<p>One of my friends went to school in Scotland and did quite well in law school admissions. One of his friends from undergrad is at HLS. Neither one is international - both are American citizens who went abroad for undergrad.</p>
<p>I haven't seen anything indicating that it would be detrimental. You'll have the rest of your life to be in America; you don't have that much time to study abroad. Take the chance when you can, and the law school thing will work out.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Are law schools actually aware of the quality of different philosophy departments?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No, but you will have greater resources at NYU.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I'm afraid to be just another NYU student applying to top schools -- how can I stand out?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Sure. Perhaps you can take graduate courses, or research under a professor, or by using the training you will receiving, publish a paper! You could present papers at undergraduate philosophy conferences, and even have law professors do your recommendations (Thomas Nagel and Ronald Dworkin teach at both the law school and philosophy department).</p>
<p>
[quote]
And, perhaps you will know this, as nobody else I've talked to seems to know: is NYU philosophy still of great quality for undergraduate studies?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yes. Your question was easy to answer because it only concerned philosophy; as a whole, you might receive a better undergraduate experience at other schools (ie. schools with a better student/faculty ratio, and so forth).</p>
<p>
[quote]
I'm actually planning on studying it because I love it, and I would like to enjoy it -- it's not just to fill up four years until I can get into law school.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Good!</p>
<p>
[quote]
Also, I've heard that NYU's philosophy department is overly analytical... And I've only done continental philosophy as of yet. How different is it?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Departments focused on continental philosophy that are high ranked are difficult to find, and most high-ranking programs do not take continental philosophy seriously. Analytic philosophy is less obscure, and much more precise, clear, and rigorous. The focus is on logic and using its tools to make good arguments and scrutinize others. Analytic philosophy, in my opinion, also prepares students well for the LSAT.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Get a Rhodes, a Marshall or a Fulbright.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Errr... there are many other ways, the few of which I listed above.</p>
<p>Jack, </p>
<p>If you get a philosophy degree from the Sorbonne, you might do even better than a degree from NYU. I am sure the number of applicants from the Sorbonne to American law schools is low, so paired with a solid academic record, you might to do very well in the application process. Ah, I don't know that I could turn down the oppurtunity to study philosophy at the Sorbonne (if I could speak French!). Either way though, you'll do just fine.</p>
<p>Thanks a lot nspeds and calipharius. It's good to see both perpectives.</p>
<p>nspeds -- I never quite undertood why continental philosophy is so badly looked upon in the US. It is entirely logical, precise, clear, and rigorous; in my opinion it seems more emotional/aware of human nature. However, as I have not studied analytical philosophy yet, I don't really know what I'm talking about (I'm speaking only from impression) and it is possible that analytical is more clear and logic-oriented.</p>
<p>Also, thanks for the advice (about how to stand out) and for the information (about NYU's philosophy dept. -- you are truly one of the only people who seem to know).</p>
<p>calipharius -- I'd thought about that, and I'm wondering if it's a good idea to go strategically. I also think I may prefer the type of philosophy taught in Paris. On top of that, I would be doing only philosophy -- there would be no additional requirements, no science, no writing course for beginners etc. And the French language is nice to be around. Getting a degree equivalent to a bachelors takes three years, and a masters takes five. I'm thinking of getting my masters in philosophy (if I go to France) and then applying to law school -- I imagine that could look good, not to mention I would thouroughly enjoy it.</p>
<p>The Sorbonne has more prestige internationally, but NYU might be more recognized in terms of US law schools. I've basically decided that I will go to the place I like more...</p>
<p>Well, I am not sure about the master's degree helping that much with law school admissions. They only consider your undergraduate GPA in your LSAT/GPA composite, so it may not be as helpful as you might think.</p>
<p>Second, there are definitely pro's and con's to both Continental and Analytic philosphy. A lot of continental philosophy is borderline inscrutable, or so convoluted with unnecessary terminology and confusing metaphors that in some instances it borders on nonsense. If you don't believe me, pick up some Hegel and tell me you think it is clear and rigourous. I personally don't think it is a coincidence that his Phenomenology of Spirit is abbreviated POS, but digress. You're right, however, there is often a certain dryness permeating much of the Analytic-tradition. You should certainly explore both regardless of where you end up if you take studying philosophy at all seriously. Your plan of going to which ever you like better seems like a very sound one. Good luck.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If you don't believe me, pick up some Hegel and tell me you think it is clear and rigourous.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Have you seen some of that Heidegger? Phew...</p>
<p>
[quote]
Have you seen some of that Heidegger? Phew...
[/quote]
I actually really like Heidegger. Are you saying that analytic philosophy completely disregards all philosophers it doesn't understand? Heidegger wrote some very interesting and pertinent things. Hegel is somewhat confusing and complicated but makes sense as well if you want to spend some time dissecting his work -- I admit that it takes much time and effort to understand his points.</p>
<p>Although I absolutely want to study some analytic merely to see what it is, I don't want to only study philosophers that borderline on economists/sociologists... Sure they are perhaps more "logical" in the sense that many would like to believe. But in the end, their ideas are hardly more reliable or true than Heidegger's. Are you telling me that Kant is also ignored as being too complicated? He is one of the most important contemporary philosophers. Or that Nietzsche isn't even discussed in the context of religious ethics? He may use many metaphors, and you may not agree with him on a personal level, but you have to admit that he presents many good and philosophically interesting points. (Nietzsche is one of my favorite philosophers and authors.) </p>
<p>We don't ignore Hume or Mill -- I wouldn't expect you to ignore Heidegger and Hegel.</p>
<p>My feeling is that once you've started with continental, analytic seems far less appealing. At the same time, in looking at the different courses offered to undergraduate students, they seem less different than one would think.</p>
<p>
[quote]
He is one of the most important contemporary philosophers.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I do not have time to respond to your entire post, but note that Kant was a modern philosopher.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Are you saying that analytic philosophy completely disregards all philosophers it doesn't understand?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Did continental philosophy teach you to draw what is not logically implied?</p>
<p>Also note that analytic philosophy is more logical by sheer virtue of being an offspring of the logical positivist movement. Given what you have said about continental philosophy, I question your understanding of logic.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Also note that analytic philosophy is more logical by sheer virtue of being an offspring of the logical positivist movement. Given what you have said about continental philosophy, I question your understanding of logic.
[/quote]
Let us not turn a friendly discussion into personal attacks on my understanding of logic. My question was just that: a question. To reformulate: does analytic philosophy disregard philosophers who are hard to understand or whose ideas are not all logical? I do not need an answer anymore. I think that you are much too close-minded in what concerns continental philosophy to answer me objectively.</p>
<p>But I admit, it is entirely possible that my entire view of logic has been distorted by continental philosophy and that my belief in its logic is just another testament to my lack of logic. But not only can you not know that for sure, you also can't know that analytic philosophy is the epitome of logical. Philosophy teaches logic which is by no means absolute -- the difference between continental and analytic seem marginal. </p>
<p>I don't quite understand why you claim that continental philosophy is so illogical. To this, I would like an answer.</p>
<p>In French we often use the term contemporary for modern as well. Just to clear up the circumstances around your attempt to embarrass me. For example, we say "contemporary art" instead of "modern art."</p>
<p>
[quote]
To reformulate: does analytic philosophy disregard philosophers who are hard to understand or whose ideas are not all logical?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yes.</p>
<p>
[quote]
But not only can you not know that for sure, you also can't know that analytic philosophy is the epitome of logical.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Once again... analytic philosophy arose from logical positivism; continental philosophy worked against it. To be sure, you would be insulting Hegel for arguing that he is logical!</p>
<p>
[quote]
"Analytic" philosophy today names a style of doing philosophy, not a philosophical program or a set of substantive views. Analytic philosophers, crudely speaking, aim for argumentative clarity and precision; draw freely on the tools of logic; and often identify, professionally and intellectually, more closely with the sciences and mathematics, than with the humanities. (It is fair to say that "clarity" is, regrettably, becoming less and less a distinguishing feature of "analytic" philosophy.) The foundational figures of this tradition are philosophers like Gottlob Frege, Bertrand Russell, the young Ludwig Wittgenstein and G.E. Moore; other canonical figures include Carnap, Quine, Davidson, Kripke, Rawls, Dummett, and Strawson. [3]</p>
<p>"Continental" philosophy, by contrast, demarcates a group of French and German philosophers of the 19th and 20th centuries. The geographical label is misleading: Carnap, Frege, and Wittgenstein were all products of the European Continent, but are not "Continental" philosophers. The foundational figure of this tradition is Hegel; other canonical figures include the other post-Kantian German Idealists (e.g., Fichte, Schelling), Schopenhauer, Kierkegaard, Marx, Nietzsche, Husserl, Heidegger, Merleau-Ponty, Sartre, Gadamer, Horkheimer, Adorno, Marcuse, Habermas, and Foucault. Continental philosophy is distinguished by its style (more literary, less analytical, sometimes just obscure), its concerns (more interested in actual political and cultural issues and, loosely speaking, the human situation and its "meaning"), and some of its substantive commitments (more self-conscious about the relation of philosophy to its historical situation).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I will provide a more detailed response to your previous posts when I have more patience.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Heidegger wrote some very interesting and pertinent things.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I never said he did not.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Hegel is somewhat confusing and complicated but makes sense as well if you want to spend some time dissecting his work -- I admit that it takes much time and effort to understand his points.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yes, and one can reach the same conclusions via analytic philosophy... albeit through a less Byzantine process.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I don't want to only study philosophers that borderline on economists/sociologists...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>They are not analytic philosophers; you will find that many logicians/analytic philosophers tend to be borderline mathematicians and scientists.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Sure they are perhaps more "logical" in the sense that many would like to believe.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Given that analytic philosophers adhere more closely to the system of logic established by Aristotle and his successors, I beg to differ.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Are you telling me that Kant is also ignored as being too complicated?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Not complicated, but obscure. Recall the virtues of clear and precise writing. There is nothing to be gained by hiding behind poor prose.</p>
<p>
[quote]
But I admit, it is entirely possible that my entire view of logic has been distorted by continental philosophy and that my belief in its logic is just another testament to my lack of logic.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It is not only possible, it is actual.</p>
<p>
[quote]
They are not analytic philosophers; you will find that many logicians/analytic philosophers tend to be borderline mathematicians and scientists.
[/quote]
If I wanted to study logic so closely related to math, I would study math theory or science.</p>
<p>This is essentially a useless argument, as I have never studied analytic philosophy and do not know of what it consists. You are allowed to dislike continental philosophy and to dismiss it as confusing and illogical -- but I hope that you have studied it at least a few times and that you have been taught by at least a few different teachers/professors. If you do not know for a fact that continental is so ridiculous, I cannot value your opinion.</p>
<p>There are things about analytic philosophy which seem intriguing to me, moreso than continental. For example, the fact that debating ideas instead of discussion philosophers is more preminent in analytic seems rather interesting to me.</p>
<p>Again, I do not like that you have turned this into a personal attack on me. You have not discussed with me at enough length to know whether or not I lack logic. The fact that you have a negative a priori on me merely because I enjoy continental philosophy and believe it to be logical, and that from there you have inferred that I hold no logic makes me realize just how close-minded you are. I will not overgeneralize as you have, and say that analytic philosophy has made you think this way. This may be just a personal trait of yours, but I do not know you.</p>
<p>I appreciate that you do not dismiss Heidegger, Kant, and Hegel as unimportant. I see that even you admit that they have introduced some of the most important philosophical ideas. But I think that it is just as important to study the philosophers as it is to study their ideas. I'm sure you can make their ideas clear and alter them to do so, however, discovering their ideas through their texts is an important and interesting part of philosophy.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If I wanted to study logic so closely related to math, I would study math theory or science.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Nope, you would first take a course called...</p>
<p>"Introduction to Logic"</p>
<p>!</p>
<p>
[quote]
You have not discussed with me at enough length to know whether or not I lack logic.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>For the third time...</p>
<p>say this with me...</p>
<p>analytic philosophy arose from logical positivism. </p>
<p>
[quote]
The fact that you have a negative a priori on me merely because I enjoy continental philosophy and believe it to be logical, and that from there you have inferred that I hold no logic makes me realize just how close-minded you are.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>One cannot "hold" logic.</p>
<p>Sorry. Have no logic.</p>
<p>Why don't you answer me instead of focusing on a minor grammatical error?</p>
<p>I think I will enjoy analytic philosophy. How much I value its students is another matter. So... Have you ever studied continental philosophy?</p>
<p>
[quote]
So... Have you ever studied continental philosophy?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yes.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Why don't you answer me
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Why not read my answer instead of repeating the same question?</p>
<p>You only answer what you can and disregard the rest. You do not really answer my questions. Did analytic philosophy teach you that?</p>
<p>I'm not sure why you felt the need to turn a friendly question, then discussion, into some territorial "I'm better than you" fight. I was searching to inform myself about analytic philosophy -- I did not want to say that one was better than the other as I did not know! Obviously, your intention was to point out that yours is bigger than mine. Good job, I applaud you.</p>
<p>Do you really think it was necessary to put me through all this just because I wanted to gain a bit of knowledge?</p>
<p>Instead of convince me that your way was better, you got defensive and arrogant. What did you gain from this?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Do you really think it was necessary to put me through all this just because I wanted to gain a bit of knowledge?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Once again...</p>
<p>
[quote]
analytic philosophy arose from logical positivism.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This is the fourth time...</p>
<p>Nspeds, do you think Nietzsche wrote "poor prose?"</p>
<p>nspeds -- That really was not a response to my last few posts. I understand quite well that analytic philosophy arose from logical positivism. I am not so dense as to not understand after four times. It is easier on your part to continue to repeat the same thing over and over than to actually read what I have to say and respond to that. Where in my last post did I ask you to supply me with the source of analytic philosophy?</p>
<p>I suppose you will also answer this in saying "this is the fifth time." You are humiliating yourself and not me.</p>
<p>And I imagine that nspeds will respnd that although considered to have a more literary prose, Nietzsche was entirely unclear in what he wanted to convey and some mathematicien could reformulate it better.</p>
<p>I think that Nietzsche is genius. But maybe that's my idiotic continental philosophy-oriented mind that thinks so.</p>
<p>I would like to add that philosophy is not only about logic.</p>