Yes, I think it’s possible to be good and learned in philosophy. “Learned” (LURN-EDD) presumably means something like “Knows about lots of philosophers and their arguments.” “Good” presumably means something like “consistently gets correct or improved answers on tough philosophical problems.” Being a good philosopher is more important than be a learned philosopher, but most universities focus on producing philosophers that are learned but not good.
Note also that being learned is sufficient for appearing good to most people, but not for actually making improved decisions except in a few edge cases. Overall, being good is less impressive but more effective. The obvious implication is that most philosophy education is signalling.
That may well be true, but it’s worth pointing out that your conclusion isn’t actually implied by your premises. If you want to say that your conclusion is evidenced by your premises, we should go about trying to figure out first if Luke is right about academic philosophy, and if you’re right about the high-status of learning over quality. These claims are, again, plausible, but at the moment pretty much conjectures.
I’m implicitly agreeing with luke’s post (thanks to my own experiences with academic philosophy) and taking parts of it as premises. A pseudo-formalized version of the claim in my post might go something like:
(me) Being learned is sufficient for appearing good but not for making better decisions
(lukeprog) Being good improves your decision-making/ability to resolve philosophical issues
(lukeprog) Most universities focus on producing philosophers that are learned but not good
(general definition) Something “is signalling” (is primarily for signalling) when it is oriented towards improving appearances rather than actual abilities/quantities.
(from 3, implied step) Most philosophy programs focus on producing people who appear good rather than who are good.
(from 1, 4, 5) Most philosophy programs are signalling
I upvoted you, since I didn’t really think it was an unwarranted remark, but I suspect that others thought that your criticism was low-level, seeing the fact that I was basing some of what I said on Luke’s post to be obvious. Also, keep in mind that I don’t actually need to prove those premises to show that my conclusion follows from them or is implied by them; an argument can be valid without having true premises.
Also, keep in mind that I don’t actually need to prove those premises to show that my conclusion follows from them or is implied by them; an argument can be valid without having true premises.
RIght, but my point was that your conclusion doesn’t follow from your premises (though it is evidenced by them). The reason is that 5 does not follow from 1, 2, and 3, and so the argument is invalid. It could be, for instance, that philosophy programs focus on producing learned rather than good philosophers because they are incapable of producing good philosophers over and above learned ones (suppose we grant my premise that there is no such thing as a good philosopher, for example).
I’m not actually contesting the truth of your premises or your conclusion.
I guess I’m torn between, on the one hand, the impression that you’re exactly right and that I find myself saying “this is good/bad” about works of philosophy and philosophers all the time. On the other hand, Socrates knew basically nothing by modern standards, provided no real answers to any tough questions, and argued terribly. He himself said that there was no method, no body of knowledge, and no possible skill in philosophy. And yet one would be hard pressed to argue that there has been a greater or more important philosopher in our history.
If you have any way to reconcile these, or refute one or the other opinion, I would be most appreciative. It seems to me that a condition on the truth of your recent posts is that there is something like being good at philosophy, so I wonder if you see Socrates as a challenge to that.
Yes, I think it’s possible to be good and learned in philosophy. “Learned” (LURN-EDD) presumably means something like “Knows about lots of philosophers and their arguments.” “Good” presumably means something like “consistently gets correct or improved answers on tough philosophical problems.” Being a good philosopher is more important than be a learned philosopher, but most universities focus on producing philosophers that are learned but not good.
Note also that being learned is sufficient for appearing good to most people, but not for actually making improved decisions except in a few edge cases. Overall, being good is less impressive but more effective. The obvious implication is that most philosophy education is signalling.
That may well be true, but it’s worth pointing out that your conclusion isn’t actually implied by your premises. If you want to say that your conclusion is evidenced by your premises, we should go about trying to figure out first if Luke is right about academic philosophy, and if you’re right about the high-status of learning over quality. These claims are, again, plausible, but at the moment pretty much conjectures.
Hmm, I’m getting some downvotes here and I’m having a hard time interpreting them. Is what I’ve said false about the logic of katydee’s claim?
I’m implicitly agreeing with luke’s post (thanks to my own experiences with academic philosophy) and taking parts of it as premises. A pseudo-formalized version of the claim in my post might go something like:
(me) Being learned is sufficient for appearing good but not for making better decisions
(lukeprog) Being good improves your decision-making/ability to resolve philosophical issues
(lukeprog) Most universities focus on producing philosophers that are learned but not good
(general definition) Something “is signalling” (is primarily for signalling) when it is oriented towards improving appearances rather than actual abilities/quantities.
(from 3, implied step) Most philosophy programs focus on producing people who appear good rather than who are good.
(from 1, 4, 5) Most philosophy programs are signalling
I upvoted you, since I didn’t really think it was an unwarranted remark, but I suspect that others thought that your criticism was low-level, seeing the fact that I was basing some of what I said on Luke’s post to be obvious. Also, keep in mind that I don’t actually need to prove those premises to show that my conclusion follows from them or is implied by them; an argument can be valid without having true premises.
RIght, but my point was that your conclusion doesn’t follow from your premises (though it is evidenced by them). The reason is that 5 does not follow from 1, 2, and 3, and so the argument is invalid. It could be, for instance, that philosophy programs focus on producing learned rather than good philosophers because they are incapable of producing good philosophers over and above learned ones (suppose we grant my premise that there is no such thing as a good philosopher, for example).
I’m not actually contesting the truth of your premises or your conclusion.
I guess I’m torn between, on the one hand, the impression that you’re exactly right and that I find myself saying “this is good/bad” about works of philosophy and philosophers all the time. On the other hand, Socrates knew basically nothing by modern standards, provided no real answers to any tough questions, and argued terribly. He himself said that there was no method, no body of knowledge, and no possible skill in philosophy. And yet one would be hard pressed to argue that there has been a greater or more important philosopher in our history.
If you have any way to reconcile these, or refute one or the other opinion, I would be most appreciative. It seems to me that a condition on the truth of your recent posts is that there is something like being good at philosophy, so I wonder if you see Socrates as a challenge to that.