Philosophy Employment

Torakx

I wonder does anyone know of a list or category of jobs and careers that can be moved into from studying philosophy?
I have been considering it lately, because i tend to do my homework on prefered topics anyway. I am unemployed and ill a long time, but if I can avoid public speaking and pass the course, i maybe very interested to go to college and study philosophy.
But I first need to justify it, considering the economic pressures these days, I run the risk of being made homeless, if I make the wrong choices.

I think it would compliment my long term goals. Which for now is game development currently and probably for a few more years as i try to get the grips with it.
And later(maybe when I am 45-50 with enough exerience in life) I want to write, either fictional or maybe philosophy, pop psychology etc.

Can I use philosophy as a back up for work, if those careers don't work out?
Considering I am an exteme introvert and really not equipped for public speaking, I am unsure whether teaching would suit, for a start.

Black Swan

Torakx wrote: »

I wonder does anyone know of a list or category of jobs and careers that can be moved into from studying philosophy?

Practically speaking, philosophy has few occupational tracks other than law and Ivory Tower philosophy teaching. Of course I've seen discussions regarding how philosophy provides a job candidate with high level analytic skills, but the philosophy label does not appear to carry a lot of weight in private-sector for profit employment.

Torakx

It's interesting that Law came up there. I do have an interest to some degree in law as well. But not in learning all the legislation. I would probably enjoy learning the foundations, the principles it relies on and using those in court. I am not sure though, what kind of work in law a philosophy degree would help with.
Maybe making legislation? It doesn't seem to suit me. That all sounds like working inside a tightly formed box.

Ivory tower teaching?
Is that teaching the philosophy of various philosophers, who were separated/detached from their subject? Or the higher subjects as individual philosophies?
Well an ivory tower gives the impression of untouchable, so i guess these must be the theories that are very well founded and accepted.

Also Since i have posted quite a bit now in this forum, I was wondering if you or anyone has a rough idea on my ability to get through a philosophy degree. I have no marker to go by and I don't have access to college exams to check the difficulty.
I have auditory dyslexia, so I take pretty much nothing in when listening to conversation.
I passed my game dev course by using youtube to learn.. I got nothign out of class really. Accept art class

However reading by myself, I learn obsessively and faster than most.
But.. I also have visual dyslexia, and I think with the two forms combined, I have a visual mind that finds it extremely hard to translate my thoughts into sentences that make sense to others. I often ramble or say the wrong thing in slightly the wrong way. Or speak in absolutes, when I mean so many other things as well...

I have no idea of my abilities to pass such a course and would appreciate some criticism on my writing so far. Or maybe anyone can pass those courses?
I don't have a leaving cert though either. I left at 16 and mostly learned to read and write from fantasy books, later psychology and now philosophy.
I must say, philosophy has really helped improve my english and critical thinking in general.
I changed from an INFJ personality to an INTP ^^
Right now I'm just exploring this idea, but would apreciate any direction or info thatwould give me a clear picture of the path and options.

silverfeather

Hello OP. :-)

The traditional paths after philosophy were law and teaching philosophy. That's pretty much it honestly. Having any degree helps but those are the main two. Some of my lecturers were also Barristers or taught law also.

Philosophy is analytical training in thinking, reading, writing and speaking and in the moment logical thinking. It's different because today that skill is usually only taught through hard sciences and subjects using statistics or numbers. That is why it's perfect for law , law is worked through ideas in language. In America you have to do an undergrad before law school and they prefer a phil major. Phil majors do best on the US LSAT tests (test for admission to law school).

You mentioned your speaking patterns are not always logical or have a beginning middle and end. Your phrasing is unique to you and idiosyncratic rather than in tune with your topic and the people you are talking to. That is going to make it difficult for you to participate in lecturers. Also some degrees have oral presentations with a question session after and debates. Not all do though.

I would suggest a bridge course first to develop your skills more. Maybe even just a year or six months.

But I definitely think you could do it and you should if you want to. But yes really only law and teaching philosophy is what's open to you and teaching positions in Ireland are few. But if you want to go for it.

You think differently that can be a good thing.

Black Swan

Torakx wrote: »

Ivory tower teaching? Is that teaching the philosophy of various philosophers, who were separated/detached from their subject? Or the higher subjects as individual philosophies?

Ivory Tower is just a nick/label for college and university teaching, as well as research and publication in your discipline. The approach to philosophy taken varies from university to university (department). If you are interested, investigate the philosophy department homepages between schools and compare. There can be substantial differences.

Joe1919

Torakx wrote: »

..........I was wondering if you or anyone has a rough idea on my ability to get through a philosophy degree. I have no marker to go by and I don't have access to college exams to check the difficulty.....

In my view, if you can manage ( and possibly enjoy) subjects such as English, History or Business (even at ordinary level)in the Leaving cert, then you are OK, as I think these comes closest to philosophy. In my own case, I done about 24 modules in philosophy and with the exception of one module on logic, the remainder consist of discussion of philosophers and there texts and ideas and comparing and contrasting etc. And of course, those 2-3000 word essays to be handed in. Indeed, sometimes the language can be difficult as is the case of an English student reading Shakespeare but fortunately there is often synopses available.
Best of luck

RichieO

I would use philosophy as tool to improve the way you think and view the subject of your study, learning how to think "outside the box" is equally as important as what you decide to study, learn how to think from the greatest thinkers...

tiro

Torakx wrote: »

It's interesting that Law came up there. I do have an interest to some degree in law as well. But not in learning all the legislation. I would probably enjoy learning the foundations, the principles it relies on and using those in court. I am not sure though, what kind of work in law a philosophy degree would help with.
Maybe making legislation? It doesn't seem to suit me. That all sounds like working inside a tightly formed box.

Philosophy would most directly help with becoming an arguing counsel, rather than making legislation, I think, given how both disciplines teach you to argue. Most legal argument centres around where the law is ambiguous rather than where it is settled.

That said, the modes of reasoning that philosophers and lawyers will engage with are different. A philosopher might stand up in court and say "Judge, it is morally better that x..." whereas a lawyer should stand up and say "Judge, all the authorities lean in favour of x...". What is regarded as a fallacy in philosophical argument (appeal to authority) is a virtue of legal argument. So what you say about using foundational principles in court is a bit of a no-no. An argument like "But judge, the very foundations of our criminal law suggest we should x. Let me begin my explanation with some Kantian exegetical points..." isn't going to be accepted, or probably even entertained.

I know you mention legislation, but the same points apply (few pieces of legislation have in their heads: "THIS ACT GIVES FORCE TO THE CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE IN THE STATE OF IRELAND" so it is not as though philosophy directly helps here really) and most legislation nowadays deals with intricate points of regulation which doesn't strike me as a particularly philosophical task.

Torakx

Thanks everyone for the input.

tiro, I think that's a valid point about arguing principles. A court mainly works on facts and laws, based on religion originally.
I can see where philosophy would be useful. But I also dsee if I wanted to be able to work in that area, I would need other training.

There is a nice phrase I heard used against a judge, who was trying to force an unlawfull situation. The defendant says "I am sorry for the mistake of fact", the courts thrive on facts and when the judge can't produce a fact to support their claim or motion, they have to either repeat it and hope the defendant doesn't repeat that phrase, or change direction. I find these court battles with the judge very interesting.
Questioning ther jurisprudence when they clearly are a conflict of interest, in cases where the state is trying to fine or prosecute a person.
The state is the plaintiff in the case of a road fine. The gardai would be prosecution and the judge would be as is.
There is a valid point tobe made i think. That the judge and the gardai both work for the plaintiff and a motion to dismiss must be made, because of this conflict of interest.
Of course the setup for this, is to ask the judge at the start, if you have the right to a fair and open trial.

That is an example of what I find interesting about courts and law. These really old principles seem to be in place and it is a matter of reminding judges in some cases.
I see philosophy as useful, mostly because I have noticed my thinking has been lifted upsomewhat, since reading philosophy. A stronger sense of underlying currents of power. Or frameworks of influence beneath the surface of things.
I can't explain it, but it seems to open up a door to a higher form of symbolic thinking, that I believe is missing in many areas of life, for many people.

I migth decide to go with an online course first. I have a habit of being overly ambitious. Plus I am sure I won't be under pressure to do public speaking.
Funny, I stood up in court to defend myself for traffic fines and argued the fines in half as a deal with the judge. But I won't do something I don't have my own full investment in. Like a student presentation, for the sake of learnign or practice. I may need the real deal and in line with my purpose, to be able to do public speaking.

It seems generally, that doing a philosophy course will help me learn how to form arguements better. And give me a more general view of the keyideas involved. Which would mostly help me later when/if i begin writing seriously.
It's kind of shameful that philosophy is not taken seriously.
Once I saw that underlying knowledge and picking apart of power, hierarchies, frameworks etc, I knew this was pure gold!
I apply it everywhere now, nearly always breaking ideas down to the root or foundations.
People are often dealing with results and comparing those, but I have seen when going further to the root, you can have even more effect in many situations, just from understanding those undercurrents.
That for me is the true power of philosophy.

It seems it may have bridged the gap between religion/ego, with law/government.. hmm respectively too maybe ^^

Ah, Just what RichieO said

Black Swan

If you pursue philosophy as preparation for law, you may also want to investigate the many different specialisations in law.