News from 2016:
Youth feeling disconnected/disaffected isnât anything new. Itâs just perhaps amplified today by a larger breakdown of formerly stable societal structures and norms that allowed the future to be reasonably predictable and guaranteed at least a decent minimum of interpersonal meaning generation for the vast majority of people in their respective social circles. People needed each other and actually derived pleasure and meaning from interacting with each other. Nowadays that is largely being phased out and replaced with interacting with machines. Glowing screens with changing colored pixels or âcontentâ is replacing human interpersonal relations. That is going to have some predictable psychological and social effects.
On top of that there are other factors such as the economy going to shit as the dollar has already been devalued to 1% of its former purchasing power and wealth continues to shift upward and away from the middle class. And on top of that there is a rise in weirdness and confusion, a kind of mind madness in society today. I just heard something about tampons being put in boyâs bathrooms in k-12 schools, like. Huh. Kids these days have a lot stacked against them in terms of developing a healthy and normal way to understand and relate to reality. Some of that is down to the Malthusian cycle of civilization and how we are close to the precipice, although some researchers think we may manage to stave off a super severe collapse by virtue of our advanced technologies compared to, say, Rome. Either way, the genetic decline due to post-Industrialization severely reducing puritying Darwinian selection means a rise across our societies of both physical health problems and mental health problems including declining general intelligence. Lots has already been written and researched in this area. And there doesnât seem much we can do about it except wait for that selection pressure to reassert itself in the environment again.
Hm, other than all those reasons, are there any more reasons explaining youth feeling disconnected? Is it really related to the emergence of AI? I doubt it, although AI will help with that disconnection/disaffection for a little while. Youths can interact with AI chatbots and virtual girlfriends to stave off some of the ennui for a while, Iâd say that may have a shelflife of around a decade or so until absolute ennui rears its ugly head again. Drugs too, of course. Feminism, absolutely. Neoliberalism and all that, yep. Including directed psyops and social engineering targetting the population especially the youth and children.
So I mean, take your pick of reasons. Hopefully we can find some real solutions to help people rather than just dissect the causes of the problem. And bringing that back to the topic of UBI here, what do you think about UBI in terms of helping the problem of disaffected-disconnected youth, or making it worse?
The 2016 proposal did not specify the amount or funding mechanism, which was seen as a weakness in the campaign.
In 2021, Swiss campaigners launched a new peopleâs initiative titled âLive with dignity â for an unconditional basic income that is easy to financeâ. The proposed monthly basic income in this new initiative is approximately CHF 2,500 (about âŹ2,700) per person.
Unlike the 2016 proposal, the new initiative attempts to address the funding issue more explicitly.
While there are no immediate plans for a national UBI in Switzerland, the ongoing debates and several local initiatives to introduce an UBI suggest that the idea remains part of the public discourse.
Thank you for your valuable insights!
Anthropological advancements in basic security of subsistence are said to have given rise to philosophy and science.
-
Maslowâs Hierarchy of Needs Theory: This theory suggests that when basic needs (including food and safety) are met, individuals can pursue higher-level needs, including self-actualization and cognitive exploration. Philosophy falls into these higher-level pursuits.
Maslow's hierarchy of needs - Wikipedia -
Historical Evidence: The emergence of complex philosophical thought often coincided with periods of relative stability and prosperity in ancient civilizations like Greece, China, and India.
-
Cognitive Surplus: As basic needs became more secure, some members of society had the mental energy and time to engage in abstract thinking and contemplation, which are fundamental to philosophy.
Examples Supporting the Assertion
-
Ancient Greece: The Golden Age of Greek philosophy (5th-4th centuries BCE) occurred during a time of relative peace and prosperity in Athens, where citizens had their basic needs met and could engage in intellectual pursuits.
-
Ancient China: The Hundred Schools of Thought flourished during the Spring and Autumn period and the Warring States period (770-221 BCE), a time of political stability and economic growth in many Chinese states.
-
Islamic Golden Age: This period of great philosophical and scientific advancement (8th-14th centuries CE) coincided with economic prosperity and political stability in the Islamic world.
The argument is that âdisconnected youthâ should be given a basic security of subsistence, now that AI not only makes it possible, but gives a prospect of a future that is profoundly disruptive of nature so that it could be said that they âdeserveâ the opportunity to advance beyond struggle.
So in my opinion, giving them basic security doesnât make their situation worse. It might not directly solve anything, but it might be a part of a path to âhigher purposeâ and the ability to defend themselves in a future dominated by AI.
Interesting ideas here, thanks. Let me examine these.
Giving UBI to disaffected youth in order to help them defend against AI, this is the idea I am having the most trouble with. Can you expand on this? In what ways would youth need to defend against AI and how would UBI help them with that? I am thinking of things like social media and gaming/pron addiction, these seriously impact the youth of today and lead to increased disaffection. At least as an example or similarity with how AI might also cause harm or increased disaffection, how would UBI lead to less social media/gaming/pron addiction? If anything it seems like UBI might cause an increase in idle time leading to an increase in these sorts of behaviors. Then again, maybe UBI would also lead to less psychological stress and desperation which would in turn lead to less need to engage in those cathartic behaviors. It might balance out, maybe UBI would in the net be positive. But we need to take a look at how affluence leads to decadence and factor this in as well.
Your examples of ancient societies point to the Malthusian cycle of civilizations. This isnât just about resources and scarcity/abundance in a natural environment subject to predation. Loosely it can be described as: growing and successful societies produce security and material abundance, which leads to affluence and leisure time, which leads to decadence and apathy, which in the end leads to the downfall of that society. You can look at Rome for example, the more affluent the Romans became the less they wanted to have children and their reproductive rates fell. They even used contraception to prevent pregnancies. Declining reproduction is one factor contributing to the decline and downfall of a civilization. More so you can say the loss of interest in procreating and having families. Or you can look at the Calhoun Mouse Utopia experiments to see another example of what happens when, once all material needs are met freely, the colony peaks, flatlines for a while, then suddenly declines and collapses. Mass proliferation of unremoved genetic mutations is posited as the cause in that case, but for humans especially itâs not hard to also posit other more psychological and sociological causes alongside the purely biological-genetic ones.
Despite that, I do agree with you that some level of affluence or abundance, even just a basic security are necessary for us to consider or ascend to higher levels of thought, morality, etc. as is depicted in Maslowâs hierarchy. The problem seems to be that there is another hierarchy alongside Maslowâs, which kicks in once the highest pinnacle of needs and desires are easily and consistently met for most people in the society. Not needing to struggle anymore, our lesser impulses kick in with less natural resistance including our impulses toward apathy and hedonism. The argument seems to be something like: while a level of security, stability and material abundance are needed to achieve a healthy society and psychology of the people, if this level gets too high and struggle/hardship/discomfort become increasingly rare and unnecessary then that health becomes jeopardized and begins to decline.
Said another way, as I heard one person put it, why should we assume that giving free reign to our impulses and desires would be a good thing? Think about the random person who suddenly wins the lottery and becomes super rich overnight? Most of those people squander the money on pleasure-seeking and end up poor again. Was it better for them to have become rich? Maybe, maybe not. Or ought we assume that our desires and impulses are so pure and naturally good that we would not end up unleashing the âwolves of our natureâ and leading ourselves into things like addiction, degeneracy vice, apathy, hedonism, ennui and eventual nihilism and early death?
From a happiness theory perspective, which is part of the âpositive psychology movementâ in business science, money only improves happiness significantly within the scope of what can be described as âbasic securityâ (basic needs). This is named âincome-happiness plateauâ and beyond that plateau, extra money does not generally lead to increased happiness.
For example, a 2010 study by well known business psychology professor Daniel Kahneman and Angus Deaton found that emotional well-being (everyday happiness) increased with income but plateaued at about $75,000 per year in the United States. This would support the idea of a happiness threshold related to basic needs.
https://positivepsychology.com/positive-psychology-theory/
In this light, the provision of basic security might not be comparable to giving people a winning lottery ticket or becoming rich. And that of which one might argue that it would concern squandering of âbasic securityâ money, e.g. spending it on drugs instead of housing, could become a political matter within the scope of social responsibility.
As mentioned in my previous post, basic security might enable people to find a path to a higher purpose in life, a path that in history is said to have resulted in philosophy and science. However, it might not directly solve any specific problems that youth are facing. The argument is that UBI might enable humanity to transform itself âpurposefullyâ.
Iâve seen how people can falter, and how, figuratively with a snap of the fingers, they can be changed around.
Youth, and their assumed âproblemsâ, are for a large part defined by their culture, which can develop and transform. When they as a representative of the future of humanity are provided with the opportunity to seek higher interests, their culture can align automatically to serve higher purposes, which would not only solve problems but that would advance their existence and potential in general.
In business articles that Iâve been noticing, youth doesnât want to leave their bed before 11 am, and doesnât care about job interviews or what a boss would demand from them. In my opinion, they certainly will be willing to leave their bed at 5 am like past generations when provided with a rewarding opportunity.
The argument is basically that youth deserves the opportunity to advance beyond struggle, so that they - as representatives of the human species - can advance culturally for higher purposes.
When people are to be viewed as lowly struggle bound entities that in light of advancing AI and robotics are basically rendered value-less for industry and business, it might not give humanity a fair chance.
As for defending themselves - or humanity - against AI. Iâve been investigating the situation in the context of the idea of âTeleonomic AIâ (the promise of cognitive science and its foundational computation theory of mind) and my concluding notion in this regard is the following:
What if humans lose their Cartesian intelligence advantage?
Descartes - the father of modern philosophy - viewed animals as lowly machines whose purpose of existence is to âserveâ humanity. Descartes dissected animals alive to prove that their cries of pain were meaningless and mechanical. What made humans special in Descartesâ view, was their âintelligence advantageâ.
What if humans are to lose that intelligence advantage fundamentally? Descartes legacy of animal cruelty can provide a hint that it is important that philosophy investigates the situation because it, through Descartes, is partially responsible for how humanity (with youth as an example) is set to be capable of handling the situation that emerges through advancing AI.
The Cartesian view of animal consciousness and human exceptionalism based on intelligence created a problematic framework that may now backfire as AI advances.
If human intelligence is no longer a distinguishing factor, humanity needs new philosophical frameworks for understanding human value and purpose. The argument is simply: humanity deserves the opportunity to advance purposefully through basic security and the disconnected youth phenomenon shows that they need it.
Philosophy is fundamental to culture, and thus philosophy is to be held responsible.
The Netherlands started its first UBI in the city Leiden (which means âLeadingâ in Dutch).
In the test, homeless youth receives 1300 euro per month for a year. Leiden begint met proef: 'basisinkomen' voor dakloze jongeren | Sleutelstad
If AI is made to pay for this, it might give youth an opportunity to develop a future for themselves and to break the âlack of meaning and purposeâ cycle expressed in the âdisconnected youthâ phenomenon.
With the prospect and threat of âsuperior AI speciesâ, it might be an argument that youth deserves the opportunity to advance beyond struggle.
1 Like
Free never means free.
But ok, sure. Allocate some surplus extra to a number of degenerates and social dregs, so they can rise above. I am not opposed to the idea. It would make an interesting social experiment in any case.
Just remember the law of diminishing returns, and the moral hazard here. Giving to those who did not earn it, from those that did, will always imply a moral hazard and tricky landscape to navigate. Diminishing returns is another slippery slope that begs to be negotiated IRL. So what is the total cost for helping X people ârise aboveâ and what is the actual total social net benefit of that, all other things being equal?
Not that anyone cares to ask such philosophical questions. Most only want to appease an emotional impulse and then spend someone elseâs cash in service of that âidealâ.
How do you see AI in that picture?
The following vision by a Stanford MBA student that reflects on how children look out into the world may provide a philosophical insight into the root of the âdisconnected youthâ phenomenon in which children are facing increasing difficulty to find meaning and purpose in life, at school and at work.
She says:
âEvery kid knows what they want to be when they grow up. When youâre a kid youâve got that candy king colored, anything is possible, almost dream-like view of the world. Some kids want to be astronauts. Others fire fighters. Me? âŚâ
What will children growing up today be able to dream about âbeingâ in the face of âsuperior AI speciesâ?
The myth of advanced tech and AI is that we can siphon off enough surplus excess from production to give every human being what they need to survive and thrive. Star Trek represents this concept.
Yet I donât see any efforts to develop food replicators. Or free safe energy for the people. Or a peaceful space-faring exploratory benevolent civilization.
All I see is basically the very opposite of all that stuff.
So âAIâ doesnât impress me very much. Even when we figure out how to create truly sentient AI lifeforms, I doubt they will exist to save us.
Why do you believe that it is a myth?
Isnât the outlook on these " 
AI life forms" sufficient reason to take care of the future of next generations now?
I donât believe that struggle is what defines work. Rather the purpose that work fulfills.
Hubert Joly, the former Chairman and CEO of Best Buy, said âwork is love made visibleâ (which he quoted from the book How Women Rise by Sally Helgesen).
The Leadership Podcast #262: The 
Heart of Business
https://theleadershippodcast.com/tlp262-the-heart-of-business/
Basic security allows humanity to culturally evolve in different dimensions, within the context of purpose and meaning.
It is a myth, or more properly a utopianism, to think that technology can provide everything everyone wants and needs for free. There is no actual reason to think that is possible, and plenty of reason to think itâs not possible. For one, human wants are infinite. No one stops desiring other things once they get what they want right now. Also, resources are obviously not infinite. Unless we all want to live in a digital matrix where the computer can create digital âstuffâ for us to play with and experience as simulations. Maybe some people would be ok with that, but I doubt most people would be. And even if technology got to that level of godlike power where it could just somehow snap its electronic fingers and do the Oprah thing, âYOU get everything you want for free, and YOU get everything you want for freeâŚâ to 8+ billion human beings, and somehow this would generate no contradictions or problems of scarcity or conflicting rights or whatever else, what makes someone think technology that godlike would be used like that? What right do humans have to sit around like gods basking forever in infinite goodies they didnât earn? You seriously think someone in charge of all that technological power, even maybe the AIs themselves at that future point, would condone such complete worthless laziness and hedonism from the population?
In the absence of stress and challenge⌠life atrophies. Ennui, infertility, physical weakening, mental illnesses, suicides, all of these increase the further we try to push away the reality principle. So even if the perfect digital mouse utopia could exist for us, it wouldnât last long.
âŚSpeaking of loving your job, yes I am sure it helps to take on such a perspective when you make $14 million dollars in a single year. Making minimum wage to stock shelves at Walmart is another thing.
âBasic security allows humanity to culturally evolve in different dimensions, within the context of purpose and meaning.â
If we are talking about BASIC security, ok. A roof over your head, some food and clean water. Ok. That MIGHT be practical.
Then again, what sort of human being canât even provide for his own basic security? I can tell you: a child.
What does it say about the nature of human beings if we construct a society that treats every person like a child, incapable of even being responsible for their own basic security in life? I donât think it says very much that is good. Rather than aspiring to be better and holding a higher standard, we cave and use technology as a reason to stop trying, to give less effort, to become less self-responsible for our own life and turn over the responsibility and task of securing our own lives to outside forces beyond our control. That not only seems morally questionable and honestly embarrassing for a self-aware, intelligent and supposedly mature adult person to willingly do, but it also calls into the question the idea of servitude. Total dependency upon another for your survival is analogous to a state of servitude or slavery, is it not? I mean what happens if you do something the technological overseers do not like? They have the implicit power over your entire life, they could in theory make you do just about anything they wanted in order for you to not lose your âfreeâ benefits from them. That doesnât sound like a situation I care to be in.
That would be what the term âbasicâ in basic income is about in my opinion. Therefore, comparing it to the human right of basic access to clean drinking water might be considered appropriate.
How can you ethically justify to force people to struggle for their basic security when their struggle is fundamentally rendered meaningless by technological advancement? It is not just the business or financial aspect that matters in this respect.
Daniel Susskind, author of âA World Without Work,â, argued that humanity should be seriously thinking about its transformation to a world without work. âWe Must Seriously Rethink Leisureâ: Economist Daniel Susskind Predicts a World Without Work
Daniel Susskindâs predictions about a world without work serve as a crucial wake-up call for policymakers, educators, and society at large. As we stand on the brink of significant technological advancements, it is imperative to proactively address the potential economic and social challenges that come with a diminished role for traditional employment.
By rethinking leisure, redefining purpose, and implementing innovative solutions like basic income, we can navigate this transition with compassion and foresight.
For anyone interested in perspectives from within the business world, HBR.org has set its primary topic to âThe New World of Workâ, covering the transition from the perspective of business leaders who are to facilitate it.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLzAU8TPKsJuYxnD8wmDWQviS11bmWAstT
Although people might think that business leaders are excempt from replacement by AI, in practice that appears not to be the case. I recently watched a video of Andrew Liveris, ex-CEO of DOW, and he noted that an AI CEO app had accurately predicted his contributions and questions in a board meeting, revealing that he wasnât exempt from being replaced by AI.
Fear of being replaced by AI is actually a major thing in todayâs business world.
For children growing up today, in my opinion, the actual problem might be more severe than many people imagine based on their experience of the past.
The name âdisconnected youth movementâ, despite the arguments that I have noticed from people who are actually criticizing the apparent âlazinessâ of these new generations (including some philosophers whom I would place before my own opinion when it concerns societal views), reveals the significance of the situation already unfolding today. The problem touches on the ability to âdreamâ and âimagine a futureâ (meaning and purpose).
Tara Rajan, MBA â21
âEvery kid knows what they want to be when they grow up. When youâre a kid youâve got that candy king colored, anything is possible, almost dream-like view of the world. Some kids want to be astronauts. Others fire fighters. Me? âŚâ
What will children growing up today be able to dream about âbeingâ in the face of âsuperior AI speciesâ?
The problem is that the West has âboughtâ the water of developing nations to force them to take part in the global market, just like they stole the rights of Indian farmers to sell their Basmati rice, by taking a patent out on it. Basic needs have become commodities, which makes poverty even worse. Countries are not even able to feed themselves due to the convoluted rules of the global economy and are punished if they break them.
Itâs the old metaphor of having your pockets picked and the contents sold back to you.
1 Like
Hey if anyone can retire from working they should go for it. As long as they earned it.
If our entire society can earn it for everyone through massive technological advances, then ok. I am all for that. But seriously, that isnât going to happen. Technology and productive process are always owned by someone, and the owners will not simply share the profits and excess value for free. No one gets a âfreeâ handout, even the poor who get government handouts have to qualify and maintain their qualifications to keep receiving the free goodies. And those benefits systems despite serving a relatively small percentage of the population, are already way over budget and economically losing propositions.
I think itâs a myth that AI and higher tech will save us all from needing to work. But trust me, I would love a Star Trek future. I just donât see it as realistic in any way, except for the 1% at the top who are the true owners of productive high-technological capital.
Well if you gonna keep calling AI that, no wonder the future generations will have no hopes or dreams to foster and manifest.
.
AI is a creation of humans, but the way you talk One would think that it was the other way round.
I am using that phrase only because of Larry Pageâs defense of the concept when Elon Musk argued in defense of the human species.
I do not actually intend to suggest that such a concept is valid, which is why I asked you repeatedly to explain your notion about the concept in another topic:
You argued the following:
My reply:
So the concept âAI speciesâ doesnât originate from me 
However, AI with free will, conscious AI or living AI might be a context that demands more profound examination. I personally wouldnât be inclined to introduce a concept such as species, but there are a lot of questions that might be equally applicable when it concerns the outlook for children today.
Top economy experts are predicting a âworld without workâ. In that light, the idea that people should be forced to work for their basic means of subsistence might do harm to children, who might not be able to prosper in such a system, and thus revolt through fundamental and extreme âlazinessâ as captured in the âdisconnected youth movementâ phenomenon.
In my opinion, the situation could involve an opportunity for children to âworkâ and advance in the area of intelligence (philosophy), the area of securing their prosperity in a world in which AI can provide them with a means for basic subsistence. In a way, the opportunity could lay in turning the situation into an generational advantage. Not for the purpose of laying around lazy but for ânew waysâ (advancement in a context that allows children to âdreamâ again, which might be a context of philosophy or cultural advancement more generally).
However, as responsible parents, it might be appropriate that they align with the interests of next generations and overcome their potential deep ingrained feelings of contempt for the idea that next generations will do a lot better than them while not having to put in the effort that they were âforcedâ to.
It is understandable that the idea that children wouldnât need to work could cause a feeling in older generations that their significant effort was meaningless, and naturally, parents might be inclined to hold on to their situation of power to secure their emotional well-being. But arenât children ultimately more important?
I personally come from an environment of people whoâs parents owned big companies. It was often that children couldnât participate in early business ventures with some of their friends because their parents of regular employment situations âwho had to work hardâ for an average income would find the idea unfathomable that their young 16-17 year old children would make more money then they. This was something very serious! Some of the parents might almost have died figuratively speaking, if their children would make more money than them, in some cases.
Perhaps a similar situation is playing out at large between whole generations today.
The UK is seriously considering a UBI by funding it through robots.
Could introducing a universal basic income help Britain become an AI âsuperpowerâ?
We may need to start reconsidering a Universal Basic Income, paid for by a robot tax or some sort of land tax, as once described by American philosopher Henry George.
Source: MSN
I find it notice-able that the concept Universal Basic Income has been steer headed by philosophers in history. Not just by suggestion and subsequent political ideology and activity, but by the philosophers themselves.
For example, one of the primary advocacies for UBI in Europe is led by Belgian philosopher Philippe Van Parijs.
He founded and has been pushing/leading for many years his initiative https://basicincome.org/
Why might philosophers feel inclined to set themselves up in front of the band wagon on this politically profound subject? It appears to me that philosophers rather refrain from doing so in most other occasions. This is noteworthy in my opinion.
âPeople are loyal to those who pay them.â
The UBI issue isnât about helping people or having empathy for people, or wanting a better world, or solving disaffected youth problems. Maybe some of the philosophers and regular people who like the idea of UBI believe in it for their own good reasons, but in that case they fail to understand the real reason why any government or state would institute UBI.
Power. Control. The final perfect capture and surrender of their population to state authority.
Government only wants to expand its size and power. Those within government only want to increase their own personal power, wealth, and position within the political-state system, or transfer to a high level position somewhere in the private sector. To believe otherwise is incredibly naive.
Once UBI is instituted everyone will be an âemployeeâ of the state. The state is paying your wages, the state is the direct source of your ability to live and purchase the things you want and need in life. How can you not see the profound shift, in the relationship between the people and the state, that this would cause? We go from free citizens to serfs and dependents overnight.
The government already has way too much power over the individual citizens, it can compel people to do what it wants through all sorts of coersion and threats and carrot and stick approaches. UBI is the ultimate and final carrot and stick they would ever need, especially once it is paired with crypto, blockchain and biotechnology under an immersive web 3+ deep-sensing environment.
I understand your concern and I must confess that I am a-political, and more generally have no political perspective or opinion. So I cannot qualitatively parse the situation that you describe.
I simply do not think political or social philosophical and I have increasingly decided to simply refrain from it. Since I was young, being âneutralâ was one my primary personal characteristics. I also easily was friends with almost anyone, from any social background.
My interest in this topic is mostly because it might promote philosophy as a field more generally, and might be an aspect of next level human advancement. I cited the evidence before that anthropological advancements in basic security of subsistence are said to have given rise to philosophy and science.
- Maslowâs Hierarchy of Needs Theory: This theory suggests that when basic needs (including food and safety) are met, individuals can pursue higher-level needs, including self-actualization and cognitive exploration. Philosophy falls into these higher-level pursuits.
Maslowâs hierarchy of needs - Wikipedia - Historical Evidence: The emergence of complex philosophical thought often coincided with periods of relative stability and prosperity in ancient civilizations like Greece, China, and India.
- Cognitive Surplus: As basic needs became more secure, some members of society had the mental energy and time to engage in abstract thinking and contemplation, which are fundamental to philosophy.
Examples Supporting the Assertion
- Ancient Greece: The Golden Age of Greek philosophy (5th-4th centuries BCE) occurred during a time of relative peace and prosperity in Athens, where citizens had their basic needs met and could engage in intellectual pursuits.
- Ancient China: The Hundred Schools of Thought flourished during the Spring and Autumn period and the Warring States period (770-221 BCE), a time of political stability and economic growth in many Chinese states.
- Islamic Golden Age: This period of great philosophical and scientific advancement (8th-14th centuries CE) coincided with economic prosperity and political stability in the Islamic world.
In my previous post I noted my observation that philosophers have historically positioned themselves upfront in the topic UBI, as fundamental drivers rather than mere theoretical contributors.
A background perspective and insight that might explain it might be found in a Partially Examined Life podcast episode.
The prospect on employment for philosophy students is completely lacking in many cases which was addressed by Bill in Episode 10 - Kantian Ethics: What Should We Do?.
Question: What is it about academic philosophy that you three found unacceptable? Can you direct me to a convincingly scalding indictment of academic philosophy so that I no longer have the urge to apply to graduate programs in philosophy?
Seth:
The first thing is that Graduate school as an undertaking regardless of what discipline you pick is no more or less a worthy activity then many other things that you can do with your life after you graduate from college.
Philosophy is not inherently less valuable then say English or an MBA (business) for that matter, or accounting or computer sciences or something like that. And I would argue that it is inherently more valuable, but I think that your question whether or not an academic life is worth pursuing as opposed to some alternative, which would be what, I donât know, getting a job and earning money, being an artist, travelling the world, doing good works. Whatâs the alternative?
There is difference between a cynicism about academia as a career; cynicism about graduate school as a pursuit; cynicism about the philosophy program at the University of Texas in Austin in the mind 90âs; and cynicism about further academic pursuits altogether.
Mark: or cynicism about the practice of philosophy at all.
Seth: Yes. So it doesnât sound like you have a question about the practice of philosophy. It sound like your issue is about whether or not to go to Graduate school.
Wes: I have to say my cynicism is faded.
Mark: after having a real job?
Wes: Yeah. Yeah.
Mark: how much better it was in Graduate school?
Wes: Yeah. Thatâs my recommendation. Go out and get a real job and come back later in life when you can appreciate.
I am only interested in things that are useless. I am no longer interested in making money. Not that I ever really was. But I think you want to look at all the horror stories and scare yourself about getting a job or how much it sucks. The chronicle of higher education is constantly publication that stuff.
Go on to meta-filter thatâs got a lot of great stuff; search for âshould I go into a philosophy program?â.
I used to do that periodically whenever I started feeling like âWow, I really wish I was back in academia at which I read all these horror storiesâ but at this point I feel like I can tolerate the bad things and I donât have the same doubts about âthis is uselessâ and âthis isnât really relevant to anythingâ. I just enjoy it for itâs own sake.
But definitely not go in with the idea that I would have to have a tenure track position somewhere afterwards because the job market (for philosophy) is so competitive. I would go in to it purely because I want to spend my time that way.
And if I have a tenure track position, great, but the amount of anxiety that I had at University because everyone was talking about how impossible it was to get a job, it was tremendous.
⌠more about the evil of âreal jobsâ âŚ
Mark:
Philosophy is one of those kind of things that maybe you find that âthis is something that I really loveâ and I am willing to put up with all the crap that goes into trying to do philosophy professionally, which is, yeah it is really hard to get a job, it is very competitive so you better put all your energy into it to be cooler than anyone in your program, and getting into a very good program in the first place, which means having really good grades and working really hard on a honours thesis or whatever it is that you need to get to get into a good school.
I donât think that I was prepared in that way. I think that I did well enough but not well enough to get into the most awesome schools and once I got there it was not like I was publishing things from the very moment that I got there or at all frankly.
So yeah, if philosophy is your goal you better make it your goal. I saw that as a future of, well, if I try my hardest down this academic professional rout then I will be living in Montana doing a post-doc and then I have to move to some other **** University city; like the odds of actually living in a place that is nice are going to be very low. Plus just getting one in the first place. That made me frustrated about. So even from the moment I got in grad-school I was like, I am doing something I really enjoy now and it is making my life better, I was also doing more stuff with my band and stuff. But around the time that I hit 28 years old or something I am going to hit a brick wall. I am going to have say my life is basically over because I have to get a real job. And it didnât turn out quite that badly but âŚ
The evil of âJobsâ, a deep insight story for academic students coming from some of the paragons of Western philosophy, who themselves are philosophy professors.
It might be understandable that in this light, UBI could be perceived as vital for the advancement of a whole profession, which in turn might explain that philosophers have positioned themselves personally as fundamental drivers and pushers of UBI in history.