What are you taking this semester?

[Lord Merciless]

Originally posted by reismark
MATH 241 Introduction to Probability & Statistics

I never truly understood the probabillity.

[MrFun]

This thread seems to have been taken over by Gepap and Asher as they slug it out in the boxing ring . . . .


bets, anyone?

[monolith94]

I bet on Asher. Gepap, being the more reasonable one, will get frustrated and leave.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Law School Schedule, 2L, 1st Semester:

International Law
Employment Discrimination
History of Church/State Relations in the West
Business Associations

[Zulu Elephant]

Politics & Media Studies

AIP2601 Competing Perspectives on Development
AIP2101 British Conservatism and Mass Democracy
AIP2202 Models of Democracy

AIC2201 Journalism: Writing Techniques
AIC2101 Media Sociology, Technology and Industry

[Elok]

Okay, I've been at a meeting, but taking up the pseudo-cross again:
Philosophy is not the IMMEDIATE cause of computers. It is, however, the ULTIMATE cause, which is to say that were it not for philosophy, they would not exist. The early intellectuals WERE philosophers, period. Science is, after all, "Natural Philosophy," if you recall. They started the ball rolling on rational thought and taught proper patterns of reasoning. Children are not taught it nowadays because it has been built on so heavily that it's considered better to teach the extensions and leave the root alone. This is because people are largely stupid, or at least so it seems, that they object to classes devoted entirely to critical thinking and analysis skills.
Also note that philosophy, even on a university level, is not just people BSing about happiness and the meaning of it all. If that is the extent of every course you have ever taken on the subject, it just goes to show weaknesses in your school's program. Philosophy is a system or process, and, combined to some extent with theology, forms the root of meaningful societal change. Actions have to start with ideas, y'know...Locke, Hobbes, Nietzsche who I personally despise but let's not go there, and so forth. There's also the fact that the true geniuses of our times have demonstrated an ability to examine their beliefs, find which ones do not work, and think outside of them, as in Einstein's case. Philosophy does, or should, teach FLEXIBLE THINKING. Careful and systematic response to intellectual challenges. The closest substitute we have for it nowadays is the absolute dung you find in the self-help sections of bookstores. The people whose response to everything is to babble about being proactive. We don't have many good philosophers nowadays because true philosophy is discouraged; IMO this just means it is more important than ever to focus on an absolute determination to find truth, now that the word "truth" is becoming largely unfashionable.

[Asher]

Originally posted by GePap
Yawn. It is at the university level that one gets to argue whether empirical knowledge is more valid or not. In essence, you demand empirical knowlegde to come from philosophy (which I infer from your statement about "prove"), which is not going to happen. So we come back to your biases and preferences coloring your view of this subject.

What about your biases and preferences coloring your views of this subject?

I'm pretty amazed how much you can continually contort your argument, though. It's so flexible, it's almost as if it has no backbone.

It is not writen anywhere that placing a smiley means the other posetr must respond in the same spirit of the post. I chose to disregard the smiley, as is my perogative.

Hint to the philosophers: A wink smilie tends to indictate jest.

A lousy one, yes. You are learning a bunch of mathematical rules so that later in life you imput a bunch of numbers and symbols into an electronic machine so that then you get the desired output, be it more symbols and numbers, or something sensual, or an action. Someone with a different bias vs. symbols can very easily claim what you do is nothing but mumbo jumbo.

You obviously don't understand much of what computer science is, you get it confused with a codemonkey.

Come back when you understand problem solving and the skills needed for it. If all you had to do was learn a bunch of rules, anyone could do it. It'd be like economics, history, or any other social science. The fact is, it takes a lot of strong logic skills, inductive skills, reasoning, creativity, elegance, and yes, math understanding. If you've even done basic discrete math, which is the tip of the iceburg for a lot of my courses, you'd understand just how little is based on rules. That's why it's such a b*tch. You need to simply think about things, there's no algorithm you can use to solve the problems. The algorithm is up to you to design, which is something 99% of people on this planet never have to do. People give them a rules and procedures handbook and they memorize, or they read history and make conjectures. None of it is the same.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Elok
Okay, I've been at a meeting, but taking up the pseudo-cross again:
Philosophy is not the IMMEDIATE cause of computers. It is, however, the ULTIMATE cause, which is to say that were it not for philosophy, they would not exist.

The early intellectuals WERE philosophers, period. Science is, after all, "Natural Philosophy," if you recall.

Just can this argument -- I understand early philosophy was useful. If you've bothered to read the thread, you'd have figured that one out. Early philosphers are what we'd call scientists and mathematicians now, but back then those fields never existed. NOW they do, and so I ask you -- why does 3,000 years ago MATTER? It doesn't. So why do people keep trying that same trite argument every time?

Situations are different now than they were 3,000 years ago. Philosophy was useful then, now it's too generalized and abtract to be useful in the slightest.

Also note that philosophy, even on a university level, is not just people BSing about happiness and the meaning of it all. If that is the extent of every course you have ever taken on the subject, it just goes to show weaknesses in your school's program.

Blaming it on the school is a cop-out. The program I took is a syndicated one used across many schools, developed at (and used by) Stanford. Hell, our quizes were even sent to Stanford to be marked.

[Agathon]

For Asher:

1. Why must philosophy be useful (even though it aids understanding and has several practical branches like Bioethics)?

2. Disinterested inquiry by definition does not aim at practical use but at knowledge for its own sake.

3. The primary function of universities (which you will find in almost every university charter) is the fostering of disinterested inquiry - i.e. the pursuit of knowledge for it's own sake.

4. Philosophy is the pursuit of knowledge for it's own sake par excellence.

5. Therefore, philosophy is either itself or coequal with the most essential discpline(s) fostered by a university.

Strange that you have spent some years at a university and still haven't managed to realise what they are for.

[Agathon]

While I was typing this a professional philosopher (a medical ethicist) was on CBC Newsworld speaking about the ethical implications of tissue translation.

[ixnay]

CS 222 - Computer Science II (Java & Discrete Mathematics)

CS 223 - Computer Science III (C++)

CS 330 - Computer Architecture & Assembly

ENGL 223 - Technical Writing

The 3 CS classes all have labs.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
For Asher:

1. Why must philosophy be useful

Because it'd taking taxpayer's money at public universities (I don't care what private ones do). People pay taxes that subsidize the universities heavily because it's to give back to the society, to benefit society. When something is taking money but has no use or no benefit, it's a waste of money.

2. Disinterested inquiry by definition does not aim at practical use but at knowledge for it's own sake.

Then it has no place, whatsoever, at a public university with people's tax money. "Disinterested inquiry", the study of socks' odor on the sexual drive in field mice, and similar wastes of money can be funded by donations or private instutitions if they want.

3. The primary function of universities (which you will find in almost every university charter) is the fostering of disinterested inquiry - i.e. the pursuit of knowledge for it's own sake.

The primary function of public universities is to educate the people so that they can give back to society. It's not a money black hole for "disinterested inquiry". Further, why do you need to be a fulltime paid philosopher to participate in "disinterested inquiry"?

4. Philosophy is the pursuit of knowledge for it's own sake par excellence.

Redundant.

5. Therefore, philosophy is either itself or coequal with the most essential discpline(s) fostered by a university.

Philosophy is the most essentially discipline at a university.

Strange that you have spent some years at a university and still haven't managed to realise what they are for.

I realize what they're for, I also realize you're communist and probably have no qualms with assloads of money being poured into monetary black holes.

[Elok]

Well, to turn the question on its head, why should the three thousand intervening years matter? Has ancient Greek human nature become obsolete and been upgraded to Modernman 2.5? Do we have none of the same hopes, fears, or doubts as our distant ancestors? What's changed that makes truth then into lies now?
As for overgeneralization, well, that simply makes it more readily applicable to everyday life. I know I've found philosophy to be incredibly useful. You ever try Socratic reasoning on a kid or a teenager? They have so little defense against it, it's pathetic. Sarcasm bounces off of reasonable and calm questioning like a tennis ball off a brick wall. They try a few lame half-arguments, find that they only meet more questions, and give in rather than face the lecture and the process of having to rework every ideal they have. The stonewalling you can get away with here doesn't work worth squat in real life. It's wonderful, really.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Elok
Well, to turn the question on its head, why should the three thousand intervening years matter? Has ancient Greek human nature become obsolete and been upgraded to Modernman 2.5? Do we have none of the same hopes, fears, or doubts as our distant ancestors?

You're off on the wrong tangent -- the problem isn't how much man has changed (which is actually quite a lot, anyway), but how much the structure of our education and knowledge has changed.

And it's almost completely different since 3,000 years ago. Philosophy is outdated and replaced by more useful, specific fields.

The excuse that philosophy exists for disinterested inquiry is also a bunch of bull, just about every field out there participates in "disinterested inquiry" as well as part of abstract research.

Philosophy as a department is simply redundant. Redundancy = waste of money.

[Agathon]

Well, I've decided that you are either completely ignorant or just grasping at whatever straws you can.

Originally posted by Asher

Because it'd taking taxpayer's money at public universities (I don't care what private ones do). People pay taxes that subsidize the universities heavily because it's to give back to the society, to benefit society. When something is taking money but has no use or no benefit, it's a waste of money.

Wrong.

People subsidise universities for many reasons. One is that discoveries made by universities help society. But those who fund universities are also by and large people who desire knowledge for its own sake (Aristotle argued that this attribute was essential to being human ). People enjoy acquiring knowledge - that's why bookshops do so well (look at all the weird books people like MtG read). Universities are part of the system for supporting this fundamental human need (since the regular market tends to fail at providing it).

Read my lips: people like knowledge. They will go to great pains to acquire it for the simple satisfaction of doing so. What possible use is knowledge about obscure mediaeval battles, or World War II, or the Roman Empire? No practical use, it seems, but people just like knowing stuff.

Then it has no place, whatsoever, at a public university with people's tax money. "Disinterested inquiry", the study of socks' odor on the sexual drive in field mice, and similar wastes of money can be funded by donations or private instutitions if they want.

Same mistake as the first quote. What you are talking about is a "Technical Institute", not a University. Universities are there to foster the pursuit of disinterested inquiry in the same way hospitals are there to provide healthcare. If you don't like what they are for, then argue for the abolition of universities, but don't try to pretend they are something that they aren't.

The primary function of public universities is to educate the people so that they can give back to society.

Why are you repeating the same worthless claim three times?

Why is it the fault of other posters in this thread that you don't know what a university is for, despite attending one for a few years. You must be pretty dense not to have got it by now.

Game set and match to the philosophers it seems.