Many philosophers at leading American departments are specialists in metaphysics: the study of the most general aspects of reality such as being and time. The major work of one of the most prominent philosophers of the 20th century, Martin Heidegger, is “Being and Time,” a profound study of these two topics. Nonetheless, hardly any of these American metaphysicians have paid serious attention to Heidegger’s book. (continue)
It was the 1930s when Swiss theologian Emil Brunner published his little book entitled Natur und Gnade (Nature and Grace). In this treatise, Brunner argues that in the theology of his “mentor” John Calvin (1) the imago Dei (image of God) in man formed the contact for the gospel and (2) God’s revelation in nature can be seen through the lense of Scripture.
A few weeks ago I was stopped in mid-sentence when I was asked what fundamental differences are there between Continental and Analytic Philosophy. I paused for a moment and asked myself the same question. It seems that I was at a loss for words. The razor-sharp distinctions with which I always treated the two approaches became as dull as gumdrops as I rapidly work through the issues in my head. Obviously, there are differences as every philosopher will attest; however they appear to be a bit foggy.
A third and final trait, one which, in my eyes, best describes socialists of all schools and shades, is a profound opposition to personal liberty and scorn for individual reason, a complete contempt for the individual. They unceasingly attempt to mutilate, to curtail, to obstruct personal freedom in any and all ways. They hold that the State must not only act as the director of society, but must further be master of each man, and not only master, but keeper and trainer. For fear of allowing him to err, the State must place itself forever by his side, above him, around him, better to guide him, to maintain him, in a word, to confine him. They call, in fact, for the forfeiture, to a greater or less degree, of human liberty, to the point where, were I to attempt to sum up what socialism is, I would say that it was simply a new system of serfdom. –Alexis de Tocqueville
Read the article here.
“A degree in philosophy? What are you going to do with that then?”
Philosophy students will tell you they’ve been asked this question more times than they care to remember.
“The response people seem to want is a cheery shrug and a jokey ‘don’t know’,” says Joe Cunningham, 20, a final-year philosophy undergraduate at Heythrop College, University of London.
A more accurate comeback, according to the latest statistics, is “just about anything I want”.
Figures from the Higher Education Statistics Agency show philosophy graduates, once derided as unemployable layabouts, are in growing demand from employers. The number of all graduates in full-time and part-time work six months after graduation has risen by 9% between 2002-03 and 2005-06; for philosophy graduates it has gone up by 13%.
Bernie Sanders has probably recently given this term new popularity but it isn’t necessarily a new term. However in a recent speech Sanders articulates what he means when he uses the term. You can read his explanation here. From what he has explained the main take away for me is that “Democratic Socialism” does not believe the state should own the means of production. At this point I’m not too sure how that is different from the classical definition of socialism but apparently it is. I would appreciate any thoughts you might have on the matter.
It is a challenge to find an institution that offers an M.A. in Philosophy. Most Universities are looking for students willing to commit to a PhD program. However, Geoff Pynn (Northern Illinois) has already done some of the grunt work for you in keeping a running list of institutions that offer the M.A. degree and even provides some details on funding. This is a valuable resource and you can access it here.