Philosopher-Pundits of the World Unite

It's quite true that would Eli Lake says here is nonsense. That said, BarbinMD at DailyKos takes things too far when she writes: "By the way, did I mention that Lake majored in philosophy in college? Currently writing for the New York Sun, he apparently couldn't find a job in his chosen field."

I majored in philosophy, damnit (so did Spencer Ackerman and Julian Sanchez), and it's a perfectly good thing for journalists to study. In some ways, I think it's actually the best thing to study. The job, by its nature, involves trying to quickly learn and write a lot about a wide range of subjects. Under the circumstances, spending your student years trying to master a skill-set that's completely divorced from knowledge of particular facts is pretty useful. If you're good at spotting flaws in the arguments constructed by others irrespective of what the topic is, you'll never lack for things to write about.

Comments

While I do agree, I can't help but remember the advertisement for Airco Technical School of Philosophy - "Yes, you too can earn as much as some poets!"

Posted by Njorl | June 8, 2007 1:34 PM

"...spending your student years trying to master a skill-set that's completely divorced from knowledge of particular facts is pretty useful..."

Yep. But I still think that theoretical physics is even a whole lot better...

Posted by RKU | June 8, 2007 1:38 PM

I didn't understand at all what Barb meant by that. Of all the things you could say about this loon, she's mocking him for not being employable as a philosopher? What the heck?

Posted by Steve | June 8, 2007 1:44 PM

And besides, majoring in philosophy is quite different from doing a Ph.D. in philosophy, which was Lake's ridiculous generalization about bloggers. So BarbinMD is just talking past him. He was saying bloggers are failed academics, not failed college graduates.

Posted by Ryan | June 8, 2007 1:45 PM

I would put in a plug for a creative writing major as a great preparation for real life. Without it, I'd never be able to do my timesheets.

Posted by Tom Hilton | June 8, 2007 1:54 PM

I thought Philosophy was just pre-Law.

Posted by blah | June 8, 2007 1:55 PM

Good lord, didn't anyone read what Lake said?

I bet at least half of the netleft are failed professors, over-educated literary theory PHDs, who make themselves appear more numerous than they arethrough their anonymity and deliberate manipulation of google.

Okay?

There, he (Lake) starts off mocking the "netleft" as "failed professors" who are "over-educted literary theory PHDs".

Okay? He (Lake) mocked other imaginary people for what TYPE of degree they had, and their FAILED status as academics.

So BarbINMD simply turned his own logic back on him. You know, using his own logic against him.

Right? Lake evaluates unknown anonymous others (part of a "netleft" who have, for the main, been right about EVERYTHING for 6 years, whereas the entire mainstream has been right about NOTHING) for what TYPE of degree.

And then he judges these imaginary (but largely correct) types as FAILURES.

So BarbINMD shows what TYPE of degree Lake has, and mocks it. Not because BarbINMD likely cares, but just says about Lake what Lake said about others.

Okay?

Then, having judged other imaginary academics (who have mostly been correct) as FAILURES, BarbINMD shows how his own academic career seems an academic FAILURE. I.e., Lake has gone no where ACADEMICALLY, so it's fair to turn his own logic against him.

Okay?

It was simply revealing how stupid Lake's points about imaginary netleft bloggers were by showing what they would work like if applied to he, Lake, himself.

Posted by El Cid | June 8, 2007 1:57 PM

FWIW, I thought BarbinMD was complaining that here's a guy saying *bloggers* are frustrated in their professional pursuits, and *he*'s a philosophy major who isn't taking *that* demonstrably further in a professional direction (sure, writing isn't unrelated to larger philosophical issues, and not to repeat the jokes/canards with which I'm sure anyone interested in/experienced in/degreed in philosophy would prefer not to hear yet again), but for a *philosophy* major to complain about anyone else having trouble finding an outlet in their chosen field might strike some people as, well, rich.

Posted by Chris | June 8, 2007 2:01 PM

It was simply revealing how stupid Lake's points about imaginary netleft bloggers were by showing what they would work like if applied to he, Lake, himself.

But that was like the 12th most ridiculous thing about Lake's statement. I get what you're saying, but it was a very weak jibe compared to all the other things she could have said.

Posted by Steve | June 8, 2007 2:03 PM

No offense, Matt, but your education in philosophy seems to have educated your ability to grasp some fine points of argument but miss at least one massively obvious moral imperative--i.e. on the Iraq War. This always seemed to me ironic, and a comment on the state of philosophy as a discipline.

Posted by mcg | June 8, 2007 2:06 PM

By the way, does anybody know how I can make myself appear more numerous by manipulating Google? It's kind of a time sensitive request, thanks.

Posted by blah | June 8, 2007 2:08 PM

Dole Office Clerk: Occupation?
Comicus: Stand up philosopher.
Dole Office Clerk: What?
Comicus: Stand up philosopher. I coalesce the vapors of human existence into a viable and meaningful comprehension.
Dole Office Clerk: Oh, a BULLSHIT artist!

Posted by sean | June 8, 2007 2:23 PM

Thanks for your services to the profession!

Posted by Neil the Ethical Werewolf | June 8, 2007 2:26 PM

If he had done grad work in philosophy the criticism would be appropriate (the only career path for philosophy grad work is into academia).

the undergrad degree is simply a gateway degree into numerous professions and professional degrees. that's why it's flawed. no one gets an undergrad degree in philosophy to become a philosopher. (indeed, virtually any grad program in philosophy will accept someone who majored in something other than philosophy)

Posted by Nathan | June 8, 2007 2:38 PM

If Mat's hypothesis on philosphy majors was true, mathematicians would make the best engineers. They don't.

Posted by gregor | June 8, 2007 2:38 PM

El Cid has got it exactly right.

Matt is being defensive.

Posted by Pat | June 8, 2007 2:42 PM

My first undergraduate course was an intro to Philosophy, and because they were trying to avoid people dropping the class because they were still deciding between electives (apparently a third of the registered class at the beginning of each semester drops Philosophy by the end of the first week), we were given a bunch of "Reasons-to-take-Philosophy" handouts. One of them was a study of students who move from one undergraduate degree to a different graduate (or undergraduate) degree, and measured their success rate in their second degree relative to their initial degree, thus attempting to measure what degrees best prepare you for a more general background for entrance in any other area. And the two best fields by quite a wide margin were philosophy and mathematics.

I was always curious if this said more about the ability of P&M to prepare students for approaching knowledge more generally, or if P&M simply lacked the ability to keep their brighter students in their original area, since statistically the outcomes in both cases would resemble each other. And it did build the (vastly oversimplifed) theory in my brain that all of science is applied mathematics and all of the humanities is applied philosophy (and logic). Which at the very least is consistent with MY's original point.

Posted by msmackle | June 8, 2007 2:52 PM

El Cid: "Right? Lake evaluates unknown anonymous others (part of a "netleft" who have, for the main, been right about EVERYTHING for 6 years, whereas the entire mainstream has been right about NOTHING) for what TYPE of degree."

Remember, Matt said that his degree had nothing to do with facts.

Gregor:
"If Mat's hypothesis on philosphy majors was true, mathematicians would make the best engineers. They don't."

Not technically true, but a sweet comment nonetheless.

Matt's comment opens up a line of criticism on the mass media - they don't seem to care about facts, except when they're scared of them.

Posted by Barry | June 8, 2007 3:07 PM

I majored in philosophy, damnit (so did Spencer Ackerman and Julian Sanchez), and it's a perfectly good thing for journalists to study. In some ways, I think it's actually the best thing to study. The job, by its nature, involves trying to quickly learn and write a lot about a wide range of subjects.

Well, kinda, but I still agree with Ezra (or whoever it was) who argues that the "best" way to make a journalist is to have them major in some specific field like economics or political science or even biology, depending on what kind of journalism they're interested in, and spend less time on the writing side of things. I'll grant that a philosophy major might stop being clueless about each of half a dozen subjects slightly more quickly than an average person. Sure, why not? But it would still be preferable to start out skilled in one or two subjects.

If you're good at spotting flaws in the arguments constructed by others irrespective of what the topic is, you'll never lack for things to write about.

This makes it sound like the problem with dumb or disingenuous arguments in political or other newsmaking contexts is logical invalidity. That's not the problem at all. We don't mock and revile Tony Snow because he says "Everyone in Guantanamo Bay is a terrorist. Therefore, all terrorists are already in Guantanamo Bay," We complain about him because he says "Everyone in Guantanamo Bay is a terrorist." And I think errors of fact are much more likely to be caught by specialists, even though that particular one isn't a great example.

Posted by Cyrus | June 8, 2007 3:20 PM

Well, here's a totally unexpected opportunity for a little blog-whoring. For a whiny, self-absorbed take on some philosophy grad students trying not to make their PhDs into overly-long pre-law programs, read this:

http://philosophyjobmarket.blogspot.com

Posted by PGS | June 8, 2007 3:30 PM

...This always seemed to me ironic, and a comment on the state of philosophy as a discipline.

Hilzoy.

Posted by emmanuelgoldstein | June 8, 2007 3:33 PM

One of them was a study of students who move from one undergraduate degree to a different graduate (or undergraduate) degree, and measured their success rate in their second degree relative to their initial degree, thus attempting to measure what degrees best prepare you for a more general background for entrance in any other area. And the two best fields by quite a wide margin were philosophy and mathematics.

Sure. They know they had damn well better succeed in their second degrees, because they certainly won't be getting jobs with their firsts.

Posted by Andrew Myers | June 8, 2007 3:48 PM

All kidding aside, Philosophy was great fun in my undergraduate engineering education. The Indian philosophy class was way our heads, but in the second semeter the prettiest woman on campus with black bra taught us Hume and Locke and Mill and Russell. And not to mention the course in Symbolic Logic.

I was surprised to see on coming to this country that most engineering majors did not have any interest in philosophy.

Posted by gregor | June 8, 2007 4:01 PM

there are lots of good journalists, lawyers, and engineers out there who took b.a.s in philosophy.

what matt needs to show, though, is that they are smart cause they took philosophy, rather than taking philosophy cause they're smart.

i mean--it's the great harvard question: is it really adding value, or does it just act as a collecting pool for people who would have succeeded anyhow?

really smart people are naturally attracted to philosophy, and always will be.

i'm with plato on this one--make the bastards do real jobs, and put them in service to the state. then let them do a bit of philosophy every now and then on their vacations. sure, they'll whine, as plato says they will. but we can't afford to have the smart people doing irrelevant crap like philosophy.

so ezra's plan is the one that plato would support.

Posted by Count Cant | June 8, 2007 4:14 PM

whoops--sorry, that isn't ezra's advice at all.

well, it should have been.

Posted by Count Cant | June 8, 2007 4:22 PM

"I bet at least half of the netleft are failed professors, over-educated literary theory PHDs, who make themselves appear more numerous than they are through their anonymity and deliberate manipulation of google."

I wonder if it's ever occured to neocons like Lake that al Qaeda is just a few hundred militants who who make themselves appear more numerous than they are through their anonymity and deliberate manipulation of neocon hysteria.

Posted by Frank Bruno | June 8, 2007 4:27 PM

Re Matthew's "Under the circumstances, spending your student years trying to master a skill-set that's completely divorced from knowledge of particular facts is pretty useful"
-------
Er..no. By definition, such a program leaves you as ignorant as a newborne babe.

If you are ignorant of science and engineering, then you have no basis to cry "bullshit" when Fox News (or Kenneth Pollack) assures you that Saddam Hussein is developing photon bombs that will destroy half of the continental United States and that he intends to deliver them via anti-gravity saucers.

If you are ignorant of history, then you have no basis to cry bullshit when George Bush assures you that scraping the Bill of Rights will protect our freedom.

Posted by Don Williams | June 8, 2007 4:54 PM

If you are ignorant of science and engineering, then you have no basis to cry "bullshit" when Fox News (or Kenneth Pollack) assures you that Saddam Hussein is developing photon bombs that will destroy half of the continental United States and that he intends to deliver them via anti-gravity saucers.

If you are ignorant of history, then you have no basis to cry bullshit when George Bush assures you that scraping the Bill of Rights will protect our freedom.

Hence the "liberal arts education". If you were well educated (and many many people weren't, of course, and that's a severe problem in this country, and I'm not talking about college level stuff but what you should know on leaving high school) then you'd have the relevant information in both your example paragraphs, in enough quantity at least to be skeptical. Very few people are going to (be able to) major in both chemistry and history in their four years of college, so either you're suggesting a pundit class that's as specified as the medical field - "I know NOTHING about economics, so I'm just gonna link to Dave! Oh, wait, Dave knows NOTHING about economics as it affects international trade, so kick it over to Jim!" - or your hypothetical doesn't really hold water.

In the absence of some particularly relevant field of study (economics, sciences, etc.) then I think philosophy is as good or better than the other apparently irrelevant alternatives (English Lit, Film, PhysEd). (I was a philosophy major undergrad, but I came close to doubling in English.)

Posted by Quarterican | June 8, 2007 5:29 PM

"the only career path for philosophy grad work is into academia"

Not exactly. Norway, for example, hired a philosophy Ph.D. to evaluate the ethical impact of various investments in Norway's huge oil-funded investment trust.

It certainly wouldn't hurt to hire some science and engineering grads as journalists though, particularly when most liberal arts grads feel confident pontificating about subjects like global warming.

Posted by Fred | June 8, 2007 5:59 PM

Philosophy is my only true love. But a career in American philosophy would be awful; since its only point is to irritate real philosophers.

Posted by Gary Sugar | June 8, 2007 6:00 PM

I'm so glad I'm an beta. Those alphas think they're the best, but I can't imagine how beastly it must be to be an alpha.

rofl.

Seriously though: philosophy should not be available as an undergraduate major. Philosophy undergrads are, of necessity, simply lied to about what this-or-that philosopher thought. This is for three primary reasons (a) undergrads aren't, on average, smart enough to get it, (b) there isn't enough time to cover it correctly, and (c) undergrads don't know anything in the first place.

Philosophy should be available on as a graduate degree, to those who have an undergrad's-worth of knowledge in a real subject (math, history, physics, literature, etc.)

Posted by sherifffruitfly | June 8, 2007 6:15 PM

As the old saying goes:

"you can judge a society by the way it treats its philosophers"

personally, I always wanted to be a philosopher in France !

Posted by novakant | June 8, 2007 6:20 PM

You lame ass douche bags.
BarbMD is mocking a philosophy major for bagging on PhDs, which at one point literally meant philosophy teacher.

Posted by Summa | June 8, 2007 6:39 PM

Matt, that wasn't meant to belittle philosophy majors, it was poking fun at Lake, who said:

"I bet at least half of the netleft are failed professors, over-educated literary theory PHDs..."

Posted by BarbinMD | June 8, 2007 6:39 PM

Re "Very few people are going to (be able to) major in both chemistry and history in their four years of college"
-------
And very few need to. You do not need to major in a field to know the major findings of that field --one or two courses should be enough. Plus know who/where to look for more detailed info if you ever need it and how to evaluate that info.

It's is astonishing that we spend $1 Trillion+/year on education and graduate some of the most ignorant people on the planet. Most of our college graduates would fail an exam that questioned them on the most basic , IMPORTANT facts of our world: what are the major forms of power, who has it, what are their goals/strategies, what changes will they bring about and how will it affect us for good or evil.

What are the major military powers of the world? What are their relative rankings in land, naval, air and nuclear forces. What are the existing and emerging threats to the USA?

What are the major economic powers of the world? What is the composition of their economies? What are the changes? What are the essential natural resources and who has them?

Who are the major billionaires of the USA and the world? Which politicians do they own?

What are the emerging innovations in technology and how will they affect us?

What major factors determine the competiveness of a corporation?

Although I suppose that conning a kid into spending 4 years of his life --and $200,000 -- on a program of study that leaves him deeply ignorant is an education of a sort.

It's no accident that many of our superrich,self-made billionaries are those who were smart enough to drop out of college. Bill Gates left Harvard in his first year.

Posted by Don Williams | June 8, 2007 7:27 PM

"It's no accident that many of our superrich,self-made billionaries are those who were smart enough to drop out of college. Bill Gates left Harvard in his first year."

Imagine where Google would be today if Sergey Brin and Larry Page had been smart enough to drop out as undergrads, instead of dropping out of the Ph.D. program at Stanford.

Posted by Fred | June 8, 2007 7:46 PM

Wow, I never realized how deeply ignorant I was. Relative ranking of naval forces, competitiveness of corporations. . . Thank goodness I only paid for my first four years of college.

On the other hand, I suppose someone has to be able to design stuff like computer software and such.

Posted by RSA | June 8, 2007 10:05 PM

FWIW, which isn't much, I too was a philosophy major undergrad...

Posted by Eric Martin | June 8, 2007 10:15 PM

You do not need to major in a field to know the major findings of that field --one or two courses should be enough.

Which is why I said "liberal arts education". I majored in philosophy, but philosophy represented about 25% of my total course load; I presume Matt had a somewhat similar experience - perhaps more like 50/50, but certainly not overwhelmingly weighted to philosophy classes. You're forced into electives, which is how I ended up taking courses in neurology and sustainable development. What you major in, for most people, isn't the totality of your courses; you still wind up picking up other information - even more so if, as I did, you go to a school with a strong core requirement. That I took thirteen or so philosophy courses and came away unequipped to do anything other than think more precisely than I could before isn't a societal problem, it was a personal choice; that a person could graduate *high school*, let alone college, ignorant of basic scientific and historical concepts, is the problem.

Posted by Quarterican | June 8, 2007 10:21 PM

I'm really glad you posted this right when I was all ready to go to college in a couple months and major in Politics. Good timing there.

Posted by Ned | June 8, 2007 10:49 PM

"If you're good at spotting flaws in the arguments constructed by others irrespective of what the topic is, you'll never lack for things to write about."

I liked philosophy but learned more about spotting flaws in argument in the abstract doing this for 7 years:

http://debatevideos.blogspot.com/

And you will master a range of policy literatures while youre at it. Plus learn more than you can ever forget about the financial interests that produce that literature...

Of course, you can always do both.

Posted by RW | June 8, 2007 11:04 PM

Re "that a person could graduate *high school*, let alone college, ignorant of basic scientific and historical concepts, is the problem."
=======
Concur. Almost everyone has to specialize into a career interest to earn a living , but I think citizens of a republic need a broad understanding of important matters outside their field as well.

This is not a moralistic ideal but a practical matter. If the vast majority of citizens are easily conned due to a lack of knowledge, then they will be treated like a herd of sheep. They will elect a government which drags everyone over the cliff.

The fact that Fox News --and the New York Times --are profitable enterprises shows how bad the situation is.

Posted by Don Williams | June 8, 2007 11:28 PM

Dear Matt:

Well said. I quite agree.

Of course, eventually, it would help to learn facts, but being good at logic puts you ahead of 99% of the competition already.

Posted by Steve Sailer | June 9, 2007 12:58 AM

Huzzah for the "flaws in arguments" part; whiskey, tango, foxtrot question mark for the "divorced from knowledge of particular facts" part.

Posted by jcasey | June 9, 2007 8:08 AM

No offense, Matt, but your education in philosophy seems to have educated your ability to grasp some fine points of argument but miss at least one massively obvious moral imperative--i.e. on the Iraq War. This always seemed to me ironic, and a comment on the state of philosophy as a discipline.

You take Matt Yglesias to be a suitable indicator of the state of philosophy? How strange.

For the record, many members (grad students and faculty) of the philosophy department here at U. Pittsburgh opposed the war from the beginning, and there was a large philosopher contingent in every Pittsburgh anti-war activity.

Also, philolsophers

Posted by Greg | June 9, 2007 1:17 PM