<p>Hypothetically… I mean, if I was in charge of that kinda stuff</p>
<p>I don’t think it’s THAT impractical if you consider going to law school, business school, or even med. Phil majors tend to do fairly well on all three entrance exams anyways. As a Phil major, they’d be better job candidates because of their ability to critcally analyze data, write clearly, and make logical arguments. Of course anyone could, but a Phil major would do it best because they have been taught how to think “outside the box”.</p>
<p>Not “outside the box,” but rather inside it. Those that are currently philosophy majors tend to write clear and coherent arguments. Philosophy professors usually shun writing that suggests an iota of obscurity–clear writing is accentuated, regardless of the writer’s prodigious vocabulary.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Allow me to make myself clear: I DIDN’T ASK FOR YOUR ADVICE.</p>
<p>People need to leave this thread if they are not interested in answering the OP’s question. There are hundreds of other threads for humanities-bashing STEM-humpers to get their scorn out of their system. Either go there or get over yourselves.</p>
<p>So how do Phil classes typically go? Are they just lectures or is it more of a discussion?</p>
<p>What classes did you guys find the most interesting? Have you discovered any downsides to philosophy in your pursuit of a Phil degree?</p>
<p>All of the phil classes I’ve taken have had 20-35 students. They were primarily lecture-style, but the class was always asked for their views, and everyone was expected to participate a fair amount. Don’t expect to take a phil class, stay quiet in the back the whole time, and still get a good grade. At least not at a liberal arts college.</p>
<p>So far I’ve found ethics to be the most interesting area of philosophy, as well as the most relevant, especially nowadays. It’s really hard to make major technological progress without raising a mass of ethical problems. However, when you do ethics, you find how it also depends on other types of philosophy. For example, some of the problems I came across when writing a paper about medical ethics led me to sign up for a course on personal identity next semester. If you have a noisy conscience, ethics is a must-take regardless of your major.</p>
<p>As for downsides, there is the whole continental vs. analytic thing. My college’s department is disproportionately analytic, which has put off a couple of people I know who are really interested in continental. If you have a particular liking for one over the other, or want to deal equally in both, you’ll want to look into your college’s department. I prefer analytic, but I have found that professors who teach analytic tend to be much more aggressive and kind of close-minded, while continental professors are easier to talk to and willing to listen to more “crazy” ideas.</p>
<p>Can you define what exactly is analytic and continental philosophy? I was lost during that part of your speech lol.</p>
<p>[Analytic</a> philosophy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic_philosophy]Analytic”>Analytic philosophy - Wikipedia)
[Continental</a> philosophy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_philosophy]Continental”>Continental philosophy - Wikipedia)</p>
<p>Yeah, read those articles because it’s hard for me to put it into words.</p>
<p>In my experience, analytic philosophy takes a very scientific/mathematical/logic-based approach to philosophy. It works very meticulously through a problem, carefully defining terms, covering potential counter-arguments, and aspiring toward an “airtight” solution.</p>
<p>I have a lot less (aka almost no) experience with continental philosophy, so my description will probably be pretty crappy. I mostly use a negative definition, “everything that analytic is not.” From what I can tell, it generally covers a very specific period of European philosophy which was much more…abstract, I suppose is the best term, in its approach. Continental philosophers tend to “riff” on ideas and don’t worry as much about defining terms and covering all their bases. This has the upside of being conducive to more creative thinking and the downside of being really hard to understand sometimes.</p>
<p>Basically,</p>
<p>Analytic: Philosophy = Science
Continental: Philosophy = Art</p>
<p>Hmmm it seems like analytic philosophy would be more interesting than continental, simply because I like structure. Idk… That’s just me.</p>
<p>How do you think you’ve changed (if you have), in terms of your argument skills and even personality?</p>
<p>I’ve definitely become much better at considering potential counter-arguments before I make an argument. Discussing topics with professors is a very draining process because they can come up with an objection in under 10 seconds to just about anything. You eventually learn to start doing it yourself.</p>
<p>I think philosophy can make you a much more mature person because you are forced to see an issue from so many different sides in order to argue it successfully. I feel that I have become much more empathetic and tolerant since I started studying philosophy because I have realized that truth is very elusive and there is a lot of room to be wrong even when it seems at first that your view can’t be argued with. </p>
<p>Surprisingly, you will find that a lot of people in philosophy will be very belligerent and stubborn, making great efforts to force an argument to fit their conclusion rather than seeking a new conclusion through logic. However, I do not believe that this is a result of studying philosophy, but rather that these people are drawn to philosophy because they like to argue. So far, the people I’ve met who are like that have all been in analytic (some have been professors), and I believe that scientific-minded people have a tendency to confuse being logical and being close-minded.</p>
<p>Don’t let them turn you off analytic, though. It’s great.</p>
<p>Omg CurseItToHades, you have been SOOO helpful! Thank you SOO much for all your input:)</p>
<p>Anytime. :)</p>
<p>
CurseItToHades (nice name!), I love what you said and wholeheartedly agree. I’m not surprised to see such a good piece of advice coming from a Pomona student. :)</p>
<p>Philosophy, from my experience, tends to be a major where you study arguments first, then what is actually being said(or the ideas)…if at that. You study arguments, you learn how to make arguments, you learn how to make counter arguments. </p>
<p>I think the study of ideas is what makes the difference between Continental and Analytical. Continental tends to concentrate on the ideas of what is being presented. Continental tends to be more close to literature in content, which is why you often see continental philosophers offered in french and german literature departments. Analytical tends to concentrate on the argument of what is being said, not so much the content of what is being said.</p>
<p>I honestly did not understand what philosophy was till I majored in it. I am really glad I did and would not trade the experience for the world.</p>
<p>I honestly do not know anyone who realized what philosophy really was till they majored in it, the survey classes just really do not teach the concept.</p>
<p>You decided to major in something and you didn’t understand what it was? That’s ballsy</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That goes for about 99% of people that declare a major at the start of their college career.</p>
<p>I think s/he meant that people go in with a certain idea of what philosophy is and find that it is totally different, not that s/he actually had no conception of what it was before studying it.</p>
<p>^ that makes more sense</p>