Scholastic thoughts

[catscradle]

After a weekend of massive over spending and little in the way of anything else, I'm feeling a bit better about myself and my place in the universe this Monday. This sounds like a good thing, but it's actually a very dangerous time as I do things like look into Ph.D. programs. This bud needs nipped, so I'd appreciate it if all the people I've asked to bash me in the head if I ever started thinking of school again would please do so.

So I was looking into the philosophy Ph.D. program at CU Boulder and as I'm reading the class descriptions I'm all shit man, I did this as an undergrad. If the subject matters were new, I'd be all about taking them, but it's a rehash. And yeah, I"m sure I'd learn new things at a grad level there, but as I have the skills needed to follow what's going on and know how to pick out the important stuff - well, I can do that on my own. Do I really want to write a 20 page paper on Aristotlean ethics? No. I don't. And at the graduate level I just think there should be specifics and not just generic classes on Philosophy of Science and Logic and 17th Century Rationalism. What they'll most likely do is have the grad students choose a topic to write on and then I get into the nitty gritty when I do my research, but hell. I really can do that on my own without taking loans out. It's just a matter of if I want the Ph.D. =P

And this is a huge peeve of mine - if you have an undergrad degree in philosophy, they should REALLY allow grad students to opt out of pre-20th-century philosophy. Because dudes, it really hasn't changed and we paid our dues. We've got our foundation of the oldies, but they are so completely irrelevant to contempory philosophy, I just need it to stop. Decartes? Cogito ergo sum. Clever, yeah I get it. But if I have to read Discourse on Method one more time, I'm gonna go all Hobbesean, so stop.

Alright, my rant is done. I'm not really going to enroll. Yet.

Comments

[catscradle.livejournal.com]

If I were looking for a degree in classics or philosophical literature, I'd agree with you. Which is why I think at the grad level it should be optional. You can analyze anything and look at it in a new light. But if your interest is in Philosophy of Science or Mind and you're spending graduate time on Descartes, it's like working on a Ph.D. in physics and studying Newton instead of quantum theory. Believe me, you got down what you needed of Newton as an undergrad.

Classical philosophy will always crop up - you'll get Descartes (to use him as an example again) in things like Metaphysics, Epistimology and the Philosohy of Religion - then he'll crop up again in classes on Philo of Mind and Science for comparative measures. So the classics will always pop up again. My point is not that we should ignore them, but at the grad level you really don't need a class called The 18th Century Rationalists. What you should have are classes on Deirrida and what is to become of the dialectic in the face of deconstructionalism - wherein you can argue the fate of the rationalist argument and how Descartes breaks down (or is maintained) in that light.

[(Anonymous)]

you really don't need a class called The 18th Century Rationalists. What you should have are classes on Deirrida and what is to become of the dialectic in the face of deconstructionalism

So they don't offer that kind of classes? o.O Not a good programme, then!
Don't they have any PhD programmes where you don't have to take classes, but just research on your own (with some advice from your supervisors)? In the UK, one can do that - no classes, just individual research. It takes 3-4 years.

[vasiliki.livejournal.com]

that was me, btw