What are you taking this semester?

[Drake Tungsten]

I hate my life.

DaShi: You're good enough, you're smart enough and, dog gonnit, people like you.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Asher

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.

Do you want me to use "Universitat" instead? It doesn't matter - the term is has cognates in other languages. I was just pointing out that I use the term to indicate what educated English speakers use it to indicate - a particular kind of institution. One is at least required to understand such institutions before launching into debates about what they should do.

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.

They neither agree or disagree according to the definition you gave which leaves open either possibility. It doesn't matter anyway as I pointed out to you in a previous post - looking in a dictionary is a waste of time.

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...

Not really. I've told you to look for yourself. Most universities have a statement of purpose which outlines their commitment to pure and applied research and academic freedom, etc. Pure research is identical with or at least contains disinterested inquiry.

QED - I win.

And you're an elitist snob that thinks he knows better than everyone else.

Certainly not. Just better than half-witted CS students from Calgary who don't know what they are talking about.

Not everyone believes universities must adhere to disinterested inquiry in every field and must include Philosophy.

Boo hoo. Those presumably are the people who don't understand why we have universities or can't understand why knowledge for its own sake is something valuable.

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.

Ha Ha dumb****. I pointed out to you that a large proportion of the population are naturally curious about subjects which have little or no utility. The vast array of specialist books sold in stores like Chapters, and the number of people on Poly who are interested in odd things is enough to show that I am right; as are the scientists who are just curious about how the universe works, whether or not such knowledge turns out to be useful.

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 "

Because you don't. There is no bad argument on my part at all. Just your complete failure to back up your assertion that universities must only be devoted to the production of "useful" knowledge. This when

(a) - "useful" is not the same as "valuable" or "valued" (as is evidenced by human behaviour).

(b) - Universities themselves do not operate on that principle - as is stated in their own charters. To argue that they shouldn't is to misunderstand their purpose in society.

(c) - Many scientific endeavours (which you presumably would call useful) aim at merely satisfying human curiosity as to the workings of the natural world - they have no practical import. Should these be eliminated from universities?

It's incumbent on someone who is arguing that certain social institutions should change to actually understand why those institutions have the form they do and what purpose they serve. You do not. Hence you are staggering around in search of a good argument.

Fact according to who? What you believe a University is?

A university is a place in which both pure and applied research is conducted at a high academic level into the subjects of ourselves and the world (and the divine if there is a theology dept) in the form of specific disciplines concerning sub areas of these. They also provide a high level education to students who perpetuate the system and provide educated employees for the general economy. The researchers of the university are not to be interfered with in their pursuit of knowledge - the university is to be run in accord with the principles of academic freedom, which is the fundamental principle of the university.

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.

Because we don't need to build a special institution to teach people how to fold laundry. Unless, that is, they are hopeless morons like you. Anyway, folding laundry is a useful skill - it's something we do for the sake of something else. That is unless you imagine a bizarre class of people who just enjoy folding laundry.

I can't believe you are so inept as to give an example of something we do for the sake of something else as an example of something we do for its own sake.

Why are we selective in what we teach? Why can't we be selective about philosophy or other subjects?

We are. Subjects that no one is interested in die out. Philosophy has never died out after 2500 years.

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.

Of course you can't point them out, because you are a rank amateur who doesn't know what he's talking about.

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

Thank god, the ****ing penny has finally dropped.

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

Sock folding is a useful skill (like laundry folding). I'll explain to you again: people enjoy knowledge for its own sake. They are naturally curious. That in essence is why universities engage in pure research - to satisfy the human thirst for knowledge. That is part of the social function universities serve.

People just sometimes enjoy using their natural faculties for the experience of using them to their best, rather than for any practical gain. For example, many people run just for the pleasure of it, or play chess just for the fun of using their mind. Similarly, people just enjoy knowing things about themselves and the world. These are plain facts - how can you be so obtuse as to deny them?

So it isn't a no brainer after all.

Subjects that are useful should only be taught.

This is assertion, not argument and you should be ashamed at offering it in place of one.

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.

I offered you the same position six months ago and you rubbished it then.

Sorry, your past performance means that you have no credibility on this issue.

The problem is you don't understand that the "argument" is merely an opinion.

The problem with that is that anyone who believes it is a ****ing moron. Arguments are subject to objective logical criteria - they must be valid, and alethic criteria, the premises of an argument must be reasonably held to be true or at least consistent with my other beliefs.

If I believe that taxes should be abolished, I do so on the basis of values I hold and beliefs I have about the world. If my values can be shown to be inconsistent or my beliefs false then I must be mistaken and have to revise my beliefs, on pain of irrationality.

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.

Lapsing into childish relativism is the sign that one has lost the argument. In essence you're saying I'm wrong because nobody can be right.

Some people believe all sorts of things because they are under some misapprehension about the facts of the case. Some people believe that universities are a waste of public money, yet don't really understand what they do or why they're there. Such people are mistaken about the relevant facts. In other words they are wrong.

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.

No - I simply pointed out to you that people naturally enjoy all sorts of things which you don't call useful. People are interested in all kinds of useless knowledge which they find it valuable to learn. This is because most people are naturally curious. I don't give a **** whether the answer to the question of how the universe came into being is useful or not - I just want to ****ing know. That puts me on the side of pure science and you as the person who designs Sony Playstations.

There are two arguments I could offer here. One is the one I've already offered - that knowledge for it's own sake is valuable and that means there is a need for it. We publicly fund universities for economic reasons, not political reasons. It just so happens that public funding is the most efficient and in some cases the only way of ensuring the production of some goods. That's why we have universities.

On the other hand I could take the slightly different position that perhaps it is merely liked by some people and not others, but that sports clubs, churches, and all sorts of other things that receive money from the goverment (often in the form of tax breaks) are too and that not funding any of these publicly would lead to their extinction. In this contractarian view, all of us end up funding things we don't like in order to maintain things we do like, because without it they'd die off.

In either case useless things can be justify public expenditure.

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.

That was a different argument (which you also lost).

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.

Nope. I remember offering the position that philosophy is the study of concepts used in other disciplines but not explicitly questioned, such as "cause" and "belief". That's elementary stuff - and roughly what GePap was saying. I believe the debate in question was about the philosophy of science of you want to look it up.

I'm not calling everyone stupid. Just you. I could imagine and have heard better arguments against philosophy, but yours is ridiculous.

Your philosophy sucks, you know that?

And you, as far as argument is concerned, are something I stepped in.

I think I'll wipe you off.

[MrFun]

I forgot -- how did a casual thread like this, get politicized??

[Asher]

I can't be bothered to read Agathon's last post.

Summary please?

[MrFun]

wuss

[Asher]

Okay, I read it. Here's the summary for everyone else:

The problem with that is that anyone who believes it is a ****ing moron.

"This is my opinion, and it is fact, because anyone who doesn't believe it is a ****ing moron."

That's about right, no? You sound like Fez after he's been forced to read a thesaurus. But when you strip your argument down to the core, it's the exact same.

Maybe I'm in the wrong field. How much do you get paid Agathon, if they let you teach that crap anyone could do it.
Is the job easy? Does it pay well?

[JohnT]

Originally posted by Asher
I can't be bothered to read Agathon's last post.

Summary please?

"You're wrong. You moron."

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yep, that's about right, John .

Short, to the point, and totally correct .

[JohnT]

American Film(Pretentiousness 101): My instructor is one of those people who actually uses words like zeitgeist in casual conversation. Argh.

[JohnT]

God Asher, you got your ass kicked up and down in this thread... but you still come back for more!

[Asher]

Pssht, the only person doing any kind of asskicking was GePap, and I conceded to him.

Agathon's arguments are just bad and Fezlike with big words...

[Asher]

Another fundamental problem with Agathon's argument was he insisted Philosophy exists because people want to take it.

I was forced to take two philosophy courses that are absolute ****, so I would be forced to disagree with his "fact"/opinion.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Asher
Another fundamental problem with Agathon's argument was he insisted Philosophy exists because people want to take it.

I was forced to take two philosophy courses that are absolute ****, so I would be forced to disagree with his "fact"/opinion.

But that's you, you *******!!

I took "20th Century Fiction" and hated it. But that doesn't mean I think it has no place in the university. It just means I didn't like it. Other people love it - who am I to prevent them taking enjoyment in Margaret Atwood?

When the hell are you going to grow up and realize that people are different and that trying to remake the world after your own image is both impossible and immoral (it's the dream of a tyrant)?

[Asher]

Hello strawman, we meet again.

My issue was with you saying people take philosophy because they like it, even it's not necessarily the case. Only a handful of kids in my entire Philosophy of Logic class wanted to take it. It was a course requirement for the CompSci and EE/CE kids.

So saying because people keep taking them doesn't necessarily mean they want to take them. Basic stuff, but something you try to make excessively complicated so you can bury the argument in a semantic mess.

But go ahead, keep it up with the strawman, you're getting real good at that now.

[Asher]

And for the record:

That puts me on the side of pure science and you as the person who designs Sony Playstations.

If I design playstations, you write great novels...