Intro to Philosophy

[workersunity]

Ill be taking this course starting july 5th, so ill probably be posting more in the philosophy sections

[monkeydust]

I'll see ya there.

[workersunity]

cool beans

[OleMarxco]

Courses suck, it's better to learn it by yourself (not saying it's "like I have", but) doing classes for it, is for elite-suckhas! :P

[crappitydoodah]

Majoring in philosophy??

[Pawn Power]

Which philosophers are you interested in?

[Bannockburn]

Actually it is good to learn from professors who have studied a particular individual, or epoch of philosophy. You’ll learn a lot. However, a word of advice from an individual who has a degree in philosophy, i.e. me. Some teachers will come off as dogmatic. Your best bet with them, if this happens to you, is simply regurgitate what they say, and develop your own ideas outside the classroom, with your teacher. It all depends how serious of a student you are. This will happen in your first year because It’s pretty important to nail down Plato perfectly. If you don’t get Plato, you won’t understand anything else.

[KC]

What kind of jobs can you get with a philosophy degree?

[crappitydoodah]

I was gonna major in philosphy, yet realizing that it was an attempt to understand life and ones relation towards it, etc...I choose to see life first hand before I filled my head with others shouting there findings. as far as learning it in the classroom my friend, be careful...as an animal can not be studied in a cage, neither can humanity be studied from a labortory...though one can learn alot, he will always be a step away from what he studies...and then being forced to please the teachers...yet props to you for undertaking this...it takes an amazing individual to overcome what acadamia forces you into...

[workersunity]

well as of the last week ive started to become very interested in philosophy, i still dont know like that much, but ive been reading soren kierkegaard, even though i dont hold the same views as him. I have problems with a lot of philosophers, I dont really understand existentialism, i thought it was something else but found out that i actually am a deist, I like Jean Paul Sartre, but not his athiesm, i dont know, and it would be hard as hell to learn all this stuff on my own

[Bannockburn]

What kind of jobs can you get with a philosophy degree?

Well it depends where the area you studied in. If you receive a B.A in philosophy, that degree is very general. Its basically a piece of paper saying “I've studied philosophy more closely and know more than the laymen, even the laymen may argue otherwise”. Thus, its not worth too much. Honestly to get anywhere with a philosophy degree you need at least a Master's.

Kinds of jobs. Well its tough to say. After I wish up my Master's degree I have a teaching job waiting for me at a college. I couldn't get in university, but a master's will do for college. However, my field of study (political philosophy/philosophy of David Hume) is not very high in demand. Thus, education is my only real area for work (however I didn't major in, or developed an interest in philosophy for monetary/work value; I study philosophy because I love it regardless if I can find work in the field) However, other fields like bio-ethics can land you a government job, or medical position at a hospital. I have a buddy who is on the Bio-ethics board of Canada. So that is one example outside of just teaching. If you study philosophy of law – lawyers, and judges. That's another. So there is more than just “teaching” that you could find. Its actually a good idea to study ethics because a lot of corporations hire ethicist.



takes an amazing individual to overcome what acadamia forces you into...
That is very true, and I very much agree with it. I remember my second year of undergrad and a friend of mine who is now a professor told me to “play the game” basically follow the rules, don't step out of line, write the way they want you to write, the topics they want, tell them what they want to hear. Academia does force you in a position of discipline and regimentation, and subordination to authority figures. There is a lot of force. For example, I remember my second year rationalist class where you study Descartes. Well I wanted to write a paper of comparing Foucault's interpretation of the Cogito, and a potential Cartesian rebuttal. Well my Professor was like, “yeah ok”. He wasn't too keen on the idea and he detested European philosophy – and he told me that and he gave me a bad grade for it. I have had other individuals tell me the same kind of stories. Thus, follow what they want. Develop your own ideas independent, and simply suck their asses till you have a degree saying “I have a right to say this”. That is basically all degrees are. They are just pieces of paper saying, “since I'm studied this for X amount of years, I have more authority than you to speak of such matters”. Really bullshit logic.



I dont really understand existentialism, i thought it was something else but found out that i actually am a deist, I like Jean Paul Sartre, but not his athiesm, i dont know, and it would be hard as hell to learn all this stuff on my own
Yeah existentialism is one of the subjects of philosophy where you can learn it yourself. If you don't like Sore, try Nietzsche. Everyone loves Nietzsche. Sartre to tell you the truth is actually garbage. He isn't really considered to be one of the greats, and he picked up a lot of his ideas from ideas that other philosophers threw out. I recall one of my teachers saying he was “a garbage picker”. Anyway, existential philosophy is good stuff. Yet, don't only study the West, pick up some Hindu and Buddhist texts/non-religious books. I stress to keep away from the religious aspects because 1) you won't care 2) has nothing really to do with existentialism. In fact try to pick up books that regards the philosophies. Buddhism is essentially a philosophy turned on its head into a religion. Nevertheless what is great about eastern philosophies like Hindu and Buddhism is they not only provide metaphysical claims, but they are also teaching a “way of life” to put it simply. Hindu/Buddhism is a lived philosophy, not something you only do in University towers. Thus, its heavy on existentialism – being after all philosophy of existence, but its not usually (in the west) taught as philosophies, let alone existential philosophy.

[Postteen]

I want to study Philosophy as well..I love it, I can read pholosophical books foe hours.So I've thought about going till the highest degree in this field.However my main big worry is the kind of job I can get.I don't want to end up working like civil servant in a bloody office, I'm looking for more.But it's very hard to teach in a Uni or a college and it takes lots of years, doesn't it....:( *confused*

[Monty Cantsin]

Beatle Kat...a bit of topic...but you're an australian from newy right?

[Clarksist]

I am extremely interested in philosophy as well. However, the Junior College in town does not have any classes for it.

I would say that just try as hard as you can to seperate your teacher's philosophy and philosophy of the person they are trying to teach.

[crappitydoodah]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2005, 01:48 PM
Really bullshit logic.
you claim all this as really bullshit logic...yet you still play the game....makes me wonder how many philosophers are really out there...or if everyone simply plays the game???

would you say it takes balls to reject the game and do it the old fashoned way...or just stupidity....

your also belittle Sarte....thank you, that man drives me crazy, I can't tell you how many times I've taken his books as I have been reading them and threw them against the wall, or on the floor, or simply yelled out in frustration at what I see as downright stupidity...what is not...it's like those new philosophy students who insist on having there own view...yet you can name countless other places you've seen it or heard it...yet the man is still held up there for some reason...and that he says nothing...ya, nothing....except when he dissolves humanity (like the jew) into nothing....claiming in round about ways that he doesn't even exist!!!

and as far as existential philosphy goes, one can almost only study it out of the classroom...if one's a fan of nietzche and Kierkegaard you must step out of the university...

yet I still struggle with the value of acadamia....I'm not willing to throw it out the window..e.ven though everything I believe, think, etc... goes against it...

I guess it's all doe to my constant study off all I disagree with....I keep reading Sarte/Socrates (Plato)/Nietzche (well I'm off and on with agreeing with this guy)....and what not...I hate school, so therefore I will go.

[Bannockburn]

you claim all this as really bullshit logic...yet you still play the game....makes me wonder how many philosophers are really out there...or if everyone simply plays the game???

You're not the only one wondering that as well. I generally go along with what my teachers say (depending how well I get along with him/her) and I earn good grades because, 1) I work hard and I study 2) I do my readings 3)I ask questions in and outside of class. Generally when I mean “play the game” I simply mean that in a large class room (depending on subject) the teachers has to stress certain points, and judge students in certain ways such as the grading system. “Playing the game” is institutional. It is the rigors of the school system. The school must grade, pass, fail and students who completely rebel from it generally fail because of it. Sometimes I think teachers fall in accord with it. However, I talk to my teachers outside of class all the time. I go to their offices and THAT is when they want to hear your ideas, want to know what you think (as I experienced it) That is the time where you can express ideas, agree with them, disagree with them. That is good stuff. However, inside the class room is more regimented, more judgmental, more strict in thinking and acting.

The questions of philosophers. Its funny I don't think you're a “philosophers” because you earned a degree. I have friends who call me a philosopher, and I simply laugh, and fluff it off. I only have a BA working on my MA. Other individuals have their Ph.D's and a load of awards. Still, I don't think that necessarily makes you a philosopher. I don't think being a philosopher is something that is made, or in Nietzchean language, breed. Its not a position at school. I think having the qualities that makes on a philosopher is inherent within the individual. It their natural essence to have a curious mind, an open mind, a skeptical mind, a mind that never stops wondering, asking questions, observing and thinking. Philosophers are not given titles to tell them what they already know what they are. Philosophers are born, not made.



would you say it takes balls to reject the game and do it the old fashoned way...or just stupidity....

Little of both. Generally nothing is exclusive. Its a mixture of the two. It you completely rebel against the system, teachers, the staff, tutorial leaders, the entire school system in such a degree you'll end up being completely disliked, isolated, and you'll end up dropping out. Schools are weird like that. If you rebel against it so much against the school institution, the same same force of rebellion will bounce right back at you. For example, sometimes if your late with an assignment depending on the justification or excuse they will let it slide by. However, if you're a complete jerk, the teacher won't cut you any slack, and you'll get marked down for it. Thus, this is a cycle where you'll get all pissed off, and rebel even more, and the school will make it even harder. Nevertheless, if you completely fall in line with “yes” “no” - complete obedience, obvious sucking up, just swallowing whatever the teacher says as “true” without any question will get you no where either. This is simply because the teacher will get an impression that your just in school to earn a degree and make money. You don't really care about challenging yourself , to push yourself intellectually, to think of new ideas, and to think for yourself. They are going to get an impression that you want them to think for you. And that impression is never any good. So my advice is, listen to your teachers. They are smart people with a lot of knowledge. You'll learn from them. Yet, challenge yourself intellectually, and challenge your own framework of thought – you just might surprise yourself. The question really comes down not so much what the school, or what teachers can do for you, but how far, and how much you can push yourself. Make yourself better through yourself. It's the classic Socratic know thyself. Develop your ideas, challenge your own ideas, question your ideas, question the teacher, and challenge their ideas, and likewise they will challenge yours.



your also belittle Sarte....thank you,

I've done the “throw the book at the wall” deal too. However, it wasn't with Sartre, it was with Hegel. He's such a prick. Anyway...yeah, I get that impression too. A lot of people do. I was reading his “roads to freedom” its a three book novel. By the middle of the second book, I said fuck this, threw it back on my shelf, and haven't done it sense.

Existential philosophy is good stuff. Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Heidegger are all good. I tend to think they are the main guys. There are others, but “within the tradition” that is who you'll learn first. True, existential philosophy can be learned outside the classroom, and every individual should take it upon themselves to lead an existential life. My biggest preoccupation, existentially speaking, as an individual is how to we become an individual – to be ourselves in western society. I honestly don't think any existential thinker deals with this problem today in the 21st century. How do things like culture, the state, government, nationalism, patriotism, family institution, sexuality , ideology all become internalized of adopted ideas related within a framework of intellectual thinking, and then restricting the compactly of both mental and bodily management? Make sense? Well hopefully. Because I think this is an important question regarding today's media indoctrination, media propaganda, the rise of the evangelical right, or religion in general. The hypercommercialization's of corporate advertisements. The relation between corporate logos and supposed personal meaning. I think this is important in the west simply because I think we are losing the individual to a herd of the GAP army, or the Wal-Mart army, or the cell-phone zombies.

Its weird. Let me give you an example of what I mean. Corporate logos are supposed to related certain meanings, ideas, attitudes, expressions, lifestyles, ext. For example in Canada the company ROOTS tries to sell itself as “Canada”. They always have a Canadian flag glued next to its Roots logo. When the advertise they try to relate Roots with being what Canada is known for, the wilderness for example. Roots tries to relate and correlate the national identity with a corporate brand. Thus, fusing together the idea, or the perspective “To wear Roots is to be Canadian”. Another example, if Nike who tries to fuse together of athleticism with its brand. All companies try to do this whether it be Nike, the GAP, the BAY, Old navy (old slavey) or whatever. Nevertheless, certain brands try to incorporate the thinking framework that to wear a certain style or brand logo is to produce individuality. As a result, you have these stupid fucks running around in the same clothing, branded the same, with a false impression that they are “being themselves” or being “an individual”. However, its completely off the mark. Nevertheless, this is used to fuel everything from corporate capitalism, to supporting government policy. Its so sick. And truly I think this needs to be thought out and told to western consumer culture, SUV driving big screen TV watching, “I wish every girl had big tits, a j-lo ass super model” thinking people.

[Monty Cantsin]

side note to the topic to which is very interesting, What's wrong with Sartre's roads to freedom? i like it (so far, granted i only have the frist book)

[Bannockburn]

What's wrong with Sartre's roads to freedom? i like it (so far, granted i only have the frist book)

Nothing is wrong with Sartre's roads to freedom. Make up your own mind, don't take my word for it. For me, I didn't enjoy it. Adjectively over wordy for me, largely rhetoric to explain simple ideas, situations, or scenarios. That's more in the second book, rather than the first. The first was okay. I enjoyed Mathew's character, but to tell you the truth, I thought Sartre was trying to speak through Mathew with his preoccupation with freedom. I thought it was a sad attempt of Kierkegaard's “indirect communication”. However, you may enjoy it and disagree with me. That's good. I have ran into people who enjoy the novels. However, I didn't enjoy it whatsoever.

[KC]

So if I was going to study philosophy myself, who/what should I start reading about first, and where should I go from there?

[Monty Cantsin]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 03:08 PM


What's wrong with Sartre's roads to freedom? i like it (so far, granted i only have the frist book)

Nothing is wrong with Sartre's roads to freedom. Make up your own mind, don't take my word for it. For me, I didn't enjoy it. Adjectively over wordy for me, largely rhetoric to explain simple ideas, situations, or scenarios. That's more in the second book, rather than the first. The first was okay. I enjoyed Mathew's character, but to tell you the truth, I thought Sartre was trying to speak through Mathew with his preoccupation with freedom. I thought it was a sad attempt of Kierkegaard's “indirect communication”. However, you may enjoy it and disagree with me. That's good. I have ran into people who enjoy the novels. However, I didn't enjoy it whatsoever.
I wasn’t asking you to make up my mind for me I just wanted to hear you’re perspective. I enjoyed the first novel though; I do agree that Sartre was trying to talk through Mathew but wasn’t that the point? I think it allows Sartre to say things that he wouldn’t say openly, eg. The bit where he says (through Mathew) he doesn’t want to bring about the end of capitalism but just to rebel against it.&nsbp;&nsbp;&nsbp;&nsbp;

[OleMarxco]

"Only rebel it", just not "bring about it's doom", it is, aye? Kinda ineffective. All that effort for nothing? Either, be at peace and do nothing, or destruct the system wholewise! HAH! ;)

[crappitydoodah]

yeah, what you said made sense...but there is a point you missed to respond to (a main one at that)...when I asked if it took balls to attempt to study life and be open to it outside of school etc...I didn't mean to rebel against the teachers, to not do as they say, but to simply not indulge in acadamia at all....not even enroll in school, but to walk this earth, attempting study and life amongst the individuals that live it....
I've tried so hard to shape a life of continual challenge....working amongst homeless, studying both politics and philosophy, walking my streets to simply rub shoulders with my fellow men and women...I've spent years shaping a life of study, challenge...forsaking all ease and comfort...yet others still insist that I need to go to school, to use it if nothing else, to my own benifit....and instead of saying I don't care what others think, I decided to be honest and attempt to understand why they insist....and no matter what reason I may justify my life outside of acadamia or attempting one in it, I decided to go...to enter...as in the same reason I still read sarte, I get angry at the man, yet I wish not to base my understandings off of my anger, or whatnot....learn at any cost, even if it means going against my own thoughts...enter though you despise, read though you hate, live though at times you wish simply to lay down your head for a long deep sleep...

It is not my life wich I wish to justify, or my thoughts that I wish to insist, but men and women I desire to be open with and to stand beside....no matter what challenge stands between us....school, oppression, hatred, insistence, envy, etc...

I guess I'm not asking if it takes balls, maybe I'm just asking so that you may answer, for through you I find me....

[Bannockburn]

So if I was going to study philosophy myself, who/what should I start reading about first, and where should I go from there?

If we are speaking western philosophy, I would begin before philosophy started. In all honestly, begin with Greek myth. Learn the creation story, the Olympians, and the major stories. If you already know that stuff then begin with the Pre-Socratics. These guys are important. 1) begin it makes a great leap from myth to philosophy, and intellectual thought. 2) why mythical stories should not be accepted, or at least their critique of Greek Myth. Begin with Thales, do Heraclitus, the Anatomist. You'll learn these guys, and it will show you how it shaped Plato's thought, etc. So to do philosophy, you have to start at the beginning. After you learn Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, its good to know the Skeptics, The Stoics. After that, you can (if you want) read up on St Augustin, and St Thomas Aquinas. You can start to learn Descartes, Leibniz, Spinoza, Locke, Hume, Berkeley. Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Foucault, Marx, Hegel, and Kant. These are the main figures along with Heidegger. There are more, but I think that gives you a head start. Now the material to use. You can use either the main sources, or anthologies are good. If you do the main sources be cautions of what text you buy. For example, Penguins are good, for cheap editions, but translations can be iffy. So I would say buy the University texts, such as Oxford and Princeton editions. Those are generally the best, but more expensive.
Now, actual texts I can tell you to get. Myth stories are general and any book will do. Most of the Presocratic texts are fragments, so any book that studies them will generally be good. For Socrates/Plato – one text called “the last days of Socrates” is good, Umm, the Republic, Meno, are good starters.



I think it allows Sartre to say things that he wouldn’t say openly, eg. The bit where he says (through Mathew) he doesn’t want to bring about the end of capitalism but just to rebel against it

That is probably the point, and I agree with you. However, same thing with Kierkegaard, Its somebody who doesn't have the strength or will, or didn't want to endure the critique – so he uses a novel to disassociate himself from his thought, and I fine that not a very authentic way of living.



but there is a point you missed to respond to (a main one at that)...when I asked if it took balls to attempt to study life and be open to it outside of school etc...I didn't mean to rebel against the teachers, to not do as they say, but to simply not indulge in academia at all....not even enroll in school, but to walk this earth, attempting study and life amongst the individuals that live it....

Oh, sorry bro. Didn't mean to miss what was most important. It depends what kind of person you are. Its a personal choice. If you think you can develop yourself by living life your own way, seeing the world instead of reading books, then go for it. However, I think academia does have its good points. The teachers are incredibly knowledgeable, and you'll learn a lot from them, about yourself, about your ideas. Buy this isn't an either/or situation. If I were you, go to school, get some great ideas, and use those ideas for life, and with the individuals you meet.

I think its a noble thing which you have done in the past. I wish more people did that. However, you can use that experience in your educational life. How living with these people, of all kinds of class, races and people have given you a wide perspective. Thats a great thing. But I can tell you something bro, you'll never find yourself through another – to know yourself, comes from oneself; and you can do that both in and outside of school.

[crappitydoodah]

Not as interested in knowing oneself, but simply to find the man I call myself...

you ever read Buber??? what do you think of this man??

and as you said that I should attempt school and bring what I learn back into the world...also I could use a unique perspective for school...

One point I wish to make with my life through example is that every man has claim to this life wether through education or not....and by example I must express that from the bottom...

yet plans change, I am now going back to school, not because i failed my job...but I've switched from proving a point to attempting to learn (in whatever area you find yourself it) yet i must add that school is no more important to ones growth as is the bag lady on the corner...and this means in any way we speak we must express this....never telling one that he must go here or do this...for I am more interested in an individuals desire to learn then any thing shoved his way (from any teacher) and if there is a individual who desires to learn, than the lady on the corner is just as amazing a teacher as is the honored prof....just as amazing!!!!

we shall tell the world to go out, do not withhold oneself....and live...here or there does not matter, simply live!!!!

[Postteen]

I was wondering, how much money academic professors (in philosophy)earn in the UK, cos in greece it's like 2000euro, which is relatively very low.

And if eventually you become an academic, is your job secure?I mean what are the chances that you'll be fired?

[coda]

Ahaa! Well, supposedly if you get academic tenure your job is assumed to be secure unless you commit a serious offense of misconduct.

Ward Churchill, is a good example of how tenure and free speech meet when you are an educational public servant. Churchill is Professor and now former Chair of Ethnic studies at University of Bolder, Co. Like Chomsky, he writes in his off time about US foreign policy, as well as Native American genocide and organizes the Autonomous chapters of AIM, --- another huge controversy by itself.

Over the last few months he has been publicly persecuted by the reactionary mob for an essay that was published, taken out of a speech and comments he made 3 years ago about 9-11. (essay below.) There is no statute on limitations on free speech.. what you say today.. can get you years from now.

Although, U of Bolder "defends" his right to free speech, he has "resigned" his Chair position in the Department of Ethnic Studies, as the U of Bolder investigates to see what other grounds they can get to permanently remove him from his teaching position.

Essay:
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/WC091201.html

http://www.colorado.edu/EthnicStudies/facu..._churchill.html (http://www.colorado.edu/EthnicStudies/faculty/w_churchill.html)
http://www.thefire.org/index.php/article/5326.html
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/02/18/157211

Tenure
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenure