What are you taking this semester?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Interestingly they all involve Asher .

I'm prolific, provocative, and personable. I can't help it.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Or rather, you can never answer the question

[Asher]

Or maybe I answered the question so well it BLEW YOUR MIND!!

(Seinfeld reference)

[GePap]

So now we jacked the jack.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Thank you

[MrFun]

Let's all do the thread-jack dance!!

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Asher

So there are no private universities?

They aren't funded by the market system. They exist from their endowments and donations. It is not a case of them selling a marketable good.

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

You should because you don't.

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.

But changing the character of universities to the mere investigation of what is useful or marketable ignores the values which they are supposed to enshrine. You need an argument to show that the search for knowledge for its own sake has no value. If you don't have one then leave the universities alone.

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.

Since you don't understand the import of the liar paradox, perhaps you ought to stop using it.

Universities, as per their definition, are merely places of higher learning.

A definition you got out of a ****ing dictionary. And you accused me of playing semantics

Have you not been at university long enough to know that dictionary definitions aren't really sufficient in debates like these. Look at what universities actually do - look at their statements of purpose.

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.

Instead of looking in a dictionary why don't you look at various legal documents like statements of purpose and governmental Education Acts?

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.

Rot. A dictionary is a rough guide to established usage. They are not really useful in technical debates. I could look up "bordello" in a dictionary and it would give me a rough definition, but clearly not everything there is to know about bordellos or how they operate. Give up this ridiculous line of argument - it's making you look stupid.

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.

A place in which both pure and applied research takes place. Philosophy is on the "pure" side.

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?

But your argument isn't about liking it. You are arguing that it's useless. Actually you aren't arguing, you are merely repeating the claim that it's useless without any real supporting reasons.

My argument has been that even if philosophy has no marketable practical use, it still has value for people (just like all knowledge for its own sake). In no place have you managed to even come close to formulating a counterargument to this thesis. Instead you keep ranting on about how it isn't useful. My argument is that it doesn't have to be useful in your sense to be valuable. This is why you are losing the argument. You are using as your basis a proposition that is in dispute.

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).

Which nicely proves my point - they have to rely on voluntary donations (just like "private" universities", not just on ticket sales. In the case of universities, however, we need to keep corporate sponsorship at arms length since the appearance of academic freedom must never be compromised. Thank you for proving my point.

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

All he's saying is stuff I said last time we had this argument. I took a different tack this time, partly for the fun of it.

You are just looking for a way out of this argument now because you've been thrashed and other posters are appearing to confirm it. Of course you don't want to admit that I'm right about this, only because its me.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
A definition you got out of a ****ing dictionary. And you accused me of playing semantics

Agathon, you used the definition of the term University to rationalize why it should be part of the department.

Since we're speaking in English, I checked every English dictionary I could find and found that absolutely none supported your argument.

When you based your argument on the semantics of what "University" means, then somebody owns you at your own argument, you should reevaluate your position as a teacher of philosophy.

All he's saying is stuff I said last time we had this argument. I took a different tack this time, partly for the fun of it.

Absolute nonsense. GePap's arguments are sensical and coherent, every time I've been in an argument with you, you've said nothing but absurd things mixed with obvious trolls.

You are just looking for a way out of this argument now because you've been thrashed and other posters are appearing to confirm it. Of course you don't want to admit that I'm right about this, only because its me.

I'm confused -- I just conceded that philosophy can stay as a discipline in university, as per GePap's argument, and now I'm "looking for a way out"?

And don't flatter yourself, you mean sh*t to me. Had you presented a competent argument like GePap did, rather than a laughably poor semantic argument, you'd have done a good job.

Maybe GePap should apply for your job.

[Ecthy]

yeah but why do you beat your boyfriend?

[TCO]

Agathon, do you think that courses differ in their difficulty? You don't think there are "gut" courses? I don't disdain the STUDY of philosophy at all. But I am realistic about the difference in level of difficulty in passing classes (as currently taught) in different fields.

[orange]

Hist439 - Women and Revoultion in Africa
Educ413 - Ed Psych + Classroom Field Placement
Math114 - College Math and Statistics (Math req)
Posc311 - Politics of Third World Nations

and one more that I have to add (possibly a lab science, another req I need to get, or another POSC)

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Asher

Agathon, you used the definition of the term University to rationalize why it should be part of the department.

No, I used the common conception of what universities are as they function in our societies and as is stated by themselves and related parties in official documents. What we mean when we say "Universities" is what universities are since it is a concept of convention. Why should providing a suitable account of what "university" means not be the same as describing what they actually are? After all, if I am trying to explain to you what gravity is, I would give you an account of it - this account would explain what we mean when we use the term "gravity".

Since we're speaking in English, I checked every English dictionary I could find and found that absolutely none supported your argument.

Dictionaries are notoriously unreliable for sorting out disputes like these. That's why 1st year university instructors warn against using dictionary definitions to resolve substantive issues.

Imagine if you were asked to write a paper on feminism and merely quoted a dictionary.

You were the one using a dictionary, not me.

When you based your argument on the semantics of what "University" means, then somebody owns you at your own argument, you should reevaluate your position as a teacher of philosophy.

If you bothered to read properly, you would see how silly this statement is and how it has nothing to do with the argument.

You don't own anyone on this matter. You are out of your depth in a subject that you don't understand.

Absolute nonsense. GePap's arguments are sensical and coherent, every time I've been in an argument with you, you've said nothing but absurd things mixed with obvious trolls.

Rot. You don't even seem to understand my argument since you have failed to address it adequately. Universities are there in large part to engage in the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake. That's a fact. That's why philosophy is a university subject and also why it doesn't matter whether or not it is "useful" in your sense.

You've spent the entire thread saying that all university subjects should be useful and have refused to defend that point when asked. The closest you've come is a taxpayer rant which displayed your utter ignorance of economics.

Why is your failure to address the argument somehow a failing of mine. It's your stupidity that's the problem.

And don't flatter yourself, you mean sh*t to me. Had you presented a competent argument like GePap did, rather than a laughably poor semantic argument, you'd have done a good job.

What a load. I presented roughly that same argument to you about six months ago (as did other people) and you ranted and raved about it then.

You are just looking for payback for your previous failures.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by TCO
Agathon, do you think that courses differ in their difficulty? You don't think there are "gut" courses? I don't disdain the STUDY of philosophy at all. But I am realistic about the difference in level of difficulty in passing classes (as currently taught) in different fields.

To pass a first year humanities or social science course is not hard. To do well is somewhat harder. Where I teach, philosophy is somewhat harder than, say, English or History. Students of mine often complain about their GPAs because they thought it would be much easier than it is. However, I'd say that year 1 economics is harder as are most of the science courses since they have different aims.

The point of 1st year phil is basically to sort out the few people who really understand the subject from the rest and to provide a mild survey for those with a casual interest. It's an odd subject which some people never really get. If you made it massively hard in the first year then no one would take it and we wouldn't be able to poach students from elsewhere. Once we've got them we make it harder.

By the time you get students reading unexpurgated Kant I imagine it's as hard as anything.

However, the hardest subject at university has still got to be an old fashioned Classics program. Those people are masochists (it's worse at grad school - these people have it worse than anyone).

[Elok]

How many miles are in the Boston Agathon?
Woo. Go forth and spread the word.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Elok
How many miles are in the Boston Agathon?
Woo. Go forth and spread the word.