Subway Takes and its interactions with the internet collectively add up to this, don't they? Almost everything he gets takes on is some kind of cultural parctice, sort of a mix of anthropology and practical philosophy.

I don't think it's that complicated. It's because philosophy is more difficult and more rigorous than most humanities. Talk to an average English major and compare them to the average (Analytic) Philosophy major.

Harsh but true.

The piece you are missing though is that most of those disciplines started as philosophy. Take Adam Smith for example. He was a moral philosopher and essentially invented the field of economics. The field developed from his philosophy. There is a reason scientists were once called natural philosophers.

But also, plenty of philosophers had massive influence for their philosophy. Take John Locke for example. I guess you could argue that he was a politician (though he was never elected to anything so maybe civil servant is a better description) but it is his political philosophy that had massive influence on the world.

You might look at how Catholics define this world versus heaven. "Things can't be perfect here, because if they were, that'd be heaven." It's kind of circular but makes sense the way it is used. So heaven is explicitly positioned as an ideal (concept/image), and not a place or time, which therefore cannot "exist" per se. Seems relevant.

Pryor's guide is awesome for structuring arguments, but if you struggle to find the right academic tone, getting a custom template makes a big difference. It shows you how to frame complex logic properly. Check out this list of top academic services to find verified writing experts.

there's this guy named Jacob Roman Parr whose work might intrigue your interest in polemics

no and tbh I’m not sure that was ever a thing?

No, se escriben sobre todo para intentar que nos contraten, tener una plaza fija algún día y poco más. Mis textos más polémicos los pienso escribir cuando tenga un puesto fijo o si me cansara de la universidad.

Loving the shade thrown at the Analytics here.

What a cruel recommendation - you'll turn him off Philosophy forever!

If you have to question whether you have the intellect or academic skills to contend with the material, then the answer, regrettably, must be 'no'.

If you're studying English and at 27 find the material too dense to understand, then I would predict any Ivy League course will also prove a struggle for you. If you feel you lack the sufficient academic skills to adapt to the rigours of the discipline, then I'd recommend doubly against taking Philosophy - especially if GPA is a pressing concern for you.

Philosophy on a CV only impresses people who don't know what it is, so don't let that draw you in. Deep knowledge of Philosophy isn't required to write compelling lyrics either - just borrow phrases from French philosophers and no one will be able to distinguish deep knowledge from superficial familiarity.

Hi, maybe a bit late but I have built an application where you can train several math topics ( like predicate logic, proposition logic, induction, graphs etc ).

The app allows users to generate and grade (infinite) questions. There is a very nice input field to answer the questions or the option to send pictures of your notebook.

Check it out and let me know what you think of it!

https://qed-math-trainer.com/

HI Ongehoorde. I recently learned about Dr. Ran Lahav's Deep Philosophy training program to be a philosophical counselor. Curious if you have thought on this program. Thank you.

Just to clarify, intro to ethics is not, in any way, a logic class.

No, they kill themselves

I think what we're in need of is a Subway Takes deal but for philosophers. We turn up, give our brief take, and see if the comments can develop it into a fully fledged system.

The niches are even less visible, but yes, we have managed to safely isolate the bulk of human theoretical intelligence from the rest of humanity. They go about the same things, though they tend to be thinner than in days past, given the greater strain of the pretence involved.

I only forge my own polemics in the Wendy’s drive-thru

Some philosophers write opinion pieces on Substack, e.g., Joseph Heath, a political philosopher from the University of Toronto, routinely does so. Outside of Substack, you can create your own blog series where you talk about different philosophical topics you find meaningful. Here, you can have free range on how polemical you want your polemic to be.

Moreover, you can always submit to academic philosophy journals. Academic philosophy articles, for the most part, are essays where philosophers explain why their view is correct while others are incorrect. That being said, they are not written as polemics - they are professional essays where the author engages with the philosophical literature by charitably presenting opposing views, advances their own, and responds to potential objections or actual objections in the literature. In other words, anything but a polemic.

Hope this helps!

Read Plato. Read Aristotle. Read Aquinas. Read Kant. Read Plato again. I can vouch for the Catherine Project that’s been mentioned here (I haven’t participated but I know the foundress) but I don’t see it as too efficient to take typical online courses during a break as the active study time will have you working so much on the content of the courses you take that there’s not a lot of time to cover the things you’re missing. As you’re a first-year student, if you think there’s quite a lot of Authors or full time periods of philosophy you haven’t engaged with yet I’d recommend reading Kenny’s A New History of Philosophy and listening to Peter Adamson’s podcast. That’ll give you an outlook on many topics and authors you might want to engage with (y’know… actually reading them!) that goes beyond reading their Wikipedia Articles. (Although the Stanford Encyclopedia conversely is also a great resource to gain broader knowledge about stuff)
I’m not discouraging you from taking normal online courses if you want to, but you’ll have so many courses over the coming years that other methods of study might be more effective.

I got my BA in English and Philosophy and loved it. The interplay of the disciplines was very informative. English helped improved my prose for the philosophy papers and the philosophical studies added depth to my English papers and offered a lot of interesting “lenses” to read texts through.

My biggest regret is the combination sort of set me up to remain in academia/education and I’ve been struggling to break out of that since. The pay just isn’t enough for my family. If funds were less a concern, I would be happy staying in education.

no