Nastasya_Filippovna

I read Everything Must Go in my metaphysics class! It's very interesting! It was actually my first philosophy class, and I would like to read it again now that, in hindsight, I have a firmer command of the topic. Thankfully I had a brilliant professor for metaphysics (he was our analytic god - his specialty is philosophy of science so he obviously prefers naturalized metaphysics). He raised some interesting objections to the thesis, and I remember finding the book fascinating. I think you will thoroughly enjoy it, even if you don't necessarily concur.

Thanks for your response - I just saw it now. Last year I tried a tutor which was not successful. Right now I am taking online courses from Kaplan. The "lower level" questions are very manageable, but I just have a block when it comes to most medium and all high-level math concepts. This is very disturbing considering I got straight As in high school math and a B in college calc (albeit that was 14 years ago- I'm an older student- went back to finish my degree after a long recess from the academic world). I've never had an aptitude for math, but with consistent studying and practice I've always been able to develop a firm command of the subject. My scores on the tests I have been taking have remained precisely the same as the original, but my verbal has shot into the mid 160s. Minor note- Logic is not one of my philosophical interests! My fields of interests are 19th century continental, german idealism, philosophy of mind, and post-modern philosophy of science (and post-modernism/neopragmatism)

Another tired GRE question for you seasoned applicants, which I'm sure you are all a bit weary of screening! Last year I did terribly on the math portion of the GRE - 143. Yes. Math is more than a modest struggle for me (ironically I got an A in logic, although I never did essay math logic). I am planning to retake the GRE soon, although the math studying so far does not seem to be improving. Ironically, although I did decently on the verbal section, my verbal score seems to be increasing tremendously. Would it be wise to retake the GRE if I would improve my overall score through increasing my verbal score by a substantial amount while still perhaps receiving a terrible math score, or would receiving TWO terrible math scores only deter adcoms further? It is bad enough that I have one horrid quant score on my record already! Any advice would be appreciated. Thank you!

There is something I find strange about there application, and I noticed this because it's one school I'll be applying to (I'm applying to both MAs and PhD programs for Fall 2015) . Letters of Rec are optional... This strikes me as really odd. GREs are not required and that's awesome, but optional letters? Seems like that would be a real necessity.

I'm curious, were these undergrad journals or professional journals? Superimpressive resume! I'm retaking the GRE too, this time with the assistance of an online course for the math timing skills. Best of luck to you!! *whoops you are in a masters program- obviously they are professional journals!

I love it. Seriously! Nearly all "learned" philosophy students, as this crowd proves, seems to be drawn towards sophisticated music. I can't listen to music while reading philosophy because it distracts me from the text - but in general, I'm a fan of rap. Yes - totally heretical.

That's comforting to hear. I certainly hope I can raise the math score. If I can get it somewhere in the lower 150s (given from where I'm coming - I'm being very pragmatic and realistic about this) I would be thrilled. Just to be somewhere beyond the "I can count to potato" range I'm currently in.

If it makes you feel any better, I am the inverse- my GPA is stellar, but my GREs are abominable - and I mean that in every sense of the word. My verbal was a mediocre 158 and my math was a devastating 143. I am not only weak at math to begin with, but to achieve any accuracy I have to work at a snail's pace and only finished about half the questions per math section. I'm retaking the GREs, but I'm not going to bank on any substantial improvement - it would be foolish to at this point. I figure that this puts us in the same basic position, given that both GPA and GREs are the initial screening process data! Let's hope that some institutions are willing to review the rest of the dossier and look at evidence that reveals more substance such as writing sample and letters of recommendation!

@jjb919 I certainly wish you the best too- and oh man I sure hope we do!! I already have butterflies about this next year!

I'm going to have to check some of those figures out - I've only had the smallest introduction to embodied cognition myself, and I want to learn more about it myself - right now I've only been studying reductive vs nonreductive physicalism and mental causation. I've only read excerpts from Andy Clark, and my one professor was telling me about a more recent theory in embodied cognition (sadly I cannot even remember the theory!), but it's an advance on computationalism, which sounds really interesting, and he says he will give me some names and books- I'll have to pass that info on to you! I'm looking seriously at U. of Oregon, Georegtown, Northwestern the two Bostons as well, along with a few universities in Cali and a few others in the northeast - Cuny, Columbia, Brown and of course the pillar of philosophy, NYU (one can dream, can't they?) Mainly the programs that appear to be strong in both continental and philosophy of mind.

It's so hard to say - continental: my beloved Nietzsche and Kierkegaard, also Hegel, 20th century: Donald Davidson (he's getting no love on this board! I think he was brilliant), Paul Feyerabend Thomas Kuhn; contemporary, Jaegwon Kim (don't necessarily agree with his views but the man's got tenacity in a world full of nonreductive physicalists, and he's a very lucid and persuasive writer) and Jerry Fodor: while I'm not a fan of computationalism, he's written some incredible work, makes me laugh, and the Special Sciences remains one of the best articles to this day.

that's fantastic you can appreciate them as well- in my phil of science course, we only read excerpts from Against Method so I'm reading it in entirety now and just loving it. There are some in the realist camp who are just excellent too- I know in philosophy of mind, I adore Jaegwon Kim, even though I personally side with nonreductionism. He is one of the most articulate contemporary philosophers and makes such persuasive arguments - he always leaves me second-guessing myself! I was very lucky to have an astounding analytic/scientific professor of philosophy for my undergrad career - he got me swept up in these topics.

thanks so much for the feedback, and @ jjb919, it's good to know I'm not alone at least! it's so brutal cutting down a thesis paper- this was my baby for so long and I despise having to part with each and every salient little detail! By the way, I see on your lists of philosophical interests that you are interested in both embodied cognition and various areas of continental study- that is very rare and exciting - same goes for me! I am interested in philosophy of mind, postmodern areas of philosophy of science (Kuhn and feyerabend in particular), and german idealism and 19th century continental philosophy!

You brought up something I have been worried about most regarding applying for the upcoming year- writing sample length! I have managed to create a 20p version of my originally 46p. undergrad thesis (it breaks my heart to leave out certain sections, but such is life!) I know that some schools imply a strict minimum of 5,000 or 7/8,000 words, and I honestly cannot conceive of editing another version this paper for these schools any further without losing the entire argument, given its content. Even though a 20p paper would be a good 5-7 pages over this limit, is it therefore okay to send a sample of this length anyway, figuring that they will either read it in entirety or they won't? Thanks in advance!

oh but that school has an excellent reputation!! I would have to think that any admissions board would be familiar with that school and know that it at least, in general, is a super liberal arts school! I come from a small liberal arts school with no reputation - I loved my profs, they were absolutely amazing, but I know the fact that my school has no reputation or is not known AT ALL outside central pa is going to hurt me big time!

where did you go for undergrad, if you feel comfortable sharing? I think that is amazing that you were required to read so much and write such demanding papers; more to the point, I think it is particularly commendable that you are the type of person that reaped the advantages of such an intensive undergraduate program. I could not believe how many of my classmates would gripe about the reading assigned to us in our classes. I mean of course philosophy is a reading intensive major! We only had select excerpts from the major works within our courses too. That's why I ended up doing to many independent studies and a thesis, so I could end up reading full texts from an assortment of philosophers within the disciplines I found most compelling. I truly believe that reading the texts verbatim is crucial to developing a genuine command of the material.

That's actually an excellent idea. Even though I'm graduating, the professor who did the Davidson/Rorty paper with me and supervised my Nietzsche thesis is also quite the Heidegger expert and I know enough people to get a little reading group started for the summer. This prof is astounding- he would love to lead a group like that. I know this is awful to say but in my contemporary European course, and I'm sure this is the case for many, but I got clobbered with Camus, and I just feel that there is only so much you can say about him (perhaps that's because I'm just not big on Camus so I'm prejudiced). So the whole time I was in that course I just kept thinking, "could we PLEASE be spending this time on somebody more significant...aka...Heidegger!!??!!" Thanks though for getting this thought going! Just the fragment I've read of Heidegger has had me begging for more for some time now!

Hello! I'm graduating with a major in phil in 3 days (so excited!) and thought I'd assist with some input. My interests are in 19th century continental philosophy, german idealism, philosophy of science and philosophy of mind, and so I had a nice variety of texts from philosophers in a variety of disciplines. I did three independent studies and an honors thesis which allowed me to read my beloved Kierkegaard and Nietzsche in depth, and I'd say if you have an interest in 19th century continental you simply MUST attack at least Nietzsche and the German Idealists, although with the Idealists I don't think you need to read full texts. I must say though, I don't think I would have been able to make heads or tails of them without my course in Idealism- I had an amazing professor and we did Kant, Fichte, Schelling and Hegel, but obviously selective texts from the three Kant critiques, parts of Fichte, etc. As far as pragmatism goes, sadly I never studied James or Pierce, but I did one of my ind. studies on Davidson and Rorty and I think those two, part. Davidson, are fascinating, and it really helps with philosophy of language, which is not my philosophical strength! I think it's essential to have a strong pluralistic base in philosophy, and to push through what you consider to be the more tedious branches. A little plato and Aristotle are necessary, definitely some Bacon, Spinoza and (ugh) Descartes, and some Hume. Locke. But the entire texts aren't necessary, I think what is, however is reading select texts from them first-hand, and not mere characterizations of their theories and material. Philosophy of science is, I think, a lot more gratifying then many think (aside from the logical positivists!) I'd say some Popper, Kuhn, and Feyerabend, all of whom are fairly lucid. And I think the existentialists are fairly easy to read on your own. I sorely regret that nobody ever taught Heidegger. I desperately wanted to study him in my undergrad career.