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

[Imran Siddiqui]

His impact is not as large on the world as you want to believe.

On the contrary, Freud's theories have had a much greater impact on the world than you want to believe. Before Freud ideas on sexuality were almost verboten. The whole theory that every person has a sexual and aggresive drive was very new and very controversial. Also the theories about the unconscious and that neuroses arise from the unconscious mind has been very revolutionary. Instead of being considered a neurological disease (remember Freud was a neurologist as well), it was shown that it was a mental disease and could be cured.

Because of Freud we know more about how the mind works and why we act the way we do than if we had continued on the path neurology was going at the time.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
You can be so dense sometimes it is incredible. Do you live in a vaccum? Do you think you came up with your ideas with no influence from the outside world whatsoever? The society arounds you determines your views. You don't have to read the philosophers, your society has done it and shifted based on their works already. It is incorporated into the society writ large because their ideas have had great influence on the way people think. If you think you were shielded from all of that, then you are a fool.

Perhaps I'm a fool then.

I've never discussed philosophy with anyone before Apolyton and university, I've never watched any shows about it before then either.

Nobody I know has ever proclaimed to be a relativist or discussed anything of the sort.

I know there is no absolute right or wrong because I'm not religious.

I find it absurd for you to assert I'd not have any opinion on relativism without some other people thinking about it and writing it down thousands of years ago.

Has it not occured to you that perhaps other people can think of things someone else thought of and wrote it down?

[Agathon]

It's far easier to explain to someone "this man has a philosophy on existance"

Actually, no.

I don't promote teaching religion with public money, I don't promote teaching philosophy with public money either.

Then I presume you wish to remove all tax credits to religious organizations. If so, it will mean financial ruin for a lot of them. There's a reason those credits exist - the market is inefficient at fulfilling people's religious needs.

Until you understand the basics of market failure, externalities and public goods, you have nothing worth contributing to this debate.

[Imran Siddiqui]

You honestly think if we had a referrendum on if Plato should be taught instead of _________, most people would vote for Plato?

We already have a refendum. It's called declaring majors. If majors do not get enough students then courses are dropped. It's as simple as that.

The difference being, computer scientists contribute to the economy, to research, to society's well-being...and is definintely a good return of investment.

Look at the average salary of philosophy grads. Look at how many of them do anything related to philosophy when they graduate. The vast majority of them go on to do something completely different, like construction or computer building...

The problem is that you are ONCE again looking at the university as solely an economic proposition. That's why I said, perhaps CS degrees should only be in a technical school, because at least we know those are only around to teach practical skills to get a job. Universities are there for the promotion of general knowledge. The societal benefits are much greater than simply economic gains.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
And this is why you can't be taken seriously. The whole point of taxation is that it is coercive. It's used to pay for things that the market (read voluntary payment) will fail to provide, but which people need.

What the hell kind of logic is this?

I totally disagree. Tax dollars exist as a way for society to better itself and provide necessary services. It's not a catch-all for government sponsorship because the market won't provide it.

And even then, it doesn't make sense -- if the market doesn't provide philosophy education, perhaps thats because there's no supply or demand?

But VASTLY MORE MONEY DOES GO TO HEALTHCARE!!! Very little of the public purse goes to satisfy the smaller public desire for philosophy. But these are trade-offs that governments make all the time. Simply ignoring the demand for philosophy is ridiculous because some people want it, and they've paid taxes.

You've just said there's demand. If there's demand, there's people to supply it in this free-market system.

So why is the government paying for it, again?

You simply don't know what you are talking about.

You're the one that just asserted that the purpose of taxpayer's money is to provide things the market won't supply, when the market will supply virtually anything provided there's demand.

Think it through...

[Agathon]

I've never discussed philosophy with anyone before Apolyton and university, I've never watched any shows about it before then either.

Nobody I know has ever proclaimed to be a relativist or discussed anything of the sort.

Presumably you heard the terms "platonic love", "proletariat" and "tightarse" (or anal retentive) or "unconscious mind" before you ever heard of the people who coined them.

Presumably many Americans can recite their country's founding documents without realizing they were based on the philosophy of John Locke.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
Then I presume you wish to remove all tax credits to religious organizations.

Absolutely.

If so, it will mean financial ruin for a lot of them. There's a reason those credits exist - the market is inefficient at fulfilling people's religious needs.

If the people cannot support their religions, then why do they have them?

Why should I pay for somebody's religious beliefs?

Until you understand the basics of market failure, externalities and public goods, you have nothing worth contributing to this debate.

Actually, Agathon, what you're witnessing here is a difference of philosophy. You think the government is here to throw gobs at money at everyone who wants it, and I think the government's job should be to provide basic, necessary services with minimal waste (that is, things that do not benefit taxpayers).

Of course, being a philosopher, you're too dumb to figure it out.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I've never discussed philosophy with anyone before Apolyton and university, I've never watched any shows about it before then either.

Nobody I know has ever proclaimed to be a relativist or discussed anything of the sort.

I know there is no absolute right or wrong because I'm not religious.

I find it absurd for you to assert I'd not have any opinion on relativism without some other people thinking about it and writing it down thousands of years ago.

You prove my 'dense' comment by the post. Like I said, philosopher's ideas get absorbed into the society. They influence politics, society, culture, everything. Look at the views about society before and after John Locke, or before and during Jacques Derrida (since he hasn't died yet ). The society has changed because of their writings. If you live in the society you are affected by their writings even if you never read a single philosophy book or you never even spoke to anyone about philosophy. You can't divorce yourself from your societal environment in development of your ideals.

Until you understand the basics of market failure, externalities and public goods, you have nothing worth contributing to this debate.

Indeed. And since I have a degree in Economics that means I'm more important than either of you .

[Agathon]

You're the one that just asserted that the purpose of taxpayer's money is to provide things the market won't supply, when the market will supply virtually anything provided there's demand.

No it won't. You need to read some economics books.

Look up "market failures". This should interest you, since the internet has brought with it a whole new bunch of market failures.

Look up "externalities" - you will understand why people can quite naturally engage in collectively destructive activities like polluting, or fail to engage sufficiently in mutually beneficial activities like education.

Look up "perverse outcomes" and "collective action problems" as well.

Until you understand these things, you cannot understand why we have a mixed economy and why some demands may go unsatisfied if everyone acts according to rational market behaviour.

I'm not ****ting you, it's the truth. People on both the extreme left and right fail to understand these things and their applicability to our current economy. It's a shame, because it would stop a lot of pointless *****ing.

[Agathon]

Actually, Agathon, what you're witnessing here is a difference of philosophy. You think the government is here to throw gobs at money at everyone who wants it, and I think the government's job should be to provide basic, necessary services with minimal waste (that is, things that do not benefit taxpayers).

No. The government's job is to provide services which people want, but that the market will fail to provide due to the problems I listed above. It does this by coercive taxation because that is the only way to make sure these things get done.

Of course things like philosophy are way down the scale compared to healthcare, but there is a need for it, and public funding is the only way to satisfy that need effectively. Of course it is a minority need, but then again, so are many other things that taxation funds.

As I said, you need an economics lesson.

[Imran Siddiqui]

You think the government is here to throw gobs at money at everyone who wants it, and I think the government's job should be to provide basic, necessary services with minimal waste (that is, things that do not benefit taxpayers).

Which has nothing to do, of course, with market failures, externalities and public goods . How do you deal with those issues in your 'necessary services with minimal waste' government? And you can't just wish it away. Liberal Arts in universities is indeed like the police (for instance) in that people want it and the market cannot provide it, at least not with any degree of efficiency, that would suffice the total demand (private universities would be able to cover partial demand at the upper end of the price scale, but at the lower end of the price scale it wouldn't), which people see as necessary.

[Agathon]

Imran, I declare you an eternal friend of Ag.

Asher, I recommend this book to you.

http://www.amazon.ca/exec/obidos/ASIN/0140292489/qid=1095748238/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl/702-3277861-5178406

Yes, it is by a philosopher, but it's really a basic introduction to the economic things Imran and I are talking about. It's a very easy read and explains it well enough for anyone to get the general point.

Please read it.

I regularly borrow examples from this book here on Poly. It changed my political thinking when I read it, and I became much more tolerant of the market. In fact it marked a resurgence of my interest in politics and made me feel rather daft about some of the things I used to believe.

[Fve Crathva]

Originally posted by Asher
Nothing would please me more if I could strip you over your technology for a bit to reassess your position.

OK, let's keep this argument hostile and condescending. None of that gay stuff here.

SP

[Agathon]

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Agathon
Then I presume you wish to remove all tax credits to religious organizations. If so, it will mean financial ruin for a lot of them. There's a reason those credits exist - the market is inefficient at fulfilling people's religious needs.

Until you understand the basics of market failure, externalities and public goods, you have nothing worth contributing to this debate.

Lack or religion is a market failure? Market failure is where the public cost/benefit does not equal the private. If you believe religion does not have that public benefit, more than it has to the individual, then there is no market failure. Now, take the example of pollution. That affects more people than just the person emitting it, thus it has a public cost. I'm not sayign religion doesn't affect others, but I don't believe it necessarily affects in a good way, which it would have to to warrant a subsidy. If it affects in a bad way, others who are not party to the private transaction, then it would warrant a tax to correct the market failure. Likewise for everything. Asher is saying that philosophy does not have a benefit to soceity, outside the individual, and thus does not warrant public funding, IIUC. This argument is not about market failure, since you both disagree on the premise, that philosophy is/isn't a benefit to society.

When it comes to religion, I would agree with Asher. I don't think religion is a market failure, and as such, warrants public money.