Peter Kreeft's Argument

In his article, “Why study philosophy and theology”, Peter Kreeft argues that anyone who is not interested in philosophy is not human. This seems like a bizarre claim to make but through this essay I plan to explain why this claim may actually be true. I also will go through Kreeft’s arguments and explain why one argument that he presents is the premise to another. Kreeft’s first argument is that any university that considers themselves a school of liberal arts, but does not require philosophy or theology in their core curriculum, is not serious. Not having philosophy and theology as a core requirement would suggest that the college believes it is not necessary to have, that it is not needed, and that it is not important. It would also suggest that in order to be a well-educated human being, one does not need to include theology and philosophy.
Kreeft continues by presenting definitions. He starts off with “philosophy”, meaning “the love of …show more content…
Kreeft answers this by reasoning that since universities are where philosophy is found, then one must think about why one goes there in the first place. The majority will attend university because it means it will get them a degree, which will then get them a job, which will result in money and security. Once they have that, they can start a family and have children, which will also have an education, and then get a degree, then a job, then money, and so on. If all goes well this cycle will continue throughout the generations. However, in reality, this cycle is simply putting a family in debt. If an individual really just needed a job, then they wouldn’t necessarily have to go to college for it. This is because there are cheaper and quicker alternatives of getting a job, like a trade school. So this means that there must be a different goal for going to college. The real reason is to have knowledge; to become a better individual, and to expand the