tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post4697090870563428028..comments2023-10-10T08:02:18.073-04:00Comments on Rationally Speaking: Comic books and counterfactualsUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-54497945164980135562011-09-23T08:26:06.188-04:002011-09-23T08:26:06.188-04:00You can have your Entertainment and eat your Philo...You can have your Entertainment and eat your Philosophy too!Tristan Vickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05348780254008374268noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-1767158202432714512011-09-20T08:36:00.531-04:002011-09-20T08:36:00.531-04:00jermox,
I hear you. But two things: first, at lea...jermox,<br /><br />I hear you. But two things: first, at least the kind of skills one learns in philosophy are "portable," ad educators say - unlike a lot of stuff you learn in a lot of other majors.<br /><br />Second, you would have had a very similar experience in science departments: most of what my colleagues do there (I used to be a research biologist) is pretty much of interest to only themselves and three other people in the world...Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-90330148275857006722011-09-20T08:30:25.827-04:002011-09-20T08:30:25.827-04:00Your post reminds me of my college experience. I ...Your post reminds me of my college experience. I studied philosophy as an undergrad at what is considered one of the top ten philosophy departments. I found it interesting that I estimated around 90% of the students in the department were transfer students (including myself). We were all community college students who grew an interest studying philosophy at CC's while the lower division classes at this university didn't interest the students enough to become philosophy students.<br /><br />As I studied there I found (and a large amount of the other students agreed) that there was a big disconnect from what we studied at our CC's and what a research department taught. I knew the CC’s geared their teaching to topics that they believe would interest their students but I figured since I loved studying philosophy I would be interested in what was taught at the university level. Continental philosophy was pushed away to the German dept. and subjects like applied ethics were looked at with disdain. While I might be able to understand some of their reasoning, I also had a hard time considering their topics worthwhile. I remember spending a quarter in an epistemology class that only studied Gettier problems and wondering how more and more philosophers would give new necessary and sufficient conditions that would (predictably) fail.<br /><br />When I graduated I realized that out of the 100+ students, probably five or so were interested in grad school. You could take in consideration that many of those planned to be law students, but many others went in with plans to get a PhD and left looking for a job or another subject to study.jermoxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12260256232935630988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-60430304411153740402011-09-19T23:56:54.861-04:002011-09-19T23:56:54.861-04:00I share Massimo's frustration. I think the cli...I share Massimo's frustration. I think the climate for public outreach in most academic disciplines is improving, at least in the sense that a lot more lip-service is being paid these days to the importance of public engagement for the health of the disciplines. But the professions themselves are still having a very hard time recognizing and validating this work within university settings. <br /><br />In most universities this kind of work is actively discouraged, in the sense that there are few if any structural incentives and many structural disincentives. At best, if you've got good colleagues who care about public engagement then they'll slap you on the back and tell you you're performing a valuable service, but the mechanisms of promotion, tenure and professional advancement in academic institutions systematically work against it. <br /><br />We have science journalists who play a valuable role in bringing the sciences to the general public, and the sciences benefit from their work. Why don't we have more philosophy journalists?Kevinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14510869204237618255noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-10120869430665882802011-09-19T14:14:31.770-04:002011-09-19T14:14:31.770-04:00Agreed. BBC4's In Our Time is a wonderful prog...Agreed. BBC4's In Our Time is a wonderful programme. I can detect no discernible continental bias in its programme themes and when it covers traditionally analytical topics, such as Logic and Laws of Nature, I see no bias in the discussions. <br /><br />Besides, IOT is perhaps the only popular show which covers Godel's incompleteness theorems, materialism, C.S. Peirce and American pragmatism and logical positivism!Cian Eamon Marleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09070168038290681070noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-61640303803185972532011-09-19T11:20:12.320-04:002011-09-19T11:20:12.320-04:00No, that's not what I mainly took from your es...No, that's not what I mainly took from your essay. It's just one small point that I think is ridiculous.<br /><br />Mark EricksonMark Ericksonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12604074895219791713noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-37843896108887394152011-09-18T09:11:22.531-04:002011-09-18T09:11:22.531-04:00Eid,
you may be right on several counts, but I di...Eid,<br /><br />you may be right on several counts, but I disagree about In Our Time. It is an excellent radio show, and it certainly does not have the continental bias you attribute to it. Trust me, I wouldn't listen to it via podcast when I go to the gym otherwise...Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-77445469700087682032011-09-17T20:51:36.764-04:002011-09-17T20:51:36.764-04:00I think philosophers have a serious public percept...I think philosophers have a serious public perception problem in America. In my experience, when people hear "philosopher" they think of Alan Watts, Buddhism, Timothy Leary, or their hipster barista.<br /><br />The only reason the UK is any better is because they have an upper class with something like a noblesse oblige for learning philosophy (and it tends to be continental). They're extensively taught philosophy, classic literature, and proper etiquette at a very young age in their public schools (which is something like private school for Americans). Basically, these schools churn out characters from a Wodehouse novel. This isn't the norm for the UK. They still have their fair share of anti-intellectualism, but the BBC tends to guard against this somewhat. Although, they've faltered in recent years.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/features/in-our-time/" rel="nofollow">This is a popular philosophy radio show in the UK.</a> It is very biased towards continental philosophy, and it has sort of a romantic approach for appreciating philosophy. They basically treat philosophy like fine literature.<br /><br />So, when I see people that are involved with philosophy in the UK. It's usually much more facile than I think you'd want. It's used as a kind of an upper class signaling device. The equivalent of a Rolex for an American. And likewise, people outside the upper class adopt this signal for vanity.JoshJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13232627951659106765noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-42610130991017998442011-09-17T19:54:14.178-04:002011-09-17T19:54:14.178-04:00Norwegian,
really? That's what you took from ...Norwegian,<br /><br />really? That's what you took from the essay? Okay, I'll bite. First, Jersey Shore type of entertainment is what Neil Postman was referring to when he wrote "Amusing Ourselves to Death." That sort of escapism is profoundly anti-intellectual.<br /><br />Second, Bush was elected in great part because of the extremely anti-intellectual ultra-christian ultra-right, not to mention the derisive label of point-headed intellectual his campaign attached to Gore to further appeal to Bush's base.<br /><br />I rest my case.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-13791969580119554412011-09-17T19:51:43.359-04:002011-09-17T19:51:43.359-04:00Um, not much interest in this one, I guess. Oh, we...Um, not much interest in this one, I guess. Oh, well. Calling your rag anti-intellectual wasn't right. It's elitism. And I bet there is a correlation between elitism and philosophy professors.Mark Ericksonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12604074895219791713noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-18836707959084961432011-09-17T12:34:56.190-04:002011-09-17T12:34:56.190-04:00Shirley someone interested in bringing philosophy ...Shirley someone interested in bringing philosophy and evolution to the public should have a more intellectual view of anti-intellectualism than a cheap rag on George W. Bush and Jersey Shore. First of all, claiming the election of Junior proves anything about anything is itself close to anti-intellectual. He got 50 million votes (about 20% of all people 18+) and you can't narrow down a single one of those votes to one issue, much much much less than saying it represented anti-intellectualism. As for Jersey Shore, only <a href="http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/jersey-shore-ratings-continue-rise-228399" rel="nofollow">8.5 million people watched the show recently</a>. Total audience who follow it might be 10 million. That's 3% of Americans. And I bet none of those people watch it to express their anti-intellectualism. (Have you seen The Situation? Those are great abs!) Calling Jersey Shore anything but cheap escape entertainment is a stretch. But as an example of American anti-intellectualism?!? That's nuts.Mark Ericksonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12604074895219791713noreply@blogger.com