Carly Fiorina kicked out of HP

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
And one example doesn't prove a thing. IIRC you claimed that philosophy was useless unless you wanted to teach it. That is patently not the case.

You're right, it's not. According to the list of philosophers provided, it's also useful in becoming an actor, a musician, an executive of failing businesses, and an author.

You might as well say that one example of a CS major or engineer being fired from a major company is testament to the uselessness of that degree.

But as usual, you are just displaying that you are ignorant.

I'm only ignorant because I've yet to be shown a philosopher who can do anything reliably outside of their field.

Hell, your own examples of the Canadian Government and the Catholic Church should be examples for my point of view, and not yours.

If I trumpeted a certain engineer was the sole example of them being useful in that field as a business leader, and then they get fired for being incompetent, it is saying something...

[Agathon]

I'm only ignorant because I've yet to be shown a philosopher who can do anything reliably outside of their field.

George Soros?

And no, you're just ignorant. If it was up to you the world would be full of dullards and buffoons who spent their lives doing technical subjects. How boring.

[:) Smiley]

Without engineers, there would be no Poly.

[DanS]

HP's stock soared over 10% on this news.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
George Soros?

He has a degree in economics, not philosophy.

And no, you're just ignorant. If it was up to you the world would be full of dullards and buffoons who spent their lives doing technical subjects. How boring.

Not true. I support the arts, I support music, I support english, I support history, etc.

I single out Philosophy as being questionable in today's universities.

I don't think they produce enough benefit back to society. All I hear from you is how they dictate ethics for us, which is hardly something I think is positive.

[Agathon]

He has a degree in economics, not philosophy.

He was also one of Karl Popper's students and remains a tireless advocate for the subject.

I don't think they produce enough benefit back to society

Considering that the modern notion of the state is essentially derived from the work of Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau, that seems about the stupidest thing anyone has ever said.

But what you think is neither here nor there. People who matter don't care what you think, which is why the world's oldest academic subject is safe.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon

He has a degree in economics, not philosophy.

He was also one of Karl Popper's students and remains a tireless advocate for the subject.

So what? I'm always talking about kids who take philosophy in university, and as a counter-argument you throw at me a dude who has an economics degree?

Are you sure philosophy in academia is to teach you how to construct good arguments?

Considering that the modern notion of the state is essentially derived from the work of Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau, that seems about the stupidest thing anyone has ever said.

But what you think is neither here nor there. People who matter don't care what you think, which is why the world's oldest academic subject is safe.

Strawman alert -- I'm referring to modern-day people who go to university and get a "philosophy" degree and call themselves philosophers.

This clearly does not include Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau. I can't remember how many times you've tried this, and each time I remind you I don't care about old philosophers, the vast majority of which never got a degree in "philosophy".

[Imran Siddiqui]

Philosophy is also vital to the study (and creation) of law, in any country. Theology is a branch of philosophy and that is also vital in canon and other church law.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Philosophy is also vital to the study (and creation) of law, in any country. Theology is a branch of philosophy and that is also vital in canon and other church law.

Theology is something that absolutely should not be funded by public money, period.

If Philosophy is vital to the study of law, why is it not part of a law degree? Why is it its own degree?

Similarly, why is the study of ancient philosophers not a History course?

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Are there any philosophers of note that predate the Greeks and more to the point did they teach courses? If not I would say the study of mathmatics predates philospohy. Or perhaps the storytelling of prehistory ages past would count as theatre courses.

Philosophy come fairly late in the tech tree of CIV2.

[laurentius]

Dont mess with philosophers or they will kick your arse with the kind of logic youve never seen.

Philosophy

[Asher]

Originally posted by laurentius
Dont mess with philosophers or they will kick your arse with the kind of logic youve never seen.

Philosophy

Their logic definitely seems out of this world.

[Imran Siddiqui]

If Philosophy is vital to the study of law, why is it not part of a law degree? Why is it its own degree?

Law schools assume some sort of liberal arts degree. Those who can do the critical thinking that philosophy grads (or poly sci grads, etc) can do tend to do better. And there are plenty of philosophy of law classes in the law school (jurisprudence, comparative law, etc). Now, there are law school that only teach technical side of things, making it more of a trade school, but those law schools don't provide your higher level judges or partners is large law firms.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Asher

So what? I'm always talking about kids who take philosophy in university, and as a counter-argument you throw at me a dude who has an economics degree?

And who did a lot of philosophy, so much so that he is obsessed with it. In fact for him, they are complementary. His charitable foundation has the sole purpose of advocating Popper's ideas on the Open Society. If you knew anything about Popper, you would immediately see the connection.

Are you sure philosophy in academia is to teach you how to construct good arguments?

Yeah. And I'm just as sure that you couldn't spot one. Your crude attempts at reasoning might work with some people, but the truth is that they are just hamfisted.

Strawman alert -- I'm referring to modern-day people who go to university and get a "philosophy" degree and call themselves philosophers.

Not many people do philosophy as a major. Many more take it as a support. I should know, I teach them. Most people who go into advanced study end up doing teaching and research.

It's insane to say that this has no influence on society. If you knew anything, you'd know that Rawls' ideas have been the most influential political ideas of the last half century, with the possible exception of Hayek, who is supposed to be an economist, but is as much a political philosopher.

This clearly does not include Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau. I can't remember how many times you've tried this, and each time I remind you I don't care about old philosophers, the vast majority of which never got a degree in "philosophy".

I don't care that you don't care. The time scale of philosophical development is glacial. It takes that long for ideas that once seemed radical to seep into the public consciousness. We still study all three of these people since their ideas are still relevant to the political organization of our societies. But it's not a case of just repeating what they say, but of examining the issues that they raise with greater vigour.

Theology is something that absolutely should not be funded by public money, period.

People are interested in it. Similarly, people are interested in hunting down and characterizing the various forms of bugs that inhabit remote regions. Neither of these activities has a high probability of generating something that most people would find useful, but that's not the point, people are interested in them for their own sake.

That's what universities were created for - stuff like that. The fact that you are a buffoon who doesn't care makes no difference. Go into any large bookstore and examine the range of volumes for sale on all sorts of subjects that have no practical relevance. Lots of people just enjoy this stuff and it so happens that the only economically feasible way of organizing this sort of research effectively is the university system.

Similarly, lots of people are interested in philosophy. Other people aren't. But then again my tax dollars go to fund lots of boring crap I hate. But that's the social contract at work (another philosophical idea).

If Philosophy is vital to the study of law, why is it not part of a law degree? Why is it its own degree?

I would have thought that you had been at university long enough to realize that divisions between degrees and departments are largely arbitrary.

For example, both economists and philosophers study game theory. Philosophers and historians study Plato. Mathematicians and philosophers study formal logic. Mathematicians and economists also have common ground. Linguists and philosophers are both interested in the nature of language.

The reason there are different departments is that different people relate the same issues to different things. Political scientists are interested in political philosophy, but cluster it together with history and economics. Philosophers are interested in mathematics and formal logic, but relate it to the acquisition of linguistic rules. Economists are interested in game theory, but apply it to questions of economics. Philosophers are interested in what game theory can tell us about the nature of rationality and beliefs, which they then relate to neuroscience. All of these disciplines relate to epistemology, which is part of philosophy, but which also interests some psychologists.

Each discipline has common ground, but clusters the issues in different relational sets.

That's why you find philosophers being referenced in English Lit (try reading some of Chaucer for example) and why you find historical contexts for ideas given in philosophy books.

Similarly, why is the study of ancient philosophers not a History course?

Because Plato has more in common with Bertrand Russell than he does with Herodotus. And because the some of topics that Plato raises are still live concerns. You cannot understand Plato historically unless you understand him philosophically, because you need philosophical tools to understand what he is saying (you also need literary tools as well - that's why it is so difficult, despite looking easy to the untrained eye).

[Agathon]

Are there any philosophers of note that predate the Greeks

No.

and more to the point did they teach courses? If not I would say the study of mathmatics predates philospohy.

Not as an abstract study of proofs and axioms. That comes later, and is an indirect result of the Pythagorean discoveries about harmonics.