[PUG] Usefulness of Philosophy

[Lucifer]

Well the philosphers affect the way we structure our society. But I think this tendency happens in waves. During certain periods of time the world opens up to new possibilities in these times philosphers matter. The enlightenment would be an example I think it was a time of social transition and people were open to new ideas. Are we in such a time now? No I don't think so.

But in times of political upheaval what an individual thinks can have an effect on the world at large.

 

[BenW]

+1

professors work their butts off (excuse my french) more than most will ever know. And to say they shouldn't be paid much is folly. And they have to teach others who want to put in 1/10 the amount of effort and receive 10 times as much as they do for it.

professors will never be paid enough for what they know, do, and have to put up with.

Pff.

This article fairly accurately sums up my opinion of academia.

http://www.blurofinsanity.com/collegewaste.html

Teachers who teach real subjects, such as math, hard sciences, engineering, etc.. are exempt, but even they can be dogmatic idiots.

 

[IndigoSensor]

Anyone can become dogmatic. Just because someone is a professer doesn't mean they will be good or fair.

Also, who are you define which subjects are "real". I sincerly hope you are joking with that, because nearly every major in exsistance to me has pratical reasons to it (because that is what I am assuming you are looking at right now).

 

[BenW]

Also, who are you define which subjects are "real". I sincerly hope you are joking with that, because nearly every major in exsistance to me has pratical reasons to it (because that is what I am assuming you are looking at right now).

Subjects which I would consider "real" have opportunities for profitability outside of JUST teaching...
Good professors are always in a position to spin off research into industry startups. Professors who don't have said opportunities probably don't do interesting research, hence don't really deserve some golden paycheck.

Professors aside, and in terms of employment for graduates, a B.A/P. ranges from useless to negligible.
Even a Masters/PHD in the same category prettymuch will only get you a job as, you may have guessed, a professor... -_-

 

[enfp can be shy]

Workload? Real subjects? Profitability? Practical? Ask the shepherd, he'll tellya all about hard sciences. ^^ He can get a bit dogmatic too with that crook.

You guys must be sick, if you think profitable has anything to do with practical.

 

[Gaze]

You guys must be sick, if you think profitable has anything to do with practical.

Yep!

 

[Duty]

Subjects which I would consider "real" have opportunities for profitability outside of JUST teaching...
Good professors are always in a position to spin off research into industry startups. Professors who don't have said opportunities probably don't do interesting research, hence don't really deserve some golden paycheck.

Professors aside, and in terms of employment for graduates, a B.A/P. ranges from useless to negligible.
Even a Masters/PHD in the same category prettymuch will only get you a job as, you may have guessed, a professor... -_-

Here is where you're mistaken: societal progress is made by thinkers. Go read "Guns, Germs, and Steel" by Jared Diamond, it shows that cultures that are most advanced are the ones that could produce enough excess so that segments of their population could specialize as thinkers.

I've done some crummy jobs (I do one now), but professors are what drive/direct innovation, and in any organizational product, what is going to make profit are your marketers and your innovators.

Plus, you're completely ignoring the fact that professorships are often the only way available to conduct research. This is especially true for research lying outside the immediate corporate interest (pharmaceuticals, etc), but research that will be very relevant in the future.


I have to ask too...have you ever been to college for 12 years? Have you ever taught a class, did original research, and attended the conferences, etc that professors do? Have you ever done a 2-week strait academic conference where you attend 10 hours a day? It's probably intellectually grueling.

 

[BenW]

Here is where you're mistaken: societal progress is made by thinkers. Go read "Guns, Germs, and Steel" by Jared Diamond, it shows that cultures that are most advanced are the ones that could produce enough excess so that segments of their population could specialize as thinkers.

A friend of mine, whom I generally look to for wisdom on academia, summarized it better than I could, and I don't want to take credit for his wording, so I'll just quote him.

"I've read Guns, Germs, and Steel. The kind of excess he's talking about occurs naturally in a modern economy, it's a function of technology (automation) and agricultural production."

I've done some crummy jobs (I do one now), but professors are what drive/direct innovation, and in any organizational product, what is going to make profit are your marketers and your innovators.

Plus, you're completely ignoring the fact that professorships are often the only way available to conduct research. This is especially true for research lying outside the immediate corporate interest (pharmaceuticals, etc), but research that will be very relevant in the future.

"His argument seems to be that professors are 'necessary' to do research that isn't profitable, but actually they're doing research that's been deemed profitable for the public interest by some funding agency. Those same agencies also fund corporations and NPOs. Finally, the best professors are extremely well-paid because they're in demand.

And professors hardly direct even the majority of innovation; most research in the hard sciences is done by corporations for profit or grad students trying to get a PhD--and most grad students are trying to get that PhD to get a high paying research and development job, not to become a professor."

I have to ask too...have you ever been to college?

No, I have not. And I intend to stay as far away from the university system as I possibly can.

 

[Duty]

I think I've come up with an answer to my own question (probably unconsciously inspired by you guys ).

All living creatures live with a philosophy. For most animals the philosophy is just doing what it takes to survive. However, as humans we have the distinct capabilities of being aware of our philosophies and the ability to purposefully change them.

Since we are forced to have a philosophy (whether we are aware of it or not), and our philosophy directs such massive amounts of our thinking and subsequently our actions, we need direction on how to optimize this to its fullest. What we unfortunately have in society is a bunch of people giving no consideration to improving their patterns of thinking: they are satisfied with an overwhelmingly underwhelming performance...and so we have this society of unreflective drones.

Further, the questions philosophy asks are (seemingly) of enormous importance to people: "What is ethical?" "How do we know what we know?" "What is the most just social structure?" These questions are extremely important, and at the same time, we do not have definite answers to them. So, we tackle them with the best tools we have available: logic and critical thinking. Ideally, philosophy produces methods for obtaining definite answers to our questions. At that point, a new science is born from philosophy.

Society is not ready to accept philosophers because people take offense when it is shown they don't know how to think. How to think is the primary skill of philosophy, and it teaches original, creative thinking perhaps better then any other discipline. Although I wish more people would support this effort (I really wish it would be taught in schools: archaic religious ethics are imprinted on children every day, but not good "thinking hygiene," as it is deemed taboo), it will just have to be appreciated that at least some people are enjoying the benefits of philosophy.

 

[enfp can be shy]

professors are what drive/direct innovation

professorships are often the only way available to conduct research

This sounds to me as extreme as the opposing desire to send most professors to the burger concentration camps.

It is more valid than the claim that academia is completely useless, but it's also not working very well. The type of innovation in the official research groups is limited and directed by the guys who give the funding, who got it in ways enclosed in my previous post, and certainly have some very weird idea of what needs to be researched.

So most professors are like this mouse:

-> [grants] -> [papers] <-

 

[Duty]

"I've read Guns, Germs, and Steel. The kind of excess he's talking about occurs naturally in a modern economy, it's a function of technology (automation) and agricultural production."

Yes, exactly...and so we have a specialized class of thinkers that we pay. We call them teachers and professors. Their job is to innovate and to hand down their knowledge to future innovators.

"His argument seems to be that professors are 'necessary' to do research that isn't profitable, but actually they're doing research that's been deemed profitable for the public interest by some funding agency."

The professors are given a lot of leeway to pursue their interests...it's not just driven by a capitalistic/corporate money demand machine. Admittedly I'm not that familiar with this aspect of the process, but I highly doubt it is all corporate driven. Mathematicians proving Fermat's Theorum or other such things are not exactly doing "profitable" or "public interest" research, yet they are given full privilege to do such because it is of academic interest.

And professors hardly direct even the majority of innovation; most research in the hard sciences is done by corporations for profit or grad students trying to get a PhD--and most grad students are trying to get that PhD to get a high paying research and development job, not to become a professor."

Yet someone has to direct the research. Graduate students are not certified to do research yet. You need people with the PhDs in the universities to direct research.

Further, you need someone to teach the grad students and the undergrads. You need teachers. Burger-flippers don't go through 12 years of paying school dues. Burger-flippers were never those graduate students you just mentioned doing research. Burger King doesn't do intellectual research or innovation. Burger-flippers don't have the training, they don't have the qualifications, they don't have the experience or worth that a professor does. A 9-5 office worker doesn't have near any of this either (I'm a 9-5 office worker, and I admittedly don't have near the societal value a professor of Philosophy, Physics, hell, any professor does).



Oh, have I mentioned the papers, books, etc that professors are often working on? Lets see...research for themselves, directing graduate student research, writing papers/books, academic conferences, paper grading, critiquing other academic literature, learning new advancements in the field..there is a lot more then just the 3-10 hours of lecture per week...


Point is, we need some sector of our society devoted to this type of activity. It is precisely because we produce excess that we can have this class of people, and it is because of this class of people that we ultimately can create the techniques that give us excess.

 

[Duty]

This sounds to me as extreme as the opposing desire to send most professors to the burger concentration camps.

Seriously? This is an "extreme view?" Where in the world does a theoretical mathematician get a research grant besides a university? How the hell does a neuroscientist get the equipment he needs (and don't say a hospital's MRI machine...only universities, with very few exceptions, have MRI machines that are nearly powerful enough to conduct the research, let alone have MRI machines that are not in use by the clinicians that have patients to care for)? How about philosophy (since it is this thread's original focus)? What company should an experimentalist in psychology go to to study emotion?

I'm in awe that you would say that my view is "extreme." Professorships are very often the only way to get attention/resources/time to the research your field is interested in. Companies rarely hire theoreticians of any field...that work is done in universities, and then the same work is passed on to the students in the applied sector...so they can go put it to use.

 

[Satya]

Mo Jing first observed the effect...he made an empirical observation. His philosophies (which were mainly ethical and political in nature) made no difference...he performed the basic scientific function of observation.

Even the greatest created methodology in our history: the scientific method, was not a philosopher's doing, it was an astronomer's doing (Galileo).

I would say observation is a philosophical function. Any degree of reason needs basic input from observation in order to have any use. I think once measurement is applied to observation, then it becomes scientific.

I don't think I ever insinuated that the scientific method was a philosopher's doing. Although I'm pretty sure the concepts behind the scientific method were reasoned by philosophers long before they were ever put together.

 

[Faye]

People rather do a crummy, lazy do-it-yourself job by just letting religion and society do their thinking for them. It's much easier and they don't care for a nice finished product."

Doesn't philosophy form the basis of religion and society (and by basis, I mean the systems, because obviously both are made up of people)?

 

[enfp can be shy]

Seriously? This is an "extreme view?" Where in the world does a theoretical mathematician get a research grant besides a university? How the hell does a neuroscientist get the equipment he needs (and don't say a hospital's MRI machine...only universities, with very few exceptions, have MRI machines that are nearly powerful enough to conduct the research, let alone have MRI machines that are not in use by the clinicians that have patients to care for)? How about philosophy (since it is this thread's original focus)? What company should an experimentalist in psychology go to to study emotion?

I'm in awe that you would say that my view is "extreme." Professorships are very often the only way to get attention/resources/time to the research your field is interested in. Companies rarely hire theoreticians of any field...that work is done in universities, and then the same work is passed on to the students in the applied sector...so they can go put it to use.

What you say is true. The extreme part, to me, is to accept it, and just go "that's the way it is, so that's the way it should be". Both the academia and the business have created too much hierarchy and dependency; don't be surprised if real innovation comes outside of both.

 

[BenW]

Patrick, ENTJ: "You can paste this in and say it's my reply, if I make a forum account I'll waste my life on it."

*shrug*

Yes, exactly...and so we have a specialized class of thinkers that we pay. We call them teachers and professors. Their job is to innovate and to hand down their knowledge to future innovators.

"What he doesn't recognize is that professors aren't the blessed group of people from whom all innovation and knowledge flows. Most of the technological growth we've experienced has been the result of capitalistic selection, and while professors sometimes 'hand down their knowledge to future innovators', usually they hand down a deadline to their TAs who in turn tell the students to read the book."

The professors are given a lot of leeway to pursue their interests...it's not just driven by a capitalistic/corporate money demand machine.

"HAHAHAHAHA
I'm not sure what utopian school this guy went to, but most if not all professors do exactly what their grant tells them to do and sometimes sacrifice academic integrity to pinch out a little more cash."

Mathematicians proving Fermat's Theorum or other such things are not exactly doing "profitable" or "public interest" research, yet they are given full privilege to do such because it is of academic interest.

"That professor is also more than likely holding a position either out of tenure or because he's good enough at math to hire as a lecturer. Students pay to be lectured (and then forget it and binge drink and oh god oh god there's an exam I'd better cram so I can forget everything I learned immediately after I set down my pencil) and are paying his wages, and oh by the way he doesn't make much. It's not really a privilege, it's a job, and also Fermat's (Last) Theorem is of arguable value to future generations. So is the Riemann Hypothesis. So is the Poincare Conjecture (oh wait, a professor didn't solve that one, whoops). Solving any of those problems is like winning the Tour de France seven times. You're cool, but you haven't actually improved humanity all that much"

Yet someone has to direct the research. Graduate students are not certified to do research yet. You need people with the PhDs in the universities to direct research.

"I'm going to stop laughing egregiously because it'll get old.
So yeah, you need people to direct grad students' research. Those people are other grad students, access to closed-source scientific literature, and massive amounts of stimulants. A grad student to a professor is combination cheap labor and terrified underling. I'm being cynical, I'm sure there are some awesome professors who really motivate their grad students, but in any case the funding from that professor's grant is motivating them way more. Also grading his papers and getting free tuition/housing helps.

Burger-flippers don't go through 12 years of paying school dues.

"No, those are baristas. Burger King is for minority underclass workers, Starbucks is for failed intellectuals--get your franchises straight. Also don't sell yourself short. You probably make more money than the majority of professors (you're letting selection bias influence your image of the average professor--not even close to many professors are Stephan Hawking or Carl Sagan)."

Oh, have I mentioned the papers, books, etc that professors are often working on?

"A group of folks in the hard sciences once did an experiment to test the value of papers on English literature (an English PhD is about the only thing more useless than a Philosophy PhD). They took a whole bunch of technical words from the field, wrote a completely meaningless paper using them, and submitted it for peer review. It passed. You're forgetting the degree to which people in academia are allowed to self-regulate--sure this paper makes sense! After all /I/ bullshitted my way through a paper and tried to obfuscate it to prevent legitimate criticisms from being leveled at it too, didn't I? (thinks the peer reviewer)"

It is precisely because we produce excess that we can have this class of people, and it is because of this class of people that we ultimately can create the techniques that give us excess.

"You're right that it's because of excess that we have this class of people. And remember I'm talking about the majority of professors here, not the minority who produce useful scientific knowledge and actually inspire students to put down the Bud Light for a minute, uncross their eyes, and wonder what that dude at the front of the room was talking about. But most of them are the result of a bunch of wealthy baby boomers going off and having kids, remembering that college==higher wages when it was the 70s, and paying for their kids to go to four more years of what amounts to slightly harder high school for most degrees (including, but not limited to, everything in Fine Arts and most modern Computer Science curriculums. Basically any degree that doesn't require hard math, really). But then Jr. kids to pound on his liver for four more years, suck his thumb a little while before learning to do something useful, and gee whiz why sure I'll let you pay me to not fail your kid for being a failure. Why shouldn't colleges lower their standards and pass everyone? No one realizes yet that the majority of their degrees have no market value, and hey now the government is getting in on subsidizing this action. Fuck yes! We'll teach your kids how to do a keg stand and get summers off to boot!

And like I said earlier*, that's why degrees are being watered down to the point that they're not worth the paper they're written on. And they're ESPECIALLY not worth the opportunity cost of spending four years and something like $40k (sometimes subsidized) starting a business and learning how to actually provide value to the economy. Then again considering that high school suffers the same problem (teachers water down their classes so students all feel brilliant, hence fewer student complaints and more time to get their foot in the door long enough to become IMPOSSIBLE to fire because of the union they're required to join--and then they can just kick back and not give a shit about the kids).

* BenW: "Why is academia so against single focus education?"
Patrick: "Because academia is inflated and propped up by the tuition of idiots who demand that they lower their standards so they can get a college degree and water down everyone else's."

So really what you're saying is more or less true, except these days it's high school teachers, not professors, that fill the roll that SHOULD be educating kids for free, but because they have terrible pay and an anti-competitive atmosphere, they're fucking shitty and kids just get High School 2.0 because they weren't taught properly in the first place and everyone feels bad just pushing them out the door and telling them to deal.

Now trade schools are frequently valuable as long as they aren't IT or crappy computer science. Actually learning how to do something that society demands will usually land you a job and maybe some sort of apprenticeship. Also university degrees in hard sciences that you ACTUALLY busted your balls to learn will definitely provide you with value, although really you could have busted your balls in a library instead of wasting $40k to be motivated by not wanting that $40k to have been a waste. In the end, if you produce something impressive, no corporation looking to hire you is going to give a shit what's written on that paper, all they're going to see is a dollar sign on your forehead that says "Get this guy before someone else does, he's valuable

Oh yeah, and becoming a doctor is always a fine choice. Can't go wrong there, and that's because they'll actually fail your ass if you don't suck it up and work like a real person."

Where in the world does a theoretical mathematician get a research grant besides a university?

"If you're a pure math mathematician with competence, you'll fucking SPANK anyone interviewing for a high paying computer science job, cryptanalysis, hedge fund management, pretty much ANYTHING. It's one of the highest market value degrees in the world.

Which is why I got a Pure Math degree."

What company should an experimentalist in psychology go to to study emotion?

"Any company that makes money off of marketing, and they'll get paid better money too."

Companies rarely hire theoreticians of any field...that work is done in universities, and then the same work is passed on to the students in the applied sector...so they can go put it to use.

"I think what you're actually observing is that companies rarely hire crappy theoreticians, but professors don't actually need to produce results so it's a perfect fit for a crappy theoretician. All you have to do is summarize a book of well-understood concepts and hire a TA to grade the tests. Oh, and pretend to do research, or do mediocre research in something uninspired. On the other hand if you want to see companies hiring pure theoreticians who want to do experiments, look no further than IBM, Microsoft, any big pharma, Intel, Apple (if you're into marketing, not if you actually understand computers), GM, and other market leaders in high volume industries.

Even the greatest created methodology in our history: the scientific method, was not a philosopher's doing, it was an astronomer's doing"

"Actually I'd give it to Des Cartes. And he was a mathematician (among other things)."

 

[enfp can be shy]

edit: why was the post of mf deleted?? this is a pug thread, and it wasn't even too cynical...

"If you're a pure math mathematician with competence, you'll fucking SPANK anyone interviewing for a high paying computer science job, cryptanalysis, hedge fund management, pretty much ANYTHING. It's one of the highest market value degrees in the world.

Which is why I got a Pure Math degree."

This is the funniest part. Study pure math, so you can reach the highest mind pleasure: to SPANK job candidates.

 

[bamf]

I deleted it because it was a pretty lame thing to say. Came from heat of emotion without stopping to think about it.

'twas a dick move on my part.

 

[BenW]

No hard feelings.

 

[Duty]

What he doesn't recognize is that professors aren't the blessed group of people from whom all innovation and knowledge flows.

Obviously taking me out of context...unproductive and insulting.

Most of the technological growth we've experienced has been the result of capitalistic selection

Back it up with real statistics please, not just conjecture.

While professors sometimes 'hand down their knowledge to future innovators', usually they hand down a deadline to their TAs who in turn tell the students to read the book."

Someone had to point to the right book...

What are you trying to prove here anyways? How does this prove that professors are worth as much as burger-flippers? It seems irrelevant to the context.

I'm not sure what utopian school this guy went to

Insult, irrelevant and unproductive.

But most if not all professors do exactly what their grant tells them to do and sometimes sacrifice academic integrity to pinch out a little more cash.

Using the example of the worst to prove they're all useless? The original argument by BenW was that professors are worth as much as a burger-flipper...that academia is crappy and unneeded.

That professor is also more than likely holding a position either out of tenure or because he's good enough at math to hire as a lecturer. Students pay to be lectured (and then forget it and binge drink and oh god oh god there's an exam I'd better cram so I can forget everything I learned immediately after I set down my pencil) and are paying his wages, and oh by the way he doesn't make much.

Again, I don't see how this is relevant to the context.

It's not really a privilege, it's a job, and also Fermat's (Last) Theorem is of arguable value to future generations. So is the Riemann Hypothesis. So is the Poincare Conjecture (oh wait, a professor didn't solve that one, whoops). Solving any of those problems is like winning the Tour de France seven times. You're cool, but you haven't actually improved humanity all that much.

If you're a pure math mathematician with competence, you'll fucking SPANK anyone interviewing for a high paying computer science job, cryptanalysis, hedge fund management, pretty much ANYTHING. It's one of the highest market value degrees in the world.

Which is why I got a Pure Math degree.

Wait...you do understand the history of cryptanalysis and number theory, right? Number theory was long regarded as useless outside the realm of academia for a long long time. Most of what academic mathematicians prove is not directly useful, but only proves itself useful later.

This isn't even mentioning that knowledge is intrinsically valuable anyway. It is one of the joys of humanity: to know things. I find the story of Fermat's Last Theorum fascinating...knowing these stories is what makes it worth being alive.

I think that is another great argument for the usefulness of philosophy by the way.

I get the impression that, to you, the only valuable things are ones that have some kind of capitalistic market/societal/direct value. Now, I think sports players are way overpaid, but I think it is awesome to have a sector like that in our society: to show what the human body is capable of (not to mention the entertainment value, and the inspiration stories that are produced here).

I'm going to stop laughing egregiously because it'll get old.

Another unproductive insult.

So yeah, you need people to direct grad students' research. Those people are other grad students, access to closed-source scientific literature, and massive amounts of stimulants. A grad student to a professor is combination cheap labor and terrified underling. I'm being cynical, I'm sure there are some awesome professors who really motivate their grad students, but in any case the funding from that professor's grant is motivating them way more. Also grading his papers and getting free tuition/housing helps.

I don't see how this proves/disproves the original point at all.

No, those are baristas. Burger King is for minority underclass workers, Starbucks is for failed intellectuals--get your franchises straight.

More insults.


I briefly read the rest of it, but I need to get to bed. To summarize: "There is this class of people that you (Duty) are idealizing but are really a class of people that do very little and take advantage of the ease of the job."

My response is just to say that:

a) The very existence of this class creates the opportunity for the best professors to create worthy knowledge. The class has to exist.

b) This class of people needs to have free reign to express ideas. Ideas are created by minds, and if we restrict who we define the most qualified to advance thought, then we're only doing ourselves a disservice. Now, the question of who should be a tenured PhD level professor and if many professors are awarded such a thing and shouldn't be is another question entirely (and rigorous standards would get no complaints from me), but those who achieve it need freedom.

Another objection here is if tenured PhD professors are the "most qualified to advance thought." If there is another class of people who are best suited to this, then please enlighten me, I'll change my life's goal from academia to this other class (I'm serious, I'm not being sarcastic). I'm of the honest persuasion that I want to improve the world, and my best skills are as a logician and philosopher...both of which require academia to achieve any influence in shaping thought (ok, logician I could easily apply to pure math...set theory, number theory, etc are built on the foundations of the predicate calculus, I've strongly considered doing this).

c) Those who are part of the "most qualified to advance knowledge class," whether that is professors or otherwise, are easily worth more to society then a burger-flipper. Notice I said, "most qualified," and not "those that do advance knowledge.

d) Those that do advance knowledge are easily worth more then those that are merely qualified. They should be rewarded, and in general I believe they are (awards like the Nobel, fame/recognition, the honest good sense that you helped the world, and probably are paid quite a bit more in addition to getting better opportunities).


I think your contention is that there is not enough pushing professors from the bottom: making them achieve a minimum. I would say it is very much worth recognizing what is obtainable when they reach the top. To me that is quite motivating.

The academic class of people is necessary in our society. We'd be a lot worse off without it. If you want to rail against a class, seriously start with religion or the political class, there is a lot more damage being done there.

Lastly, I provided some reasons why Philosophy is a useful discipline. Namely, you can't escape having some philosophy in your personal life, and it does nothing good to not optimize your philosophies to live a life in accordance with your goals and the goals of humanity.

(Analytic) Philosophy has produced such things as formal logic, linguistics from philosophy of language (which is actually useful to communication across cultures, as well as neuroscience), and psychology. Recently, cognitive science (the study of how humans acquire and use knowledge) has emerged as a scientific inquiry away from epistemology. There are many practical applications, or academic applications to another discipline (which then lead to practical applications) for all these studies.

Continental philosophy is admittedly lost on me. I completely disagree with the methodology, and I chalk it up to being more a form of literature then a philosophy.