"Smith has also observed philosophy graduates branching out in the world of work. Where in the past they may have automatically gone into law or the Civil Service, their skills are now being appreciated further afield. A police department in the US was apparently so pleased with a philosophy graduate it had recruited that it considered advertising in the American Philosophical Association's email newsletter, Jobs for Philosophers."
"This will surprise those who think of philosophy as foggy speculation about deep and dark matters. But anyone who has been trained in academic philosophy will know the astonishing discipline of mind that it requires and cultivates."
"Now that one in seven of all graduates passes through a business school, a philosophy degree could help a candidate stand out to an employer. Is philosophy now better for one's career than an MBA? Carl Gilleard, chief executive of the Association of Graduate Recruiters (AGR), suggests that it could be. Philosophy graduates, he says, will be more prepared for the workplace of the future, thanks to their ability to "learn how to think and learn how to learn"."
""A degree in vocational subjects such as business, finance, law, marketing or media studies provides immediate skills and practical tools for gaining entry into the employment market, whereas philosophy focuses on providing the ideal environment in which to develop the fundamental and essential attributes on which these skills depend," the profile explains. "Philosophy teaches the student how to analyse and communicate ideas in a clear, rational and well-thought-out way."
It concludes: "With such in-depth grounding, philosophy graduates are likely to develop into well-rounded, mature, thoughtful and articulate employees.""
"They are good at understanding things, pulling them apart, working out where the weak points are and thinking creatively about how to solve problems and develop and justify their positions. I think philosophy graduates have really learnt how to think for themselves - perhaps more than in a lot of other subjects. Anyone with a good 2:1 or first-class philosophy degree has got a brain that's in very good working order."
Roy, can you think of something that fails with his prisoners dilemma argument that without guns we would all be more secure?
His overall argument of course is wholly consistent with your argument that if in both the US and China, on those occasions, there was someone else with a gun to stop the killers then less damage would have been done. His main argument seems to be that the derivative right to self defence ultimately reduces security, the principle from which that right is derived, since when squared universally everyone is back to the same position as they were before guns but now they are all capable of acts more lethal tending to violate the natural right to security. Do you think his argument can be defeated?
Sometimes a way to measure if something is effective or not is to multiply it and remeasure. In the case of the prisoner example ask this hypothetical question. If every man was able to think another person dead would we be more secure?
Since pro-gunners won' t like the answer, I'm sure they will criticize the question. But it is an extension of the prisoner question.
You may want to rethink the latter career of this statement, especially in this example.
"Why Study Philosophy at University?
OK, bankers's endorsements aren't worth what they once were, but still, this article illustrates an important point... For more info on why study philosophy rather than e.g. business administration, go here. You might be amazed...
Why study philosophy?
A statement by Jordan Kotick, Vice-President J.P. Morgan, Wall Street
While considering what to study in my first year as an Undergraduate, I decided to take a few Philosophy courses. When informed of my decision, those I knew murmured, "Philosophy...what are you going to do with that?"
Soon after my first year was complete, realizing that I enjoyed these courses and my intellectual curiosity was peaked and challenged, I decided that one of my double majors as an undergraduate was going to be Philosophy. The echoes grew louder as those I knew grumbled "Philosophy? What are you going to do with that?"
After four years and a Bachelor of Arts Degree under my belt (with a major in Philosophy), I realized there was more Philosophical work to be done. I decided to go to Graduate School. You can only imagine the reaction I received when I announced that I was going to spend the next two years beginning and hopefully completing my Master of Arts Degree in Philosophy. They shouted "Philosophy? What are you going to do with that?" as the cries of derision grew exponentially.
It is interesting to note what has happened since completing my M.A.. To make a long story short, of late, I have been pursuing a top job at one of the leading investment banks in the world. This position was "short listed" to 150 people as interviews went on concurrently in various countries around the globe. At the end of the process, I received the offer and am now working in New York as a Senior Strategist at one of Wall Street's leading firms. After accepting the offer, I asked the Board, who ultimately made the final decision, why I was chosen above the others. Without blinking an eye, the Head of the Strategic Hiring Committee stated a list of reasons, the very first of which was "Out of all the people we considered, you were the only one who studied Philosophy, not to mention having a Masters Degree in it. That told us immediately that you can think outside the box."
I have come to realize the answer to the question perpetually posed, "Philosophy? What are you going to with that?" The correct response is "Absolutely anything you want." As Robert Frost said, "Two roads diverged in a wood, and I took the one less traveled by. And that has made all the difference."
"Philosophy teaches a number of skills that are valuable in a variety of professions. The hallmark of philosophy education is critical thinking and inductive reasoning. Additionally, philosophy demonstrates that problems often have multiple solutions, and teaches its students to approach problems from a number of different perspectives ("lateral thinking"). The key point to remember is that philosophy is not a collection of facts to be memorized - it is a methodological approach to thinking and problem solving, which is highly valued in a number of professions. This translates into higher performance on standardized tests for graduate education (GRE, LSAT, GMAT, etc.), as well as success in the professional world."
Also his claim that citizens in a country could not deter tyrannical intentions by being armed is wrong, history shows it to be wrong. If such countries would not be deterred, than why is disarming the first thing they do before taking over. Show me any country where citizen were well armed and such country or region was subjugated, they don't exist. All one has to do is look at Afghanistan.
Not to mention that in the UK and Australia since gun confiscation, gun violence and home invasions have gone up.
I do agree that there are some countries in the world no more politically developed today than the USA was back when the 2nd amendment was still relevant.
If the US government did ever turn tyrannical, if they could somehow get the military to go along with them, with the army the US has, there would be no stopping them from confiscating the majority of private arms - no matter how much ammo private armies had secured. Disarming the people would make the establishment of a dictatorship easier - that's all - private arms does not establish a possible/impossible dichotomy.
Much of the revolts made during the Arab Spring recently were done without arms. What about Gandhi?
Regarding the UK and Australia one would have to analyse to fish out the differences between that which follows a causal relationship and that which is mere correlation. Gun violence in these two countries can rise or fall in response to many differing socio-economic factors. I actually doubt the banning of private arms has had anything to do with this. Immigration perhaps has a greater contributing factor.
The guy may claim to be a philosopher, I claim he is an idiot.
My claim is more valid than his.
The guy is a philosopher. Any such claim therefore would be true.
We should keep separate the notions of argument and explanation.
We argue toward the truth of some proposition when its truth is to be derived from other more general truths or the summation of accumulatively contributing truths.
We give explanations when the truth of some proposition is not doubted and instead questions arise as to how its truth came about.
Validity has to do with the logical form of arguments - not the non-logical components called propositions.
So arguments, which must be comprised of at least two propositions, have a syntactical structure and then semantic inserts.
But it is only the syntactical structure that can be spoken of in terms of validity - valid or invalid.
Truth has only to do with propositions.
There are analytic and synthetic truths.
There are a priori and a posteriori truths.
There are necessary and contingent truths.
There are necessary a posteriori truths. (Water is H2O)
There are a priori contingent truths. (The designated length of 1 meter)
But Kant's synthetic a priori truths seem to have been dispensed with by the new non Euclidean geometries.
So your use of the term "valid" is a category mistake on two dimensions. First, your statement is an assertion and so has no logical structure to analyse and secondly since it is less than two propositions there is no argument that could possibly be either valid or invalid.
These are elementary aspects of philosophical logic learned within the very early hours of study of philosophy and its methods.