jobs for philosopher

I suppose you could become a writer but you might find only a scant following

And to teach in a small liberal arts or community college requires at least a masters degree. The B.A. in philosophy is the best of generic college degrees. It shows two things, (1) that one has the discipline to survive college life and its demands and (2) the ability to deal with abstractions. Most other degrees show a more narrow control of specialized knowledge.

Go for thePhD.

Yes, if you can afford it. It's a great way to spend your time until Obama brings the economy around. But keep in mind that University jobs in the humanities are very hard to come by.

If you ask me, and this is only my personal opinion, an education in philosophy is a waste of money. Studying and reading about philosophy will not make you a philosopher any more than studying milk will make you a cow. At best you will become a historian with a special emphasis on ideas through history. I can think of no better way to entrench one's thinking, making it harder to think in new ways, which is the most valuable thing a philosopher can contribute with.

Yes, the study of philosophy is a form of mental conditioning. Knowing about the history of philosophy is not knowing how to philosophize. But don't you think it's better to not be totally naive regarding the history of thought? I wouldn't want to repeat things that are now common knowledge in the discipline. Maybe knowledge about the perspectives of many philosophers can loosen the influence of any one of them, while at the same time enabling us to benefit from their influence.
Oh...Mooo.

Priest---for real money--found your own religion. Them there's good money in religion--tax exempt too!

Rap

Good question. I do not know.
I know that many times when I've had discussions about some philosophical issue or other, we are sitting there talking, and then someone offers their view. Then comes someone with knowledge of the philosophers and says "that's this philosopher's view", or "that philosopher thought the same". From then on, the viewpoint that was originally offered is treated as if it is the same as some old philosopher's viewpoint, and often the whole discussion shifts from the original issue to what this or that philosopher wrote a hundred years ago.

I've learned that if you want to talk philosophy, don't talk to those who have educations in philosophy. They cannot distinguish between history of thought and actual philosophy. They also seem to think that their education has made them into philosophers, which I think is rather presumptuous.
I have a measure of contempt for the kind of people I speak about, or rather their attitudes, and I fear it shines through.

Hi Turing -

I went to Law School with my Philosophy BA.

Yes, you're right. None of the important philosophers in history were educated in philosophy or by philosophers--wait...

Not strictly true at all. Plato was a student of Socrates and Aristotle was a student in Plato's Academy.

Unless there is more to the context than you provide, your measure of contempt seems misplaced. If you want to "talk" philosophy for the sake of talking or mental exercise, then perhaps it _is_ better not to talk to philosophers (or at least not domineering or opinionated ones) unless you know enough of academic philosophy to hold your own there. If you want to actually "do" philosophy or think and converse philosophically in a productive way, then the person's comment about a particular view being like the view of historical figure in philosophy should be quite helpful. The key is what is intended by the comment and how you and others in the conversation respond to the comment. Is it really the same view? Are there any important differences between the recently expressed view and the historical one? What were the challenges to that view historically? Were they necessarily fatal for the view or can the view be saved, perhaps in a way not thought of by the historical figure? Those are all rich, viable avenues for the conversation to continue with contributions from the discussion being enjoyed, and those are just dealing with the fact of a view already existing. It would also be appropriate to then think about other views on the same issue. The physical sciences are the same--new ideas are great, but a lot of time, money, and energy is wasted if we don't study or in some other way attain an informed status about what has already been done and what promises, problems, or challenges that work faced.

It was sarcasm. The overwhelmingly vast majority of important philosophers were educated in philosophy or by other philosophers.

plato became philosophical ideas only at the death of socrate, provin that plato as a philosopher wasnt bc of socrates
same for aristo i guess

but it shows the relative character of one free superiority value, true value is by itself only but it also can b else when it is true value so never property of values exist
moron to ur boss educatin u in spirit waoo

Well, as one member already pointed out, philosophy is, if not _the_ best, certainly one of a small group of the best generic B.A.s. Philosophy majors score better on most of the graduate exams like the GRE. Philosophy majors are also typically better writers than the average college graduate, and ability in written communication is stressed in most job postings that do not involve strictly manual labor. Depending on well you performed in your program, it's likely that you're also a pretty decent problem solver. Many philosophy graduates go on to non-philosophy graduate/professional programs like law, med school, etc. If you're objective is to go on the job market with as little further education as possible, think about what you _want_ or _like_ to do, then think about the kind of work related to your interest that could benefit from someone with the skills mentioned above. You also might consider getting a master's degree (in philosophy or in a professional/applied field), if you can complete one quickly and without too much expense, that would better leverage the skills you already have in an industry that interests you.

that is why all ur philosophy reference is false who else u got but that crazy nietze ooh n sorry for mispellin his sacred name hi krishna
yea sure ur lonely philosopher to justify what all philosophy is about for theists minds is surely over educated by u, miserable nietze after his death

it is unbelievable how u use that crazy lousy guy only to get to urselves life with ur god that clearly made that guy, wat could make such pitiful being sentences without any sense n connection, of course krishna god

yea praise the stars luminosity at the night over that lousy guy mean and head halleluia miracles everywhere from one god

how can one b a philosopher without havin to get over everything as justifed value to exist freely from truth fact, but then become one over existin value so one truly existin too freely to mean being the one beyond so that true point existence constance for himself

what another could teach u that as a scientific knowledge to copy or realize its experience

when the whole world know already since humanity rise before ur jc alias jesus christ, that being philosopher is being free and noone could ever study to become a philosopher but it could study philosophy studies only if it loves philosophy from never being philosopher so as else recognition of a true value being objective fact to profit from as any business one could like to run, n especially bc what philosphy died with the rise of technology as the right answer to individuals free existence

And I'll bet that your training in philsophy helped make you more competitive as a law student. In any of the social sciences training in philosophy is essential (or at least helpful) preparation for thinking about problems in the Philosophy of Social Science, a sub-discipline that distinguishes "intellectual" graduate students in sociology and anthropology from the less theoretical empirical research oriented student.

philosophy cant b used for else that is why there cant b philosophy but to philosopher or to what mean nothing prevail so love to feel the supports of philosophical studies end in infinite questions with no ends

objectively speakin, meanin freedom as a useful thing is clearly statin the evil u r

and in facts, intellectual stands are very wrong when dealin with reality, u must act as self right in existence else rights constantly n when constant cant b right but absolutely so u must fully focus on acts only

only me or in the future humans superiority could think while doing right, but now u should stop darin sayin any about any before everything