I have recently embarked upon a degree in philosophy after years of reading philosophy for the sheer pleasure of it. Unfortunately, what once brought me pleasure is now bringing the opposite to me. I feel restricted in my studies. That I have to sacrifice integrity in order to achieve better results. What I originally believed encouraged vibrant, creative, critical thinking has turned into something that fosters reflecting on philosophers claims in order to simply repeat those claims in an acceptable manner. I miss engaging with philosophy.

Will my studies always be like this? Will my entire degree focus almost exclusively on deductive reasoning or will a balance be struck later on? If you're currently studying for or have completed a philosophy degree, please tell me what I can expect.

And if you're an administrator and this is posted in the wrong place. I will be grateful if you decide to move it.

I have recently embarked upon a degree in philosophy after years of reading philosophy for the sheer pleasure of it. Unfortunately, what once brought me pleasure is now bringing the opposite to me. I feel restricted in my studies. That I have to sacrifice integrity in order to achieve better results. What I originally believed encouraged vibrant, creative, critical thinking has turned into something that fosters reflecting on philosophers claims in order to simply repeat those claims in an acceptable manner. I miss engaging with philosophy.

Will my studies always be like this? Will my entire degree focus almost exclusively on deductive reasoning or will a balance be struck later on? If you're currently studying for or have completed a philosophy degree, please tell me what I can expect.

And if you're an administrator and this is posted in the wrong place. I will be grateful if you decide to move it.

I have recently embarked upon a degree in philosophy after years of reading philosophy for the sheer pleasure of it. Unfortunately, what once brought me pleasure is now bringing the opposite to me. I feel restricted in my studies. That I have to sacrifice integrity in order to achieve better results. What I originally believed encouraged vibrant, creative, critical thinking has turned into something that fosters reflecting on philosophers claims in order to simply repeat those claims in an acceptable manner. I miss engaging with philosophy.

Will my studies always be like this? Will my entire degree focus almost exclusively on deductive reasoning or will a balance be struck later on? If you're currently studying for or have completed a philosophy degree, please tell me what I can expect.

And if you're an administrator and this is posted in the wrong place. I will be grateful if you decide to move it.

Thinking about it, I fear regression, especially with philosophy. One of the main reasons I joined the forum was to keep what I learned in school fresh, new, and developed and keep what I had from degrading with time. I think to be relatively successful in philosophy, it requires you not only to think abstractly, but to pick up where the last guy left off and then build on that. And if no one has developed a particular area you want to think abstractly about, all the more power to you because it is new ground to explore. But suffice to say that a large part of philosophical inquiry is a conversation already had.

Very true. And well said. And this seems to apply to most fields. In rare cases, one might profit from less exposure.

A balancing point could also be made. That we don't absorb/remember very well what is not connected to passion/interest.

Personally, once I get the gist of a philosopher, some of the details are boring. But these are generally the details that didn't age well in the first place. For instance, some of Kant's categories. Of course the gist of Kant is about as good as it gets, or at least in the way that I understand it.

I was immersed in Rorty for awhile, and still respect him, but at some point I saw the repeating decimals...

I felt I had the gist and wanted to move on.

Thinking about it, I fear regression, especially with philosophy. One of the main reasons I joined the forum was to keep what I learned in school fresh, new, and developed and keep what I had from degrading with time.

I think we all yearn to explore untrodden and novel areas... but they are few and far between. In order to progress, we need to understand, assimilate, affirm or deny, and then and only then provide our own unique perspective.

Anyways, so yeah, that's what I've found useful about analytical philosophy.

I see what you mean, but I fail to see the contradiction really.

After reading all these insightful replies, I'm feeling much better towards my course. I can see that I may not be enjoying this stage, but it will help me do what I love even better, and I even become a well rounded and balanced thinker. I also feel fortunate to have found a forum which will allow me to engage with philosophy in the way that I have long enjoyed, while simultaneously feeling grateful that others here can engage with philosophy in the ways that they prefer.

But, I don't believe that all ways of "doing philosophy" are equal, and that the only thing to care about it whether you enjoy doing it that way. Doing philosophy, it seems to me, should be done with close attention to logic, and to the meanings of what you say and write. Not "anything goes" in philosophy anymore than anything goes in other kinds of studies.

Philosophy as I see it, should advance our concerns. It should aim towards answering the questions that will show us how to live well. Paying close attention to logic is vital part of answering such questions. But logic it isn't the be all and end all of the subject, any more than being able to throw a good punch is the be all and end all of boxing.

But shouldn't a philosopher's concerns be dealing with philosophical problems? Of course, as a person, he has other concerns. But I am talking of his concerns as a philosopher. Just as a physicist's concern (as physicist) is physics. And logic and analysis is fundamental to those philosophical concerns. If you intend to be a professional philosopher, as I think you said, you will have to do as professional philosophers do. And, you ought to know that before you start.

A

There's a difference between being a philosopher and doing philosophy just as there is a difference between being a scientist and doing science. In the context of being a scientist or a philosopher you necessarily bring into play the person's needs and concerns, not just the profession's needs and concerns.

But shouldn't a philosopher's concerns be dealing with philosophical problems? Of course, as a person, he has other concerns. But I am talking of his concerns as a philosopher. Just as a physicist's concern (as physicist) is physics. And logic and analysis is fundamental to those philosophical concerns. If you intend to be a professional philosopher, as I think you said, you will have to do as professional philosophers do. And, you ought to know that before you start.