Tweet
The structure of our education and knowledge, eh? What precisely is it about the awareness of photosynthesis or our school boards that renders stuff like "cogito ergo sum" inoperable? What's the statute of limitations on the lessons to be learned from Candide? How about philosophy that applies itself directly to the flaws of modern humanity? I know you're one of those godless folk but the Screwtape Letters comes to mind. The practical study of efficient methods of reasoning...
-
Does highschool count?
Well, I'm a sophomore this year. I'm taking AP Calculus BC, AP Computer Science, AP Biology, PE (mandatory), French 3, English 10, and World Studies 1.Comment
-
Oh! Okay! Well that settles it then.Originally posted by Agathon
Wrong.
Indeed. But curiously, no one can come up with any ones for Philosophy in the past fifty years.People subsidise universities for many reasons. One is that discoveries made by universities help society.
Hey, that's just great! People can learn all they want. But rather than my money going to pay people like you, I'd rather it be sent on cancer research or something more useful to more people.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.
If people want to gain knowledge, they have:
- The internet
- Public libraries
- Private universities and colleges
- Friends
Public universities are not the only way to gain knowledge. Is it so wrong for me not to want taxpayer money to be thrown willy-nilly at obviously incompetent people to discuss "what is happiness?"
No, I'm not -- technical instutites don't have history, polisci, psychology, etc.Same mistake as the first quote. What you are talking about is a "Technical Institute"
The only faculty I wanna get rid of is yours, Agathon. And a university minus philosphy is not a technical instutite. Your department is not that important anymore, get over it.
Because evidently philosophers are slow on the pick-up.Why are you repeating the same worthless claim three times?
Public universities are subsidized to help society in some way. Throwing money into monetary black holes that have obviously done diddly squat for the past fifty years does not benefit society, and takes funding away from noble causes such as cancer research.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.
Right, considering that:Game set and match to the philosophers it seems.
1) You have all resorted to the same old "but 3000 years ago it was useful!" tactic.
2) None of you have provided any actual contributions philosophy departments have made over the past 50 years.
3) All of you stick to sweeping generalizations about how it spurs general knowledge and inquiry, without addressing why that can't be (and why it IS) dealt with by the more specific fields themselves?
Game set and match to me, the philosophers are knee-deep in their own **** and they like it. They don't wanna see how it is.
"The issue is there are still many people out there that use religion as a crutch for bigotry and hate. Like Ben."
Ben Kenobi: "That means I'm doing something right. "Comment
- The internet
-
Here's a clear case of someone not addressing the argument at hand.
Are you claiming that most people don't value knowledge for its own sake? If so you are contradicted by the facts because people plainly do - as is witnessed by the plethora of practically useless subjects which obsess us. That's why abstract philosophy is a public good.
Are you claiming that public universities should not engage in disinterested inquiry? If so you've just shown that you don't understand what universities are there for. Look for yourself, it's in their charters.
The reason why disinterested inquiry is funded by taxation is the same reason abstruse low-return scientific inquiry is and indeed the same reason why there is coercive taxation at all - namely that such goods are prone to market failure or severe underfunding if left to individual choice because of collective action problems (ask any decent economist - they'll tell you).
Your childish bluster won't wash here. Give some evidence that you know what you're talking about or give it up.Only feebs vote.Comment
-
Exactly. He won't give up though - even though he knows he's losing.Originally posted by Elok
The structure of our education and knowledge, eh? What precisely is it about the awareness of photosynthesis or our school boards that renders stuff like "cogito ergo sum" inoperable? What's the statute of limitations on the lessons to be learned from Candide? How about philosophy that applies itself directly to the flaws of modern humanity? I know you're one of those godless folk but the Screwtape Letters comes to mind. The practical study of efficient methods of reasoning...Only feebs vote.Comment
-
You're damn right, that is a perfect example of not addressing the argument at hand.Originally posted by Agathon
Here's a clear case of someone not addressing the argument at hand.
Are you claiming that most people don't value knowledge for its own sake?
No, I'm claiming that public universities should not fund philosophy departments since they only engage in frivilous, disinterested inquiry. All faculties engage in disinterested inquiry (I've said this a couple of times now!) but Philosophy is so vague and general that its usefulness is now virtually gone, replaced by a larger amount of specific fields which are more apt to do the "disinterested inquiry" since they, frankly, know what the hell they're doing.Are you claiming that public universities should not engage in disinterested inquiry? If so you've just shown that you don't understand what universities are there for. Look for yourself, it's in their charters.
Still waiting on the effects of Philosophy research on the past 50 years, Agathon.Your childish bluster won't wash here. Give some evidence that you know what you're talking about or give it up.
Disinterested inquiry in the other fields have turned up tons of useful things for society, but none come to mind for Philosophy. Why is that?
And why won't any of you answer that question adequately? If you can't answer that question, you simply have no case -- people doing general "disinterested inquiry" with zero results are a waste of money. Period."The issue is there are still many people out there that use religion as a crutch for bigotry and hate. Like Ben."
Ben Kenobi: "That means I'm doing something right. "Comment
-
I'm having a year off. I'm retaking Pure Maths 4 and 5, Mechanics 2, Economics 2 through 5 (whichever I feel like, probably just 4 and 5) and working/studying. I want to nick a first year paper from some of the Uni's I'm applying to to show them I can do them. With the 1st year just being pass/fail, it's not too difficult
Smile
For though he was master of the world, he was not quite sure what to do next
But he would think of something
"Hm. I suppose I should get my waffle a santa hat." - KuciwalkerComment
-
I'm certainly not losing -- I've set up three points for you guys to show that philosophy is useful today. None of you have been able to answer them, even a little bit.Originally posted by Agathon
Exactly. He won't give up though - even though he knows he's losing.
You've all responded with ridiculous statements about millennia ago, or ridiculous vague statements about how philosophy engages in disinterested inquery, while ignoring the fact that all of the other faculties do the same thing -- but they have a history of results.
We know too much about the world for the general, abstract philosophy's "disinterested inquiry" to be of any use. We need more specialized fields who have a better idea of where to go and what to research.
Paying a bunch of people like yourself to sit with a finger up your ass and post on Apolyton all day while engaging in "disinterested inquiry" about the farting habits of Japanese goldfish doesn't do us any good, but still costs us money."The issue is there are still many people out there that use religion as a crutch for bigotry and hate. Like Ben."
Ben Kenobi: "That means I'm doing something right. "Comment
-
You still don't get it since you have come up with the same retarded argument and failed to understand the point again.Originally posted by Asher
You're damn right, that is a perfect example of not addressing the argument at hand.
You really are ****ing stupid - now I have to make the same point again. The value of disinterested inquiry is independent of any useful things it may turn up for society (that's what "distinterested" means). It's about knowledge for its own sake.No, I'm claiming that public universities should not fund philosophy departments since they only engage in frivilous, disinterested inquiry. All faculties engage in disinterested inquiry (I've said this a couple of times now!) but Philosophy is so vague and general that its usefulness is now virtually gone, replaced by a larger amount of specific fields which are more apt to do the "disinterested inquiry" since they, frankly, know what the hell they're doing.
Disinterested inquiry in the other fields have turned up tons of useful things for society, but none come to mind for Philosophy. Why is that?
As I said, people enjoy knowledge for its own sake. The benefit is simply a satisfied curiosity. You can harp on about "useful knowledge" all you like, but it's totally irrelevant to the point at issue since "usefulness" is only one thing we human beings value.
Either argue that no one values knowledge for its own sake or admit you are wrong.
Go through university textbooks in a number of disciplines - they'll reference philosophers (not always good ones though).Still waiting on the effects of Philosophy research on the past 50 years, Agathon.
Zero results? The result of distinterested inquiry is that people come up with new ideas and discoveries which even if they don't prove useful in your sense, satisfy people's hunger to know. That's the result, a satisfied curiosity. That's why people value knowledge for its own sake. That's part of why we have universities.And why won't any of you answer that question adequately? If you can't answer that question, you simply have no case -- people doing general "disinterested inquiry" with zero results are a waste of money. Period.
Why is it my fault that you're too dumb to understand this elementary point?
I'm not going to bother with this until you actually address the argument at hand.Only feebs vote.Comment
-
Music Theory (co-req to...)
Digital Music
Some crap about education that's required for my minor
Independent study in New Media
Design Synectics
There. That artsy enough for you?
"In the beginning was the Word. Then came the ******* word processor." -Dan Simmons, HyperionComment
-
I'm arguing that public money shouldn't be paying for people to satisfy useless knowledge because they feel like it. They're welcome to pursue that crap with their own money, NOT mine.Originally posted by Agathon
You really are ****ing stupid - now I have to make the same point again. The value of disinterested inquiry is independent of any useful things it may turn up for society (that's what "distinterested" means). It's about knowledge for its own sake.
As I said, people enjoy knowledge for its own sake. The benefit is simply a satisfied curiosity. You can harp on about "useful knowledge" all you like, but it's totally irrelevant to the point at issue since "usefulness" is only one thing we human beings value.
Either argue that no one values knowledge for its own sake or admit you are wrong.
It would be nice if you would actually address that rather than your constant stream of strawmen. You know, this is probably indicitative of why Philosophy in the univerisites are so useless: The philosophers themselves don't even know what they're arguing about, they just set up strawmen, tear them down, then celebrate by donning their berets and sipping champange.
I'll have a look through my CS textbooks and let you know if they have any.Go through university textbooks in a number of disciplines - they'll reference philosophers (not always good ones though).
Zero results? The result of distinterested inquiry is that people come up with new ideas and discoveries which even if they don't prove useful in your sense, satisfy people's hunger to know. That's the result, a satisfied curiosity. That's why people value knowledge for its own sake. That's part of why we have universities.
Public universities exist as a way to give back to the public. That's why the government funds them: it produces an educated society which helps the economy and people in general. When people are off spending that government money thinking about what color aliens penises are, or what size the basketballs are in a 7th dimension, it's a waste of taxpayer's money that's better spent otherwise.Why is it my fault that you're too dumb to understand this elementary point?
I'm actually surprised you keep trying to tear down such an obvious point. Government don't fund for sh*ts and giggles (well, left-wing ones typically do).
It's funny, because I'm the one that put forth the argument, then you tried to refute it by attacking a strawman.I'm not going to bother with this until you actually address the argument at hand.
Then when I refuse to address your strawman, you tell me you're not going to bother with this until I address that argument.
Stunning.
Is this the kind of stuff you teach to your students?
Maybe I should be a philosophy teacher, too. I could explain to them my philosophy on philosophy.
There is a VERY simple way for you to convince me that philosophy departments are useful, Agathon:
Tell me one thing in the past fifty years, an idea or concept or ideology -- anything -- which has contributed positively to society due to philosophy departments at universities, and I'd concede they are useful.
Until you can do that, all of this rhetoric about learning for learning's sake doesn't mean **** to me. I don't like paying people to learn something that won't benefit anyone."The issue is there are still many people out there that use religion as a crutch for bigotry and hate. Like Ben."
Ben Kenobi: "That means I'm doing something right. "Comment
-
Because you assume either (1) that something must be "useful" to have value, or (2) that any university subject that is not "useful" ought not to receive public funding.Originally posted by Asher
I'm certainly not losing -- I've set up three points for you guys to show that philosophy is useful today. None of you have been able to answer them, even a little bit.
(1) is false as the very nature of distinterested inquiry shows. It has value independently of whether it is "useful" or not. Only a complete ****** wouldn't be able to see this.
and
(2) is false because a large part of the point of universities is to foster the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake. We publicly fund them because that is the best way of making them work (aside from donations - which are insufficient to maintain an adequate level of tertiary education).
Get it into your thick head. Your tripe about "the useful" is irrelevant.Only feebs vote.Comment
-
My beef with philosophy is that it isn't as rigorously based on logic as it should be. It's too liberal artsy, and not mathematical enough.
I wouldn't want to spend time studying philosophy in school, but I'd sooner take a philosophy class than a CS one.
"Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
-BokononComment
-
Would you spend $100 on a piece of paper that you couldn't write on?Originally posted by Agathon
Because you assume either (1) that something must be "useful" to have value
What? Why not? Is it useless or something?
Absolutely!(2) that any university subject that is not "useful" ought not to receive public funding.
Get THIS into your thick head -- it is OPINION, not FACT.(2) is false because a large part of the point of universities is to foster the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake. We publicly fund them because that is the best way of making them work (aside from donations - which are insufficient to maintain an adequate level of tertiary education).
Get it into your thick head. Your tripe about "the useful" is irrelevant.
For a philosopher you're displaying remarkable ignorance.
You cannot say it is "false" that universities should only fund useful things. Jesus Christ, Agathon.
You're doing a better job than I am at displaying how useless philosophy departments are, if you're a friggin teacher of it at the UofT.
And why am I not surprised that a Philosopher thinks "useful" is irrelvant -- that mindset and attitude is precisely why it is a waste of tax money."The issue is there are still many people out there that use religion as a crutch for bigotry and hate. Like Ben."
Ben Kenobi: "That means I'm doing something right. "Comment
-
Yes it is. And a totally misinformed one at that.Originally posted by Asher
Get THIS into your thick head -- it is OPINION, not FACT.
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.You cannot say it is "false" that universities should only fund useful things. Jesus Christ, Agathon.
It's no different than saying police stations should be used to house the police and not as bordellos. Universities have a specific function in our society which has its own guiding set of reasons which is at odds with what you say.
I did say that if you wanted to abolish universities and replace them with whatever knuckle-dragging alternative institution you envisage, then go ahead and provide an argument for it. So far you haven't.
You've been thrashed again.
Only feebs vote.Comment
Comment