expert on economics, but I think philosophy has started to have an impact in changing the views of academics who study economics, and it's stemming largely from changing metaethical views. This could potentially have a very broad impact. Look into Hilary Putnam's book The Collapse of the Fact/Value Dichotomy and Amartya Sen's Ethics and Economics for elaboration on this.

 

[Cythraul]

Yes, I suppose I agree with you. However, classical studies allow one to ponder one's life, humanity, the inspire one to appreciate art and even create themselves. And nothing has been put in their place but self help books and tv shows.

Yup. People should be reading Plato and Aristotle, not Tony Robbins.

 

[speed]

Well, I'm quite aware of philosophy's place in the academic world, but I'm not really sure how to answer your further question. I haven't really looked into the broader sociological impact of philosophy, but it would be interesting to investigate the issue. In so far as these other academic disciplines have any effect on the non-academic world, we might say that philosophy has effect indirectly. Methinks that philosophy's impact on the non-academic world is broad, gradual, and long-term. And I think it's always been that way, for the most part. It seems to me, just from a cursory look at the issue, that the ideas of philosophers gradually permeate the wider culture. Maybe it's easier to see these things in hindsight. I'm no expert on economics, but I think philosophy has started to have an impact in changing the views of academics who study economics, and it's stemming largely from changing metaethical views. This could potentially have a very broad impact. Look into Hilary Putnam's book The Collapse of the Fact/Value Dichotomy and Amartya Sen's Ethics and Economics for elaboration on this.

Yes, I suppose it is impossible to know the impact. And lets face it, only a few academic fields are even bothered with in todays practical world. I suppose my contention, was in the past (just 50 years ago), everyone was influenced by some philosophical theory or the other (you had Hegelians, Marxists, Lockians, Nietszcheans, Freudians, Weberians, Rousseaians etc, etc,) and their ideas directly influenced many many fields. Now you have some vague academics, only a few people know of, who indirectly influence these fields through their thought. Perhaps this dissemination of philosophical thought and knowledge is a good thing, and doesnt breed dogma and ideology. Or perhaps it is merely a product of our present culture and society?

The funny thing was, is I was going to reference Sen as the one economist who did have a broad philosophical message (even if it is derivative, and incredibly vague, but interesting and well-intentioned--rethinking the third world and development essentially).

But Tony Robbins is my hero! I never would have felt the power within me, nor had the will to make that first one hundred thousand, had I not read one of his books.

 

[Europa Ascendent]

1. Instruction in the basic vocabulary and history of philosophy is valuable irrespective of the originality or the quality of philosophical discourse being produced by faculty. I cannot tell you how many discussions I've seen derailed by a fundamental lack of knowledge about basic philosophical concepts. If one participant in a conversation is arguing ontology and the other is arguing epistemology and neither is cognizant of that difference (as so often happens), no communication is going to occur.

2. Historically, the most significant philosophical inquiry has rarely emerged out of the formal apparatus of the philosophical academy. Usually, real advances in thought have come out of other disciplines or from thinkers outside the formal structure of the academy entirely.