Majesty of Reason's book recommendations are as follows: (1) The Philosopher’s Toolkit (Bagginni) (2) The Critical Thinking Toolkit (Foresman, Fosl, & Watson) (3) Just the Arguments: 100 of the Most Important Arguments in Western Philosophy (Barbone & Bruce) (4) Bad Arguments: 100 of the Most Important Fallacies in Western Philosophy (Barbone & Bruce) (5) A Rulebook for Arguments (Weston) (6) Philosophy 1: A Guide through the Subject (Vol 1) (AC Grayling) (7) Philosophy 2: Further through the Subject (Vol 2) (AC Grayling) (8) Knowledge, Reality, and Value: A Mostly Common Sense Guide to Philosophy (Huemer) (9) The Philosophy Major’s Introduction to Philosophy: Concepts and Distinctions (Akiba) (10) The Majesty of Reason: A Short Guide to Critical Thinking in Philosophy (Schmid) (11) A Concise Introduction to Logic (Hurley) (12) Philosophical Devices: Proofs, Probabilities, Possibilities, and Sets (Papineau) (13) More Precisely: The Math You Need to do Philosophy (Steinhart) (14) An Introduction to Philosophical Methods (Broadview Guides to Philosophy) (Daly)
@@milos223 They covers a very large net, but a couple good introductory books I have on philosophy of religion are _An Introduction to Philosophy of Religion_ by Brian Davies and an anthology called _Philosophy of Religion: Selected Readings_ by Michael Peterson, William Hasker, et. al. Not sure what introductory book to recommend on metaphysics (apart from introductory books that basically cover all sorts of philosophy stuff, not metaphysics only); it's such a broad field.
@@pazuzil Really it boils down more to intuitive perceptions than e.g., disagreeing whether _modus ponens_ is a valid rule of inference. To give a specific example, consider the following moral argument: (1) If God does not exist, then objective morality does not exist. (2) Objective morality does exist. (3) Conclusion: God exists. There are at least three different groups of people: (a) Some atheists believe that objective morality is indeed unlikely given God's nonexistence, and would thus be rationally committed to accepting premise (1) as an at least probably true material conditional, while rejecting premise (2). (b) In contrast, some atheists have differing intuitive perceptions, agreeing with premise (2) but disagreeing with premise (1). (c) Then of course there are some people who find _both_ premises plausible. We can't adjudicate which of these three groups is correct by, for example, using the Gensler star test or by agreeing that red herring fallacies are bad. It more or less boils down to different intuitive perceptions.
TL;DW - 7 Tips: 1) Read, read, read! (Both sides of a topic). Think about more than just what they say - they about how they go about it. 2) Discuss! Surround yourself with people who are more well-read than you. 3) Write as clearly, concisely, and precisely as possible. Signpost. Get feedback as well. 4) Recognise who has the burden of proof. (Extension: learn about rebutting and undercutting defeaters). 5) C-O-N-S-U-M-E philosophy. Listen to podcasts, audiobooks, debates, etc., in the background. 6) Know logic. This is difficult, but worthwhile. Learn basics of propositional and modal systems. 7) Learn a little about a each field of philosophy. (Internet Encyclopaedia of Philosophy is useful here). Thanks for the advice Joe!
I have Bachelor’s degrees from Rutgers University in philosophy and psychology. I firmly believe that philosophy needs to be taught at the middle school level all the way throughout high school. We would give birth to an entirely different kind of society - a society where we would think before we judge, entertain thoughts before accepting them, and lastly, a society where the very mystery of being would imbue each and everyone of us with a profound sense of mutual wonder. Philosophy is the foundation of all knowledge - it’s crucial.
Yeah, I agree, I think there is also stereotype that philosophy is only thinking about some topics which have nearly no value, so it would be nice to remove that kind of stereotype from young people (although im also young lol)
In my experience it is just as easy to learn things outside of school but not as easy to learn things systematically. College helps us not just to learn but to formulate and make our thinking clearer.
A lot of how much you will get out of a philosophy degree depends on how good of teachers your philosophy professors are and how good the students in the classroom around you are. A good teacher will grip a student and revolutionize their way of thinking. They'll learn how to DO philosophy with them. They'll demonstrate good philosophical dialogue in the classroom, and they'll give lots of feedback on their writing; you learn a lot how to BE a philosopher through the relationship with them. About fellow classmates, some of my students tell me that after class, they go to dinner and talk philosophy with other students, and then they go to the library and talk philosophy late into the night (until 2am one student told me). Others talk a lot of philosophy at our philosophy club. There are a lot of intangible benefits on the way to getting the degree. A lot of this is lost if the professor is a poor teacher who doesn't care about teaching, or if your fellow students are shabby or unmotivated or uninterested or if everything is online and the zoom session just shows a bunch of black screens with the professor blabbing on and not actually teaching. The quality of your university and its philosophy department matters for how valuable your philosophy degree is.
First, I think this video has really helpful advice for writing and speaking. Second, one of the major benefits I found in going to higher education was that it forces you to read widely and on topics you may not be interested in studying on your own. Every essay or research paper is going to require 5-15 sources in your bibliography. That sort of exercise forces you to become well acquainted with the topic.
Having taken some philosophy courses and soon to be receiving a PhD in mathematics, I disagree. A degree in philosophy would take time away from the necessary coursework to cut it in graduate programs for the hard sciences. We learn a lot of philosophy of science and mathematics in the process anyway. I would argue the opposite in true. Philosophers in metaphysics should get more formal training in physics. Philosophers in epistemology could use more training in mathematical logic. A better understanding of science generally would lead to better philosophy.
Well, I think _some_ philosophy should be mandatory for a PhD in science (at least philosophy of science, and logic should be mandatory not just for doctoral students in science but K-12 education!). I'm not convinced a full degree is necessary, and I say this as someone with a degree in philosophy.
I find a Christian apologist can benefit from being well versed in philosophy, science, theology, history, language, ancient culture, and many other fields of study in order to defend the faith. Because philosophy gives some arguments for God's existence (causality, morality), science gives others (the Cambrian Explosion, beginning of life/the universe), history gives more (the Resurrection of Jesus), and theology, language, and ancient culture is often needed to explain difficult passages skeptics love to attack. Why does a Christian need to be so well versed in such a wide field of study? Because to the skeptic, the accumulative case of a million solid arguments is no match for one quippy gotcha question.
I'm taking some philosophy classes, but I don't know if I'll get a degree. My intention is to improve my critical thinking skills, to get feedback from others about my ideas, and to investigate different issues.
From my point of view The problem is bias confirmation. Choosing what to read assumes that you know which book to choose. One must follow a curriculum. If all the books and approaches are only idealistic, it will leave a huge hole in your education. It is essential to learn critical thinking. Philosophy is the professional way of thinking and that makes learning to think mandatory. Discussions are valuable if one discusses with people who think exactly the opposite of our opinions. Syllogisms are a very, very, very limited tool. One must see scientific epistemology. There would be no cell phones if that method was not followed. Reality is the ultimate judge of knowledge.
I don't think you can learn as much as you would in a formal program by simply reading on your own. I distinguish reading philosophy from studying philosophy, and to me, studying philosophy involves writing philosophy and having that writing critiqued by experts. So if you add to the reading the writing and criticizing, then I think you can learn almost as much on your own as you would in a formal program. And I say "almost" because much of what you learn in a formal program comes from interactions with other students and philosophers. So if you find a community of people devoted to philosophy and you discuss philosophy regularly with them, then, in addition to the reading and writing and criticizing, you're as close as you can be to getting what you'd get from a formal program.
"I was delighted with Cicero’s exhortation, at least enough so that I was stimulated by it, and enkindled and inflamed to love, to seek, to obtain, to hold, and to embrace, not this or that sect, but wisdom itself, wherever it might be. Only this checked my ardor: that the name of Christ was not in it. For this name, by thy mercy, O Lord, this name of my Saviour thy Son, my tender heart had piously drunk in, deeply treasured even with my mother’s milk. And whatsoever was lacking that name, no matter how erudite, polished, and truthful, did not quite take complete hold of me." - St. Augustine, Confessions, Book.III, Ch.IV
1. Does one thing follow from another? 2. Is it true? Does it correspond to the reality? These two and some tips on writing, like Jordan Peterson's writing tips, and start working. Write, even badly as you start. Keep it up. Be careful. Reread the writing document. And keep on mind the questions you started with.
Read, Read and Read. Simple to say, but very difficult to achieve. When I speak to someone who just reads books and is smart is totally different to someone I speak to who has a Masters or PhD degree in the subject.
Did Joe agree with Cameron about being able to obtain an education in philosophy (without going to university) that would be on par with someone's education that was obtained through university?
Tip one; you don't need academics at all. You don't even need philosophy per-se. Study philosophy by reading what interests you. Study psychology, sociology, anthropology, etc. and the philosophy will work itself out.
So What does Philosophy have to do with REVELATION? The Truth Coming From GOD? You can Never prove God exists or does not. Respect, I think all REVELATORY religion is not truth, apart from the Ethics. However, I deeply intuit a Spirituality that we were created from and die into. Reincarnation. No ABSURD RELIGIOUS DOGMA. I choose Vedanta as my Intellectual truth.
There's nothing you can't learn on your own that you would learn better at university. The difference is is that you don't have a elitist who has never lived in the real world telling you what it actually means and what you should actually believe. Academia is overrated anyway 😁
I don't think that studying philosophy will help you Cameron. You'll just find more bolt holes and gaps in which to squeeze your god. More bad reasons to believe and more references to fill out your god arguments. It'd be like a forger taking an art class. Sure, they'd learn something. What you need is to learn how to use honesty. Just admit that you have no good reason to believe, there is no good evidence for your god.
Majesty of Reason's book recommendations are as follows:
(1) The Philosopher’s Toolkit (Bagginni)
(2) The Critical Thinking Toolkit (Foresman, Fosl, & Watson)
(3) Just the Arguments: 100 of the Most Important Arguments in Western Philosophy (Barbone & Bruce)
(4) Bad Arguments: 100 of the Most Important Fallacies in Western Philosophy (Barbone & Bruce)
(5) A Rulebook for Arguments (Weston)
(6) Philosophy 1: A Guide through the Subject (Vol 1) (AC Grayling)
(7) Philosophy 2: Further through the Subject (Vol 2) (AC Grayling)
(8) Knowledge, Reality, and Value: A Mostly Common Sense Guide to Philosophy (Huemer)
(9) The Philosophy Major’s Introduction to Philosophy: Concepts and Distinctions (Akiba)
(10) The Majesty of Reason: A Short Guide to Critical Thinking in Philosophy (Schmid)
(11) A Concise Introduction to Logic (Hurley)
(12) Philosophical Devices: Proofs, Probabilities, Possibilities, and Sets (Papineau)
(13) More Precisely: The Math You Need to do Philosophy (Steinhart)
(14) An Introduction to Philosophical Methods (Broadview Guides to Philosophy) (Daly)
@@milos223
They covers a very large net, but a couple good introductory books I have on philosophy of religion are _An Introduction to Philosophy of Religion_ by Brian Davies and an anthology called _Philosophy of Religion: Selected Readings_ by Michael Peterson, William Hasker, et. al.
Not sure what introductory book to recommend on metaphysics (apart from introductory books that basically cover all sorts of philosophy stuff, not metaphysics only); it's such a broad field.
Chad
Be careful studying critical reasoning. It’s the road to atheism
@@pazuzil
Really it boils down more to intuitive perceptions than e.g., disagreeing whether _modus ponens_ is a valid rule of inference. To give a specific example, consider the following moral argument:
(1) If God does not exist, then objective morality does not exist.
(2) Objective morality does exist.
(3) Conclusion: God exists.
There are at least three different groups of people:
(a) Some atheists believe that objective morality is indeed unlikely given God's nonexistence, and would thus be rationally committed to accepting premise (1) as an at least probably true material conditional, while rejecting premise (2).
(b) In contrast, some atheists have differing intuitive perceptions, agreeing with premise (2) but disagreeing with premise (1).
(c) Then of course there are some people who find _both_ premises plausible.
We can't adjudicate which of these three groups is correct by, for example, using the Gensler star test or by agreeing that red herring fallacies are bad. It more or less boils down to different intuitive perceptions.
@@pazuzil ooof
TL;DW - 7 Tips:
1) Read, read, read! (Both sides of a topic). Think about more than just what they say - they about how they go about it.
2) Discuss! Surround yourself with people who are more well-read than you.
3) Write as clearly, concisely, and precisely as possible. Signpost. Get feedback as well.
4) Recognise who has the burden of proof. (Extension: learn about rebutting and undercutting defeaters).
5) C-O-N-S-U-M-E philosophy. Listen to podcasts, audiobooks, debates, etc., in the background.
6) Know logic. This is difficult, but worthwhile. Learn basics of propositional and modal systems.
7) Learn a little about a each field of philosophy. (Internet Encyclopaedia of Philosophy is useful here).
Thanks for the advice Joe!
I have Bachelor’s degrees from Rutgers University in philosophy and psychology. I firmly believe that philosophy needs to be taught at the middle school level all the way throughout high school. We would give birth to an entirely different kind of society - a society where we would think before we judge, entertain thoughts before accepting them, and lastly, a society where the very mystery of being would imbue each and everyone of us with a profound sense of mutual wonder. Philosophy is the foundation of all knowledge - it’s crucial.
Yeah, I agree, I think there is also stereotype that philosophy is only thinking about some topics which have nearly no value, so it would be nice to remove that kind of stereotype from young people (although im also young lol)
And it will be the end of atheism and evolution (if you define evolution as a bunch of random happenings without a cause).
As an undergraduate of Rutgers University, What is the best book on epistemology in your opinion?
Is it not taught in High School in the US? In Sweden it is.
@@JeansiByxan In Poland it is not taught as well
In my experience it is just as easy to learn things outside of school but not as easy to learn things systematically. College helps us not just to learn but to formulate and make our thinking clearer.
I was just lamenting to my wife about this very issue the other night. This is super helpful and timely. Thanks for posting it!
A lot of how much you will get out of a philosophy degree depends on how good of teachers your philosophy professors are and how good the students in the classroom around you are. A good teacher will grip a student and revolutionize their way of thinking. They'll learn how to DO philosophy with them. They'll demonstrate good philosophical dialogue in the classroom, and they'll give lots of feedback on their writing; you learn a lot how to BE a philosopher through the relationship with them. About fellow classmates, some of my students tell me that after class, they go to dinner and talk philosophy with other students, and then they go to the library and talk philosophy late into the night (until 2am one student told me). Others talk a lot of philosophy at our philosophy club. There are a lot of intangible benefits on the way to getting the degree.
A lot of this is lost if the professor is a poor teacher who doesn't care about teaching, or if your fellow students are shabby or unmotivated or uninterested or if everything is online and the zoom session just shows a bunch of black screens with the professor blabbing on and not actually teaching.
The quality of your university and its philosophy department matters for how valuable your philosophy degree is.
First, I think this video has really helpful advice for writing and speaking.
Second, one of the major benefits I found in going to higher education was that it forces you to read widely and on topics you may not be interested in studying on your own.
Every essay or research paper is going to require 5-15 sources in your bibliography. That sort of exercise forces you to become well acquainted with the topic.
Philosophy degree should be mandatory for all pHD science courses.
Having taken some philosophy courses and soon to be receiving a PhD in mathematics, I disagree. A degree in philosophy would take time away from the necessary coursework to cut it in graduate programs for the hard sciences. We learn a lot of philosophy of science and mathematics in the process anyway. I would argue the opposite in true. Philosophers in metaphysics should get more formal training in physics. Philosophers in epistemology could use more training in mathematical logic. A better understanding of science generally would lead to better philosophy.
@@henrilebesgue9013 You are right, i misread your message.
I agree
Well, I think _some_ philosophy should be mandatory for a PhD in science (at least philosophy of science, and logic should be mandatory not just for doctoral students in science but K-12 education!). I'm not convinced a full degree is necessary, and I say this as someone with a degree in philosophy.
@@debaterofeverythingpresent2775 I like your username
Hegelianism and German Idealism is the very acne I mean the acme of deep philosophical reasoning.
Bruh😂
Would be interesting to see a discussion with Joe with WLC, he is much more educated and smarter than Scott Clifton and Alex Oconnor.
I find a Christian apologist can benefit from being well versed in philosophy, science, theology, history, language, ancient culture, and many other fields of study in order to defend the faith. Because philosophy gives some arguments for God's existence (causality, morality), science gives others (the Cambrian Explosion, beginning of life/the universe), history gives more (the Resurrection of Jesus), and theology, language, and ancient culture is often needed to explain difficult passages skeptics love to attack. Why does a Christian need to be so well versed in such a wide field of study? Because to the skeptic, the accumulative case of a million solid arguments is no match for one quippy gotcha question.
I'm taking some philosophy classes, but I don't know if I'll get a degree. My intention is to improve my critical thinking skills, to get feedback from others about my ideas, and to investigate different issues.
From my point of view
The problem is bias confirmation. Choosing what to read assumes that you know which book to choose. One must follow a curriculum.
If all the books and approaches are only idealistic, it will leave a huge hole in your education.
It is essential to learn critical thinking.
Philosophy is the professional way of thinking and that makes learning to think mandatory.
Discussions are valuable if one discusses with people who think exactly the opposite of our opinions.
Syllogisms are a very, very, very limited tool. One must see scientific epistemology. There would be no cell phones if that method was not followed.
Reality is the ultimate judge of knowledge.
I don't think you can learn as much as you would in a formal program by simply reading on your own. I distinguish reading philosophy from studying philosophy, and to me, studying philosophy involves writing philosophy and having that writing critiqued by experts. So if you add to the reading the writing and criticizing, then I think you can learn almost as much on your own as you would in a formal program. And I say "almost" because much of what you learn in a formal program comes from interactions with other students and philosophers. So if you find a community of people devoted to philosophy and you discuss philosophy regularly with them, then, in addition to the reading and writing and criticizing, you're as close as you can be to getting what you'd get from a formal program.
"I was delighted with Cicero’s exhortation, at least enough so that I was stimulated by it, and enkindled and inflamed to love, to seek, to obtain, to hold, and to embrace, not this or that sect, but wisdom itself, wherever it might be. Only this checked my ardor: that the name of Christ was not in it. For this name, by thy mercy, O Lord, this name of my Saviour thy Son, my tender heart had piously drunk in, deeply treasured even with my mother’s milk. And whatsoever was lacking that name, no matter how erudite, polished, and truthful, did not quite take complete hold of me."
- St. Augustine, Confessions, Book.III, Ch.IV
Learning on your own is more enjoyable anyway
1. Does one thing follow from another?
2. Is it true? Does it correspond to the reality?
These two and some tips on writing, like Jordan Peterson's writing tips, and start working. Write, even badly as you start. Keep it up.
Be careful. Reread the writing document.
And keep on mind the questions you started with.
Read, Read and Read. Simple to say, but very difficult to achieve. When I speak to someone who just reads books and is smart is totally different to someone I speak to who has a Masters or PhD degree in the subject.
Did Joe agree with Cameron about being able to obtain an education in philosophy (without going to university) that would be on par with someone's education that was obtained through university?
Great video, but I start disagreeing around here 11:45
pls don't ban me :(
I started disagreeing at 11:47.
Tip one; you don't need academics at all. You don't even need philosophy per-se. Study philosophy by reading what interests you. Study psychology, sociology, anthropology, etc. and the philosophy will work itself out.
I can't clearly hear the names of RUclips channels Joe is mentioning. Can anyone help plss 🙏🏻
I heard these two - Parker's Pensees, and The Analytic Christian.
@@calebp6114 Yeah , the other one wasn't clear to me either
The other one is Kane B
@@emiliocittadini6451 thanks ❤️
I'm pretty sure one of them was Maverick Christian. 😜
Woah, I'm in a CC's video 😳
@@bedwarsvagrant he's Lelouch vi Britannia from Code Geass.
CLEP and AP exams help
Tip #1: Don’t be like Cameron.
So What does Philosophy have to do with REVELATION? The Truth Coming From GOD? You can Never prove God exists or does not. Respect, I think all REVELATORY religion is not truth, apart from the Ethics. However, I deeply intuit a Spirituality that we were created from and die into. Reincarnation. No ABSURD RELIGIOUS DOGMA. I choose Vedanta as my Intellectual truth.
Theists obsession with philosophy is hilarious!
Actually most philosophers are atheists.
There's nothing you can't learn on your own that you would learn better at university. The difference is is that you don't have a elitist who has never lived in the real world telling you what it actually means and what you should actually believe. Academia is overrated anyway 😁
I don't think that studying philosophy will help you Cameron. You'll just find more bolt holes and gaps in which to squeeze your god. More bad reasons to believe and more references to fill out your god arguments. It'd be like a forger taking an art class. Sure, they'd learn something.
What you need is to learn how to use honesty. Just admit that you have no good reason to believe, there is no good evidence for your god.
@@thotslayer9914 You can't even spell it ffs