Well, you certainly don’t need a Ph.D. in philosophy to be a good philosopher, but yes, not everyone is cut out for it.
I think in many cases (but not all) grad school corrupts and stunts the talent of individuals who otherwise could have been good thinkers (if they aren’t ruined as undergraduates first). This is particularly the case in the social sciences and humanities (including philosophy departments).
OK. Let me be impolite, rude and bad-mannered. I think the degrees that the state grants to some of its subjects are just one more form of stated-granted monopoly, backed by force, like any other privilege.
Juan, I assure you that I don’t support public provision of education. I’m not sure how I feel about the idea of vouchers (or redistribution in general), but there’s something clearly unsettling about the state actually owning and operating educational institutions, and I’m not sure what benefit there is to direct government involvement (if there is any). As for my comments about libertarianism being incomplete, I’d caution against taking the point out of context. There’s nothing wrong with incompleteness, and there’s nothing wrong with being a proponent of an incomplete view. It just requires a little bit of humility, and patience with people who aren’t quite as eager to get on board.
Regarding classical liberalism, I’m not sure where you get the idea that “…the whole body of classical liberal doctrine is an argument against government.” I don’t dispute that a large chunk of effort was devoted to examining the foundations of government, and to attempting to decide exactly what to think about government as an institution. But to say that the classical liberals rejected government seems like a perversion of history. Was Locke a classical liberal? Mill? To be certain, there were some classical liberals who rejected government. But their work could hardly be said to comprise “the whole body of classical liberal doctrine.” If anything, theirs was a minority view.
Libertarian, it might be true that anyone can become a philosopher. But anyone can become a car repairman too. If I need someone to take a look at my car, I take it to a car repairman, because car repairmen know what to do with cars better than most people. And if I need someone to take a look at my philosophical doctrine, I take it to someone who’s spent their adult life studying philosophical doctrines, because I’d bet that if someone could see it for what it was, it would be just such a person.
On your point about fighter jets, I’d suggest rereading the post where you got that quotation. I specifically addressed it. I’m not really sure how to respond to your claim that universities and philosophy departments make “the same errors” that “the state” would if it were hiring professors, because it just seems so obviously misguided that I can’t figure out any reason that you would believe it. The only thing I can think of is that you’re picturing a sad little philosopher going in front of the Soviet panel and trying to convince them that he deserves to be hired. There’s no question that internal department politics play a role in determining who gets hired, fired, etc. But that isn’t a public university phenomenon. In fact, it’s not even a university phenomenon. Every employer demands that you prove your worth. If anything, the better funding available to most public schools’ philosophy departments ensure that more different views can be represented without denying the most powerful figures the right to hire the candidates that they prefer. But because philosophers are constantly being judged publicly, there’s an especially strong incentive to hire the best candidate.
I honestly can’t even address your final claim, about philosophers not needing funding. Find me a philosopher, and I’ll show you a philosopher who, at some point, either needed funding, or had sacrificed concentrating on philosophy at some point to do a job that wasn’t as fulfilling in order to make some money.
Stan, welcome aboard. I hope to join you in Dr.-hood, so you won’t be vilified by me.
Grant, I think that’s fair.
Anthony, I don’t think Mises was deficient, per se. I’ve read a whole bunch of his work, and he’s influenced me immensely. But Mises was not a political philosopher by nature. He was quick to point out the consequences of certain social choices and institutions, but I wouldn’t say that his contributions were particularly influential in political philosophy. Of course, that statement can only be taken as far as I’ve read. I actually haven’t gotten through Human Action, which essentially means that I’m talking out of my behind, though I’ve read The Anti-Capitalistic Mentality, Theory and History, Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth, Economic Policy: Thoughts for Today and Tomorrow, Interventionism: An Economic Analysis. So maybe there’s a whole body of work I’m just not familiar with. But as far as advancing the political philosophy of libertarianism, I just don’t think of Mises when I think of the most important figures.
Geoffery, I’m really surprised to hear this quasi-anti-PhD sentiment from you. Didn’t you say you were only a year away from obtaining yours? That would mean that you’ve spent nearly a decade studying the subject matter of your concentration, right? Did you not learn anything over the course of that decade? Could someone your age reasonably have achieved your level of expertise in your field any other way without a whole lot more effort? I assume you’ve participated and presented at various scholarly gatherings; your university didn’t help you out with that at all? Your professors really haven’t been helpful? If you really didn’t think a PhD was valuable, then why would you voluntarily live in poverty for the last 5 years or so just to get the chance to work your tail off? I just don’t get it. If, as I suspect, you really do think a PhD is immensely important, and sets you apart from your relatively uneducated peers, then what are you so ashamed about? Do you really not know more than these people (myself included)? Do you really feel like we all have valuable insights that you haven’t heard before? Are we really all on the same level, and you’ve got nothing substantive to show for your effort? Give me a break.
Donny, I’ll try and be brief. I don’t see much need to respond to your second paragraph as it is just a list of subjects.
To the first paragraph –
I’m assuming when you say liberalism you mean modern day liberalism - social democrat/progressive. Liberalism in the past was what libertarianism is today but the word was adopted by undesirables so “classical” had to be attached. That’s really not important though.
What strikes me in your descriptions of socialists, modern liberals, etc., is that you seem to be of the opinion that these are merely a bunch of positions of which libertarianism is just another equal “opinion.” There is a key difference though - the use of force. All of the rest of those “philosophies” justify the use of force through some sort of state apparatus to bring about their own brand of “equality” or the “social good” or whatever vision may be running through the heads of intellectuals at the moment. But putting guns in people’s faces in the name of your idea of “good” is not only philosophically and intellectually hollow, it is fucking evil my friend. There is no comparison.
I honestly don’t want to divert this thread to a discussion of why libertarianism is incomplete. You might look through some of the posts on my blog, or you could start a separate topic if you wanted. But I think this conversation has at least stayed somewhat focused on formal education so far, and I’d really hate to be the one responsible for ruining that.
You’re completely missing the point I think. Perhaps intentionally?
“That would mean that you’ve spent nearly a decade studying the subject matter of your concentration, right? Did you not learn anything over the course of that decade?”
Nothing of great value that I couldn’t have learned on my own, or from a mentor, or from a completely privatized education system.
“Could someone your age reasonably have achieved your level of expertise in your field any other way without a whole lot more effort?”
Huh?
“I assume you’ve participated and presented at various scholarly gatherings; your university didn’t help you out with that at all?”
I think a grand total of $400 over the entire course of my graduate career. Woohoo! I’m swimming in the money!
I had a graduate assistantship for four years, but I had to work for the money: grading, making tests and quizzes, leading study sessions, lecturing occassionaly, helping with research, etc.
“Your professors really haven’t been helpful?”
It varies. Professors in a completely privatized system wouldn’t be helpful?
“If you really didn’t think a PhD was valuable, then why would you voluntarily live in poverty for the last 5 years or so just to get the chance to work your tail off?”
I didn’t say it wasn’t valuable. We live in a culture that is obsessed with official state credentials, remember? The deck is stacked against me unless I have them. There will likely still be certification services in a completely privatized system, but that will probably just be for teaching. I doubt people would be as obsessed with official state credentials in such a system. They weren’t a hundred years ago.
“If, as I suspect, you really do think a PhD is immensely important, and sets you apart from your relatively uneducated peers, then what are you so ashamed about?”
I never said I was ashamed about getting one. Now you’re psychologizing and drifting into the realm of ad hominem. Be careful.
“Are we really all on the same level, and you’ve got nothing substantive to show for your effort? Give me a break.”
Huh?
Danny, I think Mises’ importance lies in what tools he gave political philosophers to work with, i.e. his valuable insights on how markets function as part of society, and their cooperative and dynamic nature, something that is often bypassed when the word ‘competition’ enters the picture. Any good political philosopher must take reality into account, and the arguments Mises provided are necessary for any sound edifice. I won’t say he was important as a political philosopher, because he wasn’t one (although he was a multifaceted thinker) and because he is not too well known, but I think his importance for spreading the ideas of liberty exists in that regard. Arguably Hayek and Rothbard (and by extension, and to a lesser extent, Block and Hoppe; I see Rothbard as more of an activist and a system-builder in the realm of political ideas, more akin to Friedman or Rand than Mises) also provided such a foundation, but I don’t think either did to the same extent that Mises did, and anyway both built off his work (further bolstering his significance.) So I think he deserves to be mentioned amongst the individuals you mentioned. Would it hurt you inside if I mentioned Rand by the way? [:P]
I am going to avoid labeling formalized education as “all good” or “all bad”, then I am going to suggests some problems I see in avoiding any institutions and propose why I think how individuals (in the rhetorical sense ) define knowledge governs their view of the neccisty of institutionalized education.
A.If knowledge is the cognition of a priori abstractions or axioms then knowledge as an endeavor cannot be “granted” by institutions and can only be judged by the grasp of such intuitions or axioms (the most simplistic way I could think of portraying the anglo-analytic school of philosophy)
B.If knowledge is subjective (an anglo-analytic would deny that I am speaking of knowledge anymore) then essentially knowledge is the product of the institutions and power structure to which you belong. So “knowledge” would be essentially being able to rehash aspects of what your current power structure defines as “knowledge”. Foccault outlines clear aspects of how subjective ideologies inherently change institutional interactions by examing how the treatment of the Mentally ill has varied widely in the 19th and 20th due to shifts in institutional ideological constructions. (this a simplification of what you might term as contiental philosophy)
So what do these epistemologies imply? epistemology “A” implies that no institutions would be neccesary to be knowledgable since such a priori cognitions can be realized independently. I suspect Mises realized the subjective nature of institutional knowledge and thus cognitively choose a apriori basis for knowledge rather than a empircal basis. What is interesting here is if you ascribe to epistemology A you can be knowledgeable and yet realize that some interaction with institutions are a neccisty due to the realities of the society you live in.
Epistemology B would require that you would have to have the institutional recognition of knowledge since by definition knowledge is governed by societal constructs, power structures, and institutions. This epistemology requires that you do not posses “knowledge” unless the context you exist in deems that you do. Contientalals generally deny apriori as not possible so this denies the possibility of “traditional” knowledge in their wolrd view.
Again, these are glaring simplifications and most philosophers in either school of anglo-analytic or contiental ascribe to varying degress of these simplified extremes. So here is where it really gets interesting, to what degree is “constructed” knowledge and abstract knowledge part of what we consider knowledge. For example, language is a institutional construct that is neccesary to carry out a discourse so the institutionalization of knowledge plays some role in discourse. I did not really have a point thought this might refocus the threads discussion taking place.
Geoffery, sorry if I misunderstood what you were saying. I was under the impression that you were suggesting that a PhD level education was irrelevant to whether you had a good opinion. I didn’t realize that you meant a public-school-granted PhD. Plenty of private schools offer PhD programs, and would offer their equivalent if a private school system didn’t recognize the term “PhD.” If all you were saying is that people don’t need a publicly delineated moniker to prove that they’ve gotten a good education, then I apologize for my earlier statements and I agree. I just thought you meant that people didn’t need to get a PhD level education (whether private or otherwise), and if they didn’t, their opinions wouldn’t be any worse for it. I do wonder about whether someone could achieve a PhD level education on their own, though.
Anthony, I definitely agree that Mises was incredibly important to the libertarian movement. I guess I only included him on the list of people I wouldn’t want to see mentioned as the best proponents of libertarianism because his ideas wouldn’t really be decisive in arguing against people holding other ethical views. I didn’t mean to suggest that he didn’t do good work. But yes, it would hurt me inside if someone cited Rand as a “sterling” proponent of libertarianism, and the same goes for Molyneux, in spite of the fact that both have done a great deal for the libertarian movement in terms of getting people interested and engaged; I myself was introduced to philosophy after reading Atlas Shrugged. In a lot of ways, I think that people like Rothbard and Bastiat are valuable in a similar way; no one reads either and changes their mind about a deeply thought out position. Their arguments are often just too simple, and don’t take adequate account of the reasons that people disagree. But for someone who hasn’t developed a foundational disagreement with certain core libertarian ideas, they’re fantastic examples of convincing rhetoric, and have likely been responsible for turning far more people on to libertarianism than a “better” philosopher like Nozick ever has (though Nozick was a fantastic writer as well). I almost cringe at the idea of hitting “post,” because I just said that Nozick was a better philosopher than Rand, Molyneux, Rothbard, and Bastiat, and I’ll probably be shouted down, but…well…he was.
History, in any sense relevant to a debate over the virtues of self-teaching as opposed to obtaining a formal education, why would any of that be important?
History, where did you come across the terms being used in such a fashion? I’m aware of what you’re referring to, but it is not typically framed in such language.
Danny, I agree with you regarding Nozick.
Danny,
You don’t think Mises’s idea that all of what we know of as civilization is dependent upon voluntary cooperation is political philosophy? What I got from Human Action more than anything else is that Mises believed socialism was the polar opposite of civilization. He tried to show that there isn’t a choice between complete socialism and capitalism, unless one considers suicide a choice.
He and Hayek pretty much crushed an entire world of thought concerning the role of politics in society. I don’t can’t quite see how he can’t be considered a political philosopher, although I admit I’ve never been able to see a very clear distinction between Mises’s conclusions and Hayek’s knowledge problem.
Let me try to clarify if this is not sufficient ask and I will try again…
It seems to me that if you are debating the virtue of self-teaching over formal education (which I term institutionalized) then you need to clarify first what you classify as knowledge. I suggest this since it seems to me the goal of education is to gain knowledge of a certain subject or speciality. Therefore, epistemology (the study of what is knowledge) becomes critically important to what role self-education or formal education would play in the pursuit of becoming knowledgeable.
To give you an idea the critical role that epistemology plays in the university and its institutional role here is an example. In History and Political science about 50-75 years ago you would recieve a BS or MS. Due to the influence of contiental philosophy(post-modernism, deconstructionism) and the challenges to rationalism these fields have been changed over to arts so now you get a BA and MA(some schools still cling to science classifications). Anyway, the point is institutions’ view of knowledge changes and evolves due to the context of the time. So in regards to self-teaching, as I stated, if you beleive in some form of neo-platonism, apriori reasoning, absolute truth or absolute axiomatic reasoning (unmutable & undemonstrable ideas about knowledge) then so long as you can grasp these independently formal education would be unessary in achieving knowledge.
I was trying to get people to clarify their idea of knowledge (epistemology) since it plays a critical role in education (formal or otherwise)
I need some clarity here and I will try to respond; if you are asking for my sources I am not pulling this out of anyone particular text, but can provide several suggestions for insight into both anglo-analytic and contienental epistemologies. The second statement I am unsure of what you are suggesting/asking;is it unclear, unconventional, or perhaps you like my use of language? Again , I was trying to simplify two very broad philosophical approaches to epistemology since I thought it was extremely important to the issue of education and that if individuals clarified their idea of knowledge then debating the role of formal education vs. self-education might be easier.
For those subject matters which have little direct application or little feedback of their efficacy (such as the social sciences), I’d say people’s definition of “knowledge” tends towards you ‘B’ type. But for many it fits the ‘A’ category, and institutions are helpful to help impart knowledge and lend their credibility to those claiming to be educated.
I would say an idea of what knowledge is is not necissary for an education. Knowledge is used as a tool, and one does not have to know the nature of a tool in order to use it. This is especially true of knowledge which has obvious and direct applications, such as the natural sciences, engineering, medicine, etc. One does not have to know what ‘knowledge’ is to chose the correct methodology to follow; one is able to just follow what works for one’s ends. For the social sciences (especially economics, it seems) I’d say epistemology is much more important.
Given the limits of political and market processes, I’m wonder what the best way to go about picking the most epistemologically-sound knowledge is. I suppose prediction markets could help, effectively functioning as quicker feedback of the results of social policies where causality is foggy.
History, I simply found the way you phrased it odd. With regards to knowledge A do you mean knowledge that follows deductively once all the axioms in question are known? If so, this technically should be knowable by introspection, but in practice axiomatic-deductive reasoning is difficult and not always as obvious as the axioms it is built off, so I don’t see how the need for formal education would disappear (would it be pointless to study mathematics, say, at university?) I might be misinterpreting you though.
Again, in fairness to your response I did claim these were simplified extremes of two general philsophical schools. I doubt any anglo-analytic or Contiental phislopher would ascribe to such non-rigourous simplifications as the ones I provided. It appears you would reject the idea of education I provided, but then what is goal of education? People in the sciences do not pursue as you state, " what works for one’s ends" in fact they apply tests which usually generate theories which are not ascribed to absolutely, which are in turn tested again ad infinitum. But ones own ends usually does not play a role since these theories themselves are judged on their verifiability(Own ends conjures visions of mad scientists bent on world domination). In regards to your tool analogy I am envisioning myself about to perform a surgery without any knowledge of the tools at my disposal as the self-evident use of these scapels etc. will no doubt guide me succesfully. This is intended to be humurous but I am sure you can clarify what you mean with that analogy.
my previous post was in response to Grant..sorry
Inquisitor you raise a good point that in theory if a specific department in a institution itself ascribes to axiomatic-deductive reasoning and constructs its program around those axioms then yes the university would still be relevant in epistemology A. Yet, only in as much the program cohered to the foundational axiom. Technically in theory if you ascribe to this theory then if you had a computer that could factor in all potential variables(past, present, future) and apply the intial aximom then all things could be known. But obivously past events are incapable of being factored in thus this scenario is not possible ( as of yet). But let me state this does not mean I ascribe to epistemology A.
Grant, I think Mises’ ideas were very helpful additions to the behavioral sciences, including economics, and political philosophy necessarily relies on the behavioral sciences very heavily. But just as I don’t think psychology can fairly be labelled as political philosophy, I don’t think economics can either. Surely political philosophy can’t do much without the behavioral sciences, but that doesn’t mean that they’re the same thing.
History, I think we can avoid this conversation by saying that however we define knowledge, understanding, and learning, we would not want to say that a teacher can’t educate a student. And we would also want to say that a teacher can educate a student well or poorly. I’m not sure if that commits me to a particular position on the status of knowledge. But if a stance on the nature of knowledge conflicted with my commonsense notions regarding education, I’d probably be more skeptical of the epistemological position.
You mean by forcing others to give the teacher money? I can teach. Anyone can teach. Who says who is the best teacher? I can be a student. I can be both. Does that now mean I have the right to take anyone’s money?