I am a junior in high school and am already well into the college process. I would consider myself to be smarter than average, but will not hesitate to admit that I am not of the most elite caliber (some would say I am more 'street smart' than 'book smart'). During the college process I am looking at schools that would be considered tremendous stretches for my academic profile, however, connections I have at these schools may make up for this gap and allow me to coast on in. Should I feel guilty that I am receiving all of this help? What if I really do like the schools that are outside my profile? The whole point is to end up at the best school you possible can, right? Is there a difference between my possible best and the possible best of myself and connections combined?

Hm, are you asking an ethical question here? (ie it might be wrong to use your 'connections' to get into a 'better' school than you 'deserve'? I put all that in scare quotes because I think a lot of work would have to go into posing that question clearly, as an ethical question.) Or are you really asking the more practical question, "what would be best for me overall"? Re: the latter, I'd say get into the "best" school you can legitimately (ie ethically) get into -- for being surrounded by very bright people, not only faculty but especially your peers, would stretch you as far as you are capable of being stretched ... Of course you can get an excellent education in lots of different places, esp. if you are motivated and dedicated and go out to acquire it yourself -- but unless you are the type to be cowed by very accomplished peers, to feel diminished by them, then you ought to surround yourself with the best you can in order to become the best you can ....

Is it possible that a person of modest intelligence could learn the whole history of philosophy, in terms of knowing every notable philosopher (from Thales to, say, Rorty), having read a few of their books or at least knowing and being able to expand upon their positions ... or is it simply outside the scope of a person, any less than a genius to have the time to gain such knowledge? It seems to me that there is not more than a couple of hundred such philosophers, and as such could be accomplished, at least superficially. Or is it more efficient to decide outright to miss some philosophers out?

Well, I'd say philosophy is pretty infinitely deep -- there could be no such thing for any ordinary mortal to learn "the whole history of philosophy" -- not least because there wouldn't be agreement on just who the "notable" philosophers are (so you'd have to study EVERY philosopher to learn the "whole" history), and also because there's no clear distinction between who counts as a "philosopher" and who doesn't (so you'd have to study every thinker in every field ....) -- in fact what's most important is to recognize that philosophy is a process or activity, it's the act of philosophizing itself, and so it's not all that important to learn the "whole history" as to engage in the process -- and that you could do by studying, in depth, even just one or a few great thinkers .... spend your life studying just Plato (say), and you will be well-served, and probably end up being a better philosopher (and better served philosophically) than someone who has read hundreds of books by hundreds of different authors ....

Pages