Nature of philosophy it politics how to suceed in-for fresco

It is an accepted opinion of sociologically naive philosophical students that all that is required to carry and argument is the 'cogency' or 'rationality' of the argument. The student soon finds out that this is not the case, that ineffect this belief is a myth. Ask any post graduate student or for that matter any areslicking student and they will tell you that what is required in passing. It is the writing of something that ones supervisor agrees with as well as the finding of examiners who happen to agree with your arguments. Ayer makes note of an intersting historical fact regarding Wittgenstein and Russell (Ayer, 1982, pp.109-110).. Wittgenstein sent Russell a copy of what was to become the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus Russell claiming that it solved all the philosophical problems that Wittgenstein had discussed with Russell.. One of the points of common agreement was in regard to the fact of Russells idea of logical atomism (Urmson, 1992, p.328). Russell was impressed by this work and he wrote an introduction to this work. Now Wittgenstein submitted this work for his doctorate at Cambridge. When it comes to being examined for his doctorate at Cambridge one of the examiners was Russell himself. All I can say is draw your own conclusions, but where is the objectivity? In effect the factor which enables one to be a member of a philosophical community ie at least a Doctorate is not that of cogency, rational 'argument' but political. In other words a sociology of philosophy will give a clearer understanding to a potential student about how one gets ones qualifications than the acceptance of the disciplines myth of 'rational argument' Any one with half a brain would know that one does not do women's studies and expect to do well if one praises men in their essays. One does not expect to do well in a cognitive psychology department writing or believing a Freudian perspective. Similarly one should not expect to do well writing a foundationalist essay in a Rorytian or anti-foundationalist department. Similarly again don't write and anti-essentialist or ant-metaphysical tract which is to be marked disciplines myth of 'rational argument' Any one with half a brain would know that one does not do women's studies and expect to do well if one praises men in their essays. One does not expect to do well in a cognitive psychology department writing or believing a Freudian perspective. Similarly one should not expect to do well writing an essay which is not in the speak of one's examiner.