I studied a philosophy module during my undergraduate in the UK. I noticed that the course was structured very carefully so that in the exam there were two ways of succeeding. (1) Having a very good memory of who had said what, and the ability to write something “English-literature-y” about what they had said. Here I noticed a strong taste for worrying about how stylishly things were said. (2) Doing something more on the logic side of things—this felt much more natural and more precise (less wooly) to me. Now, I have been told that in most mainland European coutnires option (2) is less emphasised and its more squarely of an essay-based humanity.
There is nothing wrong with thing (1) existing. I prefer thing (2), and clearly so do you. But I think maybe making the argument “we should drive out (1) to make more space for (2)” is wrong, and a better line is “they should be seperate courses”. (Perhaps with the names “Ancient Thought” and “Modern Philosophy”.)
I am surprised by how much science you bring up. I would assume that scientific advancement will only tangentially change most philosophy. Yes, we no longer think there are only 4 elements (fire, earth etc), but in a modern clasification that would be labelled a scientific theroy (an incorrect one, but still a scientific one).
I studied a philosophy module during my undergraduate in the UK. I noticed that the course was structured very carefully so that in the exam there were two ways of succeeding. (1) Having a very good memory of who had said what, and the ability to write something “English-literature-y” about what they had said. Here I noticed a strong taste for worrying about how stylishly things were said. (2) Doing something more on the logic side of things—this felt much more natural and more precise (less wooly) to me. Now, I have been told that in most mainland European coutnires option (2) is less emphasised and its more squarely of an essay-based humanity.
There is nothing wrong with thing (1) existing. I prefer thing (2), and clearly so do you. But I think maybe making the argument “we should drive out (1) to make more space for (2)” is wrong, and a better line is “they should be seperate courses”. (Perhaps with the names “Ancient Thought” and “Modern Philosophy”.)
I am surprised by how much science you bring up. I would assume that scientific advancement will only tangentially change most philosophy. Yes, we no longer think there are only 4 elements (fire, earth etc), but in a modern clasification that would be labelled a scientific theroy (an incorrect one, but still a scientific one).