"Maths, in university, is useless bull..."

[Ramo]

Hm, you know this, or you think it is so?

I don't know anything absolutely.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Ramo
Emotion.

A sophist.

[Ramo]

Ah, so that's what philosophy classes are for: being able to declare arguments you disagree with as sophism.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Ramo and Kuci:

The problem is that you would have to keep out of any value judgment whatsoever for all of your life.

Value judgements are not moral judgements. The fact that I enjoy some result more than some other result is not an indication of some belief in absolute morality, but rather simple individual preference. Just like you can think vanilla ice cream tastes better while not believing that vanilla ice cream is objectively "better".

Obviously no moral relativist does that. They refer to relativism when they're being beaten by a moral argument, but they refer to a moral argument when it seems like it could help them.

I've never seen relativism used as an escape route.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
A sophist.

No, he's perfectly right. Morality stems from instinct (=emotion, in a general sense), just as the assumption that like causes produce like effects and that when one observes a number of times that two events are repeatedly conjoined, one assumes that one events "causes" the other and that past observations will be relevent to the future. None of these have any basis a priori, they arise out of the particular construction of the human mind.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


No, he's perfectly right. Morality stems from instinct (=emotion, in a general sense), just as the assumption that like causes produce like effects and that when one observes a number of times that two events are repeatedly conjoined, one assumes that one events "causes" the other and that past observations will be relevent to the future. None of these have any basis a priori, they arise out of the particular construction of the human mind.

IIUC the cognitivists say otherwise -are they wrong?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Philosophy in uni . Taking what Aggie said about a lot of people liking it (and they do), what's the problem in a university offering it? It's an intellectual discipline that people like... they are fulfilling market desires. Universities aren't technical collages, they are dedicated to the pursuit of knowledge.

though I do think history is useful in a university, I just question why people choose to major in it if not to become a prof themselves

Why do you think history is useful in university if you think the only job to result would be in teaching history (making it a big cycle)? You objection to philosophy in universities and saying history is useful in university doesn't make sense.

[BeBMan]

Threadjacker!

[Asher]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Philosophy in uni . Taking what Aggie said about a lot of people liking it (and they do), what's the problem in a university offering it? It's an intellectual discipline that people like... they are fulfilling market desires. Universities aren't technical collages, they are dedicated to the pursuit of knowledge.

Why do you think history is useful in university if you think the only job to result would be in teaching history (making it a big cycle)? You objection to philosophy in universities and saying history is useful in university doesn't make sense.

Because it is important for future leaders to know about the past. Cue the cliche quote about knowing history and doomed to repeat it.

The same isn't true with philosophy. The only "useful" thing they teach is the ideologies of the ancient philosophers, which is best served as a history course in the first place.

The "ethics" courses are a crock of sh*t, the "logic" courses are duplicated by its more useful cousin in the math department...

[Kramerman]

i dont like partial differential equations. so i changed majors far from higher math

[Japher]

I went through pdes... was the easiest math course I took, and is useful to me to this day. Granted I don't think everyone needs it. Basic calculus would be were I would stop if wasn't going into a hard science... yup, I think know at least what a derivative and an integral is would be useful, if only to learn how to read a graph, but the they don't teach you that. They only teach you how to get an answer, not what it means.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The same isn't true with philosophy.

Of course it is. It is important for people to have a mind for critical thought (I'll leave out the ethics and logic part of it since others are currently banging their heads against the wall trying to convince you of their use). One of the best ways to do that is to look at the structure of in depth arguments on life and creation of governmental structures. That is useful in itself (in the creation of laws), but are also universal debates, in that everyone can relate to them, regardless of culture or socio-economic background, and thus the best to analyze and break apart.

[Japher]

I took philosphy in college. Hell, I took almost everything as I was there for 6 years! Philosphy was kewl... pointless, but I think that was the point.

[Ben Kenobi]

That's why it needs to be technical writing. No jargon, no thesauruses, no compacting ideas into subjective packages. Ideas are all well and good, but they're damned useless if only a few nerds can understand them

Very true.

Which is why I argued constantly with my Writing prof over my writing style.

I totally ignored his classes on jargon, and he ended up failing me at the end of the year because I refused to use his 'jargon' dictionary.

I thought about writing a satire to describe the whole thing, in perfect jargon in a letter to the Ubyssey, but I declined.

[Ben Kenobi]

If you've been private and unsubsidised all the way, then that would be true. If not, then you've cost society money, in paying for your education.

Granted, I went to a public university, but I may not finish there.