What are you taking this semester?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Asher

Smith, Mill, Hobbes, Locke, and Marx were dealt with adequately in grade 10.

Unless you actually read the works of these individuals (whole books, not passages) in the 10th grade, I seriously doubt it.

Indeed, but the higher levels of mathematics are useful almost immediately in other disciplines which are actually useful.

Not the most theoretical stuff, which then only gets used by some nutty physicist triyng to tell us there might be these tiny little strings..... By your rather limited (and as of yet undefended) and narrow definition of "usefullness", most theoretical physics in the past 50 years has been rather useless (how many practical side effects have come form studying quarks and bosons?), and this field is horribly expensive (those particle colliders are a lot of money).

In essence, you have an extremely narrow view of what is usefull, one which you have yet to actually defend (to do so would require, guess what, philosophy!). So, given that fact, further debate is, well, pointless.


On topic: I graduated last year, so:

Interviewing 101
Unemployment 253 (advanced)
Cooking 201
Phys Ed.

[Asher]

State of the Debate Address

What it's come down to now is I'd like to be shown how taking all these Philosophy classes would make you a "better thinker" or a "better scientist". Rather than vague blanket statements, can anyone argue why taking philosophy classes does anything for you to help you better yourself in the other fields?

If someone can argue coherently about that, I'll concede that a lot of Philosophy classes are useful.

Though I maintain the Philosophy of Logic classes are utter wastes of time.

[Asher]

Originally posted by GePap
Not the most theoretical stuff, which then only gets used by some nutty physicist triyng to tell us there might be these tiny little strings..... By your rather limited (and as of yet undefended) and narrow definition of "usefullness", most theoretical physics in the past 50 years has been rather useless (how many practical side effects have come form studying quarks and bosons?), and this field is horribly expensive (those particle colliders are a lot of money).

Not so...look into things like Ultraviolet Lithography if you want to see the effects of modern mathematics and physics having real-world impact. That's the only one I know off the top of my head, since it's a computer-related thing, so I'm sure there's tons more.

In essence, you have an extremely narrow view of what is usefull, one which you have yet to actually defend (to do so would require, guess what, philosophy!). So, given that fact, further debate is, well, pointless.

What I define useful: research into fields directed enough to give results. Medical research, physics research, mathematical research, etc. -- all of these have proven to give us actual, real improvements to our lives in recent times.

Philosophy and English are hard to place. English can be cateogorized as useful in the cultural sense, but Philosophy has only been positioned as something that can help "strengthen" one's reasoning and make them better people. Which is so wonderfully vague that you'll have to excuse me while I gag until someone can substantiate that.

On topic: I graduated last year, so:

Interviewing 101
Unemployment 253 (advanced)
Cooking 201
Phys Ed.

Obviously you took a humanities or social science degree.

I'm only half-done my degree and I've already got 3 jobs.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Asher

If you're going to use public money, the public should get use out of that. The research done, and the subjects taught, should give back to that society -- otherwise, why the hell are we paying for it?

It does, you numbskull - just as research in Egyptology or any number of obscure subjects does. Some people are interested in philosophy, others in Egyptology, still others in stranger subjects. People are naturally curious - they value knowledge for its own sake. Just because you don't doesn't mean everyone else is the same. That's why you see all sorts of books on all sorts of weird subjects in bookstores, all written by university educated people and enjoyed by all and sundry. None of these books would be written if it was left up to the market.

It so happens that the best proven way of financing and facilitating this activity is the university system. A system which encourages the absolutely free flow of ideas. The market system cannot provide such goods, just as it can't provide universal health care or a military defence force. That's why universities are largely funded by taxation. These are the facts. You can rant until you are blue in the face, but this is what universities are for and why such odd subjects as philosophy are practiced in them and why they are largely funded by taxation as opposed to market forces.

How do I know this? Well, I read it in some philosophy books.

All this "debate" comes down to is that there are two sorts of people. Those who are naturally curious about the world and ideas and find value in satisfying their curiosity, and those who can't see any value in anything that doesn't have an immediate practical use or a marketable value. The former are the people who belong at universities, the latter somewhere else. You are one of the latter.

I study Plato because I find him an interesting thinker. Hundreds of students I've taught feel the same way. So do the people who buy books about him at Chapters.

The answer to why we have philosophy is the same as the answer to why we have tax funded symphony orchestras. People like them and find value in them. The fact that you don't is neither here nor there. There are plenty of things I can't stand that the government supports through taxation, but I don't object to tax being spent on them, simply because I realise that if it was left to the market all of us would miss out because they wouldn't exist. I know this because I've read Hobbes, the political philosopher who first brought this to the notice of humanity.

(I can't believe I'm having to explain collective action problems to you again).

That's why you're an idiot - you can't see that all of us have to put up with public money being spent on things we don't like in order to ensure that it is also spent on things we like. That's the price of living in a pluralist society.

If you don't like anything the government does then I'm afraid you are SOOL because the vast majority of people do (even though they might not realise it). So suck it up. You will likely have to finance things you don't like for the rest of your life. The alternative just doesn't work.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Asher
Obviously you took a humanities or social science degree.

I'm only half-done my degree and I've already got 3 jobs.

Yes, but in 30 years you will still be at one of those jobs, while I and my fellow social science graduates will be the ones deciding the fate of said job

Dance tech monkey, DANCE!

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
The market system cannot provide such goods

So there are no private universities?

That's why universities are largely funded by taxation. These are the facts. You can rant until you are blue in the face, but this is what universities are for and why such odd subjects as philosophy are practiced in them and why they are largely funded by taxation as opposed to market forces.

How do I know this? Well, I read it in some philosophy books.

You had to read philosophy books to understand public taxation supporting universities?

I support subsidizing universities, I also support universities that are more practical than what they are today. Disinterested inquiry has taken us where we are now, and now it's up to those fields that have splintered off to carry the torch. Things are too complex for philosophers to do anymore, which is why they resort to things like arguing (and spending taxpayer's money on) arguing about "What is happiness" and something about the "I am lying" paradox.

All this "debate" comes down to is that there are two sorts of people. Those who are naturally curious about the world and ideas and find value in satisfying their curiosity, and those who can't see any value in anything that doesn't have an immediate practical use or a marketable value. The former are the people who belong at universities, the latter somewhere else. You are one of the latter.

This isn't any more correct than saying universities should all be polytechnic schools.

Universities, as per their definition, are merely places of higher learning. That includes things such as computer science. Nowhere in the definition, in any dictionary that I've found, does it say anything about universities being places purely for satisfying curiousity. They're for educating people, and some of them also for conducting research. Once again you're cornered into the wall, basing your argument about "what a university is", even though the very definitions of the language you use tell everyone otherwise.

What you think a university is isn't the case. It's not as specifically defined as you would like for your job security, it's a place of higher learning and research. Period.

That's why you're an idiot - you can't see that all of us have to put up with public money being spent on things we don't like in order to ensure that it is also spent on things we like. That's the price of living in a pluralist society.

It also doesn't mean I have to like it, which would make you an idiot for taking issue with my taking issue with not liking it. How's that for philosophy for you?

I don't think symphonies should be tax subsidized (indeed, this was a huge issue for the Calgary Philharmonic -- they asked for funding but the governments said no, so corporations pulled through and resurrected it).

Leave this to GePap, Agathon, you're tearing down all his hard work.

[Asher]

Originally posted by GePap
Yes, but in 30 years you will still be at one of those jobs, while I and my fellow social science graduates will be the ones deciding the fate of said job

Dance tech monkey, DANCE!

Hardly. Look at technology companies, GePap, name any one of them with social science lackies up at the top.

HP-Compaq, IBM, Microsoft, Sun, Siebel, etc etc all have management that come from technical (computer) backgrounds, many of them with MBAs as well. Hell, a few of Sun's execs are alumnis at my very school, before it was as good as it is now at CS.

And as you probably know, it is my intention to get an MBA down the road.

I also see you don't understand the difference between, say, a programming/IT diploma from a college and a computer science degree from a university. The college diploma people remain the codemonkeys (not "tech monkey"), while the CS people move up to management since they've developed problemsolving and teamworking skills.

It also says a lot that arguably the most successful company ever (Microsoft) got there with a bunch of computer guys than economists, business, or management graduates. Intel's the same way.

[GePap]

How best to put it?

In a sense, philosophy is the language of knowledge. It gives us the basic vocabulary of higher education, as well as the basic rules (the grammar) of it. Now, as it were, people are inherently native users of this language, but as with any other language, ones proficiency at it varies either with inherent skill or with practice. It is very possible to become rather fluent in this language without knowing what the things you are using are. For example, most (english-speaking) people speak english just fine, but ask them to break down their sentences into their grammatical components..well, don't expect miracles from the general populace. So yes, it is possible for an individual to live their entire lives and be fluent (if not a master of) this language of knowledge without studying it academically. That being said, learning the rules, the grammar of knowledge gives one a much better understanding of what they are using. For many, this improves ones ability to ue said language, for others perhaps not as much.

So, in eccense, to study philosophy is to attempt to study the underlying basis, rules, and tricks of knowledge and mans relation to it: it does not affect or improve all individual equally anymore than taking a grammar course turns everyone into Oscar Wilde.

As for your own personal experiences: the quality of a philosophy class can vary greatly, just as the quality of any language or english class can vary greatly. Perhaps it would do you fine to examine the offering of philosophy courses in your uni, ask students for their feedback and what they saw, specially like-minded ones whom for some reason took a more general course.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Asher

Hardly. Look at technology companies, GePap, name any one of them with social science lackies up at the top.

HP-Compaq, IBM, Microsoft, Sun, Siebel, etc etc all have management that come from technical (computer) backgrounds, many of them with MBAs as well. Hell, a few of Sun's execs are alumnis at my very school, before it was as good as it is now at CS.

And as you probably know, it is my intention to get an MBA down the road.

I also see you don't understand the difference between, say, a programming/IT diploma from a college and a computer science degree from a university. The college diploma people remain the codemonkeys (not "tech monkey"), while the CS people move up to management since they've developed problemsolving and teamworking skills.

It also says a lot that arguably the most successful company ever (Microsoft) got there with a bunch of computer guys than economists, business, or management graduates. Intel's the same way.

Ohh, corporations... blah. They come and go, but us social science people are the ones to get our hands on the reigns of power..play with your little chips and money, while we make the policy you have to deal with and live under.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I'm thinking this threadjack needs it's own thread, because this really has VERY little to do with the thread topic, except very tangentially.

[GePap]

This threadjack has had many threads of it's own already.

Since when are threadjacks more than tangentially connected? I have seen worse.

[Asher]

Originally posted by GePap
Ohh, corporations... blah. They come and go, but us social science people are the ones to get our hands on the reigns of power..play with your little chips and money, while we make the policy you have to deal with and live under.

We all know corporations control the politicians, which control the country.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I have seen worse.

Interestingly they all involve Asher .

[GePap]

Originally posted by Asher

We all know corporations control the politicians, which control the country.

Only in those genteel states were people are too wimpy to use good old fashioned jackboots to the throat.

[Asher]

Originally posted by GePap
How best to put it?

In a sense, philosophy is the language of knowledge. It gives us the basic vocabulary of higher education, as well as the basic rules (the grammar) of it. Now, as it were, people are inherently native users of this language, but as with any other language, ones proficiency at it varies either with inherent skill or with practice. It is very possible to become rather fluent in this language without knowing what the things you are using are. For example, most (english-speaking) people speak english just fine, but ask them to break down their sentences into their grammatical components..well, don't expect miracles from the general populace. So yes, it is possible for an individual to live their entire lives and be fluent (if not a master of) this language of knowledge without studying it academically. That being said, learning the rules, the grammar of knowledge gives one a much better understanding of what they are using. For many, this improves ones ability to ue said language, for others perhaps not as much.

So, in eccense, to study philosophy is to attempt to study the underlying basis, rules, and tricks of knowledge and mans relation to it: it does not affect or improve all individual equally anymore than taking a grammar course turns everyone into Oscar Wilde.

As for your own personal experiences: the quality of a philosophy class can vary greatly, just as the quality of any language or english class can vary greatly. Perhaps it would do you fine to examine the offering of philosophy courses in your uni, ask students for their feedback and what they saw, specially like-minded ones whom for some reason took a more general course.

Well I suppose, it's somewhat useful then under this light. It can stay, for now.

But certain teachers at the UofT, they have to go.