What are you taking this semester?

[TCO]

Originally posted by Agathon


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).

Interesting area. Let's treat it philosophically.

Do you think that some areas of study are inherently harder? Like Quantum Physics versus French? Or that there is no point in thinking of basic areas of knowledge as easier/harder than others. And it is only a matter of how deep you go. Or how rigorous the course is arbitrarily made?

(More on this later, but I'll get your reaction to my questioning. And don't worry, I'm not trying to steer you into a path like that old rhetorician, Socrates (as described by Plato). Just want to chew on the idea a little.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by TCO

Interesting area. Let's treat it philosophically.

Do you think that some areas of study are inherently harder? Like Quantum Physics versus French? Or that there is no point in thinking of basic areas of knowledge as easier/harder than others. And it is only a matter of how deep you go. Or how rigorous the course is arbitrarily made?

"Harder for whom?" is another question. For example, some people are just good at mathematics, but hopeless at languages, others are good at applied science but no good at understanding a novel. The ideal academic is someone who's good at all of them, but that's a solely notional ideal.

A friend of mine did Graduate work in physics and the mathematics seemed mind numbingly difficult. I suppose it's not so hard if you you are used to it. But these are just cases of knowing the material and the skill of applying it. Where I think the real talent comes in is at the abstract extremes of a discipline: e.g. someone trying to come up with a completely new theoretical idea in say physics or philosophy. That's about the hardest thing someone can do, but there really isn't enough evidence to quantify which discipline is most difficult in this respect.

When it comes down to mental rigour I'd say that Physics is probably the hardest science (but that's just how it appears to me) and that Classics is probably the hardest Art if done properly. The sheer amount of grunt work required to be any good at either is astonishing (Classics involves thousands of hours of peasant labour memorizing verb forms and grammatical rules, before you even read anything interesting).

In philosophy it is often possible to get goo results through sheer talent since what really matters is what you think. I'll admit I've breezed through some courses I didn't particularly like by doing this. The converse of this is that it's possible to put in many hours and do badly if you are just no good. What makes doing good philosophy difficult is that it involves a lot of trying to wrestle with seemingly intractable problems - trying to find a new way of thinking about an old problem that may solve it - and it's all done in the head.

What I do is the worst of both worlds. Classical Philosophy. Thankfully, I'm spared having to memorize the sheer amount of literature in Classical languages that the regular Classics grads do, but I still had to translate and memorize Plato's Sophist for an exam.

Moan moan moan....

(More on this later, but I'll get your reaction to my questioning. And don't worry, I'm not trying to steer you into a path like that old rhetorician, Socrates (as described by Plato). Just want to chew on the idea a little.

Socrates a rhetorician? Them's fighting words....

[Kirnwaffen]

And, if we are in fact counting high school (no one got around to skywalker's question), I'm taking AP Calc BC, AP Comp Sci AB (again), AP US History, AP English Literature, and Technical Theatre. Senior year.

[TCO]

1. Don't get all fighty and testy with me. (Socrates slam.)

2. I thought you might comment about individual talents. I agree that they affect difficulty wrt subjects. However, one could take a view of the general man. (Or to be scientific the "average" man, and consider mental complexity of different tasks (and implicitly fields). So we can still make general statements like Chemistry is the toughest Freshman course at USNA and the like.

Also, I would say that while individual talent may vary, that is not the ONLY factor of importance. For instance look at the school of Education. It typically has the lowest test scores for its students. And is seen as the easy road. Or even the road for those less talented. Now Education as a topic may be capable of more complexity. But the courses taught there are a different story. They are a refuge for the weaker.

[Victor Galis]

CS4001 Computerization in Society
LCC3401 Technical Communication
CS2200 Systems and Networks
CS4750 User-Interface Design
MATH3215 Probability and Statistics

Yes, I bitterly hate most of my classes.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by TCO
1. Don't get all fighty and testy with me. (Socrates slam.)

2. I thought you might comment about individual talents. I agree that they affect difficulty wrt subjects. However, one could take a view of the general man. (Or to be scientific the "average" man, and consider mental complexity of different tasks (and implicitly fields). So we can still make general statements like Chemistry is the toughest Freshman course at USNA and the like.

Also, I would say that while individual talent may vary, that is not the ONLY factor of importance. For instance look at the school of Education. It typically has the lowest test scores for its students. And is seen as the easy road. Or even the road for those less talented. Now Education as a topic may be capable of more complexity. But the courses taught there are a different story. They are a refuge for the weaker.

I agree about that. I've taught education students and it's a nightmare.

I imagine the low quality of education students has much to do with the poorly paid teachers than the subject itself.

Anyway, this is an amusing article you may enjoy. It's one of my favourites. The chap is an economist (I'm under the impression you are, correct me if I'm wrong).

http://www.freeradical.co.nz/content/33/33sechrest.html

We should be careful of comparing subjects which are deliberately made easier in the first year as general interest subjects (like philosophy and English) with those like physics which is pretty gung ho from the start.

The problem with the average man view is that folks are just different, so the average man sounds more like a rarity. I know plenty of people who are fearsome debaters on aesthetic and political issues, yet who cannot perform simple mathematical operations. And I know bright CS Students who were so dense that they didn't realise that the characters in a Platonic dialogue were engaging in homosexual flirtation.

I was a pretty good all round student in high school (Won prizes in maths, science, history and art). I'd have to say I find reading difficult philosophy books harder than anything else. Sometimes one has to read the same page five times to work out what is going on (I'm talking about guys like Kant and Aristotle). Of course there is plenty of complicated "post-modern" writing in other disciplines, but I confess that I find much of it to be meaningless twaddle and those who profess it to be pretentious frauds.

It's also hard when there is no right answer but plenty of wrong ones, as occurs especially in philosophy. I always found that I was irritated with the lack of free thought afforded the students in other subjects. I once had a running battle with a history lecturer who made vast theoretical generalisations with no supporting reasons - at least in philosophy the bosses take pleasure in defending themselves.

[Ted Striker]

TGN9999 Advanced Thugganomics

[TCO]

1. We can be fearsome of the average man concept. Meaning that it is more significant to look at the differences. But mathematically and scientifically there is an average man. And he differs from the average martian or dolphin. Also, just as we lose something by obscuring the differences among men, we lose something by ignoring general tendancies of men.

2. I am not an economist. Not sure what I am.

3. Where I went to school, English (comp first semester and Lit critique the second) seemed to be not for the purpose of enticing students, but intended as basic education. Same with physics/chem. Of course I went to a school with recitation and the like.

4. I've never had a philosophy course. Not sure what they are like. Guess I should take Asher's word? I don't even know if my school had a philosophy course. There was no department for sure.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Sometimes one has to read the same page five times to work out what is going on (I'm talking about guys like Kant and Aristotle).

Damn that Kant . Hegel was a bit easier, but at times could be just as bad!

Though I never went too far in courses in the Philosophy department at Rutgers. I took a few intro classes ('Intro to Logic' and 'Intro to Classical Philosophy') to fulfill a requirement . Most of my philosophy readings were in the Political Science Department (one of my majors). They were definetly difficult, but, of course, no where near how difficult upper level classes in the Philosophy department would have been, for sure.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Damn that Kant . Hegel was a bit easier, but at times could be just as bad!e.

Rutgers has an excellent Department.

Actually I always remember Brand Blanshard complaining about Hegel. He said something like this:

If we take the sentence 'Major Andre was hanged', and use it as a standard to rank writers for clarity; I belive we would obtain something like this. Hume, Swift and Macaulay would say he was hanged. Bosanquet would say "he was killed" which is less informative; Bradley would say "he died" which is even less accurate. Kant would say, "his mortal existence achieved its termination" which is diabolical but nowhere near as bad as Hegel, who would say, "A finite determination of infinity was further determined by its own negation."

[Imran Siddiqui]

The only Philosophy prof I remember was my Logic Prof, Earnest Lepore, who apparently is fairly famous in that field. He was a pretty fun prof, from what I remember, and he gave me an A (which suited me fine ).

If we take the sentence 'Major Andre was hanged', and use it as a standard to rank writers for clarity; I belive we would obtain something like this. Hume, Swift and Macaulay would say he was hanged. Bosanquet would say "he was killed" which is less informative; Bradley would say "he died" which is even less accurate. Kant would say, "his mortal existence achieved its termination" which is diabolical but nowhere near as bad as Hegel, who would say, "A finite determination of infinity was further determined by its own negation."

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon


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.

You seem to be forgetting your own actions in this thread. You even said that you were "speaking English" when talking about how basic a concept of a university is. Yet English dictionaries don't agree with you. Suddenly you're now basing this argument upon what the "elite people like you" think a university is, rather than how the word is defined. You've yet to provide anything to support your argument that a University has to be about disinterested inquiry, probably because it's blatantly stupid and can't be backed up...

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.

And you're an elitist snob that thinks he knows better than everyone else. Not everyone believes universities must adhere to disinterested inquiry in every field and must include Philosophy. You've simply said "trust me", in essense, and provided nothing to back up such an atrocious claim. You even make a remark about how you're "speaking English", yet even the dictionaries don't agree with you.

So, as someone who's out of my league here, I'm going to go out on a limb and think it's fair to say you have no case when you provide nothing to support it with, while the people who argue against you have evidence and arguments supported by fact rather than elitist opinion.

Rot. You don't even seem to understand my argument

How could anyone not understand such a simple argument with fake complexity? How can anyone not see through this thinly veiled escape hatch to recover from an embarassingly bad argument on your part? "Um, no it's not stupid, you just don't get it... :rolleyes "

Universities are there in large part to engage in the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake. That's a fact.

Fact according to who? What you believe a University is?
You also have to address why we don't teach classes in how to fold laundry if it truly is about the persuit of knowledge for its own sake, or why we don't teach everything. Why are we selective in what we teach? Why can't we be selective about philosophy or other subjects?

There are huge holes in this argument, aside from the obvious "fact" that you can't substantiate your claims with anything aside from your opinion.

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.

What do you want me to defend? Why I think subjects should be useful?

That should be a no-brainer. Why should we waste time and money teaching people how to fold socks in a university course? Subjects that are useful should only be taught.

You took a horribly wrong route in the argument, GePap tried to convince me that Philosophy was not useless. He has succeeded in a way, in that teaching me that is the "language of knowledge" -- but after this continuing remarkable display by someone who is supposed to be very good at philosophy is making me question just how relevant philosophy is if someone so well-educated in it can behave like such a bafoon in elementary debates about it.

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

The problem is you don't understand that the "argument" is merely an opinion. Some people believe the government should not exist at all, others should believe it should dictate everything you do. You make the constant mistake of branding your opinions of things as "fact" and calling other peoples' opinions as "Wrong" rather than simply disagreeing with them. Further, when somebody says simple concepts like we should only teach children useful things, as in things they can use and apply to better themselves and society, you simply claim you can't defend that and you're stupid for not addressing the argument, etcetc.

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.

Now THAT is a load. Your argument's last time were equally as bad as now, but as a whole focused on what philosophers did 3,000 years ago, even though I (and KH) were constantly saying we didn't care what happened then, and this is now, etc. You didn't comprehend then, but it seems now you figured that out. So you shifted your focus, to one of using your elitist opinion, masquerading it as fact and not substantiating it, then calling everyone stupid who does not share your opinion.

Your philosophy sucks, you know that?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
And I know bright CS Students who were so dense that they didn't realise that the characters in a Platonic dialogue were engaging in homosexual flirtation.

Or maybe they saw something in the dialogue that you guys missed, and while you labeled them as incorrect they saw the original intent of the dialogue while it flew over your head.

(filosofy)

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Sometimes one has to read the same page five times to work out what is going on (I'm talking about guys like Kant and Aristotle).

Damn that Kant . Hegel was a bit easier, but at times could be just as bad!

OTOH there were really satisfying moments when I finally understood what he (Kant) meant

[DaShi]

For next semester, I'm thinking of teaching a course called "Stare your desk for an hour and a half." Depends on what the school does to me. I hate my life.