Would you professional philosophers advise that us--rather uninitiated--students begin tackling philosophers and philosophical perspectives through series such as the "A Very Short Introduction" collection? I am a senior international relations/development studies undergrad and have been recently taking courses on what kinds of ethical relations we have to others, in general,"global justice". I have read key pieces from Rawls, Pogge (I enjoy his cosmopolitan institutionalist perspective!), Sen, David Held, Habermas, Nagel, some Charles Taylor, and several others. One constant problem I have encountered was that many of these authors are writing amidst the background of other thinkers such as Hegel, Rousseau, Locke, Mill, Kant and so on. To return to my initial question, would you recommend "intro" readings for many of these authors so one can understand--very basically--where contemporary scholars derive their ideas, or do I need to take the plunge directly into Hegel (I know one day I will) et al? Could...

There are lots of resources available for people who would like to gain entry into the world of academic philosophy. I suggest that you find out what texts are used in introductory philosophy courses in the areas in which you are interested. There are two obvious ways to do this: one, if you live near a college or university, check out the campus or area bookstores for lists of the required or recommended books for the courses that interest you. You might even visit a professor during his or her office hours (these may be posted on the web, or you may be able to get them by calling the department office) to ask for recommendations. Alternatively, or in addition, you can surf the web for course syllabi. Many instructors post these to publicly accessible sites, and the syllabi usually list the books required or recommended for the course. There are at least two good encyclopedias of philosophy that I can recommend. There is a print encyclopedia, published by Routledge. It is very...

What is it that seems constantly to put philosophers in a position where they are compelled to justify their work? Even if we accept such asinine criticisms as that philosophy is impractical, say, why aren't people similarly critical of literature or other fields in the humanities? What is it about philosophy in particular that seems to get under peoples' skin?

Well, of course, everyone on this panel loves philosophy, so we're probably not the best people to ask. But here are some speculations. First of all, philosophy deals with questions that a lot of people find tremendously important: what happens after death? what gives life value? is there a God? what is consciousness? So many people --many students -- come to philosophy with high hopes, and with expectations. But second, it turns out that these questions are extremely difficult to answer -- indeed, they turn out to be difficult to even ask . The process of clarifying the issues, breaking down the questions into sub-questions, reviewing answers that others have proposed, taking account of new information -- all this can seem very tedious, and very far removed from the original questions that seemed so pressing and so interesting. People who devote their careers to thinking about these questions --academic philosophers, for the most part -- necessarily specialize andfocus, and their...

Do grades during high school and university show the ability of a person to think? Can someone who does not have immaculate grades still be an excellent philosopher? Or is the success of a student in school directly related to their ability to think in a critical way that is required by philosophers?

Strong performance in a rigorous college-level philosophy class is a good positive indicator of philosophical talent, but poor grades, whether in college or in high school, cannot generally be taken as evidence that a person lacks philosophical talent. The reason is that there are just way too many reasons why a student might do poorly in the classroom that have nothing to do with philosophical ability. I know of at least a couple prominent philosophers who were indifferent -- or, in one case, lousy -- students until they discovered philosophy, and were really grabbed by it. Some students are handicapped by depression, stress, or other personal difficulties, and do not do their best work. Many students are just not that into school, or don't care about grades. Another thing that makes it difficult to predict who will make a good philosopher is that there are lots of different ways one can be a good philosopher. I spoke above of "philosophical talent," but there's really no particular...

As an educator but outsider to philosophy I've heard rumors about students' experiences as philosophy students in college and was wondering if the professors on this site could shed some light: One student told me that while philosophy began properly with Socrates as a relentless quest to improve the soul, philosophy as it is taught today has long abandoned the goal of improving character or deepening the philosophy student's lived experience, and that it has become an exclusively mental activity. I was also told that in disuniting learning from life, philosophy departments were only following the trend of other humanities departments which were also divorcing knowledge from soul as much as possible and keeping all assignments and discussions mental and analytic. Without intending to criticise, if this is indeed true, isn't it strange and antithetical to the essence of philosophy, literature, and many of the humanity subjects, since the goal of so many writers was to touch and expand the contours and...

I don't know your students' experiences, of course, so I don't know if they were justified in coming to the conclusions they did on the basis of those experiences. I can tell you, from my experience, both that I strive mightily to teach philosophy as a discipline dedicated to finding the truth about important questions in a systematic and disciplined way. In my introductory undergraduate courses, I teach (and I don't know of anyone in the profession who does not) questions like: Does God exist? Is morality objective? Do we have free will? Is the mind distinct from the body? In my introductory course, "Philosophical Issues in Femnism" we take up a number of topical issues: Does nature determine gender roles? Is affirmative action justified? Should pornography be restricted? Should abortion be legal? Does religion oppress women? It is not my express goal to either improve my student's character -- I think that would be presumptuous in the extreme -- nor to "deepen their lived experience....

I'm a female philosophy student, and I had an argument with my sister about the lack of female philosophers taught in college classes. She claimed that this was because of current sexism in the field of philosophy -- the mostly male philosophy professors disregard many great female philosophers and don't teach them. I thought that it was just a product of past sexism -- there historically haven't been many women in the field of philosophy, and therefore very few great female philosophers. Who's right? And if there aren't great female philosophers, should texts by women be taught anyway, as a kind of affirmative action?

I doubt that philosophy has ever harbored more sexism than any other academic discipline, now or in its history. But sexism has nonetheless played a role in keeping women from doing philosophy, and from being taken seriously when they tried. And this is still true, to a discouraging extent. I work in the philosophy of mind, and in epistemology, sub-fields where women are less well represented than in ethics or history. The main thing I do to combat sexism -- including my own -- is to work hard at "microenvironmental" issues that are known to have a negative effect on women's participation in intellectual activities. I take care to notice if women have their hands up, to acknowledge and follow up on their comments, to attribute their good points to them by name, and to see that they have as much time to develop their points in discussion as men do. I try to get women, in other words, to see philosophy as belonging to them as much as it does to men. As for readings: they are still...

Can we call some thinkers like Baudrillard philosophers? If not, what is their writings, and if answer is yes, it means that philosophy is just a game!

"We" can call anyone we like a "philosopher". No one owns the term. The term "philosophy" has a broad meaning in public discourse -- it means something like "a systematic consideration of fundamental questions about meaning and existence." By that definition, Baudrillard (who I have never read) would certainly count as a philosopher. And I don't think his qualifying by that definition means that philosophy is "just a game." Now there's a reason why I haven't read Baudrillard that has to do with the academic practice of philosophy. I grew up in what's called the "analytic tradition" -- an approach to philosophy that takes analysis and rigorous argumentation as methodological norms, and that often focuses on the language in which philosophical questions are expressed. There are other traditions; the other main tradition descended from early modern European philosophy beside analytic philosophy is called the "continental tradition." Jean Baudrillard works in this tradition. People in the...