As a Philosophy student, which form of philosophical school should I focus on...

As a Philosophy student, which form of philosophical school should I focus on? I seem to be a deconstructionist for the most part, however I strongly am in favor of civic nationalism as a force for the benefit of all.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gottfried_Wilhelm_Leibniz
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

B U M P

U

M

P

Linguistics

Not a bad idea, will definitely consider that. I just hope not to become a full blown mental cuck like Chomsky when I grow old.

Which ever one helps you get my coffee faster, barista trash.

Applied negrology.

So full blown existentialism? Got it.

If you're a philosophy student asking advice on philosophy from this board, you're probably in the wrong course of study.

Just sort of curious to see what Sup Forums even thinks of a Philosophy major. I've just started focusing on my major courses. 300 level courses start next semester.

This Sup Forums respects pursuing a degree in philosophy, fwiw - good luck in your pursuit. Just thought it an odd place to ask.

Thanks user, I know the career scope is limited, but it's pretty much all I'm good at.

Stoicism

Somewhat admirable, but very easily defeated by basic Objectivism.

It's actually a good prep for business or law school, but give up any potential dreams of tenure as a philosophy prof.

Like another user said, pursue Stoicism if serious or Objectivism if you want to be fun at parties.

> not to become a full blown mental cuck like Chomsky when I grow old.

Say what you will, but he BTFO Skinner and Harris (or at the very least made both of them back off on their positions and reconsider them).

existentialism is a best one to be honest.

I tried at Law School, costs and what not ruined that for me. Also I didn't feel like working 90 hours a week.

Hmm, seems like Objectivism is a strong contender for my basis. It's just one basis but it's a very good one to start with. It's tough to blow a hole in an Objectivist argument, whether you like it or not.

He is literally out of his mind, I cannot respect him anymore. Time has moved past his viewpoints, however, I highly respect his work in Linguistics. He is a pure globalist, whether he likes to say it himself or not, those are the views he projects because of his ((paranoia))

I like Existentialism, just I think it's somewhat cliched at this point. The extensions of it though are downright amazing. It's representatives though are cringe material.

>tfw you've almost run out of Nyash Myash

So is that semen or milk? I can't tell.

Well they are, but through existentialism i arrived at the point of not caring about it. It is really fitting to the modern times. It allows us to realize just how many things in today's world are just constructs we create with our minds. Many many people today gives so much importance to these constructs. This movement allow person to arrive at the point at which they know, that the concept/construct is only important because they decided so and that they can leave it at any moment.

Isn't that deconstructionalism defined though? Not saying you're wrong, you are 100% correct.

MUMMY!

>tfw last one

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gottfried_Wilhelm_Leibniz

Stoicism operates in a similar manner and is a good course of life. I'm a hedonist so could never be a Stoic, but the view of accepting reality and eschewing both pleasure and pain is the superior one.

Kind of but i would rather say that we are reaching existentialism through deconstructionism. I can be wrong though.

Will read, thank you.
Stoicism is admirably, just not realistic based upon human nature and some sciences. However, when selectively applied, is wondrous.
I agree, and that is a facet of existentialism that ties you and deconstructionists together. Branches of the same tree.

...

LIsten, change majors if you still can. You're not going to learn anything, and you're not going to have any job prospects. Modern philosophy is a complete and utter circle-jerk.

I've always viewed Stoicism as an ideal, one achieved by very few. Its utility is it is a path to living a good, contented life, but most people don't want to be content, no matter what they say. Or maybe that's just me projecting my own pleasure-seeking on a vast swath of humanity.

Cynicism is what I like to evaluate.

But isn't really about what you find most pleasing... it's about what you find most true.

If you're majoring in philosophy, I'm assuming you already have some knowledge of the basic schools of thought.

Pick which one you think is the most true or has the most potential for truthful expansion.

What I would not do is focus on things like omnism. Which is essentially useless as a philosophy, accounts for nothing, and means nearly nothing. Those sorts of semantic breakdowns of the world are entertaining, and creative, no doubt. But useless, and especially useless at getting you a job. As if a degree in philosophy wasn't damning enough .

I don't mind a meager existence.
Could be, I think at the end of the day, most people would take "content" over risk given all the possible outcomes.
Good advice, again, seems like for me, and based upon feedback, I should further learn Objectivism, Deconstruction, and Existentialism. I'm familiar with all three, but obviously one can focus on the niches inside of those schools.