Is Specialization in Philosophy Good?

[namelesss]

@The Underground Man

Now notice how you approach ‘wide,’ with the hope of attaining an understanding (I’ll omit perception) of reality.

Not exactly. A ‘wider’ Perspective incorporates ‘more’ of existence, therefore perceiving a larger more complete picture/portion of reality.

If we take an even closer look at Heidegger,…

I can speak for my own thoughts and perceptions, not those of others.

psychology was once a philosophical discipline, now however, through specialization it has become it’s own science.

All ‘sciences’ (and psychology) are branches of philosophy. More like feeder roots.

And within psychology just consider the vast number of schools and approaches to the science. Gestalt, behavioral, therapeutic, dream-analysis, emotive, what have you. Experts study within these particular fields and advance our collective knowledge on the whole, Smith would argue, faster and more efficiently. If each psychologist dabbles a little here and a little there, without specializing in a certain field, this would ultimately be at the cost of ‘progress in the science.’

All this in no way refutes what I have originally offered. If it doesn’t work in extremis, it is faulty.
Arguing pragmatism of science does not speak to the OP question (Is Specialization in Philosophy Good?) that I specifically answered (“‘Good’? From what Perspective? What context? Specialization is the narrowing of focus until you see nothing at all.
Wide (included angle of) Perspective is wide understanding/perception of reality.”).
I do find correlates in ‘science’, though. Given sufficient focus, one doesn’t find anything.

[Juggernaut]

@Xunzian

Anon,

Well, let’s avoid specific examples and instead use my own experience as a model. My mother would be best described as a Brechtian, that is her life-philosophy embraces a fusion of Nietzschean and Marxist philosophies. She also has a hefty dose of cultural Confucianism/Sinicism thrown in to complicate the mix, not wholly embraced because they are antiquated and problematic but persisting in no small part because of the problems of Maoist philosophy. My father is more free-wheeling but most identifies with the Campbellian axis. Couple that with my having been raised in America and thus steeped in the Western tradition. So the works of Xunzi fit me like a glove. Especially in light of some of the work that the so-called “South of the Charles River” school of New Confucianism is doing in that area. So I embraced that and threw myself into it full force. Because of the rather niche realm that post-Imperial Confucian philosophy occupies, I couldn’t help but be exposed to the more orthodox Mencian line of thinking. As I studied more and more I found the Xunzian line of thinking less and less satisfying. For a while I fluttered and vacillated attempting to adopt a hybrid approach. Such an approach was necessarily self-limiting and involved a certain amount of cognitive dissonance. This eventually lead me to abandon the heterodox line of Xunzian thinking and to wholly identify with the Mencian line. First through Zhu Xi who co-opted many Xunzian principles while decrying Xunzian philosophy. But through that, I encountered Wang Yangming and others who were more of the straight-up Mencian line. It was a complete rejection of my previous position but the transition was gradual and so while there were inflection points of note in retrospect at the time they didn’t feel all that radical. Specialization demands addressing those concerns. That is why I like it

Underground,

Yeah, but that is the distinction between being a part of a product that is efficiently made (mechanization) and making a new product (which requires specialization). Why shouldn’t white collar work be subject to the same stress that blue collar work is? Is there some magical distinction between the two besides the size of the paycheck? Neither is necessarily more authentic than the other nor is one subject to stresses the other is not.

People have that distinction in their mind because they are either glad to be Alphas and not Betas or because they are glad to be Betas and not Alphas . .

My mother is Chinese, and my other mother is Japanese, and I’m me…

[anon]

@The Underground Man

anon,

Good insight. I guess, we might say that science operates in a similar fashion? I mean, the scientist does put faith (despite Hume) that the formulas for gravity will apply tomorrow just as they do today. In other words, there is really a degree of faith in every human pursuit, varying greatly between scientists and theologians, granted, but never entirely absent in either. Perhaps philosophy might one day fall close to the scientist scale of the divide, and then faith would not be such a big deal.

“Because it’s all kind of vague and unspecific.”

Any thoughts on phenomenology . . . that’s as specific an example as I’m able to conjure.

Hmm, phenomenology. Yes, I’ve seen people obsess over whether qualia exist, because they’re trying to construct a perfect system. So the question isn’t whether we have subjective experiences or not, or how to deal with them in different ways, but whether we can create a perfect ontological system. I think it’s sillly for the most part. To be clear though, I’m not making a case against specialization - I’m making a case against getting tangled in complexity, and forgetting what’s important and why we’re philosophising in the first place.

[Juggernaut]

@anon

@The Underground Man

anon,

Good insight. I guess, we might say that science operates in a similar fashion? I mean, the scientist does put faith (despite Hume) that the formulas for gravity will apply tomorrow just as they do today. In other words, there is really a degree of faith in every human pursuit, varying greatly between scientists and theologians, granted, but never entirely absent in either. Perhaps philosophy might one day fall close to the scientist scale of the divide, and then faith would not be such a big deal.

“Because it’s all kind of vague and unspecific.”

Any thoughts on phenomenology . . . that’s as specific an example as I’m able to conjure.

Hmm, phenomenology. Yes, I’ve seen people obsess over whether qualia exist, because they’re trying to construct a perfect system. So the question isn’t whether we have subjective experiences or not, or how to deal with them in different ways, but whether we can create a perfect ontological system. I think it’s sillly for the most part. To be clear though, I’m not making a case against specialization - I’m making a case against getting tangled in complexity, and forgetting what’s important and why we’re philosophising in the first place.

Really…People question whether we have subjective experiences or not???.. How many???

Perfect systems??? Who are you dealing with??? Could it be rank idiots…Perhaps, Idealists??? Look, if people want to build on great computer as an example of a perfect system, and put all of their knowledge in it they are asking for trouble…People put their eggs all in one basket…It is not as though people do not add to the complexity of life all the time… The thing is, that if you cannot cut the Gordian Knot you are unfitted for philosophy… Think of yourself as a mechanic…Taking the thing apart is only step one…Putting it back together better is the object… To do that we must understand, and cut through the apparent complexity to the reality…

[anon]

@Juggernaut

@anon

@The Underground Man

anon,

Good insight. I guess, we might say that science operates in a similar fashion? I mean, the scientist does put faith (despite Hume) that the formulas for gravity will apply tomorrow just as they do today. In other words, there is really a degree of faith in every human pursuit, varying greatly between scientists and theologians, granted, but never entirely absent in either. Perhaps philosophy might one day fall close to the scientist scale of the divide, and then faith would not be such a big deal.

“Because it’s all kind of vague and unspecific.”

Any thoughts on phenomenology . . . that’s as specific an example as I’m able to conjure.

Hmm, phenomenology. Yes, I’ve seen people obsess over whether qualia exist, because they’re trying to construct a perfect system. So the question isn’t whether we have subjective experiences or not, or how to deal with them in different ways, but whether we can create a perfect ontological system. I think it’s sillly for the most part. To be clear though, I’m not making a case against specialization - I’m making a case against getting tangled in complexity, and forgetting what’s important and why we’re philosophising in the first place.

Really…People question whether we have subjective experiences or not???.. How many???

Perfect systems??? Who are you dealing with??? Could it be rank idiots…Perhaps, Idealists??? Look, if people want to build on great computer as an example of a perfect system, and put all of their knowledge in it they are asking for trouble…People put their eggs all in one basket…It is not as though people do not add to the complexity of life all the time… The thing is, that if you cannot cut the Gordian Knot you are unfitted for philosophy… Think of yourself as a mechanic…Taking the thing apart is only step one…Putting it back together better is the object… To do that we must understand, and cut through the apparent complexity to the reality…

I’m a little unclear about your post. I specifically said that people don’t question whether we have subjective experiences or not.

[Juggernaut]

anon; You said that the question was not…When was it ever the question that you are bringing it up??? You have to be careful with rhetorical devices that you do not end up suggesting the opposite with rash statements…I know some people think I have a lousy style with argument…It may be because I am not arguing, but if I were denying the positive I would at least try to prove the negative…

[Xunzian]

@Juggernaut

My mother is Chinese, and my other mother is Japanese, and I’m me…

Not sure what you mean there.

[Juggernaut]

@Xunzian

@Juggernaut

My mother is Chinese, and my other mother is Japanese, and I’m me…

Not sure what you mean there.

It is an old kids joke, where the kid pull the corners of his eyes up while saying: My mother is chinese, and then saying my Father is Japanese, with ryes pulled down…And then pulling one eye corner up and one down, he says: and I’m me…

Why is that the writer was giving a geneology based upon the influence of certain writers on parent…Maybe he was adopted…If people are so intellectual how do they ever find themselves naked in bed…

[Xunzian]

Aside from the racist joke, I’m still not understanding you. Of course our philosophies are influenced by the situations in which we have found ourselves, familial, genetic, social, the whole bag. To try and suggest a system that is somehow separate from that is to suggest something that is fundamentally inhuman. Being a human being myself, why would I want to engage myself in a system so totally alien?

[Juggernaut]

@Xunzian

Aside from the racist joke, I’m still not understanding you. Of course our philosophies are influenced by the situations in which we have found ourselves, familial, genetic, social, the whole bag. To try and suggest a system that is somehow separate from that is to suggest something that is fundamentally inhuman. Being a human being myself, why would I want to engage myself in a system so totally alien?

I don’t know about our philosophies, but my philosophy is no philosophy, because when people get one they quit doing philosophy to have only another form…If you cannot laugh at harmless stupid jokes you must be great fun to be around…

[anon]

@Juggernaut

anon; You said that the question was not…When was it ever the question that you are bringing it up??? You have to be careful with rhetorical devices that you do not end up suggesting the opposite with rash statements…I know some people think I have a lousy style with argument…It may be because I am not arguing, but if I were denying the positive I would at least try to prove the negative…

I don’t know if you have a “lousy style” or not, I’m just having a hard time understanding you.

[Juggernaut]

@anon

@Juggernaut

anon; You said that the question was not…When was it ever the question that you are bringing it up??? You have to be careful with rhetorical devices that you do not end up suggesting the opposite with rash statements…I know some people think I have a lousy style with argument…It may be because I am not arguing, but if I were denying the positive I would at least try to prove the negative…

I don’t know if you have a “lousy style” or not, I’m just having a hard time understanding you.

A’ll wrate slawer…

[Xunzian]

Straight to character assassination? Coupled with a self-contradictory assertion with nothing to back it up?

Really?

[Juggernaut]

@Xunzian

Straight to character assassination? Coupled with a self-contradictory assertion with nothing to back it up?

Really?

Sounds like a Plan…Beer first or after???

[Xunzian]

Beer belongs both before and after. At the same time. It is truly one of the mysteries of the world.

[Juggernaut]

@Xunzian

Beer belongs both before and after. At the same time. It is truly one of the mysteries of the world.

The first time I was married I happened to get marriage counciling from a first rate Psychoanalyst…He spent more time talking to me than I to him; and he gave me the compliment of saying he’d like to do psychotherapy with me… Sure, I was complex and crazy; so who wouldn’t…The thing is that this guy and his wife were both jewish, and the Jewish drunk is like the drunk priest, and little talked about…But those two had discovered happy hour, and he said that he and his wife often commented: What a wonderful drug is alcohol… Whiskey is Celtic for water of life; Aqua Vitae in another tongue… Maybe the rummies are not so cool as the pot heads, but they do more damage…Share alcohol brother; Thou Art God…

Here is a joke for you: How many Irishmen does it take to screw in a lightbulb??? Two…One to hold the light bulb and one to drink whiskey till the room spins…

[The_Underground_Man]

Hi nameless,

@namelesss

@The Underground Man

Now notice how you approach ‘wide,’ with the hope of attaining an understanding (I’ll omit perception) of reality.

Not exactly. A ‘wider’ Perspective incorporates ‘more’ of existence, therefore perceiving a larger more complete picture/portion of reality.

Once again, in what terms?

If we take an even closer look at Heidegger,…

I can speak for my own thoughts and perceptions, not those of others.
[b]
There we go, your terms are subjective; your perception, your philosophy, your conceptual understanding of reality as opposed to Heidegger’s and others. You specialize in subjectivity. This narrows any possible expansion of width, to you and you alone, to your philosophy on reality. This is much smaller than what I thought you were going for, as this leaves out any chance to communicate conceptually. May I inquire what you mean by the term, ‘reality?’ That is a concept of which I have no clarity, especially given that you are using it with the understanding that I understand the term, seems very natural to do so, but given a subjective stance that you adopt it makes it very ironic to use any abstract, philosophical term in communication with an other, and perhaps even an impossibility.

What I’m trying to point out is that if we can’t go from ‘your perceptions,’ even intuitions, toward a conceptual understanding of any aspect of philosophical inquiry, or vice-versa, from a conceptual framework of another thinker (e.g. Heidegger), then philosophy, as I think was it not you who argued with me awhile ago, as a critical attempt to reason conceptually (I’ll have to look back at that thread), runs into a dead-end street. Say nothing even of philosophy as a science.[/b]

(Incidentally, phenomenology always begins with subjective perception as a starting point toward the holy grail: objective universal essences.)

psychology was once a philosophical discipline, now however, through specialization it has become it’s own science.

All ‘sciences’ (and psychology) are branches of philosophy. More like feeder roots.

Psychology has fallen from a philosophical tree, but has amazingly grown into something unique. Nature’s metaphors are not sufficient examples of what has actually gone on historically in these fields. It is probably much more accurate to say that philosophy was to psychology what astrology is to astronomy.

And within psychology just consider the vast number of schools and approaches to the science. Gestalt, behavioral, therapeutic, dream-analysis, emotive, what have you. Experts study within these particular fields and advance our collective knowledge on the whole, Smith would argue, faster and more efficiently. If each psychologist dabbles a little here and a little there, without specializing in a certain field, this would ultimately be at the cost of ‘progress in the science.’

All this in no way refutes what I have originally offered. If it doesn’t work in extremis, it is faulty.
Arguing pragmatism of science does not speak to the OP question (Is Specialization in Philosophy Good?) that I specifically answered (“‘Good’? From what Perspective? What context? Specialization is the narrowing of focus until you see nothing at all.
Wide (included angle of) Perspective is wide understanding/perception of reality.”).
I do find correlates in ‘science’, though. Given sufficient focus, one doesn’t find anything.

Let me put it into more everyday language as I’m starting to see it here. Philosophy seems to be person A convincing person B of absolutely anything that person A believes is interesting or important enough to think about. This can be done in a variety of different methods, from pure logic, to prose, to even poetry. As Kojeve noted, it can even be person A trying to convince person A of something (e.g. Cartesian meditations). Now, specialization comes in when person A focuses on one particular problem. For example, ontology. Then we have a narrowing of focus not so that person A doesn’t see anything at all, but so that s/he is focused on ontology and ontology only - not, say, theology. Phenomenologists like Heidegger and Sartre focused precisely on ontology; Bertrand Russell, on the other hand, focused on logic. Each has added, historically, to “philosophy.” Now, there is a specialization called, “philosophical history.” This person does philosophy by simply studying the philosophers of the past, (I think this came out of Hegel, the guy who thought he was at the end of history…sigh). Anyway, the point being, this individual attempts specializing in the “big picture so to speak,” by attempting to understand all of the ‘important’ thinkers of the past (which I will agree will also be short-sighted). Taken anyway you want, nobody can ever possibly understand “everything,” or “every aspect of reality”, holes are bound to be made in every conceptual framework.

My point is, however, that there will always be a conceptual frame-work, that serious philosophy is always already specialized and becoming more and more so, especially in the latest historical epoch, our own. Smith argues that this is good, each person specializes in their aspect and in doing so will see things that those who do not specialize in that field would not catch. Derrida on language is a great example. This knowledge gets assembled in books, and on the whole there is a greater production of quality books, coming about in this manner, then if every thinker was out trying to understand “everything about everything.” Derrida will not be as insightful about social ethics as Rawls will be, because Rawls has dedicated himself to that specialized field. His vision is narrowed upon his own specialty. Likewise Rawls will not have the insights about language that Wittgenstein has, or on logic that Russell and Aristotle have, on tragedy that Schopenhauer and Nietzsche have.

Whew.

Xunzian,

Underground,

Yeah, but that is the distinction between being a part of a product that is efficiently made (mechanization) and making a new product (which requires specialization). Why shouldn’t white collar work be subject to the same stress that blue collar work is? Is there some magical distinction between the two besides the size of the paycheck? Neither is necessarily more authentic than the other nor is one subject to stresses the other is not.

I completely agree; even thought so myself as I read the book review. I’ve worked in a factory and know all to well the price of, in terms of back-pain and spirit that everyday felt like it was leaking out of my soles, Capitalism. Truth is the whole system sucks, as Duality put it, and though I don’t agree with the eternal optimistic note he has at the end, I do still, as my name indicates, believe very much in us being cogs in a very elaborate, inorganic machine.

So, when are we going to open the money-making, brainstorming thread?

Jesus said to the Devil, “Man cannot live by bread alone.” Marx said to Jesus, “I’m hungry.”

[The_Underground_Man]

anon,

@anon

@The Underground Man

anon,
Hmm, phenomenology. Yes, I’ve seen people obsess over whether qualia exist, because they’re trying to construct a perfect system. So the question isn’t whether we have subjective experiences or not, or how to deal with them in different ways, but whether we can create a perfect ontological system. I think it’s sillly for the most part. To be clear though, I’m not making a case against specialization - I’m making a case against getting tangled in complexity, and forgetting what’s important and why we’re philosophising in the first place.

Why are we philosophizing? Personally I started on, does god exist and what is the point to life, does it have any meaning? Then I got tangled, really tangled. Now I don’t know why I do it, perhaps only because it just seems as natural to do as to breathe. It is easier knowing what ontology means, too.

Perfect ontological systems… that’s what the big thinkers sought. I do find it interesting to read the existentialists though . . . what does it mean to be a human being, ontologically speaking? Getting at the “essences” of humans, or art objects, even if one doesn’t arrive at them - the journey - can be quite instructive, and at times, profound.

Aside from that, I’m not sure why I philosophize, other than to really strengthen my mind. Reading the paper is like reading a children’s book after Heidegger and Husserl. And to combine theories with the arts. A classic example of what philosophy does to me can be summed up by why it took me so many days to reply on this thread. I re-read Camus, a post-modern essay on language, and had a night-long nightmare and a complete, rather schizophrenic breakdown of language (I started to see language in images like the schizophrenic sees reality, rather than as signs toward signifiers and consequently got quite depressed and mad). You know, couldn’t get out of bed, clean, preform mundane tasks. Plato compared doing philosophy to madness. He was right.

I just finished Ecce Homo, that too gave me another sleepless night as I witnessed Nietzsche’s decent into madness. Why do we philosophize? I’m starting to believe we’re courageous masochists. (Though ILPers have significant sadistic streaks in them.) Why do you philosophize?

Juggernaut,

“I don’t know about our philosophies, but my philosophy is no philosophy, because when people get one they quit doing philosophy to have only another form…”

Nietzsche would probably be a great counter-example as the philosopher, through his embodiment of the Dionysian, that never settled on a particular philosophy. He systematically, in a variety of different styles, according to his own wickedly funny, moving, tragic autobiography, destroyed what he created in order to be in a constant state of creation . . . so as to be in constant state of becoming. Finally I understand why Nietzsche is seen as an existentialist.

[Xunzian]

@The Underground Man

Xunzian,

Underground,

Yeah, but that is the distinction between being a part of a product that is efficiently made (mechanization) and making a new product (which requires specialization). Why shouldn’t white collar work be subject to the same stress that blue collar work is? Is there some magical distinction between the two besides the size of the paycheck? Neither is necessarily more authentic than the other nor is one subject to stresses the other is not.

I completely agree; even thought so myself as I read the book review. I’ve worked in a factory and know all to well the price of, in terms of back-pain and spirit that everyday felt like it was leaking out of my soles, Capitalism. Truth is the whole system sucks, as Duality put it, and though I don’t agree with the eternal optimistic note he has at the end, I do still, as my name indicates, believe very much in us being cogs in a very elaborate, inorganic machine.

So, when are we going to open the money-making, brainstorming thread?

Jesus said to the Devil, “Man cannot live by bread alone.” Marx said to Jesus, “I’m hungry.”

I don’t know if I am willing to embrace so pessimistic a note. The system has its fair share of problems, sure, but I think that the majority of the problems in the system come from accepting the values the system wants you to accept. The current capitalist paradigm is: “Earn, earn, earn.” Followed by: “Consume, consume, consume.” That is it. The first half of the system deals with the accumulation of money (the classic external good) while the second deals with the exchange of an external good for some unrelated object. If one embraces these goals, how can they help but be unsatisfied? The entire process is entirely hollow.

On the other hand, one can focus on internal goods (whatever they may be) as well as developing more meaningful relationships and find a great deal of contentment. Such a path normally entails considerably less money but most people who enjoy the luxury of regular internet access could adopt such a path with minimal discomfort. Naturally, individual situations do vary but one should still ask themselves: what do they want to achieve with their labor, who are they supporting through their labor, and how are they supporting them through their labor?

If you aren’t supporting some sort of a family unit with your labor, working a job you hate seems really stupid unless it is part of a training program which will graduate you to a job you really actively want to pursue. If you are supporting a family, how are you supporting them? Are you working a job you hate because your kids need an Xbox or because your mother needs chemotherapy for her cancer? The former, “keeping up with the Joneses” sort of stuff is a surefire path to misery. On the other hand, sometimes we are dealt a rough hand and we have to rise to the occasion while taking joy/solace in the good work we are doing. Purpose is key in these sorts of things. And sometimes one’s purpose won’t reach fruition until they are gone. Many parents strive to see to it that their children have a better life than they did. While this goal may seem somewhat unsatisfactory, sometimes it takes the weight of experience to create the circumstances whereby a good life can be made possible.

In the end, I think Aristotle was right. He took the cheater’s way out and agreed with both Jesus and Marx. We require a baseline of external goods for happiness but we also need to cultivate internal ones.

This may seem more than a little pollyannaish. I’d agree, because there are many grave injustices in the present system. Arbitrary roadblocks towards success, the absence of a meaningful meritocracy, denial of basic necessities. These are all very real problems and all very serious. However, I think they are greatly compounded by the fact that people often thing that they need more than they do. The internal colonization of consumerism ensures that.

[The_Underground_Man]

Xun,

@Xunzian

I don’t know if I am willing to embrace so pessimistic a note. The system has its fair share of problems, sure, but I think that the majority of the problems in the system come from accepting the values the system wants you to accept. The current capitalist paradigm is: “Earn, earn, earn.” Followed by: “Consume, consume, consume.” That is it. The first half of the system deals with the accumulation of money (the classic external good) while the second deals with the exchange of an external good for some unrelated object. If one embraces these goals, how can they help but be unsatisfied? The entire process is entirely hollow.

On the other hand, one can focus on internal goods (whatever they may be) as well as developing more meaningful relationships and find a great deal of contentment. Such a path normally entails considerably less money but most people who enjoy the luxury of regular internet access could adopt such a path with minimal discomfort. Naturally, individual situations do vary but one should still ask themselves: what do they want to achieve with their labor, who are they supporting through their labor, and how are they supporting them through their labor?

If you aren’t supporting some sort of a family unit with your labor, working a job you hate seems really stupid unless it is part of a training program which will graduate you to a job you really actively want to pursue. If you are supporting a family, how are you supporting them? Are you working a job you hate because your kids need an Xbox or because your mother needs chemotherapy for her cancer? The former, “keeping up with the Joneses” sort of stuff is a surefire path to misery. On the other hand, sometimes we are dealt a rough hand and we have to rise to the occasion while taking joy/solace in the good work we are doing. Purpose is key in these sorts of things. And sometimes one’s purpose won’t reach fruition until they are gone. Many parents strive to see to it that their children have a better life than they did. While this goal may seem somewhat unsatisfactory, sometimes it takes the weight of experience to create the circumstances whereby a good life can be made possible.

In the end, I think Aristotle was right. He took the cheater’s way out and agreed with both Jesus and Marx. We require a baseline of external goods for happiness but we also need to cultivate internal ones.

This may seem more than a little pollyannaish. I’d agree, because there are many grave injustices in the present system. Arbitrary roadblocks towards success, the absence of a meaningful meritocracy, denial of basic necessities. These are all very real problems and all very serious. However, I think they are greatly compounded by the fact that people often thing that they need more than they do. The internal colonization of consumerism ensures that.

I just want to bring up some of these arbitrary roadblocks and injustices in our system to illustrate what we have to deal with these days. I agree with your overall pragmatic approach toward seeking to fulfill ideals, money not counting, but our system makes this very, very difficult. You speak about parents striving to see that their children are better off than they were – the American dream! And yet, as things are right now in America, using sociological data, kids must go to college so as to not be worse off than their parents. Coming out of college they find themselves in debt. Lots of debt. It takes them a very long time to work off this debt. Forget taking a backpacking trip across Europe after graduation. With the bank calling you, harassing you, due to debt, in no better positions than their parents if they hold a BA., a 22 year old is in the world looking for any job that they can land to pay it off.

These people will not have the opportunity to even stand up to their employers if their employers are doing unethical things – the Enrons of the world – because they need their jobs. This is a system that is set up to spiral only further down. It used to be that a high-school degree was enough to land a job that you wouldn’t be worse off than your parents. Now, a masters degree might, might put an individual in situation to be better placed than their parents, not forgetting the extra-debt they’ll be in. These people aren’t working for the x-box, they’re working to not get evicted.

Look at the numbers.

Baseline salary for a teacher in nyc is 42k, medical included in benefit package.
-Taxes are around 20%, right? Let’s just say 20 for now.
We’re down to 34k.
A studio in nyc is 1400 (I’m talking 400 and less sq ft.)
1 br 1600-2000 (around 700 sq ft) x 12, let’s take the minimum, 19,200.
We’re down o 14,800 to live on. Oh snap! DEBT.
Let’s say 500 a month to pay back college. Don’t even speak of private school. -6,000.
8,800 left to live on.
Food costs me 500 a month. But let’s make it 400. -4,800.
4k extra money . . . extra??
Bathroom utilities, electric bill, internet and cable bills, clothing, (A kid!? No way!) Gas, a car?!? No… just no way man.

One works one’s ass off, 5-6 classes a day, and then one still has to have the energy at the end to cultivate internal virtues. Of course, you can stand in front of your students and rage about the “colonization of consumerism,” and feel proud and smart and good as you do so. You couldn’t be a part of it though, not even if you wanted. I’m not really this cynical… am I?

So in principle, yeah, cultivate the internal virtues. Marx did. He had to borrow money to pay for a coffin for his kid. And the aftermath his philosophy led to… sigh. An English spy sent to his home said he couldn’t sit down anywhere without risking his trousers. Socrates was poor and had five kids, if I recall correctly. His wife thought he was a fool, but we, his grandchildren, are real proud of our man, right? I don’t think his kids were. No wonder Aristotle took a mean approach.