I graduated with a B.A. in 1974, majoring in philosophy.
I entered employment in the property casualty insurance business while I awaited opportunity to go to law school. I actually never looked back, spending the next 45 years in various roles in the insurance industry.
My father had impressed upon me in my pursuit of an Accounting degree, that employment in accounting or business would not occur merely because someone needed basic business accounting knowledge. They would expect me to learn how accounting was relevant to their business. A degree in accounting would demonstrate to my prospective employer that “I had learned, how to learn”, something relevant for their business. When I told him I was moving from accounting to philosophy, he asked where I expected to land - “perhaps I could be a priest”. I rose to be a VP of a Fortune 400 property casualty insurer.
I had a friend whom I had encountered in two of the basic elective philosophy courses. At the time I was pursuing a degree in Accounting, as was Don. We really enjoyed the classes, largely because of the educators leading them. And we got what we ourselves considered a wild idea: to major in Philosophy.
Then we went nuts. We went to the Chair of the Department of Philosophy with an ambitious and perhaps foolhardy idea. “Could we be permitted to take a few graduate level courses?” Those sounded more interesting to us. We were strongly cautioned, told that we would have to have completed the basic courses for the degree program before doing so. Most significant was the caution that we would be judged as graduate students are judged. No handholding. No rationalization. We were drawn to the risk of being challenged to think at higher levels. Off we went.
We finished the basic courses in two “quarters”, as scheduling back then went. Then we waded into some pretty deep courses. I believe our success was due, in part, to camaraderie.
If I was familiar with a numerical grade (e.g.: 85%), or a letter as an indication of success (B+), neither prepared me for the time I received my graded work in one class with the notation “WRONG!”, emblazoned across the header. Subsequently in that same course, the professor handed me a paper that said “B”. When he walked to the front of the room he held one last paper in his hand. He asked the author of that paper if he could read it aloud to the class. It had sufficient clarity that everyone was engaged (the course was Epistemology, a subject I never felt accommodated anything less than reading the material at least three times to understand.). As he returned the paper to its author he said, “please see me after class. THIS is the first “A” I have given in four years. With some tweaking it belongs in “The American Journal of Philosophy””. My “B” meant soooo much more.
If I talked to Don today, I’m sure he would remember the logic course taught jointly by Professors Kielkopt and Schumm. We might conclude in retrospect that was too big a bite out of the graduate course catalog.
Or the ethics course presented by the seemingly tireless Edward Yasuna, who would adjourn his late afternoon discussion with an invitation that it continue - students were welcome to grab some food on the way to his home near campus. No terminal end in sight.
In business, the rigors of Philosophy absolutely served to guide me in my career.
Logic contributed to my capacity to debate the legitimacy of actuarial conclusions that I felt omitted important factors or over-estimated the probability they thought was approaching certainty.
Logic also served to improve my interactions with accountants, planning, and budgeting. Almost every area in business, moves fueled by facts (both adequate and inadequate), opinions, and presumptions. Since the likelihood that business conclusions would ever satisfy Kant as a maxim was near zero, those same critical thinking skills allowed and motivated me to try to at least make business conclusions passable. Kant’s topics were profoundly deeper in the human experience. But avoiding an unworkable conclusion in business was invaluable.
That epistemology course, and its complements? I spent years in external investigations, years teaching investigation, decades in personnel development and discipline (both establishing discipline and corrective discipline); corporate planning; and eventually building a modern system for managing data and people handling claims, in the five years before retirement.
I don’t think I made it through a week in 45 years without having asked someone to explain why their conclusion about something was sound, only to hear something critical that caused me to ask, “how did you come to know that?” I would necessarily explain that they did need to “know”, but they were caught in their hypothesis, or belief, perhaps even prejudice. No longer able to reconcile their conclusion with available “knowledge”, we would focus on whether or not it was likely to become knowledge through further work, and outline steps to test their hypothesis.
Logic? Everything about insurance contracts is conditional statements and conclusions. Exceptions in contract structures intended to have very deliberate applications. Sometimes complete exclusions of something, with a limited grant of coverage to define the extent to which there was a way to calculate a predictable price (premium). I was regularly a protagonist in contract development efforts. I testified as an expert in the meanings attached to contracts, as well as how the construction served to grant or exclude coverage.
Modus ponens and modus tollens structures proved quite valuable in dealing with problems and investigations. Forming hypotheses, testing to make sure each was valid, helped avoid or minimize misdirection or outright errors. Often assembling arguments in favor or against the options as they were evaluated.
I taught management associates the use of the Socratic Method as a way to form persuasive arguments when working to improve an employee's performance. For example, ask someone trying to avoid doing their job, “Am I wrong? Did you wake up this morning thinking “what can I fail at today?”. You have to learn to ask questions that way. Once, the CEO interrupted my effort to lead him to my conclusion by saying to me, “I know what you are doing to me”. Fun with Philosophy.
And then consider Ethics. I never became a priest, but I have a keen ethical compass. When our company took a misstep, I was an effective advocate for self-correction. We saved $ millions in conflict resolution by being adults and acknowledging and fixing mistakes. I was fortunate to work for an organization that had at its core a belief in doing “what is right”. I never felt I was not heard, in 39 years with that company. That’s why I stayed there.
I also taught segments in ethics to employees from beginners to executives. I probably delivered two dozen ethics seminar sections each year, for over 20 years. Why? Because people needed to understand that their conduct was not just individual. We were effective, and if not effective even judged, collectively. There were consequences if they were not committed to actively meet and exceed ethical obligations. If you know something occurring is wrong, there is a real moral duty to actively address it. My confidence in that is related clearly to my courses.
Last but not least, I managed litigation and participated in strategic discussions arising out of our business. There were times when someone’s accusation was unfounded, and demonstrating that was a matter of defeating their argument. Sometimes premise, by premise. All those course hours in what I will describe as open-minded debates, adjusted my perspectives. I learned to think like our adversaries and be prepared for clear and unforeseen arguments.
I did what my father had suggested, I took time to learn how to learn. I know that my time and investment in myself through the philosophy courses shaped me. Any career path requires specialized knowledge (engineering, medicine, teaching, etc.), and adding perspectives through philosophy studies makes sense to me. In management I interviewed and hired hundreds of candidates. As illuminated by my father, I was seeking those who likely had the capacity to learn beyond their formal education, and though they had once considered a career in accounting, engineering, geology, teaching history, music, or even medicine, would they find adequate purpose in the work they would do, as I had. Sufficient purpose that my drive to go to law school was not merely defused; I believe my analytic and communication skills were the source of a fruitful and meaningful career. Who could ask for more?
Just days ago I encountered a former co-worker. He told me he prefaced his inquiry in a meeting with a colleague by saying to that person, “OK, since we were both subjected to the Walsh philosophies…”.
This was offered as a compliment, and it is probably the reason I was motivated to submit this account. If they could see something as representing “philosophy” years after my retirement, there must be an influence by my chosen course of study long ago.
Jim Walsh
Class of ‘74.
When the speaker booked for summer term graduation was Senator Gerald Ford. Replaced out of circumstance, by President Gerald Ford. Tumultuous times.
My epilogue.
As people consider the influences in their career choices I offer three examples.
I have three wonderful children. All of whom were told, by me, to learn how to learn, regardless of their study choices. My father’s advice was sound.
- One son studied business and is a financial advisor, once I was with him on day he encountered a client. Upon introduction, with considerable emotion, the client said, “my husband and I love James”. “Love?” A financial advisor? He is the only child with an occupation remotely connected to his degree. He did not study ”finance”. Clearly, he earns more than just trust in managing assets. He learns about people to meet their needs.
- My daughter changed majors repeatedly, finally majoring in English and “close reading and writing”. She is in middle management for a pharmaceutical services company; her employer once asked her, “where do we find people like you?” Her answer was “English majors or anyone used to assembling facts to define something clearly, who also has experience waiting tables”. She, like most of us, has an occasional need for a pharmacist, but never studied that. She, nonetheless, works with people on three continents to assemble data and guide field tests of pre-market pharmaceuticals.
- My youngest wanted to work with computers and was quite skilled with them as a child and beyond. His most meaningful study focus seemed to be marketing, with a general degree. He is a VP of a major hotel management firm, having been pursued multiple times by employers because of his skill in magnifying customer service skills. I don’t think he ever took an accounting course, but he clearly understands accounting since he has had to meet expectations on multi-million dollar enterprises. His endless curiosity is represented by his comment to me recently when an elevator was out of service at a hotel in which I was staying. “If you can find the control room, I can help you cycle the elevators”. As though I would do that. He learns constantly.
Learn to learn.