What is the purpose of teaching philosophy in higher education? — Marchesk

In this case, medical ethics would be relevant. What is a person, what is consciousness, that sort of thing.

I grade papers, read books, and write articles - it's fun, but it's a damn vocation... not a religious calling. — Carbon

What is a vocation? My recollection is that it is a calling, (religious) rather than a mere job. And a damn vocation is presumably a calling to serve the devil. That would explain the vacuity of 'fun', that seems to be the sole point of your doing philosophy, apart from the comfort and status it brings you. How sad!

If you understand the purpose of any academic study then you understand the purpose of teaching philosophy as it is taught. If you understand the nature of philosophy then you would understand how it should be taught.

Here's what I'm getting at with a lot of this: I think you and a few others on this forum have a disastrous tendency to conflate this sort of glamorous image of "the philosopher" with modern academic philosophy. — Carbon

I've gone back to school in what's nearly old age to study philosophy. The enthusiasm of people on this forum was one of my motivating factors a few years ago (as was the enthusiasm of a group of fellow old gits I still attend when I can, we call ourselves 'a philosophy group'). I'm mystified by what's disastrous about this tendency of ours to have an image of the philosopher that clashes with yours. I find it heartening, that various groups of thoughtful people are worrying away at intellectual problems. We in our various groups are every bit as real as you and your various students and fellow-teachers. I can't see how you have any more right to define the word 'philosopher' than us.

Studying philosophy is an obligation not an elective. Why? – because we are all philosophers whether we acknowledge it or not. The old adage that “philosophy is the first science” is true. We ask philosophical questions of ourselves and others from the beginning of our consciousness formation. Consciousness itself is a philosophical dilemma that we deal with our entire lives. Descartes maxim – I think therefore I am – is backwards it should be – I am aware therefore I think, feel, smell, touch, sense, etc. We are aware, whether we like it or not and because we are aware, we are compelled to choose something. The thinking about and choosing is what philosophy is about. It may be very rudimentary stuff like – should I eat; or it may be bit more complex like – should I kill that guy?

Having awareness and exercising judgement is a philosophical endeavor and we all do it. Some of us are a little more deliberate in going about this daily chore. It is to our advantage to refine our thinking in the philosophical arts – that’s why I am here.

Jesus Christ and all his friends... this certainly took a different direction than I anticipated. Rather than responding to the three respondents individually, I'm just going to try and knock this out in one blanket post.

Here's where I'm sensing the confusion is: Party X (me) is saying, "Hey! Academic philosophy isn't what you think it is." To that effect, I gave some advice to the OP to just have some fun in her class and not worry about all the crap others had said about needing to be "enlightened" or get "bit by the philosophy bug" or what have you.

Party Y is responding with basically a sort of Classical Greek late Renaissance, quasi-mystical, take on the values of philosophy. Perhaps reading what I'm saying as "Philosophy isn't valuable" or "Real philosophy is academic".

Now obviously I think philosophy is valuable or I wouldn't have committed my academic career to it as a field, right? So let's be done with that. As to "real" philosophy being academic - no. I have not said that, haven't implied it, nothing.

The disparity I'm getting at, is that Mary Ellen asked a question about a class. That class was an academic, pre-rec, philosophy course for her on her way to a nursing degree. You following so far? That means the objective of the enterprise is not be "enlightened", it's not have some mystical connection with philosophy, it's not treat the course as if it is the most valuable thing she'll ever do. Rather the objective is quite simply to knock out the damn class on her way to her intended degree. That's where I jumped in and offered some advice (which she thanked me for) and we all went about our business. There are very good odds that Mary Ellen, like 80-90% of the student populace, doesn't give a shit about philosophy as an academic field. And that's fine! She's not obligated to like it or care about it - she wants to be a nurse. Kudos. I didn't want to be a nurse when I was undergrad, I wanted to be a researcher of some type.

So now unless you are Mary Ellen, who seemed quite pleased with the response she was given, I don't know why her choice of classes or whether she is into them or not is a big deal to you. She can do whatever the fuck she wants as she is presumably an adult student capable of making whatever decision she wants to for her future academic career. Right? So the goal of my response to her extends no further than providing some general advice on how to handle pre-rec phil. courses.

Now for those of you who are not Mary Ellen - I respond the same way. Do whatever you want! It's great that you like philosophy! It's amazing that you want to talk about it all the time! I'm excited for you! Have a blast on the forums, read all the books you can get your mitts on, and treat philosophy with the reverence you think it deserves. BUT keep in mind two things:
Nurmero Uno - what you're doing isn't the same thing as academic philosophy - there are different goals. Some people are just taking the classes for pre-recs, some people just want an easy degree, etc. Equally as important, academic philosophy in the West could not care less about being enlightened. The university does not pay us to be enlightened or "get it".

Numero Dos: Don't impose your dogmatic views on philosophy on to other people who genuinely don't care. It makes you look like a nut-job and it's REALLY irritating in classes. When a nursing student is just trying to pass an intro phil. class s/he doesn't want to be bombarded with your views on philosophy, it's value, why you love it, and why you think that they should love it too. They just want to pass their fucking class. Haha. You following? You're not going to convert these people to your particular brand of bullshit by telling them they aren't pursuing enlightenment properly or they haven't been "bit" yet. If someone asks a question about a philosophy course in college, you just need to answer the question... you don't need to beat them over the head with your philosophical zealotry.

Cool? Does that make sense? Hopefully that clarifies where we're all at with this particular thread - which to remind you: was about a nursing student asking what to expect from a pre-rec philosophy course, what to make of some mixed reviews about the class, and if it's going to be valuable because she has to take it for a full semester.

hey just want to pass their fucking class. Haha. You following? You're not going to convert these people to your particular brand of bullshit by telling them they aren't pursuing enlightenment properly or they haven't been "bit" yet. If someone asks a question about a philosophy course in college, you just need to answer the question... you don't need to beat them over the head with your philosophical zealotry. — Carbon

I'm not questioning the reality of people just wanting to pass a class. I'm also not saying that Mary Ellen or anyone else should be interested in the subject matter. That's up to them. I'm questioning the educational merit of having people take classes they view as just a means to an end.

Why have a nursing student take a philosophy class? Why is that an option for them? It's no different when people have asked why they had to take geometry, and what use it would be to them in the real world. If you can't give such students a real answer, and geometry isn't going to be part of their career, then you're wasting their time.

But it seems to me that a lot of courses could be presented in a way that shows their value. How might a philosophy course aid a nursing student? Well, surely ethics plays an important role in the medical profession. And ethical inquiry is a major part of philosophy. There are other areas of life that affect us all such as politics where ideas have philosophical roots. And ideas matter for policy.

But more than anything, asking questions about our existential condition, what's moral, how we know what we say we know, etc is fundamentally human. Everyone asks these kinds of questions in one form or another. It's like how creating and enjoying art and music are fundamental to being human. Art and music are everywhere, found in all cultures. So we could just force a boring music or art class on engineering students, say, or we could tie the subject matter into how it impacts engineering (good design for example) and life in general.

I don't see how viewing philosophy as something fundamental to being human (we all wonder at times) is somehow a particular brand of bullshit. It's just an observation that waxing philosophical is like breaking into song. Everyone can appreciate a little bit of philosophy like they can music. Why am I here? How best to live my life? What is the good, etc?

Presenting as just a course to get by is like making people take geometry just because.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

As far as I can see, @Carbon's practical evaluation and frank description of academia aren't necessarily in much conflict with the more humanistic angle taken by you and others above. I think he's not unfairly assuming the possibility that @Mary Ellen may have rather unromantic reasons for taking this class, and responding on that basis. As far as his own personal relationship to philosophy or how he thinks academia should be run, he hasn't taken a position as far as I can see, but has been judged mostly on his tone. I'll back him up to the extent that academia is a slog and universities are not run to instill students with an awe of wisdom or even wisdom at all, but to produce individuals who are adept enough at critical thinking to meet a demand in the intellectual market that serves to advance technological development and economic growth, as well as to reproduce the educational system that produced them. That is, if there is a philosophical underpinning to higher education, it's instrumental rather than value orientated. Cry as we might about that, it ain't going to change soon. My only criticism of Carbon would be his indefatigable world-weariness that comes across as less than constructive. From a descriptive point of view, he's more or less on point.

Questions that raise, and that you've touched on, are: Is there a better way to do this? How do we get there? Worth asking with the proviso that the answers may not be of any help to Mary Ellen.

That is, if there is a philosophical underpinning to higher education, it's instrumental rather than value orientated. Cry as we might about that, it ain't going to change soon. — Baden

Well sure, but then my question is why bother with classes like philosophy if employment in an advanced technological society is the goal? Just have students take an intro computer programming course or Adobe/Microsoft class. Add a business management course. Statistics and data science are hot. Cut a a few requirements and set up internships in their place.

Why are we kidding ourselves with humanities course? Is it really going to help the next E-Corp employee think critically at their job?

You missed the part about reproducing the system. Philosophy is a recognized academic discipline and part of its function is to reproduce itself. Apart from that a little imagination will show how it can be applied in the workforce, and that's demonstrated by the fact that philosophy majors do sometimes get hired outside of universities. Similarly do humanities majors. (Actually, you could just put all this more holistically and say the overall system, society, works to reproduce itself and that we live in rather valueless times).

Anyway, there's a danger here of us falling into the same pattern as earlier exchanges of taking descriptions for endorsements. I find all this, especially as someone who works in a university, objectionable and I look for opportunities to work against it.

Yeah, yeah. Save it for the forum gents! Don't say that stuff in a class setting because people like me don't want to read garbage papers like that in said classes. What what you're talking about isn't academic philosophy - that's fine, just know your audience. — Carbon

You might follow your own advice, and consider the audience here. This is not a classroom, this is a forum for free and open philosophical exchange. The shifting fashions and professional interests that restrict philosophical discourse in the academy from one season to the next do not perform the same function here.

People like myself get paid to research, grade, and teach. We don't get paid to "be wise" or do all sorts of mystical nonsense. It's a vocation. — Carbon

Do you mean to suggest that there is no traditional or conceivable correlation between philosophical activity and "wisdom", or between philosophical activity and mystical practice or mystical experience? That there is no room for philosophical conversation about these subjects?

Do you mean to suggest that the conventions of discourse among philosophy professors in the academy from time to time are the best or only standard by which we should distinguish philosophical conversation from other sorts of conversation, or distinguish appropriate philosophical subjects and doctrines from inappropriate philosophical subjects and doctrines?

I suppose it's just that sort of bias among professional academic philosophers that makes so much of their work so irrelevant to the philosophical activity of most members of our society. Arguably their failure to engage the public, to engage in discourses relevant to the public, means that the institution of academic philosophy fails to fulfill its social function.

What function? Surely you have some idea what philosophy is and what philosophy is for, aside from the fact that it's associated somehow with your paychecks and a certain stack of books.

So I'm not bemoaning what you do here on a forum like this - it's great! But do realize that for students, like Mary Ellen, who take classes (that people like me have to teach) - it makes it really difficult to get into the class if this is their take away. She was looking for info on classes - give her info on classes. — Carbon

I agree that aside from your own helpful and insightful reply to Mary Ellen, most of the responses to her question were remarkably ill-suited to her purpose in asking.

On the other hand, arguably your reaction to some of your peers in the forum has been ill-suited to their purposes in making their own remarks in this thread. It seems you've shown more sensitivity to the interests of Mary Ellen than to the interests of the other speakers here, perhaps due to frustration at the lack of fit between your expectations about norms of philosophical discourse and the facts of philosophical discourse here.

Accordingly, it seems you may have done a poor job getting a good point across to your interlocutors.

Don't force your bizarre philosophical convictions down students throats. — Carbon

Who has forced a conviction down anyone's throat? Expressing one's point of view as a free speaker is not the same thing as forcing anyone to listen or agree.

So far as I can see, you're the speaker in this thread who first suggested that the others change their attitudes and behavior to suit your interests and tastes, and who thus provoked a discourse on manners.

It's not cool, it's obnoxious for profs, and it's bad for academia. Save it for forum discussions, fun conversations with friends, etc. where it's no longer "bizarre". — Carbon

I suppose many philosophers, including some in the academy, might agree that the current state of academic philosophy is bad for philosophy.

I see no reason to restrict philosophical conversation, or talk about philosophy, to suit the interests of professors. Perhaps it would be more convenient for them, if all their students showed up on the first day of class with intellectual prejudices already aligned with current academic fashions. Perhaps some professors prefer to manufacture consent by smirking and pouting in the margins of their discourse. One alternative to that sort of ritual would be to meet each student halfway to engage in genuine philosophical conversation, and thus train up each student's habits of reason along with the professor's.

It seems to me that sort of training, and the philosophical fitness it promotes in individuals and communities, is the strongest justification for the continued allocation of paychecks to philosophy professors. For what else do they accomplish? If the professors prefer to neglect that sort of labor, I suppose it's another example of the same attitude that makes so much of their work so irrelevant to so many philosophical conversations in our society.

A lamentable state of affairs, I agree.

You can check philo classes on Youtube.