Re: Should I do a major in philosophy?
Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2018 8:31 pm
Awesome, Are you a math major or formermath major?
Philosophical Vegan Forum
https://philosophicalvegan.com/
Awesome, Are you a math major or formermath major?
While better than nothing being an aide isn't going to tell you that much about what its like to be a teacher full-time.Cirion Spellbinder wrote: ↑Tue Mar 27, 2018 8:26 pm I also really briefly have volunteered at a middle school as a teacher’s aide for a 7th grade (American) math class. I didn’t enjoy that quite as much, but obviously I just had my foot in the water, and in all honesty I would do it again if it didn’t conflict with my schedule!
Yeah, finishing my PhD in "pure" math. Most of my friends who graduated in, let's say, applied mathematics, found job in data analysis and IT. Couple of my colleagues at PhD studies (mainly set theory and topology) decided that it's not for them and in time frame of months "rebranded" and found job with decent wage from the start, so I wouldn't worry about that.Cirion Spellbinder wrote: ↑Tue Mar 27, 2018 8:31 pm Awesome, Are you a math major or formermath major?
Its not only about finding a job....but creating a career that you'll enjoy doing for 30+ years. What did they "rebrand" themselves into? There are a good deal of jobs that don't require any specific education but they aren't necessarily going to be ones you enjoy.
Why is that? I listened to enough to determine that the speaker didn't know much about philosophy and then I looked him up and found that he appears to have no education in philosophy as well.
No it would be like saying you need to study Newtonian physics if you want to really understand physics and that is true. You don't need to know every detail of Newton, but you do need a general idea of the history of physics (e.g., Newton) if you want to understand advanced physics like General Relativity (which shows that many Newtonian principles are wrong). Same goes with philosophy but its a slower moving field so history has even more importance.
Well, it shows that you're not stubborn and close-minded, and that you have intellectual honesty.
I can understand how Newtonian Physics can help you understand physics, but how does taking priority on the history of philosophy help with understanding philosophy?carnap wrote: ↑Wed Mar 28, 2018 11:44 pm No it would be like saying you need to study Newtonian physics if you want to really understand physics and that is true. You don't need to know every detail of Newton, but you do need a general idea of the history of physics (e.g., Newton) if you want to understand advanced physics like General Relativity (which shows that many Newtonian principles are wrong). Same goes with philosophy but its a slower moving field so history has even more importance.
Again, just watch the whole talk. If you put it on 2x speed, it'll be only 26 minutes.carnap wrote: ↑Wed Mar 28, 2018 11:44 pmMost philosophy programs only require a couple of courses in the history of philosophy so I'm not sure why you think its taking a "priority" over philosophy. Is it because you often go over the theories of people that have long been dead? You do that because their thoughts are still relevant.
Again, that's more about how it affected the history of humanity than philosophy.
Not so much studying his life as studying all of his nonsense beliefs side-by-side with his scientific contributions.
^ Pretty good summary of academic philosophy.mkm wrote: ↑Tue Mar 27, 2018 6:29 am Main difference will be that with some training in mathematics you will filter out a lot of, let's say, imprecise matter in philosophy (or straight nonsense, putting it bluntly). I had one or two "general" (not mathematically focused) philosophy classes, and they were annoying most of the time, but there were some gems too, just hidden.
That's complete nonsense. There's nothing magical about Newtonian physics that makes it a prerequisite. There's no reason you could not start with relativity, Newtonian physics is just a little more intuitive and easier to teach high school students who don't need to know relativity (it's also a close enough approximation to work in practice for most applications, so the distinction isn't very important).carnap wrote: ↑Wed Mar 28, 2018 11:44 pm No it would be like saying you need to study Newtonian physics if you want to really understand physics and that is true. You don't need to know every detail of Newton, but you do need a general idea of the history of physics (e.g., Newton) if you want to understand advanced physics like General Relativity (which shows that many Newtonian principles are wrong).
No, it's because you go over the nonsense of people who have long been dead. Unlike in empirical science (as with Newtonian physics) these kinds of foundational "approximations" are not useful in theory in philosophy, they just serve to confuse. You have to nail down credible metaphysical and metaethical understandings before you can move onto practical approximations.
No, you do that because philosophy as a field is very bad at coming to consensus on what is not relevant or useful.
It does? So to be "open minded" you have to read or listen to every article, lecture, etc that is given by someone? As I said, I listened to a bit of it and it became clear that the person didn't know much about philosophy. I looked up the speaker and found that he has no background in philosophy. Why would I continue? Time is limited.
Philosophy departments don't take a priority on the history of philosophy. I'm not sure where that is coming from because your typical philosophy department requires only 1~2 classes in the history of philosophy. As I mentioned previously, the only thing I can think of is that you think because you're learning about someone's thought that has been long dead you're learning about "history". But that isn't usually what is happening.
I don't agree, studying the history of science is critical to understanding the nature of science. Likewise for the philosophy of science.
There is a good reason and it has nothing to do with magic but instead that General Relativity builds on Newtonian physics. General Relativity provides a more general framework that both explains why Newtonian physics works so well in some contexts and also explains why some observations conflict with Newtonian principles.brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Thu Mar 29, 2018 2:57 pm That's complete nonsense. There's nothing magical about Newtonian physics that makes it a prerequisite. There's no reason you could not start with relativity, Newtonian physics is just a little more intuitive and easier to teach high school students who don't need to know relativity (it's also a close enough approximation to work in practice for most applications, so the distinction isn't very important).
Nonsense determined by what exactly? What someone wishes to believe?brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Thu Mar 29, 2018 2:57 pm No, it's because you go over the nonsense of people who have long been dead.
Philosophy doesn't come to a consensus because there is no easy way to do that in non-empirical inquiry. Also "consensus" are often political and social in nature.brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Thu Mar 29, 2018 2:57 pm No, you do that because philosophy as a field is very bad at coming to consensus on what is not relevant or useful.
Makes sense. Just like when you build a building you start with a shitty foundation that's falling apart, build your building, then use cranes to hold up the building while you chisel out the old foundation and pour a good one.
Like it's any easier in empirical science? Nothing is ever 100% proven in empirical science. It's pretty easy for people (including scientists) with strong biases to reject obvious facts like anthropogenic climate change and the nutritional adequacy of a properly planned vegan diet.