I am a philosophy student in my second year and was disturbed by a conversation in my "philosophy of mind" course. The students were bashing philosophy as a discipline: "a fun waste of time", "sitting and thinking" for a living rather than finding a real job, etc. I'm sure you get the picture. I was discouraged by this. rather than being surrounded by others with a deep passion for philosophy, i am surrounded by shallow thinkers. My question is, how should one go about handling criticisms of this kind, both internally, as well as in social situations as mentioned above? it seems useless to defend myself to those who hold such opinions, but that doesn't mean i want the majority (and it really is most people i meet) to be holding on to those negative stereotypes. How often do you find yourself in these kinds of situations?

Well, tell these "skeptics about the value of philosophy" that philosophy majors will probably do "real jobs" better than most other majors (see some of the links below), because they will know how to read, think, write, and communicate more clearly. Remind them that they won't remember most of what they learn in their undergrad major classes, but you'll remember what you learned about how to read, think, write, and argue, and probably more of what you studied since you enjoyed it. And remind them that when they claim that philosophy lacks value, well, they are doing philosophy --not to mention that the way they live their lives (and decide what to believe) is informed, whether they know it or not, by philosophical beliefs they hold explicitly (e.g., religious beliefs) or implicitly (e.g., realism or relativism about morality). Here are some resources for addressing "skeptics about the value of philosophy": New York Times “Philosophers Find the Degree Pays Off in Life And in Work”: http:/...

Do philosophers ever completely agree and should they?

I disagree with Prof. Leaman that philosophers completely agree on the point that they never completely agree on anything. Uh oh, did I just prove his point? Anyway, putting aside the problem that if "completely" is taken literally, then almost nothing is completely agreed on (and not just in politics). But philosophers do pretty much agree on a lot, including some of the "rules" for how to disagree (e.g., we pretty much all agree that we should not accept ad hominems, we should use the principle of charity, we should reject invalid arguments--and we pretty much agree about what counts as invalid, etc.). But even among substantive issues, there's a substantial agreement about some of them. You may want to check out the results of a large-scale survey of philosophers here . Notice that the survey picked topics precisely because they are live issues of debate (so there might be more agreement about other issues that are "dead" because "pretty much" agreement has been reached). ...

I just graduated from college with a philosophy degree. I don't think that I want to get a Phd in philosophy (though, you never know...) but I remain excited by many philosophical questions, particularly in philosophy of mathematics and ethics. How can I keep philosophy a part of my life?

Step one: Visit AskPhilosophers.org weekly! ;-) Step two (and most importantly): Don't fall out of the habit of caring about and thinking about philosophical questions. This will be hard to do. You will get busy and busier with a "real" job, paying bills, perhaps raising a family, surfing the internet, watching TV, exercising, eating, sleeping, etc. It can be hard to find the time to slow down and reflect. It is sometimes hard for me to do this, and I'm a professional philosopher! (Seriously, even when I am teaching or writing philosophy, I sometimes find myself forgetting to do philosophy, in the sense of re-considering and deeply considering the very issues I'm talking or writing about one more time.) So, try to make time for philosophical reading and thinking by building it into your schedule somehow. Step three: find sources of philosophy you like. Keep a list of books (and articles) you want to read, and find sources for information about books (and articles) you may want to read...

Is there such a thing as neurophilosophy?

Yes, there is, and its an exciting emerging interdisciplinary field of study. Neurophilosophy is the field that studies the intersection of the neurosciences and philosophy. On the one hand, it is a branch of philosophy of mind that considers how information from the neurosciences might inform traditional philosophical questions about the nature of consciousness, language, perception, moral reasoning, intelligence, and human (and animal) psychology more generally. On the other hand, neurophilosophy involves applying the methods of philosophy of science to the neurosciences (e.g., considering what a good theory or experiement in neuroscience looks like, how best to understand causal interactions in neuroscience, how best to understand the relations among various levels of neuroscientific explanation and the levels of explanation in other sciences, such as physics and psychology, etc.). A related branch of neurophilosophy is neuroethics , which studies how neuroscience can inform ethical...

I am interested in and confused by an emerging branch of philosophy called 'experimental philosophy', and was wondering if any good examples could be provided that might help settle this confusion and direct these interests? Could Kinsey be regarded as an experimental philosopher as well as a psychologist, since, in many ways, he helped to revolutionize the way sexuality is defined in terms of a spectrum instead of the reduced dichotomy of gay/straight?

Experimental philosophy does not have a simple definition, but here's one way to describe it: Experimental philosophy involves (a) doing experimental research that is relevant to philosophical debates, and then (b) explicitly considering how such experimental research informs philosophical questions. Lots of scientists do research relevant to philosophical debates (including Kinsey, I suppose, and including lots of physicists, biologists, psychologists, neuroscientists, linguists, etc.), but typically the only ones who fall into the experimental philosophy camp are the ones who explicitly discuss the way their research relates to philosophical debates (as in b). Meanwhile, the philosophers who fall into the "x-phi" camp typically do relatively simple survey studies on the way ordinary people answer questions about philosophical thought experiments and then they consider how the results (1) may challenge "armchair" claims about what is intuitive or commonsensical (philosophers often say things...

Hello, everyone. I have a question about my situation. I am a senior a UCLA, and my major is mathematics of computation. My GPA is 3.0. The reason for low GPA is because I spend much of my time pursuing my own study. I love to learn, but i tend to not like to be feed what I need to know. Plus, I realized what I wanted to be only at this quarter! I WANT TO BE A PHILOSOPHER THAT SPECIALIZES in the philosophy of mathematics and physics. Here is the thing: I want to apply for graduate school in philosophy of science, but it depresses me how I am going to do it. I want to go to the best school in the philosophy of science. I don't have enough philosophy courses to get a minor, and this is my last quarter at UCLA. So here is my solution: 1. Get top grades in the GRE general, and GRE math. 2. Get into a not so good master degree program, and rise my GPA. 3. Get some good rapport in my master degree program. (I.e.: letter of recommendation.) From 1, 2 and 3, I want to get into the best Graduate degree in...

Your plan sounds reasonable. I would suggest a few things. First, try to get your GPA as high as possible in your remaining semesters (don't let it slip below 3.0), perhaps doing a little less of your own study this year and focusing on your classes. Yes, try to get high GRE scores. But to get into MA programs you will also need a good writing sample and letters of recommendation from philosophers at UCLA (talk to them about all this). Your writing sample needs to be sharp (and less grammatically challenged than your question here) and include some philosophical argumentation (but keep it tightly focused--don't offer a new theory of something). Finally, if you can do all this, I'd suggest your goal #2 should be to get into as good an MA program as possible!

Can philosophy help us live 'better' lives?

I hope so. And I think so. Especially if we understand philosophy in a general way to involve careful reflection on what we should be doing with our lives and how we should structure our relationships and societies, I think it can help us live better lives. While reflection isn't always good (e.g., in the middle of making a tennis shot or a guitar solo), surely it is often necessary in order to see how our ideas of what it means to lead a good life and create a good community are consistent with each other and with what other people in our community think. And when we see that they are inconsistent , we can consider how best to reconcile them to find what might be called reflective equilibrium . Another way of putting these points is to say that, whether we know it or not, we all have a philosophy (a set of ideas of which we are more or less aware) that guides our decision-making and personal interactions. It seems that trying to figure out what our philosophy is will make it more likely...

Well, I am a math major. I am about to graduate, and I wish to attend graduate school in philosophy. I took one class in the philosophy of science. I know it is not enough, but I really have a deep passion for philosophy. I read alot on metaphysics, philosophy of mathematics and science by myself. It is to the point that I can understand much of the material in professional philosophical papers. I have a deep interest on the issue of ontological commitment to abstract objects, and the nature of the laws of nature. I really want to be a philosopher. What can I do?

I suggest: 1. you talk to the philosophy professors at your school and ask them lots of questions. Hopefully, there is someone that who has a good sense of what it takes to get into grad school in philosophy, to succeed, and to get a job. 2. you explore websites at some PhD and MA programs. There is also some useful information at http://www.philosophicalgourmet.com/ 3. if you remain interested (as I hope you do!), you consider putting off graduation one semester and taking more philosophy courses. I fear that only one course in philosophy will take you off the radar at many programs (I suspect it would take a lot--e.g., very high GRE and GPA--to get some PhD programs to consider you, when they have so many applicants that are philosophy majors or even have MAs in philosophy). 4. you consider applying to MA programs in philosophy to strengthen your background (though it will still help to have more courses in philosophy to get in to MA programs). 5. you will need a polished...

As in literary or film criticism, often some aspects or compositions are "over-analyzed." I mean this in the same way that a metaphor can be belabored. Could such a thing be true of philosophy? Can a work of philosophy be "over-analyzed" or belabored? Is there any theory or treatment of the problem of "over-analysis" or do you think this could never possibly be a problem since analysis is always good. N.B.

My answer will exemplify my answer: Yes, some philosophical problems and texts can (and have been)over-analyzed; no, I don't think there are any theories that treat this problem (it has been under-analyzed); no, analysis is not always good. I won't belabor these points! (But good question.)

Pages