I agree that there is some utility in this way of thinking about formal education, but I also think that this perspective is so shallow that individuals who learn to adopt a richer perspective may learn more and may be able to do more with their learning. First, I think it can be useful to reflect on the benefits of learning that have nothing to do with social status or employability. Is there intrinsic value in learning and in learning how to learn? Does a high-quality learning make one a better person in addition to increasing social status and employability? Understanding those benefits may improve motivation to work hard and effectively as a learner. Second, I think it can also be useful to reflect on a more sophisticated manner on the instrumental value of education: those who view a degree program simply as a means to a credential fail to internalize a narrative of self-development and growth (self-consciously directing one's education to increase skills, insight, and wisdom, for example),...

I don't know of any society where parents can teach their children whatever they want without regard to laws and social norms. With respect to laws, for example, a parent could not teach a child that it was okay to act out sexually in a way that the law would regard as involving incestuous sexual abuse. And, similarly, with respect to social norms I think that most people would say that parents have no right to teach their children a virulent racism that promoted the children to treat schoolmates horribly. Both of the examples I gave involved teaching extreme thought that led to unacceptable action, and these cases show that exist significant limitations to parents' rights to teach their children as they see fit. Are there cases where there are limits on what parents could teach their children to believe even when the children do not act on those beliefs? The incest case, I think, shows that there are strong social and perhaps legal limits on teaching "mere" thoughts -- the incest taboo is so strong...

Paul Feyerabend's Against Method is extremely lively andinteresting, those perhaps more challenging than the others onThomas's list. If you are interested in an historical perspective,these two books are readable, interesting, and relatively concise:G.E.R. Lloyd, Early Greek Science; Herbert Butterfield, The Origins of Modern Science.

I think that Jennifer's answer is well-stated: with respect to intellectual inquiry, there are many topics and objectives which can best be pursued through methods other than analysis, and for those cases where analysis is appropriate there is great benefit in understanding how to apply those methods thoughtfully and not with an obsessive or unrelenting "heavy hand" that can lead to what might be called an obnoxious intellectual bulldozing that leaves inquirers blink to important nuances. I don't know whether this general answer about intellectual inquiry speaks to your daughter's situation, however -- at least the high school textbooks that I remember never raised intellectual issues like those! So, the textbook you mention may have something different in mind. For example, the textbook author may recognize that the subject of the text is scary for students and may intend a slogan like "do not over analyze" to encourage students not to become so focused on those fears that they fail to engage with...

As Question 2110 makes clear, the value of studying philosophy extends far beyond "career-oriented" preparation. Iwould also emphasize, however, that studying philosophy constitutes extremely strong preparation for many careers because itprovides you with superb opportunities for skill development, includinganalytical and creative thinking skills, analytical and creative oral and written communication skills, and, more generally, skills related to self-directed learning. Theseare extremely valuable skills in business and in other professions, and, since you also enjoy studying philosophy for its own sake, it strikes methat you have a lot to gain by working in this field. To be sure,every college course and each subject of study claims to contribute tocritical thinking and communication skills, and to some extent this istrue. Perhaps, therefore, it is mainly my own parochialism that leadsme to assert the following, although I do not think so: Workingintensively in philosophy is a...

My experience is that manybeginning students can learn and grow a lot by engaging intensively with primary texts. This engagement is difficult for students and their instructors, but when it occurs it is extremely intellectually rewarding. One of my earliest memories of a student was sitting alone in my college's library reading Hobbes. At one point, I "got it" and began to slow down and think hard and gain a lot from thinking about his ideas and arguments. Another was spending most of a semester discussing one single article--Quine's "Two Dogmas"--with an instrutor who was willing to throw the course syllabus out of the window and discuss those ideas as deeply and for as long as his students wanted. These were both extremely powerful experiences to me, and to my they represent a form of of "deep enagement" that still means a lot of me two decades later. As an eductator, it excites me to help students to learn how to achieve this kind of philosophical engagement, and I think that many...

My sense is that distrust of online learning has faded signficantly overall, andthat suspicion about this type of education ("loathing" seems toostrong, at least in my experience) among philosophers has eased somewhat in recent years. Thatsaid, I think you are right to suggest that relatively few philosophers areinterested in teaching exclusively online courses; there is, however,increasing interest among philospohers I talk to aobut "blended" modalities that combine face-to-faceand online learning. I agree with you and with Allen that there is no good reason whymore philospohy courses could not be taught online. I would also arguethat there is great benefit in doing so: as you suggest, online coursesprovide an excellent opportunity toextend the benefits of higher education to folks who are not wellserved by traditional classes. So, I hope that morephilosophers will be willing to "try out" online courses so that those(potential) students can benefit from all the benefits that accrue...

With respect to beginning to study the history of philosophy, Ithink that it is almost always more interesting and rewarding to engagewith primary philosophical texts without consulting commentaries andother secondary sources: direct intellectual contact with the mostpoweful philosophers and philospohical arguments is a profoundlypowerful experience.You are right of course, that this is a difficult experience to secure, but the effort is almost always worth it. Patience is important. Reading even the most abstruse philosophical texts becomes much esaierwith practice; my general advice is to stick with the primary textswith a good degree of patience and confdence that you will becomecapable of more and more sophisticated engagement over time. Iknow that it is tempting to "turn to" secondary source when youconfront a difficult and frustrating text. If you are a student whowill be learning along with classmates and can gain additional insightfrom a professor, I urge you to resist this temptation --...

The best way to learn about those movements may be to jump in and read some primary texts, for example Descartes' Meditations and Hume's Enquiry . There are good paperback editions of these works, and decent e-texts available from the " Early Modern Texts " site. As long as you read these texts with some patience and care, you'll be able to understand key elements of both traditions and can come to your own conclusions about their similarities and differences. If you are looking for an historical commentary, Anthony Kenny's A Brief History of Western Philosophy is one of the most engaging and readable one-volume histories of philosophy. Those historical perspectives will provide you with enough insight to understand recent work in empiricism. You will need to select texts carefully, however, because much work on contemporary empiricism is pretty technical and not as engaging or readable as the classic historical texts. Quine's famous article "Two Dogmas of Empiricism" is a...

I second Catherine's suggestion: At best, an introductory text will provide you with the opportunity to read a few excerpts of philosophical writing, and at worst the text will be dominated by boring summary. Based on my experience reading and teaching them, it is likely that reading texts like these won't inspire or engage you at all. Exactly which texts might engage and inspire you depends a lot on your interests and preferences. (For me, it was reading Hobbes' Leviathan; I still remember exactly where I was when I really engaged with that text for the first time! Quite of a few of my students in introductory classes have engaged well with Descartes' Meditations and Plato's Republic .) So, as the other panelists have suggested you should "shop around" until you find a text that seems interesting enough for you to read with great care -- that's the best way to learn how to read philosophy.