I rarely received much in the way of substantive feedback when I was in a philosophy graduate program. This isn’t a critique of professors; they have so many things to do that going through a paper line-by-line to offer feedback is incredibly time consuming. So it’s hard to achieve much of it, in practice, in graduate programs.
There are also norms of politeness that can impede criticism. I’ve been to far too many talks where the audience goes easier on the audience than they would if they really wanted to help the person improve. Then you get echo chambers. If a bunch of people are moral realists or think the only solutions to the hard problem are anti-physicalist or whatever, the only pushback a person presenting is likely to receive is internalistic—that is, it comes from people who share background assumptions that should themselves be consistently challenged.
Overall, I think the institutions we have in place don’t do a good job of providing enough critical feedback if one is studying and presenting on philosophy.
I remember Pirsig from Zen and the Art of Motorcycle maintainance arguing that the way you actually create an enviroment where a lot of feedback happens would be to create a lot of peer feedback. The act of giving feedback and then talking with the original author is also a high feedback activity.
Pirsig also writes that philosophy is not actually taught at universities. Instead, philosophy departments teach “philosophology”, the study of what other philosophers have written.
But his book was nearly fifty years ago. Is that still the state of things?
Pirsig draws a contrast with music students, whose studies consist primarily of developing their skill at their instrument, not musicology, whereas philosophy students never do philosophy at all, only philosophology. This is why a Ph.D. thesis in philosophy typically consists of an exhaustive scholarly history of everything of consequence that has previously been written on its topic, with a single chapter late on setting out the author’s modest contribution, and a few concluding chapters relating it to the history. In science subjects, the thesis sets out primarily what its author has done, and the exhaustive history is replaced by a literature survey of no more than a chapter.
A colleague once showed me a newly completed Ph.D. thesis he had received from its author, which he found rather odd. I looked through it and laughed, because it took exactly the form I recognised from Pirsig. So I don’t think he was caricaturing.
But his book was nearly fifty years ago. Is that still the state of things?
I was in a terminal MA program, and that was very much the case. Entire courses were taught on the works of specific people, e.g. “David Lewis,” and much of the focus was on exegesis of written works, ranging from the Greeks to the mid 20th century. There were certainly exceptions to this, but philosophology was very much alive and well where I was. I don’t know how it is for PhD programs, and I’d bet it varies considerably.
There’s a recent trend towards formal methods, and you’ve had some movements like experimental philosophy that have also deviated from these trends. I myself went into a psychology PhD program since I thought there’d be more tolerance for my empirical approach to philosophy there (I was correct), and because philosophology isn’t my thing. I’ve noticed that almost all of the papers and work I deal with in philosophy was published in the last 30 years or so, with an emphasis on the past 15 years or so. But I’m an advocate of “exophilosophy”: doing philosophy outside the formal academic setting of philosophy departments, so I have limited insight into the state of philosophy PhD programs proper.
Pirsig’s remarks seem a bit pessimistic. I’ve seen plenty of dissertations or articles generated from philosophical work that are very argument-centric. I don’t know what an exhaustive search of the literature would reveal, but people can and do succeed at focusing on doing philosophy and presenting arguments; there isn’t some universal demand that everyone focus mostly on history. I’d like to hear from some people with more direct experience in these programs, though.
This is why a Ph.D. thesis in philosophy typically consists of an exhaustive scholarly history of everything of consequence that has previously been written on its topic, with a single chapter late on setting out the author’s modest contribution
That’s a good thing. The closest approximation to philosophical truth we have is the ability to answer all currently known objections.
Pirsig draws a contrast with music students, whose studies consist primarily of developing their skill at their instrument, not musicology, whereas philosophy students never do philosophy at all, only philosophology.
The contrast with music seems misleading. Almost any other field is full of studying the past! You don’t primarily “learn physics” by going and doing experiments; you mainly learn it by studying what others have already done.
It is common for phd theses to have a very large literature review. How over-the-top is philosophy in this, really? I would guess that many “humanities” areas are similarly heavier on the lit review. (Although, you could plausibly accuse those areas of the same dysfunction you see in philosophy.)
Very little about the courses I took in philosophy were directly about how to think better. They were much more focused on understanding what some thinker said for the sake of doing so. If the purpose of these courses were to improve critical thinking, I don’t think I benefited much from it, and it’s a strange and roundabout way to pursue the goal. Plus, they almost never collect any actual data on whether these methods work.
My dissertation is in psychology (though it is heavily focused on philosophy as well), so I’m not really sure myself how much is focused on a literature review. Mine is almost entire critical discussion of studies, and is only concerned with studies that go back to 2003, with the bulk focused on 2008 onwards. I’m literally responding to current papers as they come out. So, it’s very recent stuff. I’d be surprised if this weren’t often the case for philosophers as well.
For instance, suppose you were writing in metaethics. You could easily write a dissertation on contemporary issues, such as evolutionary debunking arguments, companions in guilt arguments, phenomenal conservatism, moral progress, or any number of topics, and the bulk of your discussion could focus on papers written in the past 5 years. So, it’s simply not the case that one’s approach to philosophy is that contingent on the past, or an extreme focus on literature reviews.
I went to a relatively backwater undergrad, and personally, I thought the philosophy profs had a big emphasis on thinking clearly. My Epistemology class was reading a bunch of articles (ie the textbook did nothing to summarize results, only presenting the original texts); but, class was all about dissecting the arguments, not regurgitating facts (and only a little about history-of-philosophy-for-history’s-sake).
Side note, the profs I talked to also thought philosophy was pretty useless as a subject (like objectively speaking society should not be paying to support their existence). I think they thought the main saving grace was that it could be used to teach critical thinking skills.
Possibly, this is just very different from grad programs in philosophy.
Plus, they almost never collect any actual data on whether these methods work.
Well, yeah.
So, it’s simply not the case that one’s approach to philosophy is that contingent on the past, or an extreme focus on literature reviews.
I rarely received much in the way of substantive feedback when I was in a philosophy graduate program. This isn’t a critique of professors; they have so many things to do that going through a paper line-by-line to offer feedback is incredibly time consuming. So it’s hard to achieve much of it, in practice, in graduate programs.
There are also norms of politeness that can impede criticism. I’ve been to far too many talks where the audience goes easier on the audience than they would if they really wanted to help the person improve. Then you get echo chambers. If a bunch of people are moral realists or think the only solutions to the hard problem are anti-physicalist or whatever, the only pushback a person presenting is likely to receive is internalistic—that is, it comes from people who share background assumptions that should themselves be consistently challenged.
Overall, I think the institutions we have in place don’t do a good job of providing enough critical feedback if one is studying and presenting on philosophy.
I remember Pirsig from Zen and the Art of Motorcycle maintainance arguing that the way you actually create an enviroment where a lot of feedback happens would be to create a lot of peer feedback. The act of giving feedback and then talking with the original author is also a high feedback activity.
Pirsig also writes that philosophy is not actually taught at universities. Instead, philosophy departments teach “philosophology”, the study of what other philosophers have written.
But his book was nearly fifty years ago. Is that still the state of things?
Pirsig draws a contrast with music students, whose studies consist primarily of developing their skill at their instrument, not musicology, whereas philosophy students never do philosophy at all, only philosophology. This is why a Ph.D. thesis in philosophy typically consists of an exhaustive scholarly history of everything of consequence that has previously been written on its topic, with a single chapter late on setting out the author’s modest contribution, and a few concluding chapters relating it to the history. In science subjects, the thesis sets out primarily what its author has done, and the exhaustive history is replaced by a literature survey of no more than a chapter.
A colleague once showed me a newly completed Ph.D. thesis he had received from its author, which he found rather odd. I looked through it and laughed, because it took exactly the form I recognised from Pirsig. So I don’t think he was caricaturing.
I was in a terminal MA program, and that was very much the case. Entire courses were taught on the works of specific people, e.g. “David Lewis,” and much of the focus was on exegesis of written works, ranging from the Greeks to the mid 20th century. There were certainly exceptions to this, but philosophology was very much alive and well where I was. I don’t know how it is for PhD programs, and I’d bet it varies considerably.
There’s a recent trend towards formal methods, and you’ve had some movements like experimental philosophy that have also deviated from these trends. I myself went into a psychology PhD program since I thought there’d be more tolerance for my empirical approach to philosophy there (I was correct), and because philosophology isn’t my thing. I’ve noticed that almost all of the papers and work I deal with in philosophy was published in the last 30 years or so, with an emphasis on the past 15 years or so. But I’m an advocate of “exophilosophy”: doing philosophy outside the formal academic setting of philosophy departments, so I have limited insight into the state of philosophy PhD programs proper.
Pirsig’s remarks seem a bit pessimistic. I’ve seen plenty of dissertations or articles generated from philosophical work that are very argument-centric. I don’t know what an exhaustive search of the literature would reveal, but people can and do succeed at focusing on doing philosophy and presenting arguments; there isn’t some universal demand that everyone focus mostly on history. I’d like to hear from some people with more direct experience in these programs, though.
That’s a good thing. The closest approximation to philosophical truth we have is the ability to answer all currently known objections.
The contrast with music seems misleading. Almost any other field is full of studying the past! You don’t primarily “learn physics” by going and doing experiments; you mainly learn it by studying what others have already done.
Granted, physicists read new textbooks summarizing the old results, while philosophers more often read the original material. That’s a pretty big difference. However, that might be because philosophy is more directly about the critical thinking skills themselves (hence you want to read how the original philosopher describes their own insight), while physics is more just about the end results of that process.
It is common for phd theses to have a very large literature review. How over-the-top is philosophy in this, really? I would guess that many “humanities” areas are similarly heavier on the lit review. (Although, you could plausibly accuse those areas of the same dysfunction you see in philosophy.)
Very little about the courses I took in philosophy were directly about how to think better. They were much more focused on understanding what some thinker said for the sake of doing so. If the purpose of these courses were to improve critical thinking, I don’t think I benefited much from it, and it’s a strange and roundabout way to pursue the goal. Plus, they almost never collect any actual data on whether these methods work.
My dissertation is in psychology (though it is heavily focused on philosophy as well), so I’m not really sure myself how much is focused on a literature review. Mine is almost entire critical discussion of studies, and is only concerned with studies that go back to 2003, with the bulk focused on 2008 onwards. I’m literally responding to current papers as they come out. So, it’s very recent stuff. I’d be surprised if this weren’t often the case for philosophers as well.
For instance, suppose you were writing in metaethics. You could easily write a dissertation on contemporary issues, such as evolutionary debunking arguments, companions in guilt arguments, phenomenal conservatism, moral progress, or any number of topics, and the bulk of your discussion could focus on papers written in the past 5 years. So, it’s simply not the case that one’s approach to philosophy is that contingent on the past, or an extreme focus on literature reviews.
I went to a relatively backwater undergrad, and personally, I thought the philosophy profs had a big emphasis on thinking clearly. My Epistemology class was reading a bunch of articles (ie the textbook did nothing to summarize results, only presenting the original texts); but, class was all about dissecting the arguments, not regurgitating facts (and only a little about history-of-philosophy-for-history’s-sake).
Side note, the profs I talked to also thought philosophy was pretty useless as a subject (like objectively speaking society should not be paying to support their existence). I think they thought the main saving grace was that it could be used to teach critical thinking skills.
Possibly, this is just very different from grad programs in philosophy.
Well, yeah.
Ah, ok.