What are the advantages/disadvantages of learning philosophy at an institution, rather than simply reading books and discussing these books with others?

I'll put my own cards on the table. Philosophy has never been associated, for me, with a test or a grade or a particular building. And yet my nose has always been in books.

Are there certain credentials that transcend persuasion? (Don't we judge other people largely by the words they use in real time?) Are credentials another form of persuasion, a form that must be worked for and also paid for?

Or are institutions ideally places for exactly these two things? Study and discussion.

I have grown to the point that I despise academic philosophy. I am graduating in December, and I want nothing to do with the mess that is institutionalized philosophy. But I love reading philosophy, engaging in ideas, arguing my viewpoint, and discussing things that may be classified as philosophy. The academy takes all the fun out of the process and turns little more than history and interpretations of vague writing often not in its original language. Not to mention, a philosophy department is littered with bad teachers that have done little other than proving they can regurgitate obscure ideas for their own personal bad teachers. God forbid a philosophy student entertaining what they think are their own ideas. Of course, their is value in a philosophy degree, but that is as a secondary major, minor, or stepping stone to professional school.

That is not to say that all philosophy professors are bad, but the good ones are closer to the community organizer than the professor. Thus, the true philosopher avoids academic philosophy like the plague because it turns the student into a caricature with little value to the greater society. These caricatures are little more than literature buffs, but arguing with others give these fake philosophers the illusion that what they do actually matters. But no one listens to them except future philosophy professors that have been indoctrinated by this little charade.

Philosophy degrees are just little key cards into this exclusive club of irrelevance, and upon graduating, more access is allowed. Philosophy can teach many great things to an acquiring mind, but a career as a philosopher is not one of them.

I have grown to the point that I despise academic philosophy. I am graduating in December, and I want nothing to do with the mess that is institutionalized philosophy. But I love reading philosophy, engaging in ideas, arguing my viewpoint, and discussing things that may be classified as philosophy. The academy takes all the fun out of the process and turns little more than history and interpretations of vague writing often not in its original language. Not to mention, a philosophy department is littered with bad teachers that have done little other than proving they can regurgitate obscure ideas for their own personal bad teachers. God forbid a philosophy student entertaining what they think are their own ideas. Of course, their is value in a philosophy degree, but that is as a secondary major, minor, or stepping stone to professional school.

That is not to say that all philosophy professors are bad, but the good ones are closer to the community organizer than the professor. Thus, the true philosopher avoids academic philosophy like the plague because it turns the student into a caricature with little value to the greater society. These caricatures are little more than literature buffs, but arguing with others give these fake philosophers the illusion that what they do actually matters. But no one listens to them except future philosophy professors that have been indoctrinated by this little charade.

Philosophy degrees are just little key cards into this exclusive club of irrelevance, and upon graduating, more access is allowed. Philosophy can teach many great things to an acquiring mind, but a career as a philosopher is not one of them.

" Philosophy can teach many great things to an acquiring mind, but a career as a philosopher is not one of them."

Just so. Just as composing great music, Philosophy seems more a calling than a mere occupation. Acquiring a knowledge of the tradition, some training in methodology, and some exercise in composition are extremely helpful in either journey, although none of these guarantees success.

What are the advantages/disadvantages of learning philosophy at an institution, rather than simply reading books and discussing these books with others?

I'll put my own cards on the table. Philosophy has never been associated, for me, with a test or a grade or a particular building. And yet my nose has always been in books.

Are there certain credentials that transcend persuasion? (Don't we judge other people largely by the words they use in real time?) Are credentials another form of persuasion, a form that must be worked for and also paid for?

Or are institutions ideally places for exactly these two things? Study and discussion.

What are the advantages/disadvantages of learning philosophy at an institution, rather than simply reading books and discussing these books with others?

Are there certain credentials that transcend persuasion? (Don't we judge other people largely by the words they use in real time?) Are credentials another form of persuasion, a form that must be worked for and also paid for?

Or are institutions ideally places for exactly these two things? Study and discussion.

The difference is that formal training (and specific degrees and passing specific tests) is absolutely essential to practicing either the profession of law or of medicine; this is neither the case with composers nor philosophers.

No one will deny that "philosophy" or "musician" are often applied in a very casual and loose way to human endeavors that barely "partake" of the genuine coinage, just as it might be that a voodoo priest might call himself a doctor. That this happens says much about society and its language, but does not invalidate our experience that in both philosophy and in music, important contributions have come from those without academic training in the subject. What degree did Kant or Beethoven have?

Actually, Kant was really the first professional philosopher.

The difference is that formal training (and specific degrees and passing specific tests) is absolutely essential to practicing either the profession of law or of medicine; this is neither the case with composers nor philosophers.

No one will deny that "philosophy" or "musician" are often applied in a very casual and loose way to human endeavors that barely "partake" of the genuine coinage, just as it might be that a voodoo priest might call himself a doctor. That this happens says much about society and its language, but does not invalidate our experience that in both philosophy and in music, important contributions have come from those without academic training in the subject. What degree did Kant or Beethoven have?

No one will deny that "philosophy" or "musician" are often applied in a very casual and loose way to human endeavors that barely "partake" of the genuine coinage, just as it might be that a voodoo priest might call himself a doctor. That this happens says much about society and its language, but does not invalidate our experience that in both philosophy and in music, important contributions have come from those without academic training in the subject. What degree did Kant or Beethoven have?

What about Plato?

One is more likely to actually get a well-rounded education by formally studying it than by only reading on one's own, though it is possible that one can do so on one's own. People who only study on their own typically do not have the breadth of knowledge of those who study it formally, and typically do not have the depth of knowledge even in those portions that are studied. (The two, of course, are not mutually exclusive, and most who get degrees continue to read philosophy on their own time as desired. That is usually the best way to learn the most about a particular subject.) When people read only what they like, they don't learn things that can be learned from things they do not like. Typically, that encompasses a good deal of information.

and I do mean "study" (which is distinctly different than just reading, in that one fleshes out each 'piqued' thought with questions, annotations, cross references and researching). Its a private endeavor, with little discussion (although I'd love to; I find the preponderance of people morbidly sensitive enough to be interested in philosophy often tend to be the least able to amicably discuss).

I liked your post, but must object somewhat to this part. I've met a few college boys for whom philosophy was just one more test, and their knowledge was skimpy, to put it mildly. Passion is everything. Those who actually give a damn will read, and much more importantly THINK, voraciously.

If we look at the history of philosophy we find the greats as outsiders here or insiders there. From Diogenes to a virgin professor like Kant. Then you have strange fusions like Nietzsche, a star pupil gone rogue. Of course it's hard to forget that Socrates was put to death (having been not only a philosopher but also a courageous soldier, a beloved friend, etc.)

No, I don't think any credentials transcend persuasion. And yes, I do think it's often a form of persuasion. More to the point, I'd say that when and where we see ostensive/overt mentioning of credentials as a form of "endorsement". Much like having Michael Jordan say he loves <these> shoes. Theses associations can have the effect of lending credibility to that being argued. I don't buy it and have a severe distaste for such displays. I do believe this is a common practice (subtle or otherwise); much like how we toss in quotes to punctuate the points we make. It's a form of support.

But that's ok, to my value set it speaks more to the honest, without-pretense human condition that lies at the everyday heart of philosophy than strutting labels.

Oh, what a great question!

Thanks again, excellent thread starter.