What are you taking this semester?

[Asher]

Do you realize you've built an entire argument soley on the definition of university, in your eyes?

Philosophers and semantics, rawr.

I do love how you advocate spending tax money on useless things, though. Is there a way to get Chretien to pay for some porn sites for me? Want to expand my sexual knowledge, etc.

[Asher]

And just so you know, because your entire argument seems to be based on the definition of university including something about philosophy...it doesn't.

u·ni·ver·si·ty P Pronunciation Key (yn-vûrs-t)
n. pl. u·ni·ver·si·ties
An institution for higher learning with teaching and research facilities constituting a graduate school and professional schools that award master's degrees and doctorates and an undergraduate division that awards bachelor's degrees.
The buildings and grounds of such an institution.
The body of students and faculty of such an institution.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Asher

Do you realize you've built an entire argument soley on the definition of university, in your eyes?

In my eyes and as the institutions themselves spell out in their charters. It's what educated people understand by the term "university". I assumed you were an educated person; I must have been mistaken.

Again, you seem to be implying that universities have no business engaging in the search for knowledge for its own sake. That is a ridiculous assertion since that is exactly the business that universities are in - that's what they do. If you want to argue that they shouldn't, go for it. But a lot more than philosophy will vanish and you will have created something else.

But that wasn't the argument. My argument is that philosophy is a paradigmatic example of the sort of thing that universities are set up for. Nowhere have you even come close to refuting this, nor have you provided an argument for changing universities into some other sort of institution.

I'm talking about universities as they actually exist. Apparently you are not.

[monolith94]

Apparently Asher's a utilitarian. Fancy that, he's a philosopher in his own sense!

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
In my eyes and as the institutions themselves spell out in their charters. It's what educated people understand by the term "university". I assumed you were an educated person; I must have been mistaken.

Who do you expect to pull with this ****? It's not defined like that anywhere, and it's the frickin' cornerstone to your argument, and now suddenly you retreat to a typical elitist "well it is because I said so and know better" stance. Bravo, Agathon, you continually prove my point about modern university philosophers.

Again, you seem to be implying that universities have no business engaging in the search for knowledge for its own sake.

Public universities should not fund philosophy departments that don't do anything but research frivilous things. Simple as that. You can claim it's ridiculous, but I think it's ridiculous to take funds from something useful and helpful to people than to fund philosophers that simply think about random stuff.

But that wasn't the argument. My argument is that philosophy is a paradigmatic example of the sort of thing that universities are set up for. Nowhere have you even come close to refuting this, nor have you provided an argument for changing universities into some other sort of institution.

How can I refute something when it's not an actual argument? See, it all comes down to "what universities are set up for". I've shown you the definition, every single definition I've seen defines it similarly, none of them have a requirement or even imply one for philosophy. Again, your entire argument rests upon the "purpose" of the university. You've even said:

I can if that's what they are for. The meaning of "university" is roughly what I described. "University" implies a certain function. If you want to change the meaning of the word, that's your problem - I speak English.

which I've completely torn down with ease by a simple check of the meaning of the word.

Just face it, Agathon, you just got your ass owned by a twatish computer science student who thinks Philosophy is a bunch of bull**** -- in an argument (which you're supposed to be good at), about philosophy (your field).

How embarassing can it get for you? Keep posting, we'll have to see.

[Asher]

Originally posted by monolith94
Apparently Asher's a utilitarian. Fancy that, he's a philosopher in his own sense!

Everyone is, which is precisely why the department of philosophy is bull****. Anyone can be a philosopher, some of the most famous and useful "philosophers" are mathmeticians who've never considered themselves philosophers.

[Neutrino]

Software Engineering
Ecology
Behavioral Ecology
Molecular Biology
Intro to Greek Civ (degree requirement.. wanted to take Roman Civ since I know some Latin, but it conflicted w/ my other classes)

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Asher

Just face it, Agathon, you just got your ass owned by a twatish computer science student who thinks Philosophy is a bunch of bull**** -- in an argument (which you're supposed to be good at), about philosophy (your field).

My my, you are a dreamer. You always say this, and always without the slightest justification. I suppose it makes you feel better.

If you can't accept that universities have the purpose which they actually have and which they themselves declare they have then I suppose there's no hope for you.

Try reading their statements of purpose. None I've seen say "we must limit ourselves to research that focuses on utilitarian goals". All say things like "We must foster intellectual inquiry in both pure and applied fields".

Face it, you're wrong about this and no amount of your facile prose will change this.

I can't be bothered with this anymore. I usually get paid to read and respond to terrible student arguments and this one of yours is worse than most. At least most of them can understand where they've gone wrong.

[GePap]

I wonder why Asher keeps quoting the figure of 50 years?

[monolith94]

"Everyone is"

Heh - for a second I thought you were implying that everyone is a utilitarian...

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
I can't be bothered with this anymore. I usually get paid to read and respond to terrible student arguments and this one of yours is worse than most. At least most of them can understand where they've gone wrong.

It's not your fault that it's over your head, we all aren't made equal.

You've changed your argument numerous times, and I've kept mine the same. And now you're leaving.

That says a lot about just how "bad" my argument is. You were reduced to rhetoric about university mission statements, which boggles the mind why you think that proves philosophy useful in the slightest.

I wonder why Asher keeps quoting the figure of 50 years?

Is consistency rare in the field of philosophy? Would you prefer if I used a random number generator each time I re-asked the question? Would I fit in better as a philosopher?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by GePap
I wonder why Asher keeps quoting the figure of 50 years?

Because that's how much older we feel after having to repeat the same point endless times with the faint hope that he might actually get it.

[GePap]

You say philosophy has come up with no new innovations in 50 years. lets take that claim and examine it. first of all, in saying that there hasve been no innovations in 50 years, one must assume you think it has lead to innovation at some point. Now, so using you statement we know you think at some point philosophy has brought about innovation:

So the question becomes: why no new innovations?

I can see two distinct possible answers:
1. It has reached the limits of inquiry: all that can be learned from philosophy has been.
2. The current method of philosophical research is flawed and will not lead to further innovations.

If the first one is true, then philosophy remains a vital thing to teach at a university, since it becomes the sole field of human endevour to reach a climax: and obviosuly, having gottent his information, people who believe themseles educated should have it. now, since the issues are so cmplex, the university level is the appropriate one.

If number 2 is correct, then the aim of the university must be to come up with a new and innovative philosophical method to return to an age of contributions: a great reason to maintain research (after all, fusion research has yet to give us anything new..does not mean we should stop, if we think there is innovation left to be made).

Or you could believe a third option, which is that philosophy as has been (or what is defined as philosophy today) has never lead to any innovations: but that would mean you have been making false or misleading statements all along, and that could not possibly be correct, now could it Asher?

[MRT144]

Im taking audio applications, audio recording techniques, promotion for audio, world civilizations, some other audio class, and college math (which i might test out of)

[Asher]

Originally posted by GePap
You say philosophy has come up with no new innovations in 50 years.

Your first sentence and you couldn't even get it correct.

And people thought I was silly for repeating the question 100 times, but maybe it needed 101.

I was asking YOU guys if there had been any, since I wasn't aware of any. There is a difference.

If the first one is true, then philosophy remains a vital thing to teach at a university, since it becomes the sole field of human endevour to reach a climax

But if philosophy is simply about thinking and indescriminate inquiry or whatever the word is, all you'd be doing is rehashing old crap over again. Philosophy would then be moved, in this scenerio, under History and you'd have "History of Philosophy" classes.

but that would mean you have been making false or misleading statements all along, and that could not possibly be correct, now could it Asher?

The person making false and misleading statements here is you, from the very first sentence.