Do I Message Him Or Let Him Message Me?
Family & Relationships1 min ago
Philosophy
13 Answers
What is the point in studying this subject - What relevance has it to do with every day life ?
Isn't this just another useless subject like ' media studies' , which students take in order that they can say they have a degree ?
Isn't this just another useless subject like ' media studies' , which students take in order that they can say they have a degree ?
Answers
1 to 13 of 13
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by BertiWooster. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
If it has no relevance to every day life then it is probably not philosophy; more likely, esoteric gibberish. Philosophy is the love of wisdom and being wise is all about sustaining and promoting the existence of those whose lives depend on and benefit from it.
In fact, we all live by a philosophy, although for most it is little more than a mish mosh of inherited and unexamined ideas and vague principles that satisfy the perceived requirements of most people. Sadly for those who find themselves in need of and seeking more than what they have been given the vast majority of what one is likely to find only leads one down a twisted torturous road paved with asserted half-truths, blanket equivocations, ancient fictions and new-age diversions. The state of human affairs is a manifestation of the diseased prevailing philosophy guiding the choices and actions of those relying on it to determine how best to live their lives and complacency and cynical resignation are its symptoms. However if you are able to find assimilate and benefit from a philosophy such as everton described, your efforts will be rewarded in measures previously unimaginable to degrees otherwise unattainable.
To the extent you value your time on earth and desire to make the most of it, a comprehensive evaluation of your present philosophy and providing that you are successful, the acquisition and implementation of a philosophy that enables you to understand what you are, could and should be might well be the wisest investment of your available time. But if you find yourself getting bogged down in deepening confusion, take a step back . . . in such a case you’re better off going with what you already know. Better to be certain of little than to wonder too much.
In fact, we all live by a philosophy, although for most it is little more than a mish mosh of inherited and unexamined ideas and vague principles that satisfy the perceived requirements of most people. Sadly for those who find themselves in need of and seeking more than what they have been given the vast majority of what one is likely to find only leads one down a twisted torturous road paved with asserted half-truths, blanket equivocations, ancient fictions and new-age diversions. The state of human affairs is a manifestation of the diseased prevailing philosophy guiding the choices and actions of those relying on it to determine how best to live their lives and complacency and cynical resignation are its symptoms. However if you are able to find assimilate and benefit from a philosophy such as everton described, your efforts will be rewarded in measures previously unimaginable to degrees otherwise unattainable.
To the extent you value your time on earth and desire to make the most of it, a comprehensive evaluation of your present philosophy and providing that you are successful, the acquisition and implementation of a philosophy that enables you to understand what you are, could and should be might well be the wisest investment of your available time. But if you find yourself getting bogged down in deepening confusion, take a step back . . . in such a case you’re better off going with what you already know. Better to be certain of little than to wonder too much.
Interesting that media studies is always picked out as a "useless degree"
I particularly laugh when I see it said in the tabloids - in fairness I guess they have a vested interest - if more people were aware of how the media operates then the likes of the Mail and the Sun would not find it so easy to manipulate people.
It never seems to be classics that is picked out - I suspect a knowledge of how TV and publishing works is more employable than a thorough command of the the works of Homer.
Come to that what relevance has my degree Physics/Astronomy to everyday life? I'm not an engineer.
That is the point - most degrees are not vocational - they are not designed to be. But they do develop a person's powers of analysis and critical thought - they make people more clever.
A number of students take non-vocational degrees because of a deep interst in it or because they have not decided on a career. A good number may then do a higher degree in a more vocational subject when they have sharpened their intellects on the first.
As for philosophy - it is to do with the nature of knowledge itself - how do you know something? how do you know something is true or good - even what this means.
Without that you are adrift in a sea of opinion judging with your gut and not your head - that usually ends badly
I particularly laugh when I see it said in the tabloids - in fairness I guess they have a vested interest - if more people were aware of how the media operates then the likes of the Mail and the Sun would not find it so easy to manipulate people.
It never seems to be classics that is picked out - I suspect a knowledge of how TV and publishing works is more employable than a thorough command of the the works of Homer.
Come to that what relevance has my degree Physics/Astronomy to everyday life? I'm not an engineer.
That is the point - most degrees are not vocational - they are not designed to be. But they do develop a person's powers of analysis and critical thought - they make people more clever.
A number of students take non-vocational degrees because of a deep interst in it or because they have not decided on a career. A good number may then do a higher degree in a more vocational subject when they have sharpened their intellects on the first.
As for philosophy - it is to do with the nature of knowledge itself - how do you know something? how do you know something is true or good - even what this means.
Without that you are adrift in a sea of opinion judging with your gut and not your head - that usually ends badly
The question of what subject students take at university would not be such an issue if the country was awash with funds and could afford to indulge young people in their whims.
However, the country is not awash with funds and a more pragmatic approach needs to be adopted. Business leaders are constantly saying that the people from whom they have to choose their employees are often not educated to a sufficient level to enable them to do the work required. This is despite many of them having been in full time education for around sixteen years, the last three or four being spent at University allegedly being elevated to degree level.
It is simply not good enough to put vast numbers of young people through higher education without clearly identified benefits. Jake is quite right, many degrees are not vocational, and in this respect “Classics” and “Philosophy” (predominately studied by privately educated people going on to Oxbridge) are just the same as “Media Studies” read by State educated pupils going on to what are really polytechnic colleges.
At the age of eighteen young people should have some idea of the career they wish to follow and those needing further education should choose an appropriate vocational course. The country cannot afford to educate people in subjects which simply demonstrate they “have the ability to learn” (which is a phrase often trotted out by the supporters of such schemes). Many of them, after three or four years of extra education, find they are no better off than those leaving education at 17 or 18, and the country simply cannot afford to fund such studies.
Of course, they could always pay the full going rate themselves.
However, the country is not awash with funds and a more pragmatic approach needs to be adopted. Business leaders are constantly saying that the people from whom they have to choose their employees are often not educated to a sufficient level to enable them to do the work required. This is despite many of them having been in full time education for around sixteen years, the last three or four being spent at University allegedly being elevated to degree level.
It is simply not good enough to put vast numbers of young people through higher education without clearly identified benefits. Jake is quite right, many degrees are not vocational, and in this respect “Classics” and “Philosophy” (predominately studied by privately educated people going on to Oxbridge) are just the same as “Media Studies” read by State educated pupils going on to what are really polytechnic colleges.
At the age of eighteen young people should have some idea of the career they wish to follow and those needing further education should choose an appropriate vocational course. The country cannot afford to educate people in subjects which simply demonstrate they “have the ability to learn” (which is a phrase often trotted out by the supporters of such schemes). Many of them, after three or four years of extra education, find they are no better off than those leaving education at 17 or 18, and the country simply cannot afford to fund such studies.
Of course, they could always pay the full going rate themselves.
New Judge seems to have an opinion based on a single line here
By the age of eighteen young people should have an idea of the career they want to follow.
That seems a tad dictatorial and arbitary
I'd love to know why he thinks that because his whole response seems to hinge upon it.
I'd also be rather interested to know what experience he has of ex-polytechnics because it is at odds with my experience. We have just recruited a graduate in my group from an ex-poly and we climbed over a number of traditional University graduates to get him.
The reason was that he had spent a year in industry as part of that degree and had gained experience that put him ahead of the pack.
My experience is that some of these ex-poly Universities provide much more vocational courses -exactly of the type NJ seems to favour
By the age of eighteen young people should have an idea of the career they want to follow.
That seems a tad dictatorial and arbitary
I'd love to know why he thinks that because his whole response seems to hinge upon it.
I'd also be rather interested to know what experience he has of ex-polytechnics because it is at odds with my experience. We have just recruited a graduate in my group from an ex-poly and we climbed over a number of traditional University graduates to get him.
The reason was that he had spent a year in industry as part of that degree and had gained experience that put him ahead of the pack.
My experience is that some of these ex-poly Universities provide much more vocational courses -exactly of the type NJ seems to favour
"Business leaders are constantly saying that the people from whom they have to choose their employees are often not educated to a sufficient level to enable them to do the work required."
In this day and age, it is rather a quaint idea that anyone could at any time be "sufficiently educated", simply because technology changes so rapidly, that for anyone in a position in commerce or industry that requires any kind of qualification, will spend the rest of their working lives re-educating themselves. I entered the IT industry in 1983 and reckon that at least 50% of every working year since then was spent in learning new technologies.
In this industry at least, the ability to assimilate new information, and the understanding of where to find it and how to apply it, are far more important than which course was taken in order to learn those skills.
Perhaps New Judges opinion would have had more validity 50 years ago.
In this day and age, it is rather a quaint idea that anyone could at any time be "sufficiently educated", simply because technology changes so rapidly, that for anyone in a position in commerce or industry that requires any kind of qualification, will spend the rest of their working lives re-educating themselves. I entered the IT industry in 1983 and reckon that at least 50% of every working year since then was spent in learning new technologies.
In this industry at least, the ability to assimilate new information, and the understanding of where to find it and how to apply it, are far more important than which course was taken in order to learn those skills.
Perhaps New Judges opinion would have had more validity 50 years ago.
I think to start with the business leaders are talking about being able to read, write and add up, rojash. Nothing too complicated. So it might be better if the money spent on some of the perhaps less valuable tertiary education was spent trying to get the basics right.
The difference between the 50% of your time spent learning new skills and the 100% of the time students spend at University is that in your case either you or your employer are funding it entirely. In the students’ case much of the funding comes from the taxpayer.
I'm sorry you think my opinion seems a bit dictatorial, jake. As usual, I don't really care what people do so long as it does not affect me and I do not have to pay for it. The education budget has tripled in the last 12 years and we seem to be getting precious little for it.
My answer does somewhat hinge upon people knowing what they want to do by age 18. Many seem to see naturally see University as the next phase in their lives without giving much thought as to why they want to go there. In these straitened times a bit of thought from young adults might save the taxpayer a lot of wasted cash.
The difference between the 50% of your time spent learning new skills and the 100% of the time students spend at University is that in your case either you or your employer are funding it entirely. In the students’ case much of the funding comes from the taxpayer.
I'm sorry you think my opinion seems a bit dictatorial, jake. As usual, I don't really care what people do so long as it does not affect me and I do not have to pay for it. The education budget has tripled in the last 12 years and we seem to be getting precious little for it.
My answer does somewhat hinge upon people knowing what they want to do by age 18. Many seem to see naturally see University as the next phase in their lives without giving much thought as to why they want to go there. In these straitened times a bit of thought from young adults might save the taxpayer a lot of wasted cash.
"I think to start with the business leaders are talking about being able to read, write and add up"
Well in that case I can't see the relevance to this discussion, which is about which is about which university subjects are relevant, rather than about the quality of primary and secondary education.
"The difference between the 50% of your time spent learning new skills and the 100% of the time students spend at University is that in your case either you or your employer are funding it entirely. In the students’ case much of the funding comes from the taxpayer."
You seem to be missing my point, which is that whatever knowledge they take to their first job (Physics, Biology or even Philosophy) is less important than their ability to learn - simply because any knowledge they have will be largely superceded within a very short time. Universitie courses of all types promote the ability to learn.
Well in that case I can't see the relevance to this discussion, which is about which is about which university subjects are relevant, rather than about the quality of primary and secondary education.
"The difference between the 50% of your time spent learning new skills and the 100% of the time students spend at University is that in your case either you or your employer are funding it entirely. In the students’ case much of the funding comes from the taxpayer."
You seem to be missing my point, which is that whatever knowledge they take to their first job (Physics, Biology or even Philosophy) is less important than their ability to learn - simply because any knowledge they have will be largely superceded within a very short time. Universitie courses of all types promote the ability to learn.
1 to 13 of 13
Latest Posts
ChatterBank6 mins ago
If The Local Elections In England Aren't...
News27 mins ago
Could The Nefarious Hand Of Antifa Be...
News29 mins ago
