I was pleased to see this paragraph from Matthew Yglesias.
As a journalist, I keenly feel the pain of the generalist. I find myself in Mead’s shoes all the time — needing to somehow touch on a range of material that I am perfectly aware I don’t understand nearly as well as those people who’ve spent years focusing in on it narrowly. I like to think that having studied philosophy as an undergraduate is a reasonably good preparation for such a task. Obviously, I never wind up writing an article about meta-ethics or the way structurally similar issues about reductionism pop up in diverse areas (insofar as I know a lot about anything, it’s these things), but what philosophy fundamentally teaches you about (especially as an undergraduate when you don’t really have the time to master any particular sub-area) is how to spot an unsound argument, irrespective of the topic of discussion. That’s a useful and generally applicable thing. And I think we’ll see it pop up again and again in this discussion.
I like to think that some of the specific things I teach in undergraduate classes have relevance to what my students go on to do, but ultimately I’d be happy if most of the students picked up just the kind of skills Matt is talking about. One of the side effects of philosophy being so abstract and disconnected from everyday considerations is that to do well at it, you have to be good at reasoning about unfamiliar topics. And in the modern economy that’s a very valuable skill.
As a contrary case, if you run into someone making a wildly implausible brain-in-bottle context-free case about something, or someone explaining how destroying the environment is really a way of protecting it, they might have studied philosophy too before going to law school.
To stay consistent with my other comments around the blogosphere today, gotta say that Rhetoric appears more actually useful than Dialectic.
Reads Zizka.
Chin thuds on floor.
“A contrary case” - where?
Why on earth blame philosophy?
Do tell, Zizka, do tell..
Personally, I think that I can prove that all dingbats use toothpaste, so I am campaigning to have the dental hygiene trade shut down. It’s the obvious cause of terrorism.
-Hello, my mane is yabonn and this is my first visit here at Commenters Anonymous
-Hello yabonn.
-Thanks for your welcoming. My problem is that as a Crooked Timber commenter, I keenly feel the pain of the generalist […] needing to somehow touch on a range of material that I am perfectly aware I don’t understand.
:)
I only took one philosophy class in college — Ethics — and it changed my life.
Now I lie and cheat at every opportunity, because I believe it is “good for my life” and I’m hoping that I will get busted and as punishment, the Philosophy Gods will toss me in the Experience Machince 4-evah.
Pure mathematics courses— good ones, anyway— teach you many of the same abstract reasoning skills, plus a general epistemological conservatism that I find extremely useful. At least half my objections to others’ arguments, these days, are either of the form “premise A doesn’t imply conclusion B, it implies the similar but weaker B’ and you’re eliding the distinction and hoping we won’t notice” or else “you just can’t have the degree of epistemological certainty about Assertion X that you’re claiming to have.” A good upper undergrad/beginning grad sequence of real analysis courses is particularly helpful in making one sensitive to such errors.
It’s absurd for a generalist to argue the value of context-free logics in where all acts of communication are context specific. Never mind the intellectual/lingusitic fireworks, I can’t imagine anyone but a fool asking the parallel question:
“What good is a degree in American History?”
Re Seth Edenbaum: Yet absolutely every college student asks that question. Whose teaching them that to go ahead, you need to know where you came from?
To hit another note, I’m an undergrad student myself. Here’s the question - how exactly are students supposed to pick up on critical thinking/reasoning skills? Absorbed from the environment, set of trained responses, or just value judgments? Believe me, Freshman Comp just doesnt do it.
Matt’s argument appears to suppose that there are other college majors that do not value critical reasoning. I’d be curious to hear which he thinks those are.
“The boundaries of the study called Ethics are variously and often vaguely conceived: but they will perhaps be sufficiently defined, at the outset, for the purposes of the present treatise, if a `Method of Ethics’ is explained to mean any rational procedure by which we determine what individual human beings `ought’—-or what it is `right’ for them-to do, or to seek to realise by voluntary action. By using the word “individual” I provisionally distinguish the study of Ethics from that of Politics, which seeks to determine the proper constitution and the right public conduct of governed societies: both Ethics and Politics being, in my view, distinguished from positive sciences by having as their special and primary object to determine what ought to be, and not to ascertain what merely is, has been, or will be.” …Sedgwick,MOE,Intro
Forgive this plebe, but Ethics seems to me to be a very large part of what human beings do. We eat,drink,make love, watch TV…and try to decide what is the right or best possible thing to do.
Nearly everyone I have ever met, at nearly every moment I have observed them, has been doing Ethics.
Since all other Philosophy is, or should be, in service of Ethics & Politics, Philosophy should be last Science that needs justification.
Yes, yes, yes to what Matt and you said about the skills that a study of philosophy provides. I attended a Jesuit university back in the fifties, and was required to take 6 semesters of philosophy along with all my other required courses. I did not major in philosophy. Everyone who attended the university had to do this. I was annoyed at the time, because it made for a heavy course load. But in hindsight, I am very grateful.
As a result, I am able, at the very least, to make a mostly logical argument and spot a fallacious argument. It astounds me that many people today cannot, including the members of the media. That’s why the Bush administration can spin them like tops. That’s why many Americans do not see through the nonsense that the Bushies spout, and will give them their votes come November.
There is no ‘science’ of ethics.
I think Matthew really nailed it, there. One of my favorite undergrad philosophy professors once said (probably paraphrasing Carl Sagan): “my hope is to turn you all into excellent bullshit detectors; because the world could always use some more of those.”
“There is no ‘science’ of ethics.”
Well, Sedgwick calls it a “study” in the cited paragraph, and contrasts it with the “positive sciences”, and I suspect that defining what is or is not a “science” would be outside the scope of physicists and
chemists, but also way beyond my pay grade.
I guess my question for the thread above is whether logic and critical analysis are tools of philosophy, rather than part of philosophy itself. Are we really back in ancient Athens with the Sophists, just learning to argue with refined skills but no purpose?
I prefer that the study of ethics be attached to subjects that make their centerpiece a reference to the world: history, law, psychology, and (cultural) anthropology.
Philosophy will teach you arrogance, but not to recognize when it is unwarranted.
…or simply rude.
Yeah, well, having just watched the well-trained minds of the left blogosphere virtually without exception get rolled by the likes of Charles Johnson at LGF like rubes in a 3-card-monte game…I suspect something lacking in their education. Call this a cry for help, a plea to academia for better weapons against the Right. The current armament hasn’t been effective.
David, don’t bother with zizka, gtst was just arguing on deLong’s that all us who are descended from Confederates ought to be summarily disenfranchised to improve the quality of American voting. To go, I guess, with the ever popular assertion in Left Blogistan that all us Christians ought to be likewise stripped of our right to participate as citizens. (The back-patting smugness of elitism is not limited to LGF and Free Republic.) Some people wouldn’t know a syllogism from an enthymeme if it bit them.
Neha — take ‘informal logic’ and or ‘contemporary moral issues’ (or cognates) in the Philosophy department (but check out professors first). Take Economics 101, etc. And some serious math courses (not the ones named ‘the way to fulfil the math requirement for people who can’t count and don’t care about counting’).
tom t: ooo, it would be such fun to speculate. Almost all of the rest of the humanities, perhaps? Plus half of the social sciences?
Bob,
“Call this a cry for help, a plea to academia for better weapons against the Right. The current armament hasn’t been effective.”
If you think more logic is needed than what we already have, you really miss the point, and you haven’t been reading the polls. Your ignorance of the the realities, of fear and insecurity in an uneducated populace, make you ill suited for a discussion of human values and behavior.
Bellatrys,
“(The back-patting smugness of elitism is not limited to LGF and Free Republic.) Some people wouldn’t know a syllogism from an enthymeme if it bit them.”
The arrogance and smugness of the boorish and uneducated doesn’t bother me, except in as much as it rules over those equally uneducated but willing to follow.
I’m more troubled by the arrogance and smugness of technicians who associate intellectual parlour tricks with wisdom. Statistics is a tool. But as they say: If “shit goes in shit comes out.” Scholastic philosophy, whether today or half a millennium ago, would say otherwise.
I was not talking about the philosophy Jane Boatler took in the 50’s, but the analytic philosophy being taught today. My objection is not to Philosophy, which I read a lot of, but to today’s schools.
The contemporary academic philosophy I read seems to be very heavy in ingenious, far-fetched, context-free hypothetical arguments.
Rorty said (Mirror of Nature or Consequences of Pragmatism) that philosophy now essentially produces technicians of argument, with no substantive doctrines proposed by anyone except as cases for discussion. He thinks that’s fine, but I don’t.
The analytical, argumentative strength analytic philosophy teaches needs to be matched with a strength in seeing and defining contexts, and an awareness of contexts, which isn’t really taught anywhere in the contemporary university, but especially not in philosophy classes. Matt has that skill to a considerable degree, but he got it from elsewhere.
The harm I see in contemporary philosophy is an opportunity-cost kind of thing. My criticism is philosophical, but based on philosopher who are seldom taught any more. Analytic philosophers were pretty effective in achieving total domination by the normal methods of bureaucratic and factional realpolitik.
The worst effects of philosophy (or economics) are seen, not in professional philosophers, but in someone who has taken a few courses and has effectively been told that it’s OK for him to assert his own prejudices and interests as aggressively as he wishes, as long as he’s able to make good arguments and knock down the other guy’s arguments.
Bellatrys, I TOLD you that I would restore your right to vote IF YOU ASKED NICELY. But you didn’t. No vote for you.
Ladies and gentlemen of the thread, my statement he references was, in fact, somewhat hypothetical (I have studied analytical philosophy some). My point was that this country might be in a better place now if it had been the descendants of Confederates had been excluded from political rights, rather than the descendants of slaves (which is what actually did happen).
Section three of the Fourteenth Amendment did in fact strip Confederate veterans of some political rights, though not voting, while making provisions to restore them at some later date. When their rights were finally restored in a backroom deal around 1880, they immediately got to work stripping ex-slaves and their descendants of all political rights, including voting. My opinion is that the reconstruction ended too soon.
More esoterica. Indoctrinating of the too young and too inexperienced to be in any of the univs. with use of too much money to do so. The archaic outdated univ system should have been changed forty years ago.
Yeah, like the Reconstruction was about helping former slaves.
Like the Reconstruction helped former slaves. Goddam carpetbaggers, you’re all the same.
Last I heard, it wasn’t ex-Confederates’ descendents ruling the roost in Cleveland and carrying out race-based shootings.
(I’ve been trying to figure out why so many of the AEI elite are ex-lefties from the old days. I’m coming closer and closer to the answer, and it ain’t pretty, and we’re seeing some of it there in in friend Zizka, and even more of it in those folks who go around moaning “It’s all lost, we’re doomed, the American sheeple deserve all they get” - that arrogance isn’t a quality of the Right, it’s a quality of humanity, but the Right has and is willing to abuse power more - hey Dave, maybe Zizka was only self-describing and projecting on all philosophy students there…)
“fecal matter in; fecal matter out.”
More illustrative than GIGO, and it does bring up the more realistic metaphor, of metabolism.
Nutritious alimentation in; fecal matter out.
Point of fact: “fecal matter in” more than likely results in “vomitus out”; depending on the orifice, of course.
The only poetically sound use of this is to hint at the organic underlayment of the abstract question .
The most accurate and the most thorough understanding of a primal conflict leads only to the threshold of resolution. The key additional ingredient is the insistence of the individual on being. That has no ethical priority, it can be encouraged, or discouraged, masked or exposed, but its presence is an act of will more essential than reason.
This is indeed underneath some of the most popular and seemingly illogical, and unnecessary, controversies. Wilberforce to Bryan to Ashcroft, these men are the champions of people who are fighting for their lives, who have recognized the mortal threat waiting behind the acceptance of new, heretical, truth, and thus defend themselves accordingly.
It isn’t embarrassment, or love of tradition that drives them, it’s extinction.
The ethical strength necessary to sacrifice one’s comfort and security in defense of a more honest view of the world is rare enough - to consider making the ultimate sacrifice, because one’s position and success are founded on a platform of lies, must seem entirely alien, now.
But that’s where it goes. The resilience and adaptability that would enable the “human race” to adjust to and incorporate more accurate understanding is a general thing. Like any other general shift in the population it leaves behind a measurable and identifiable portion. Permanently.
Who or what that portion will consist of, as we confront the necessity of immediate, massive change in response to conditions beyond our control, is exactly what most contemporary conflict, intellectual and military, ethical and metaphysical, is about.
Elect, or preterite - take your pick, take your place, and hang on!
Bellatrys, you whiner, my original statement was pretty much a joke. But yes, I’m a Yankee the way a lot of Southerners are Rebs. Deal with it.
Since the South took over the Republican Party, and then after that the whole U.S., I’ve been more vocal than I was before, during the period when Southerners were all self-pitying losers like yourself, instead of strutting bullies like Delay, Armey, Lott, and the rest.
Your self-serving little quibbles about the Reconstruction and American race relations aren’t really worth bothering with. During Reconstruction, black Southerners had the vote and the various rights that come with that. Afterwards, increasingly not. Your problem, not mine.
Z,
WTF!
Who are these idiots? This ‘B’ is a real Christian man. A white man!
I’ve met a few of them before.
Praise the Lord, brother,
and shut the fuck up.
Close this post please, before I get all preintellectual on these assholes.
À Gauche
Jeremy Alder
Amaravati
Anggarrgoon
Audhumlan Conspiracy
H.E. Baber
Philip Blosser
Paul Broderick
Matt Brown
Diana Buccafurni
Brandon Butler
Keith Burgess-Jackson
Certain Doubts
David Chalmers
Noam Chomsky
The Conservative Philosopher
Desert Landscapes
Denis Dutton
David Efird
Karl Elliott
David Estlund
Experimental Philosophy
Fake Barn County
Kai von Fintel
Russell Arben Fox
Garden of Forking Paths
Roger Gathman
Michael Green
Scott Hagaman
Helen Habermann
David Hildebrand
John Holbo
Christopher Grau
Jonathan Ichikawa
Tom Irish
Michelle Jenkins
Adam Kotsko
Barry Lam
Language Hat
Language Log
Christian Lee
Brian Leiter
Stephen Lenhart
Clayton Littlejohn
Roderick T. Long
Joshua Macy
Mad Grad
Jonathan Martin
Matthew McGrattan
Marc Moffett
Geoffrey Nunberg
Orange Philosophy
Philosophy Carnival
Philosophy, et cetera
Philosophy of Art
Douglas Portmore
Philosophy from the 617 (moribund)
Jeremy Pierce
Punishment Theory
Geoff Pynn
Timothy Quigley (moribund?)
Conor Roddy
Sappho's Breathing
Anders Schoubye
Wolfgang Schwartz
Scribo
Michael Sevel
Tom Stoneham (moribund)
Adam Swenson
Peter Suber
Eddie Thomas
Joe Ulatowski
Bruce Umbaugh
What is the name ...
Matt Weiner
Will Wilkinson
Jessica Wilson
Young Hegelian
Richard Zach
Psychology
Donyell Coleman
Deborah Frisch
Milt Rosenberg
Tom Stafford
Law
Ann Althouse
Stephen Bainbridge
Jack Balkin
Douglass A. Berman
Francesca Bignami
BlunkettWatch
Jack Bogdanski
Paul L. Caron
Conglomerate
Jeff Cooper
Disability Law
Displacement of Concepts
Wayne Eastman
Eric Fink
Victor Fleischer (on hiatus)
Peter Friedman
Michael Froomkin
Bernard Hibbitts
Walter Hutchens
InstaPundit
Andis Kaulins
Lawmeme
Edward Lee
Karl-Friedrich Lenz
Larry Lessig
Mirror of Justice
Eric Muller
Nathan Oman
Opinio Juris
John Palfrey
Ken Parish
Punishment Theory
Larry Ribstein
The Right Coast
D. Gordon Smith
Lawrence Solum
Peter Tillers
Transatlantic Assembly
Lawrence Velvel
David Wagner
Kim Weatherall
Yale Constitution Society
Tun Yin
History
Blogenspiel
Timothy Burke
Rebunk
Naomi Chana
Chapati Mystery
Cliopatria
Juan Cole
Cranky Professor
Greg Daly
James Davila
Sherman Dorn
Michael Drout
Frog in a Well
Frogs and Ravens
Early Modern Notes
Evan Garcia
George Mason History bloggers
Ghost in the Machine
Rebecca Goetz
Invisible Adjunct (inactive)
Jason Kuznicki
Konrad Mitchell Lawson
Danny Loss
Liberty and Power
Danny Loss
Ether MacAllum Stewart
Pam Mack
Heather Mathews
James Meadway
Medieval Studies
H.D. Miller
Caleb McDaniel
Marc Mulholland
Received Ideas
Renaissance Weblog
Nathaniel Robinson
Jacob Remes (moribund?)
Christopher Sheil
Red Ted
Time Travelling Is Easy
Brian Ulrich
Shana Worthen
Computers/media/communication
Lauren Andreacchi (moribund)
Eric Behrens
Joseph Bosco
Danah Boyd
David Brake
Collin Brooke
Maximilian Dornseif (moribund)
Jeff Erickson
Ed Felten
Lance Fortnow
Louise Ferguson
Anne Galloway
Jason Gallo
Josh Greenberg
Alex Halavais
Sariel Har-Peled
Tracy Kennedy
Tim Lambert
Liz Lawley
Michael O'Foghlu
Jose Luis Orihuela (moribund)
Alex Pang
Sebastian Paquet
Fernando Pereira
Pink Bunny of Battle
Ranting Professors
Jay Rosen
Ken Rufo
Douglas Rushkoff
Vika Safrin
Rob Schaap (Blogorrhoea)
Frank Schaap
Robert A. Stewart
Suresh Venkatasubramanian
Ray Trygstad
Jill Walker
Phil Windley
Siva Vaidahyanathan
Anthropology
Kerim Friedman
Alex Golub
Martijn de Koning
Nicholas Packwood
Geography
Stentor Danielson
Benjamin Heumann
Scott Whitlock
Education
Edward Bilodeau
Jenny D.
Richard Kahn
Progressive Teachers
Kelvin Thompson (defunct?)
Mark Byron
Business administration
Michael Watkins (moribund)
Literature, language, culture
Mike Arnzen
Brandon Barr
Michael Berube
The Blogora
Colin Brayton
John Bruce
Miriam Burstein
Chris Cagle
Jean Chu
Hans Coppens
Tyler Curtain
Cultural Revolution
Terry Dean
Joseph Duemer
Flaschenpost
Kathleen Fitzpatrick
Jonathan Goodwin
Rachael Groner
Alison Hale
Household Opera
Dennis Jerz
Jason Jones
Miriam Jones
Matthew Kirschenbaum
Steven Krause
Lilliputian Lilith
Catherine Liu
John Lovas
Gerald Lucas
Making Contact
Barry Mauer
Erin O'Connor
Print Culture
Clancy Ratcliff
Matthias Rip
A.G. Rud
Amardeep Singh
Steve Shaviro
Thanks ... Zombie
Vera Tobin
Chuck Tryon
University Diaries
Classics
Michael Hendry
David Meadows
Religion
AKM Adam
Ryan Overbey
Telford Work (moribund)
Library Science
Norma Bruce
Music
Kyle Gann
ionarts
Tim Rutherford-Johnson
Greg Sandow
Scott Spiegelberg
Biology/Medicine
Pradeep Atluri
Bloviator
Anthony Cox
Susan Ferrari (moribund)
Amy Greenwood
La Di Da
John M. Lynch
Charles Murtaugh (moribund)
Paul Z. Myers
Respectful of Otters
Josh Rosenau
Universal Acid
Amity Wilczek (moribund)
Theodore Wong (moribund)
Physics/Applied Physics
Trish Amuntrud
Sean Carroll
Jacques Distler
Stephen Hsu
Irascible Professor
Andrew Jaffe
Michael Nielsen
Chad Orzel
String Coffee Table
Math/Statistics
Dead Parrots
Andrew Gelman
Christopher Genovese
Moment, Linger on
Jason Rosenhouse
Vlorbik
Peter Woit
Complex Systems
Petter Holme
Luis Rocha
Cosma Shalizi
Bill Tozier
Chemistry
"Keneth Miles"
Engineering
Zack Amjal
Chris Hall
University Administration
Frank Admissions (moribund?)
Architecture/Urban development
City Comforts (urban planning)
Unfolio
Panchromatica
Earth Sciences
Our Take
Who Knows?
Bitch Ph.D.
Just Tenured
Playing School
Professor Goose
This Academic Life
Other sources of information
Arts and Letters Daily
Boston Review
Imprints
Political Theory Daily Review
Science and Technology Daily Review