Jobs for Philosophers: Explore Careers for Philosophy Majors

[beanryu]

Okay, I want to be a philosopher.
I think about life alot, the meaning of life, people's interaction and I think i figured out alots of things already in my own interpretation.

Is there any job available for a thinker like me except becoming a teacher or another confucius? Any jobs for Philosopher? Philosophy major?

 

[inha]

I have no factual information but I guess your career choices would be either getting a faculty position at some university or flipping burgers.

 

[Math Is Hard]

Many people who have an undergrad degree in philosophy end up going into law.

 

[JasonRox]

I have no factual information but I guess your career choices would be either getting a faculty position at some university or flipping burgers.

He might get fired for flipping burgers because he will be thinking about flipping burgers too much, and not actually flipping them.

I don't think there is much out there for a Philosophy Degree, probably nothing. If you think about life so much, I find it surprising that you aren't into physics or anything of the sort.

Philosophy is cool and everything, but you studying philosophy doesn't really make you a better of a thinker, in my opinion. I'm taking a philosophy course next term, but I don't expect anything out of it besides a history lesson (which is why I'm taking it).

I believe Paul S. Halmos got his Ph. D in Philosophy and he admitted that getting a Ph. D. in Philosophy you must become a mindless drone, so I don't know where being a mindless drone becomes useful.

Note: Like MIH said above, Law is probably a good direction. She is right. Most people argue that they Law Students choose to take Art Degrees because they are easier, hence higher marks, and easier entry into Law School.

Note: I know of two Law Students, and they both agree with what I said in the previous note.

 

[robphy]

http://www.ephilosopher.com/Sections-article20-page1.html
from
http://www.rileyguide.com/arts.html#phil

 

[gravenewworld]

Study logic. Logic goes hand in hand with computer science/programming. You can be a philosopher that does programming. Med schools like philo majors too.

 

[beanryu]

but the thing about physics and engineering is that they require a lot of work and talents in math. I can't even take an integral now and I am drowning in my electrical engineering class.

 

[Tide]

Write books! Either textbooks or popularizations - start early and be persistent.

 

[Math Is Hard]

Just for fun, here is a list of famous philosophy majors:
http://www.clemson.edu/caah/philosophy/website/html/Famous majors.html

I thought the "Hollywood" group was the most interesting:

Wes Anderson (director and filmmaker - Rushmore and The Royal Tennenbaums)
Steve Allen (writer and comedian)
Woody Allen (director, writer and comedian)
George Carlin (Comedian and actor)
David Duchovny (actor on X-FILES)
Harrison Ford (actor)
Chris Hardwick (MTV host)
Jimmy Kimmel (comedian and former star of The Man Show)
Jay Leno (Host, The Tonight Show)
Peter Lynch (director)
Amy Madigan (Actress)
Steve Martin (comedian & actor)
Dennis Miller (comedian)
Joan Rivers (comedian)
Susan Sarandon (actress)
Gene Siskel (movie reviewer, SISKEL & EBERT AT THE MOVIES)
Steve Thomas--Host, This Old House
Dave Thomas (one of the "Mackenzie Brothers" on SCTV)
Alex Trebeck (Host of Jeopardy)

 

[Poop-Loops]

Philosophy is fun, but there's not much you can do. Your best bet is probably just leaving it as a hobby and do something else that you like.

The LAST thing we need is another hippy running around giving his opinion on things nobody cares about. ;)

 

[JoshHolloway]

You could always get a good factory or construction job with a philosophy degree.

 

[Solombas]

This is a useful website for advice on the kind of jobs you can get into with a PhD in Philosophy:

http://homepage.mac.com/mcolyvan/careeradvice.html If you think about life a lot Philosophy IS exactly what you need to study alongside with a science of your interest (e.g. psychology, physics, biology etc.). I have been studying philosophy for enough years now to understand that:

1) Philosophy is NOT a history lesson!

What is Philosophy?
There is no formal definition BUT:
Philosophers try to understand about the mind and the world, about what we ought to do as human beings and our place in the universe through the use of ARGUMENTATION and LOGIC.

2) Philosophy REQUIRES you to be a better thinker!

Philosophy is different than most university courses in that it ISN'T about conveying a body of empirical facts. Philosophy is about CRITICALLY ANALYSING an argument for a conclusion, regardless if the conclusion is empirical or not.

Therefore, Philosophy HAS to involve critical thinking skills!

I am much like you in that I think about meaning of life a lot. It is not an easy thing to do to understand the universe and it cannot be done by studying one discipline of science or philosophy alone (yes not even physics by itself and you can see Einstein was also an enthusiastic philosopher).

It is often better to study some discipline of science and philosophy as you will need both to understand the universe.

He might get fired for flipping burgers because he will be thinking
about flipping burgers too much, and not actually flipping them.

I don't think there is much out there for a Philosophy Degree, probably nothing. If you think about life so much, I find it surprising that you aren't into physics or anything of the sort.

Philosophy is cool and everything, but you studying philosophy doesn't really make you a better of a thinker, in my opinion. I'm taking a philosophy course next term, but I don't expect anything out of it besides a history lesson (which is why I'm taking it).

I believe Paul S. Halmos got his Ph. D in Philosophy and he admitted that getting a Ph. D. in Philosophy you must become a mindless drone, so I don't know where being a mindless drone becomes useful.

Note: Like MIH said above, Law is probably a good direction. She is right. Most people argue that they Law Students choose to take Art Degrees because they are easier, hence higher marks, and easier entry into Law School.

Note: I know of two Law Students, and they both agree with what I said in the previous note.

 

[Solombas]

Don't know where you get that misinformation from.

Philosophy ISN'T about giving opinions, they don't give a DAMN about opinions. Philosophers care about the reasons behind a conclusion and they analyse them critically through use of logic. Simple as that - there is no trick about philosophy!

Philosophy is fun, but there's not much you can do. Your best bet is probably just leaving it as a hobby and do something else that you like.

The LAST thing we need is another hippy running around giving his opinion on things nobody cares about. ;)

 

[maverick_starstrider]

Don't know where you get that misinformation from.

Philosophy ISN'T about giving opinions, they don't give a DAMN about opinions. Philosophers care about the reasons behind a conclusion and they analyse them critically through use of logic. Simple as that - there is no trick about philosophy!

There's a big difference between PHILOSOPHY as a field and a PHILOSOPHER. Philosophers, in my complete and exclusive experience, are just full of hot air and either go to faculty positions, law school, use their degree as one of the standard "any bachelours required" jobs or become writers. I've often felt that the field of PHILOSOPHY has been tarnished, in the post-modern era, by PHILOSOPHER. But that's just one mans opinion.

 

[mal4mac]

Okay, I want to be a philosopher.
I think about life alot, the meaning of life, people's interaction and I think i figured out alots of things already in my own interpretation.

Sounds like you *already are* a philosopher manque. So do you want to be a professional philosopher?

Is there any job available for a thinker like me except becoming a teacher or another confucius? Any jobs for Philosopher? Philosophy major?

What do you mean by "teacher"? School teacher? Of what? Physics? University teacher? Of what? I

I don't think the careers office will be able to help you with your aim to "be another Confucius." Too ill defined. What do you mean by this in terms they would understand? Political Adviser? Philosophical Counsellor?

 

[D H]

Do philosophers specialize in giving untimely answers? This thread is almost four years old!

 

[DukeofDuke]

He's probably got his PhD in flipping burgers, er, philosophy, by now.

 

[mal4mac]

Philosophers are quite happy to pursue threads that are 2500 years old. Plato and Aristotle are looked at as 'philosophical colleagues', and are much cited in modern philosophy books.

 

[Solombas]

I assume you are blaming the modern day philosophers here. And I take it you didn't mean ALL modern philosophers are full of hot air since it is obviously not possible to meet all philosophers in the world. So, whether if most philosophers are intellectually empty is an empirical question. Meeting a few philosophers in one person's experience in a specific culture in time and place doesn't mean that they are representative of philosophers in general.

Besides, if a philosopher's argument is full of hot air then they cannot get away with being philosophers and certainly not a professor. Any philosophical conclusion must be defended by logical premises in an argument or it will not be a philosophical argument. It is like arguing for a mathematical answer with logical proofs - a mathematician can't just use illogical and nonsensical math rules in a paper and so can't philosophers use illogical and nonsensical statements in a paper. As long as a philosopher's argument is cogent and sound, then it doesn't matter if they are a green jelly-blob fish with one eye sticking out of its backside; their argument is still cogent.

But the field of philosophy has indeed been tarnished, we know from philosophy of physics, for example, that the Newtonian concept of absolute space and time no longer fits our empirical findings well ever since Einstein came into the picture; whereas it used to be a widely accepted theory before relativity. So, philosophy back then was probably just about as tarnished as it is now. We never know if our philosophical theories are certainly correct, just like in science.

There's a big difference between PHILOSOPHY as a field and a PHILOSOPHER. Philosophers, in my complete and exclusive experience, are just full of hot air and either go to faculty positions, law school, use their degree as one of the standard "any bachelours required" jobs or become writers. I've often felt that the field of PHILOSOPHY has been tarnished, in the post-modern era, by PHILOSOPHER. But that's just one mans opinion.

 

[Solombas]

Yes, in certain arguments of philosophy they are still looked at because their arguments, despite ancient, are still cogent and sound even in today's world. For example, we still use Newton's laws of motion to build rockets even though they are hundreds of years old and probably would still use it in the far future.

Just because a scientific principle is old doesn't stop us from using it and so we don't discard ancient philosophical arguments if their logic is still sound by modern standards.

Philosophers are quite happy to pursue threads that are 2500 years old. Plato and Aristotle are looked at as 'philosophical colleagues', and are much cited in modern philosophy books.

 

[cosmogirl]

My cousin's husband has a PhD in philosophy. What he really wanted was to get a postdoc position or a lectureship, but in the mean time he's designing websites.
Seems like a risky choice, anyway. You might want to do a double major, just in case.

 

[DukeofDuke]

I dunno, it seems like a lot of philosophy is just about inventing an internally consistent system and then superimposing it on reality. The problem is, philosophers don't take note when reality bites back.

My university offered a course called History of Modern Philosophy, a pretty basic cruise starting with Descartes and continuing on. Descartes, Leibniz, Malebranche, Locke, Berkeley, Hume, Kant, they all come up with totally different worldviews and there's absolutely no way to disprove some of their internally consistent yet intuitively stupid ideas. Descartes will just tell you you're not clearly and distinctly perceiving things well enough. Malebranche will tell you that nothing can move on its own unless God runs around pushing everything because of some bogus ideas about "first cause" (and that's all it is, ideas and semantics), and Berkeley will tell you there's no world in the first place. Its all in your head, except its actually not your head because your head doesn't exist.

Sorry to be frank, but they all just invent some internally consistent ******** based on certain assumptions and nothing else, and for this reason only Hume managed not to make me angry while I was reading. Because Hume's position on extending past knowledge to the future is a lot like the scientific method...accumulating evidence, accumulating signs that nature approves of your ideas. Its that respect for nature, the real world, facts, etc that makes me like Hume, and its the lack of that respect which turns me off from philosophy.

 

[JCVD]

Dalton from Road House got his PhD in philosophy from NYU and went on to become the nation's top bouncer (technically, the top cooler). I recall he got $5000 up front and $500 per night plus medical expenses to clean up the Double Deuce, the rowdiest bar in Missouri. He applied his philosophy training to his job, making deep metaphysical observations such as "pain don't hurt."

 

[mal4mac]

Einstein was heavily influenced by the philosophers Mach and Kant.

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=M3ei3JGHxwAC&pg=PA52

 

[AUMathTutor]

@DukeofDuke:

But empiricism is just another philosophy. What makes that better than any others, aside from personal preference? Mathematics is not empirical. Would you argue that mathematics imposes systems on the real world and that it makes you angry?

I think that philosophy, as the term is used nowadays, is just mathematics and science extended to the non-mathematical and non-scientific aspects of our lives. But, in the broader sense, all of mathematics, science, and in general the human academic endeavour is just philosophy.

That being said, perhaps philosophy is not the most lucrative, practical, or otherwise respectable major because it lacks sufficient depth of focus. You could make a major called "science" in which the student studied chemistry, biology, physics, geology, astronomy, computer science, mathematics, psychology, etc. and that would essentially be just as worthless as a degree in philosophy. Why? Sure, you learned a lot... but you didn't learn much about any specific topic. And most jobs don't need you to be well-rounded, just good at what you do.

Jobs that might require general knowledge on a wide variety of topics? Teacher, author, etc. Same as for philosophy.

So I don't think there's anything wrong with studying philosophy, even in the modern sense. But I think that the major could be broken up, for instance...

Ethics (like a pre-law degree, etc.)
Logic (like a computer-science degree)
Philosophy of Science (like a physics, chemistry, or biology degree)
Philosophy of Mathematics (like a mathematics degree)
History of Philosophy (like a history degree)
Economical Philosophy (like a business degree)
etc.

There would be enough to say about each of these subjects to fill an undergraduate degree, and they could be accompanied by a selection of useful courses from other departments. For instance, the "Philosophy of Science with a concentration in Physics" could include courses in basic physics and mathematics, as well as courses in logic, computers, the ethics of science, the history of technology, etc. In fact, you could make them take enough applications courses and leave enough room for electives to allow, nay, encourage double-majoring in the corresponding discipline, say, Physics.

Double majoring, of course, would be an easier solution.

 

[DukeofDuke]

MathTutor, mathematics works. Its useful rarely do people claim that 2+2 does not make 4.

On the other hand, any man with 15 minutes, a pencil, and a spare notebook could construct his very own philosophical system and sit around pondering.You do raise a good point, that empiricism is also a philosophy. So yes, philosophy does have a valid affect on empiricism, but only at the epistemological level. And at that level, our grand philosophers still don't even know whether the material world exists or not. This is why I see philosophy as failing in the only realm its useful for. Once you get beyond epistemology, philosophy can't hold a candle to mathematics and physics.

 

[maverick_starstrider]

Yes, I always get a kick out of seeing modern philosophers STILL debating nature vs. nurture and you point out that statistically we are getting a beed on what contributes to what and that more and more our understanding of genetics is answering that question and it is in the science of genetics and psychology that we will find the answer. They will then say "shush, we're doing philosophy" and go back to debating tabula rasa, Locke, Hume and Descartes.

 

[maverick_starstrider]

Or yet another "philosopher" who can barely add much less understand physics weighing in on the ontological implecations of quantum mechanics. Anyone who looks at something like the Phaedo or the Meno as anything other then a historical document is just being silly IMHO.

 

[AUMathTutor]

There's a generally poor view of modern-day philosophy here. What about fields that are important but not necessarily open to scientific inquiry, say, ethics?

I wonder if the members at www.philosophyforum.com sit around and say that physicists are narrow-minded and silly, and that all modern physics is good for is finding the 12 decimal place in physical constants. Most likely, my gut says.

IMHO, it's better to have an appreciation for the positive aspects of a field of study, rather than harping on the uselessness, triviality, or pettiness of a discipline other than your own. It comes off as... I'm not sure how exactly to put it, but I guess "ignorant" comes close.

 

[DukeofDuke]

There's a generally poor view of modern-day philosophy here. What about fields that are important but not necessarily open to scientific inquiry, say, ethics?

I wonder if the members at www.philosophyforum.com sit around and say that physicists are narrow-minded and silly, and that all modern physics is good for is finding the 12 decimal place in physical constants. Most likely, my gut says.

IMHO, it's better to have an appreciation for the positive aspects of a field of study, rather than harping on the uselessness, triviality, or pettiness of a discipline other than your own. It comes off as... I'm not sure how exactly to put it, but I guess "ignorant" comes close.

First of all, what's wrong with finding the 12th decimal place of some fundamental number that ties the universe together?

Secondly, I do not think we should accord any respect to alchemy because it was once studied as closely as chemistry, and to astrology because of its one time rank above astronomy. Ignorance? Maybe so, but consider this. The field of philosophy fails to advance any "model" of existence, of the nature of the world. Instead it advances several hundred, and instead of narrowing down and approximating truth over time, they merely invent more and more systems. Unless there are actually an infinite number of true views on the universe, I don't believe they are doing us much good. In fact, the only narrowing down that ever happens usually comes about because of science...for example, it took an Einstein to kill off Newton's belief in absolute space. The philosophers themselves couldn't do that.

I am not discarding the entire field of study. You mention ethics, and I concede that on this topic philosophy is a valuable pursuit. But I really do object to philosophers who sit around and say "hmm, maybe this is the way it all works..." without doing a bit of math or learning a bit of physics. I think that approach is dead and gone, just like astrology, and needs to step out of the realm of physics. We still use Newton's Laws because they are extremely useful approximations of the truth. I can't say the same for Descartes' clear and distinct perceptions or malebranche's occasionalism or the billion other ways philosophers think it might work.

Oh, and one more thing. Philosophers need to actually understand even the tiniest bit of quantum mechanics before they mouth off about its implications. So much of that stuff comes so close to crackpottery for the masses.

 

[turbo]

DoD, You miss the entire thrust of Philosophy. The field is entirely about questioning, doubt, and re-examination of prior "givens". Einstein valued a respect for epistemology in his students, with good reason. Blind acceptance of prior work can stall scientific advances for decades (or even centuries).

 

[DukeofDuke]

turbo, you're probably right. In fact, I don't even know what we're really arguing about anymore. But I do think that coming up with a theoretical construct and then insisting its right, when you have many distinguished peers who are doing the same thing, well its not exactly productive. My experience with philosophy is still pretty limited, but the way we were presented with several different philosophical views that contained no real support except "this is how I think it is and its possible" doesn't really impress me.

 

[AUMathTutor]

"First of all, what's wrong with finding the 12th decimal place of some fundamental number that ties the universe together?"

Well, people who weren't interested in Physics would find it a worthless pursuit. In much the same way, people who aren't interested in philosophy find it a useless pursuit, and those who are not interested in mathematics find it a useless waste of time. Surely you've known people who don't invest the time in learning math and, when they are forced to use it and do poorly, they claim that math is useless.

I agree that we should not study alchemy or astrology. However, I think it's a questionable to equate modern philosophy with these practices. If philosophy fails to advance a single "model" of the world, it's only because the questions philosophy asks are inherently more difficult than the questions science tries to ask. This is not a shortcoming of science; it is a mere observation.

What do I mean by this? Well, philosophy - as an entity separate from science - may try to ask, for instance, what it means for something to exist, for instance. Clearly, science cannot address such things, because science presupposes existence in its formulation. However, philosophy can still attack the question through appeals to reason. For instance, Descartes. Others can come to other conclusions for several reasons: often, there are many sets of assumptions one can make, which individually are reasonable, but when compared, are wholly incompatible; there is not always a clear way of establishing a way to verify claims; etc.

Of course, any philosophical system that can be shown to be inconsistent is thrown out, and those systems which contradict experience are viewed warily. But I don't see how this is different from science or mathematics. For instance, the luminiferous aether, or the geocentric theory. These were shown to be inconsistent, and we have moved on. Russel's paradox was something that needed to be taken into account and resolved. Etc.

Furthermore, I would say that probably most philosophers don't occupy themselves with the abstract study of the "meaning of life" as you seem to suggest. Many have a fairly narrow focus, and as such make arguments much more restricted in scope. I believe this is in general a more fruitful area of study. Then again, searching for a "scientific basis of reality" or a "single mathematical truth from which all others spring" wouldn't be terribly good areas of study.

It sounds like you have a problem mostly with amateur philosophers, or bad philosophers. I can't imagine most philosophers are bad philosophers. I will say this, though... not all philosophical inquiries require an understanding of mathematics or physics. Just like when you sit down and do a calculation, you don't really need to ask yourself about the degree to which numbers correspond to the real world, or any other idea like that.

If you think ethics is alright, what other fields of philosophy are, in your opinion, valuable to society?

 

[AUMathTutor]

turbo, you're probably right. In fact, I don't even know what we're really arguing about anymore. But I do think that coming up with a theoretical construct and then insisting its right, when you have many distinguished peers who are doing the same thing, well its not exactly productive. My experience with philosophy is still pretty limited, but the way we were presented with several different philosophical views that contained no real support except "this is how I think it is and its possible" doesn't really impress me.

A philosopher may wonder, for instance, about whether they should try to impress students of philosophy with their work.

 

[turbo]

A philosopher may wonder, for instance, about whether they should try to impress students of philosophy with their work.

My mentor in philosophy was the head of the department in my college. He was a humble person, always willing to listen to the ideas of others. I have never met a less didactic teacher.

I had never taken a course in philosophy until I heard about his graduate-level course in meta-ethics. I asked him if I could audit the course, and he invited me to his office at lunch and gave me 15 minutes to plead my case. We talked for over 3 hours (until he had to teach a class), and he let me take the class for full credit. We became close friends and he even tried to play match-maker when I returned to school for a few more job-related courses and he had a pretty female protege that shared some of my interests.

Philosophy is not as remote and as divorced from reality as some might think. In the 10x and 20x courses you might be expected to do a lot of reading and regurgitating of the fundamentals, but higher-level courses can be stimulating. I definitely enjoyed my experiences in that department. After Dr. Skorpen accepted me to his graduate-level seminar, I never had to take any pre-req courses in that field, and got to cherry-pick the courses that I wanted. Suddenly, I had a double-major, with the Ph major featuring only advanced courses.