Philospher, what is it good for?

[legowarrior]

I don’t think you need a philosophy major to tell you any of that. Maybe a priest?

And if you are the type of person that needs a philosophy major to tell you that, you are probably the type of person that won’t hire a philosophy major.

Besides, I/O psychology already shows that fair treatment of employees leads to better results. There are also a few studies that show that knowledge based positions are less productive when you pull long hours. Most people are more productive in 35 or less hours rather than 40 or 50.

Basically, humans have an innate need for fairness and cooperation, but it doesn’t really extended far out. That’s why gated communities and large corporations are large corporate hierarchies are so detrimental. It insulates people from others and allows them to ignore people around them.

[Brad_Grenz]

It’s not about the education in many cases, it’s about the title. Same as the Priest. They give a lot of advice you don’t need to have graduated from the seminary to give, but the collar is why people listen, yeah?

Anyway, it’s obviously not a realistic idea. It was just a silly, “there should be a career path for Philosophy degrees” thought experiment.

[magnet]

@Gordon_Cameron

Can a philosopher get a job outside of academia?

Sure, you can get a job as a clinical ethicist for a hospital.

And if you study philosophy but don’t want to be a philosopher, then you have an ideal background for law school.

But why are we picking on philosophers? Can a cosmologist get a job outside academia? What is a complete proof of Fermat’s Last Theorem good for?

[Left_Empty]

It seems trying to dissociate philosophy from real life has been a weird agenda of the last couple of centuries.
It’s also, fundamentally, a language: philosophy is all about defining things so that when we argue and try to cut each others’ throat, we actually have a somewhat precise idea of why we do it.

[Left_Empty]

@divedivedive

I’d say that we’ve reached a point in history and the accumulation of knowledge where the generalist, the naturalist, isn’t as useful as the specialist

What part of this is actually true, and what part may be our own fascination for thinking machines as opposed to our own “flawed” global approach to things, is what worries me.

[triggercut]

Shouldn’t it be either:

“Philosophy, what is it good for?”

OR

“Philosophers, what are they good for?”

[belouski]

Cormac McCarthy was a member of some Scientific Think Tank for a long time (he may still be). He quipped it was just because they wanted him to write their grant-applications for them. They all insisted it was his penetrating questions and thoughts on their projects that would help with them all communicating with each other and helping them see the bigger picture rather than the minutiae they are used to studying.

[SlyFrog]

@Brad_Grenz

When I was in college as a Phil major I often thought about how large corporations should have philosophers on retainer. Companies like Facebook and Google could obviously benefit from professional moral and ethical guidance, but many more could just stand to have someone on staff whose job is just to think holistically about what they do.

They don’t need philosophers to do that. They just need people with decision making power whose interest in money is outweighed by ethics.

[divedivedive]

@krayzkrok

I don’t think that means you can’t also have a generalist approach.

I suppose my post probably sounded like the generalist approach was dead and buried, but I certainly don’t think that’s the case. I’m just thinking it’s tougher now, that a lot of areas of study require such a level of expertise that it’s difficult to have the depth in multiple fields to be able to find those connections. They’re still there waiting for us, we just have to have the right eyes to see.