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

[Agathon]

But doesn't that show that those self taught in CS can do it just as well as those who went for the degree in school? I mean there is more than the university to learn CS.

What it shows is that enthusiastic amateurs are often better than the pros. The only reason there are CS degrees is that it is a sorting device for a competitive job market. Computer companies have outsourced basic education to the universities. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
It's not a loaded question, it is merely a reflection of the different things people do. Our society needs politicians and businessmen.

And you are cheating. If CS grads are so brilliant, you should be able to find quite a few who would humble the lowly philosophers.

Who claimed CS grads are "brilliant"?

The thing is, I could list tons of CS people and you'd not know any of their names. Why? Because it's not as glamourous as the philosophers. It's not as easy to comprehend.

Do you know who invented the internet? That invention alone dwarfs almost everything on your list, yet 99.99% of people couldn't tell me his name.

There's a fundamental difference between the two fields.

The real sticking point is which is more useful today -- your average Philosophy graduate or your average Computer Science graduate? It's an easy question to answer...

[Asher]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
But doesn't that show that those self taught in CS can do it just as well as those who went for the degree in school? I mean there is more than the university to learn CS.

The "self-taught" prodigies don't actually know CS very well at all. If you'll recall, Gates was a terrible, terrible programmer, and never designed any algorithms or done any real CS.

It's easy to self-teach yourself programming, it's not so easy to self-teach yourself computer science.

And the difference is like mechanics versus mechanical engineers.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
What it shows is that enthusiastic amateurs are often better than the pros.

Do you even know what you're talking about?

There's no way in hell Bill Gates or Steve Jobs could be considered decent computer scientists. In fact, Bill Gates constantly makes fun of just how much he sucks at it.

Bill Gates is a brilliant businessman (IIRC, he never studied CS at all), and is not a computer scientist. He was a computer enthusiast, sure.

[Agathon]

Your constant pointing to the 1970s as evidence of people with CS degrees not founding the main companies is simply retarded. You don't seem to realize computer science is a relatively new field...

My constant pointing? Imran brought that up.

You try living your life without computers. We'd be happy to keep them to ourselves, but the "real people" seem to want what we do.

Sure. No one is saying they don't. But people also want other things that CS can't provide, like political leadership, literature, art and religion.

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

I'd let that go before I'd let art, philosophy and music go. I suspect most people confronted with that choice would do the same.

The world can do without philosophers today, the world cannot go on without computer scientists. It's a sad fact, one that you'll need to get used to if you want to pretend like you're useful.

Why can the world do without philosophers? They seem to be doing OK to me. I can see that your world can do without philosophy, but as people keep pointing out - you aren't everyone.

It's not as if there are a large number of us. The world needs more doctors than it does philosophers, but that doesn't mean it doesn't need philosophers at all. Many people like philosophy and this has remained so for thousands of years. Perhaps one day no one will like it any more. Until that happens, there will be demand for philosophers and demand for the university system that allows things like philosophy to be done properly.

Why do you persist in this insanity that the rest of the world should conform to your personal tastes? Are you a psychopath or something?

Let's face it, Agathon, you teach people about a dude that died how long ago?

People want to learn about him. People have wanted to learn about him for 2500 years, and it shows no sign of stopping. This is a particular good, like history or ancient Egyptology that can only flourish in a university. That's part of the reason our society has universities.

I'd be surprised if anyone gives a **** about anything you are doing in 2500 years.

You're in no position to call other people peons. You're a disposable part of an undervalued education system, mostly teaching people who don't care what you're talking about.

Hardly. No one is forced to take my courses. A few people have to take them as an arts requirement, others are just interested and want to see what it is like. Some of them find it isn't to their taste, others love it.

Different strokes for different folks.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
Sure. No one is saying they don't. But people also want other things that CS can't provide, like political leadership, literature, art and religion.

And I'm saying you don't need philosophy in today's universities to have any of those. In fact, Political Leadership falls under Political Science, Literature falls under English/Literature, Art falls under Art, and Religion falls under Theology...

I'd let that go before I'd let art, philosophy and music go. I suspect most people confronted with that choice would do the same.

I like how you stick philosophy right between art and music.

Why do you persist in this insanity that the rest of the world should conform to your personal tastes? Are you a psychopath or something?

Not the rest of the world. I only care about where my tax dollars are going.

I would rather see more money go to public healthcare instead of university philosophy departments to pay the salaries for people like you. There are better uses of society's money than to teach courses because "people find Plato interesting" or because you think it's important to preach about ethics.

I'd be surprised if anyone gives a **** about anything you are doing in 2500 years.

And I'd be surprised if anyone gives a **** about anything you are doing in 2500 years...

[Imran Siddiqui]

The world can do without philosophers today, the world cannot go on without computer scientists.

Such Bull****! Philosophers influence political discourse to an amazing degree. You keep talking about Aggie talking about someone from 3000 years ago, but what about Foucault and Derrida (or even Sartre) which totally turned political philosophy on its head and led to the rise of relativism.

In fact, I'd argue that without their rise, you would not be a relativist because it wasn't seriously considered as a political philosophy before those philosophers made it so (this also includes Nietszche as the proto-deconstructionalist). Without philosophers, political society does not advance. Without Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Voltaire, etc, the Enlightment doesn't happen and we are still stuck in a world where religion runs the Western world.

[Asher]

In fact, I'd argue that without their rise, you would not be a relativist because it wasn't seriously considered as a political philosophy before those philosophers made it so

That's an interesting argument, considering I don't base my beliefs on theirs or anyone else's.

I've been a "relativist" long before I read any philosopher's work.

It's just my...philosophy if you would.

Not everyone reads scores of ancient philosophers and then picks from them to choose their own personal ideologies. Some of us think for ourselves and don't give a rats ass about that Voltaire said.

[Agathon]

There's no way in hell Bill Gates or Steve Jobs could be considered decent computer scientists. In fact, Bill Gates constantly makes fun of just how much he sucks at it.

I was thinking more of Woz, who had no college degree until much later in his life.

Who claimed CS grads are "brilliant"?

You do, all the time.

The thing is, I could list tons of CS people and you'd not know any of their names. Why? Because it's not as glamourous as the philosophers. It's not as easy to comprehend.

I'm sure that people are amazed that you find Kant easy to comprehend.

Do you know who invented the internet? That invention alone dwarfs almost everything on your list, yet 99.99% of people couldn't tell me his name.

That tells you a lot. Not that 99% of people know who Plato was.

Sure, people invent nifty things like light bulbs, but it is people of ideas who make the world go around. Freud changed the way people think of themselves far more radically than the internet ever will.

The ubiquity of porn on the internet is a testament to Freud.

The real sticking point is which is more useful today -- your average Philosophy graduate or your average Computer Science graduate? It's an easy question to answer...

It's a senseless question. Useful to whom, and when? The average philosophy graduate will be of more use to someone who wants to learn about Plato or hire someone as a manager or hire someone to work in the Treasury Department's planning section than a CS grad.

All you can really say is that our society needs more CS grads than philosophers, which is silly because we've never needed that many philosophers to sate the public appetite for philosophy. We need more burger flippers than CS grads, but that doesn't mean that burger flipping is somehow better than CS.

Your original question is basically silly. People have different needs, some of which are satisfied by the market, some not. Some people really want to do philosophy and other academic things for which markets cannot be constructed. Some people are interested in cataloguing bugs (even if there is no other benefit other than better bug classification).

People are different. Attempting to force your own notion of what should matter onto everyone is tyranny. I think religion is useless. It serves no function in my life, yet it is necessary for many people. It so happens that religion isn't very marketable, which is why religious groups get all sorts of tax breaks.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Political Leadership falls under Political Science

In every Political Science major I know, you have to take a lot of political philosophy for your degree. My Poly Sci classes in college is where I first learned about Nietszche for instance.

There are better uses of society's money than to teach courses because "people find Plato interesting" or because you think it's important to preach about ethics.

People find the Roman Empire interesting, it doesn't mean that it applies to anything in modern times. Maybe it explains how contries were divided, but has no real practical applications in the modern era. Do you want your tax dollars not to go to history.

And you forget you live in a democratic government. If most people believe it is a social good to have people learn about Plato then what is the problem? I'm sure plenty of people would like to see their tax dollars go to something else (preferably in their own pockets), but so what? I'd rather not have my tax dollars pay for Computer Science courses. Go to a Technical College if you want to learn that. But people want it in the university and I accept that.

[Imran Siddiqui]

That's an interesting argument, considering I don't base my beliefs on theirs or anyone else's.

I've been a "relativist" long before I read any philosopher's work.

It's just my...philosophy if you would.

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.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
You do, all the time.

Quote me saying CS grads are brilliant.

I'm sure that people are amazed that you find Kant easy to comprehend.

I'm not talking about specific works (and poorly written works at that).

I'm talking about concepts. It's far easier to explain to someone "this man has a philosophy on existance", than "this man revolutionized the world with packets and bitstreams".

That tells you a lot. Not that 99% of people know who Plato was.

99% of people have at least heard of Plato.

The reason why people don't hear about the person who invented the internet, is because there's no reason to. It's one of the fundamental differences. Once something like that is done, it's done! There's no need to argue about it and write papers about it, as what happens in Philosophy.

Freud changed the way people think of themselves far more radically than the internet ever will.

And the internet changed the way people communicate more than Freud ever will. What's your point?

I also don't understand why you think Freud makes such an impact. Contrary to what you may think, his theories do not magically change the psychological development of children or people, and the vast majority of people have never studied Freud to analyze how it applies to them. And those that have (myself included), find it amusing more than anything else. His impact is not as large on the world as you want to believe.

[quote\People are different. Attempting to force your own notion of what should matter onto everyone is tyranny. I think religion is useless. It serves no function in my life, yet it is necessary for many people. It so happens that religion isn't very marketable, which is why religious groups get all sorts of tax breaks. [/QUOTE]
I'm not forcing anything. I'm saving money.

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

People are more than welcome to read all they want about philosophers, or take private courses...but the money is best spelt elsewhere in today's society. The medical system always needs more funding...

[Asher]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Political Leadership falls under Political Science

In every Political Science major I know, you have to take a lot of political philosophy for your degree. My Poly Sci classes in college is where I first learned about Nietszche for instance.

There are better uses of society's money than to teach courses because "people find Plato interesting" or because you think it's important to preach about ethics.

People find the Roman Empire interesting, it doesn't mean that it applies to anything in modern times. Maybe it explains how contries were divided, but has no real practical applications in the modern era. Do you want your tax dollars not to go to history.

And you forget you live in a democratic government.

The hell I do, 30-some-odd percent of people voted for the government we have.

If most people believe it is a social good to have people learn about Plato then what is the problem?

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

I'm sure plenty of people would like to see their tax dollars go to something else (preferably in their own pockets), but so what? I'd rather not have my tax dollars pay for Computer Science courses. Go to a Technical College if you want to learn that. But people want it in the university and I accept 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...

[Agathon]

And I'm saying you don't need philosophy in today's universities to have any of those. In fact, Political Leadership falls under Political Science, Literature falls under English/Literature, Art falls under Art, and Religion falls under Theology...

Of course each of those disciplines intersects with philosophy. You can't do any of these seriously without doing some philosophy (whether you realize this or not). Likewise, you can't understand a lot of Western Art without understanding religion. You can't deal with some questions fundamental to economics without doing some political science.

The humanities are incestuous. Getting rid of philosophy would be like cutting off your own arm.

Not the rest of the world. I only care about where my tax dollars are going.

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.

Everyone is in the same boat as you, since everyone dislikes some of the things tax revenue is spent on. On the other hand, plenty of people like the things you don't, and would like to see public funds go toward them. Why should their wishes count any less than yours. It's called the Social Contract.

But then you'll say, "they should pay for it out of their own pocket". But that just exposes your ignorance of economics. The things that tax revenue is spent on are overwhelmingly things that people need but which markets cannot provide (either at all or at the needed level).

I would rather see more money go to public healthcare instead of university philosophy departments to pay the salaries for people like you. There are better uses of society's money than to teach courses because "people find Plato interesting" or because you think it's important to preach about ethics.

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.

If you took all the money spent on philosophy in Canada, and added it to the health budget, it would make little difference. But it would make a huge difference to the thousands of students who want to take philosophy every year.

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

[Agathon]

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

It doesn't have to be most people. A lot of people couldn't care less about memorial day, yet enough people do to warrant public funding.