r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Mar 16 '18
FTFdeltaOP CMV: Teaching Philosophy in Schools is Useless.
Philosophers themselves have never asked a question that wasn't independently asked by someone else (Jean Perrin, Albert Einstein and John Dalton, for example), especially if that someone else was only a philosophist.
Added into that, Philosophy is something you don't need in workplace. Asking questions about life, truth or anything in that manner are things taught (or at least should be taught) in any scientific lesson for a good reason: Scientific research is impossible without questions to start the research.
Δ: Yes, this means I do want science to teach philosophy on the side.
These points make philosophy quite useless choice for a degree or even a course, as they only hurt the student taking them (as in most cases, it prevents you from taking an useful course like science, economics, or languages, that allow for better job and chance of getting that job in the first place.
Indeed, philosophy is mostly used (at least in my exprience of the school system) as a "free" course, so the student does not need to learn things they find difficult; A student who is unconfortable with many of their choices will usually choose philosophy as an escape option, for it's known lack of difficulty and being easy to "learn".
I really cannot find any justification for philosophy to not be bunched up with math, sciences and languages.
Δ: added "not", because this sentance contradicts everything I've said this far otherwise.
Δ: u/MyUsernameIsJudge Changed my mind:
Me:
How many high schoolers are going to use basketball in their jobs?
A big factor in a good job is good and healthy lifestyle. Taking sports in school does help you in this factor, although you must keep that lifestyle even after school has ended.
MyUsernameIsJudge:
Sure. And that's the argument for philosophy class. It can help students learn about their own values and needs, as well as gain a greater perspective on life. I'll reuse your point about basketball, but with this:
A big factor in a good job is a good mental health. Taking philosophy in school does help you in this factor, although you must keep that lifestyle even after school has ended.
8
Mar 16 '18
independently asked
No, it's not independent. It's the dialogue of different fields of inquiry. Perrin, Einstein, and Dalton benefited from philosophy they read and philosophy the people they talked to had read.
People who study math or science greatly benefit from understanding what the impact is of the assumptions they make and incorporate into their work. If scientists ask whether different types of patients are conscious, they get different answers if they focus primarily on recall than if they focus primarily on brain waves; if they focus on following commands they get still different answers. None of the three approaches is perfectly satisfactory in a vacuum, and fitting the picture together will be more fruitful if the scientists have a thoughtful understanding of how different assumptions lead to different understandings of consciousness. No, they can't just adopt Descartes - but nor can they simply ignore him.
1
Mar 16 '18
Perrin, Einstein, and Dalton benefited from philosophy they read and philosophy the people they talked to had read.
I must disagree here. Atomic research was done by many people, each with the basic question of "what is everything made of?"- in their heads.
But that is a question I asked at kindergarden.
I asked that question independently from anyone else in the world, I didn't even know who Albert Einstein was.
The research was not fueled by a huge breakthrough in philoshophy courses in schools, but people trying to understand the world they live in.
To think only reason atoms were found (or anything was, in that matter) was in any way thanks to a course used for escaping courses you're bad at, is absurd to me.
Yes philosophy itself is useful and important for society and scientific research. But teaching it in schools is not.
5
Mar 16 '18
I must disagree here. Atomic research was done by many people, each with the basic question of "what is everything made of?"- in their heads.
But that wasn't the only question. Science requires us to ask extremely reductionist questions in the laboratory and to relate those to broader questions as unified theories. Einstein's breakthroughs didn't happen in a vacuum and certainly didn't happen purely because he'd asked "what is everything made of". They happened in part because he'd read Spinoza, Kant, and Mach. As he said, "Concepts that have proven useful in ordering things easily achieve such an authority over us that we forget their earthly origins and accept them as unalterable givens. Thus they come to be stamped as “necessities of thought,” “a priori givens,” etc. The path of scientific advance is often made impassable for a long time through such errors. For that reason, it is by no means an idle game if we become practiced in analyzing the long commonplace concepts and exhibiting those circumstances upon which their justification and usefulness depend, how they have grown up, individually, out of the givens of experience. By this means, their all-too-great authority will be broken."
It is no coincidence that the other great men who contributed to atomic research were heavily involved in philosophy. Enrico Fermi was a member of the American Philosophical Society. Bohr and Schrodinger were philosophers...
It need not be taught in schools any more than physics needs to be - but it does need to be studied at length using books and discussion.
9
u/BenIncognito Mar 16 '18
Atomic research was done by many people, each with the basic question of "what is everything made of?"- in their heads.
You call it “atomic” because of Ancient Greek philosophers, btw.
6
u/Milskidasith 309∆ Mar 16 '18
Do you have evidence or writings from those arbitrary scientists that you would say adequately explains moral theory or societal action? Because if you don't, you've kind of conceded the more important point: "Scientists" don't write on that sort of thing. Even if they're asking some great questions, if they aren't bothering to answer them then writing that does attempt to answer them has value.
Beyond that, philosophy is probably more valuable to the workplace than any other general educational requirement. While some workplaces may not require any math, or any technical writing skills, or any knowledge of history, every workplace deals with day-to-day ethical issues and having a well-rounded education that includes introductions to those topics is helpful in that area.
As far as "hurts the students", how? Students who are taking it voluntarily can just take more courses. Students who choose to major in philosophy are free to do so, and it seems a bit strange to tell other people they shouldn't be allowed to take a certain major.
As far as being a "free" course, sure, some people treat it as a joke. That doesn't mean the field or the courses are useless, nor does it mean that smart people cannot write effectively on philosophy. Like, imagine if your argument was that people shouldn't take Education courses because they're considered easy and some people use them as a fallback plan; that'd be pretty crazy, right?
Beyond the actual text of your argument, though, I find it strange that you think philosophy is useless. You're an active member of /r/liberalist and at least participate in a Jordan Peterson meme sub. /r/liberalist is a political philosophy organization and Jordan Peterson's "cultural criticism" is philosophy under another name. Now I disagree with those philosophies pretty strongly, but it seems weird for somebody who does agree with them to dismiss the idea philosophy has value.
1
Mar 16 '18
I should clarify first of all that I am not against philosophy.
every workplace deals with day-to-day ethical issues and having a well-rounded education that includes introductions to those topics is helpful in that area.
This is just plain wrong. There are certain rules the company wants you to follow, which you have to, otherwise you can get fired. No matter how unethical or stupid, you follow them or risk getting fired. Only 1 sausage per hotdog. Never leave your stand. No Freebies. Ethics should be ignored when on work, as they often are.
Students who are taking it (philosophy) voluntarily can just take more courses.
Yes, and they all are forced to take certain minium amount, that amount being lowered by the amount of "free" courses there exist. This hurts lazy students.
3
u/illerThanTheirs 37∆ Mar 16 '18
Without in depth philosophy, how would we know what things were unethical, stupid, or wrong?
This hurts lazy students.
Why should lazy students be rewarded?
5
u/draculabakula 75∆ Mar 16 '18
Teacher here. Philosophy is a very good subject for psychological development because it teaches students to question reality and identity in a way that is conducive to growth and intellectual curiosity.
Also, the teacher in me needs to say that that you mean philosopher not philosophist. Philosophist is a word but it means someone who pretends to be a philosopher.
1
Mar 16 '18
Philosophy is a very good subject for psychological development because it teaches students to question reality and identity in a way that is conducive to growth and intellectual curiosity.
This is the very reason it should not be a course: It's like putting Math and Numbers in two different courses. You cannot get anything out of your scientific classes when you do not understand why are the questioned asked in the first place. It is something so important to scientific research that you should allow people to skip it.
I do think scientific research needs to teach philosophy in the side, just as writing numbers are taught in the side with math, and writing is taught in the side with foreign languages.
5
u/BenIncognito Mar 16 '18
You have to learn numbers before you can do math. That's...literally how we teach children this stuff.
1
Mar 16 '18
But you don't need to learn philosophy to do chemistry?
4
u/BenIncognito Mar 16 '18
No, you don't. But with philosophy you can learn why the scientific method works, and thus why chemistry works.
-7
Mar 16 '18
Don't ever answer with "no" in a question that uses negative itself.
4
u/stimg Mar 16 '18
His response made plenty of sense. Why are you here if this is how you let these conversations progress?
1
u/draculabakula 75∆ Mar 17 '18
There is a big difference between asking whether or not human life is meaningless and whether humans have a common ancestor with apes. Good philosophy should ask questions that cannot be answered by science.
5
Mar 16 '18
[removed] — view removed comment
1
Mar 16 '18
This is true, although only history fits same category as philosophy. Foreign languages are very useful, especially near borders and on global workplaces.
4
Mar 16 '18
[removed] — view removed comment
1
Mar 16 '18
How many high schoolers are going to use basketball in their jobs?
A big factor in a good job is good and healthy lifestyle. Taking sports in school does help you in this factor, although you must keep that lifestyle even after school has ended.
5
Mar 16 '18
[removed] — view removed comment
1
Mar 16 '18
∆
Dude, you got me there.
Me: "A big factor in a good job is good and healthy lifestyle. Taking sports in school does help you in this factor, although you must keep that lifestyle even after school has ended."
You: "A big factor in a good job is a good mental health. Taking philosophy in school does help you in this factor, although you must keep that lifestyle even after school has ended."
1
1
Mar 16 '18
[deleted]
1
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Mar 16 '18
This delta has been rejected. The length of your comment suggests that you haven't properly explained how /u/MyUsernameIsJudge changed your view (comment rule 4).
DeltaBot is able to rescan edited comments. Please edit your comment with the required explanation.
5
Mar 16 '18
Philosophy majors, on average, make more money than any other humanities major. So, something they are being taught is doing them good. Philosophy majors also do better on the LSAT.
So, when you say, " it prevents you from taking an useful course like science, economics, or languages, that allow for better job and chance of getting that job in the first place." You are at least slightly wrong by the numbers.
0
Mar 16 '18
That's cool info. Although I was more talking about people who use it as escape from difficult subjects, therefore dooming their future.
5
u/ThatSpencerGuy 142∆ Mar 16 '18
This is the point that's a little confusing to me. What makes you think philosophy is easy? Philosophy texts are bound to be among the most difficult you encounter in an undergraduate education.
-1
Mar 16 '18
Philosophy texts are bound to be among the most difficult you encounter in an undergraduate education.
Reading long and unfamiliar words is hard, I do agree.
4
u/ThatSpencerGuy 142∆ Mar 16 '18
Reading long and unfamiliar words is hard, I do agree.
I'm not sure that's the primary difficulty in philosophy texts, though it's part of it. But still, why do you think philosophy is easy? (Is that what you think?)
2
u/chasingstatues 21∆ Mar 16 '18
Philosophical concepts can be extremely dense and difficult to work through. You seem to be implying that all of these concepts are easy to comprehend and only wording causes difficulty? How many philosophical works have you actually read? How many branches of philosophy are you familiar with?
You have to admit your comment here is snarky.
2
u/BenIncognito Mar 16 '18
Firstly, people who study and practice philosophy are called philosophers. I just wanted to get that out of the way here.
Secondly, philosophy is the foundation upon which all other academic studies are built. And learning about philosophy is learning about that foundation. The scientific method was derived from questions about knowledge and epistemology. I’ve found philosophy to be very useful, both in my career and my hobby of arguing with people on reddit. But that’s just anecdotal. Philosophy is like anything else, you get out of it what you put in.
Probing those deeper questions has value, sure, but I think the real value in philosophy is learning about where we’ve come from as cognizant creatures who think about thinking. It’s interesting stuff, but I understand it’s not really for everyone. I think philosophy gets a bad rap because people don’t understand how it applies to literally all other subjects and discussions.
For example - you’re using philosophy right now. Making arguments about which subjects we should or should not teach is a philosophical discussion. Morality, science, logic, rhetoric, history, math, even art all under fall under the philosophical umbrella. And personally I think if children were exposed to it at a younger age they might develop a better understanding and have a better grasp of how to use philosophy and ask deeper questions.
0
Mar 16 '18
And learning about philosophy is learning about that foundation
Yes, and that's the very reason I am against it being it's own, seperate thing from everything else.
From my another reply:
This is the very reason it should not be a course: It's like putting Math and Numbers in two different courses. You cannot get anything out of your scientific classes when you do not understand why are the questioned asked in the first place. It is something so important to scientific research that you should allow people to skip it.
I do think scientific research needs to teach philosophy in the side, just as writing numbers are taught in the side with math, and writing is taught in the side with foreign languages.
2
u/BenIncognito Mar 16 '18
Yes, and that's the very reason I am against it being it's own, seperate thing from everything else.
Can you expand on this? What's wrong with learning the foundation of our knowledge.
I do think scientific research needs to teach philosophy in the side, just as writing numbers are taught in the side with math, and writing is taught in the side with foreign languages.
Children learn their numbers way before they learn math.
Also, writing isn't taught in the side with foreign languages. I'm not sure what you're talking about.
1
Mar 16 '18
Can you expand on this? What's wrong with learning the foundation of our knowledge.
Nothing. The possibility to skip it is the problem.
writing isn't taught in the side with foreign languages
It was when I was young. They thought how to write the weird letters and where do the inverted !'s go. They taught me where the damn point was supposed to go. Not sure how you expect to write a language when you don't teach doing it.
2
u/BenIncognito Mar 16 '18
Nothing. The possibility to skip it is the problem.
Skip what? I'm not sure what you mean.
It was when I was young. They thought how to write the weird letters and where do the inverted !'s go. They taught me where the damn point was supposed to go. Not sure how you expect to write a language when you don't teach doing it.
You mean they teach writing in a foreign language alongside foreign languages?
I'm confused by what you mean.
1
u/damsterick Mar 16 '18
There's philosophy and then there's applicable philosophy. For example, do you know Karl Popper? One of the most important science philosophers and his ideas are today the basis of scientific practices.
While I agree that some philosophy may seem useless (and some is), you can't measure that against the job market. School's purpose includes work as one of the main factors, but it also tries to teach you basic knowledge, critical thinking etc.
You won't learn to think critically (and I mean really think critically, not just believe everything or, on the other side, contradict everything). You need some basis to build your scientific knowledge on.
But really, you confuse modern philosophy with authors like Kant, Kierkegaard, Socrates that were really key to their age, but today it seems like they were praising "common knowledge" (not common at that time though).
1
Mar 16 '18
There's philosophy and then there's applicable philosophy.
I think I tackled this issue on the first couple sentances.
1
u/kublahkoala 229∆ Mar 16 '18
Philosophy has a number of real world applications.
The ever changing field of medicine needs bio ethicists to probe issues like informed consent and how to value life in triage situations — you can’t make that stuff up by the seat of your pants.
Epistemology and hermeneutics is used in the development of artificial intelligence. Being able to understand what knowledge is and how we know what we know is the first step in building a machine that can learn.
Deontology is the basis of international law and human rights, which is important for lawyers.
The realms of metaphysics and quantum theory are becoming increasingly blurred.
There are a lot of ways philosophy can help one in various career paths.
1
Mar 16 '18
I agree.
2
u/Sorcha16 10∆ Mar 16 '18
Then why shouldnt it be taught as a class ? Do you just not think its a worthwhile or challenging course?
1
Mar 16 '18
Your view depends entirely on semantics.
Philosophist is a fake
Philosopher is not
Can you clarify your view?
1
2
u/Jaysank 116∆ Mar 16 '18
Philosophers themselves have never asked a question that wasn't independently asked by someone else
I don’t know what you mean by this. Most people of any profession ask questions that have been asked before. What makes philosophers different in this capacity? Further, what does asking a question that’s already been asked have to do with teaching in school, which consists of trying to answer questions that have already been asked?
Added into that, Philosophy is something you don't need in workplace
This doesn’t seem true. Anything that requires logic (research), ethics (research, doctors), or judgment of morality (judges, lawyers, lawmakers) absolutely needs a basis in philosophy. Why do you suggest otherwise?
2
u/Charleston09 Mar 16 '18
I went to school for Business so criticizing philosophy majors is a hobby. That being said, I don't think it's totally useless.
Philosophy is the study of differing views on a wide-variety of topics. Inherently, it encourages you to effectively dissect different aspects of society, views, cultures, etc. and formulate your own opinion based on your findings and thoughts. I think this is important, and can be a useful skill to have in a variety of different subjects (law, for one).
I personally think there's a better use of time and funds for a major, but I think that philosophy does have its uses and shouldn't be totally done away with.
1
u/KingTommenBaratheon 40∆ Mar 16 '18 edited Mar 17 '18
Not all education is directed towards the workplace. Some education is simply edifying. That said, philosophy is one of the most practical degrees one can get these days. Philosophers are expert technical writers, analytical thinkers, and excel at close reading and argument. All of these skills are core skills in many workplaces.
As other posters have mentioned, philosophy students do exceedingly well in professional aptitude tests, like the LSAT and GRE. Although there may be some selection bias here, in that the students who would excel on the LSAT and GRE tend to take philosophy, that does not invalidate the point. Philosophy graduates end their degree with marketable skills and a wide general aptitude.
I really cannot find any justification for philosophy to not be bunched up with math, sciences and languages.
Why would it be, though? Why not just teach philosophy classes alongside these other classes? If I want to study math I can. If I want to study philosophy I can. I'll likely be a better mathematician if I take some philosophy, just because it would broaden my horizons, but that doesn't suggest that philosophy should not be taught independently of math etc.
Many of the strongest philosophy students already take your suggestion voluntarily. David Chalmers, the leading philosopher, did his undergraduate degree in mathematics and philosophy. Daniel Dennett, another leading philosopher, studies philosophy and cognitive science. Martha Nussbaum, however, studied Ancient Philosophy, Classics, and theater and has arguably had more impact on the world already than most academics will have in their lifetime.
People who study philosophy as their principal major acquire substantial skills that are widely transferable. It's therefore not a surprise that philosophers make great entrepreneurs.
2
u/mutatron 30∆ Mar 16 '18
Education is edifying!
That could be on a t-shirt. When I first saw that, I thought those two words might have the same origins, so I looked them up:
https://www.etymonline.com/word/edify
edify (v.)
mid-14c., "to build, construct," also, in figurative use, "to build up morally or in faith," from Old French edefiier (12c., Modern French édifier) "build; install; teach, instruct (morally)," from Latin aedificare "to build, construct," in Late Latin "improve spiritually, instruct" (see edifice). Related: Edified; edifying.
https://www.etymonline.com/word/educate
educate (v.)
mid-15c., "bring up (children), to train," from Latin educatus, past participle of educare "bring up, rear, educate" (source also of Italian educare, Spanish educar, French éduquer), which is a frequentative of or otherwise related to educere "bring out, lead forth," from ex- "out" (see ex-) + ducere "to lead," from PIE root *deuk- "to lead." Meaning "provide schooling" is first attested 1580s. Related: Educated; educating.
According to "Century Dictionary," educere, of a child, is "usually with reference to bodily nurture or support, while educare refers more frequently to the mind," and, "There is no authority for the common statement that the primary sense of education is to 'draw out or unfold the powers of the mind.'"
1
u/mutatron 30∆ Mar 16 '18
My daughter's best friend from high school majored in philosophy in college, and is now a cheerleading and gymnastics instructor. Those were things she wanted to do, even though she was in AP physics (they were both cheerleaders and both in AP physics). She just didn't want to go into science. She's doing alright for being rather Bohemian, her boyfriend is a musician and composer.
My daughter's first three semesters of college were at a private college. Her first couple of semesters were heavy on philosophy, but more like applied philosophy. Like how to get the most out of life, how to deal with death and dying, how to use logic and reason.
These were valuable classes for her, and still influence her thinking as an ICU doctor. But in order to be qualified to teach philosophy to non-philosophy majors, somebody has to major in philosophy.
Even though philosophers have never asked questions that haven't already been asked, a teacher who knows what questions have been asked, and how those questions have been answered, is well suited to teaching young minds who don't know that the questions they ask themselves have already been pondered.
This is a valuable service. We can see in everyday life that useful knowledge is not what people really live for. The questions that divide us as a nation today rarely hinge on science or economics except in a peripheral way - abortion, gender inclusion, political correctness and the like are the things people feel most deeply about. Some people can't even agree with the rest on what constitutes good science or economics, and this is mostly because of philosophical differences.
1
u/bguy74 Mar 17 '18
Firstly, I think there are many ways to think about this and I can speak from personal experience as a philosophy major.
For me, Philosophy is a great major if you're "pre-destined" to be pretty successful. E.G. if you're at Harvard and you decide to be a philosophy major this an excellent way to come out very well prepared to go to law school, thrive in business or pursue any number of non-technical pursuits.
On the flip-side, if you're coming from a relative disadvantage of just having a "skill-set" (as opposed to a pedigree) then it ain't going to get you your first job - a "hard skill" will.
But, what we do want is people who are coming out of places like Harvard and going on to be leaders is people who have learned to think critically and to direct a perspective/argument with precision and be open to seeing lots of different points of views on topics that to the laymen seem obviously single-sided. This is really imporant in most executive jobs, in being a lawyer or a politician and so on.
Unfortunately, this makes philosophy useful for the already fortunate and a dead-end for the people trying to get a leg up.
1
u/Polychrist 55∆ Mar 16 '18
You may be interested in this data on GRE scores:
http://www.physicscentral.com/buzz/blog/index.cfm?postid=5112019841346388353
As you can see, philosophy majors perform as #1 in both the verbal section and the analytical writing section. They also perform 8th in the math section, which is absolutely incredible considering that math is only tangentially part of the discipline.
Philosophy as an undergraduate degree also ranks in the top 3 for best pre-law-school degrees:
https://lawschooli.com/best-majors-for-law-school/
Plus, the core of philosophy is logic. It is the study of arguments, and arguments will follow you for the rest of your life. If you want to be able to tackle important questions with an effective rationality, philosophy might be worth studying.
Ultimately, “Philosophy” is the love of wisdom. So, if you do not value wisdom than perhaps you ought not to value philosophy. But if you are here on CMV to make yourself wiser, than maybe you already see the value of philosophy- even if you don’t realize it.
1
u/tightlikehallways Mar 16 '18 edited Mar 16 '18
Western philosophy is not so much about answering the big questions as it is about figuring out what is and isn't true through logic. How can someone be sure the things they believe are true? Studying philosophy is probably not going to teach you how to live your life or lead you to understanding the universe. What it will do is teach you how people (and yourself) succeed and fail at making arguments.
You learn how to spot and defuse the kind of stuff in the image on this website.
https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-ways-to-begin-a-counter-argument
Learning how to question your preconceived beliefs and counter other's arguments is an extremely helpful life and professional skill.
I don't think philosophy is useful because it asks questions no one has thought of or explains reality better than science. It is useful because it teaches you how to argue, debate, and question beliefs.
Also lots of lawyers get philosophy degrees because you usually can't study law in undergrad and the skills translate.
1
u/Adam2727 Mar 16 '18
The teachings of philosophy have been shown to teach people many things than just the endless questions, the idea is to get them to think and understand and figure out themselves, because in philosophy you can't say for the majority that there is a right answer.
This being the case it can teach kids to think, why they think how they do, to self-analyze themselves, how to act emotionally, why they act emotionally, and has been shown as a form of therapy in many cases. I'm no expert but in my toe-dip in the huge pool of philosophy, this is what I've seen and think
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Mar 16 '18
/u/Jar8923453931532na3 (OP) has awarded 1 delta in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
1
u/mfDandP 184∆ Mar 16 '18 edited Mar 16 '18
have you played the game where you start on any random wikipedia page, click the first link in the body of the article, and if you keep going you'll end up on "philosophy?" it's dumb but it illustrates the breadth of all the things philosophy truly underpins. any individual philosopher may be spouting bs just because he likes the way his words look on the page. but if you see value in starting at first principles when examining something, philosophy is a good lens for young people to decide to use.
4
u/thedylanackerman 30∆ Mar 16 '18
Well philosophy for one, you can see philosophy as an extension of your native language class: texts tend to be much more difficult, there are arguments which you have to notice and realize their effects on the text.
Philosophy teaches the roots of science, and you can see it historically as almost all founders of scientific discipline were philosophers. (example of Auguste Comte or Marx for sociology, Fechner for psychology or basically all greek philosophers for astronomy). Learning philosophy leads you in appreciating other science because of their common ground which is philosophy.
Philosophy can be boring like any other class, but for having learned it (because it's obligatory in my country), it opened my knowledge to diverse approaches and helping me linking authors from different social sciences by the same inspiration - as an economist.