US universities/colleges still suck

[JimmyCracksCorn]

Originally posted by Asher

Yes, I clearly do not understand computer science as well as you, JimmyCracksCorn, or Agathon do. You all have so much more insight on this matter than I do.

Thank you for identifying who the tool here is.

And clearly you know much more about philosophy than us. By the way, I'm an anthropologist, not a philosopher... but both entail the same sort of analytical process. I'm not sure if you understand that some people might find your pre-emptive assaults on what we do as a profession just a bit offensive. Especially coming from a computer science undergrad.

But I'll give you credit. It takes alot of balls to claim that a 50 year old profession (if you really stretch it) can suddenly supercede one thats been around for as long as hominids have been able to think subjectively.

[Pekka]

They're just playing with you... I said I agree with you, yet they isolate you on this one. That means they're just playing with you... don't let these rotten apples get into you .

[Lawrence of Arabia]

man youre so insecure, its too easy

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Agathon

Look at it this way - when philosophers are of the right kind , they get out of the way of the scientists and technicians , and let them do the job of advancing science and civilisation . When they are bad , they hinder progress . Thus , the effects philosophers have had on society have , for the most part , been usually negative , thanks to them giving intellectual credence to junk .

What planet do you live on? Are you being purposely stupid or not.

You can say the same of scientists. When they do well, we benefit; when they do badly (think eugenics) we do badly.

And you have got to be kidding about the influence of philosophers being bad for society. The principles by which our societies are organized did not arise from nowhere: most of them were thought up by philosophers. The United States Constitution is an example of something that was lifted with very little modification from Locke's political philosophy. The guiding norms and expectations of our political thinking all come from the contractarian tradition and the work of people like Locke; Hobbes; and Rousseau. Before that, the standard way of thinking about politics was in Greek philosophical terms interpreted through the lens of Christianity.

A standard feature of the ignorant is that they believe that the political and moral ideas that seem obvious now were always so. A quick check of history shows that this was not the case. You have to be some kind of ignorant son of a ***** to think that it is. What makes philosophers look strange is that they say these things for years until they finally seep into society and become the norm. I had my students read Mill this year. They agreed with almost everything he said and couldn't understand why anyone wouldn't. Yet Mill was regarded by many of his time as a radical lunatic.

Similarly for our views about what a person is. Most educated people hold to a view of the person that could be best described as Descartes mixed with Freud. But people didn't always think this way, and they probably won't in 500 years.

In short the attitude of unphilosophical people is to take these things for granted – to live an unexamined life. It's a peculiar kind of intellectual conservatism and lack of imagination. It's the equivalent of the 50s Southern redneck who just thinks it is part of the natural order that blacks must be subservient.

I admit that your grasp of human history in philosophical terms may be impeccable , yet where exactly do I find a refutation of my original statement - that philosophers do the best job when nobody notices they're there - that thay sort of melt away , and leave the scientists and others to do as they please ( usually ends up for the good ) . When they are bad , however , they are really bad .

Computer scientists , on the other hand , have enhanced the quality of human life tremendoucly almost everywhere.

Only by giving us gadgets. Sure they make life easier, but easier for what? To be a lazy idiot? To pursue pleasure above all else? To obey God? To seek human excellence? To do right?

To make whatever we want to do ( irrespective of good or bad ) easier to do . Which I consider a good thing in itself - it is better to have a tool and not need it , than not have one and need it .

Where else but in philosophy do you see the question of what makes a life run well asked? "Whatever you like" is not much of an answer because it invites the question "should you really like what you like?"

And how successful have philosophers been in offering solutions , like computer scientists do , to this problem/question ? Science has given us concrete models on which we can base our technology . Can you give us an accurate model for life ?

**How would you feel about driving a car designed by a team of people chosen for "people skills" , versus one designed by nerds/geeks/(negative asocial stereotype) who were geniuses in car design ?

How would you feel about living in a country run by people who had no "people skills"?

a) You haven't answered the question , so please answer it

and

b) I'd love it . If they were people who were all experts in their respective fields , and did their job well , life would be a dream when it came to government business . Imagine a perfect bureaucracy , with all that it implies .

A telling case in point is this discussion itself - you can have it without philosphers ( though then the topic would not have come up ) , but not without the computer scientists who designed the systems that made it possible .

Really? The moral positions that people take on these things can usually have their origin traced back to some philosopher. Even relativism.

What moral position do you mean , exactly ? How can a computer scientist have a moral position on a communication protocol ? Or an algorithm ? Or some other peice of technical trivia ?

If you mean my position , then yes , it is , in fact , based on certain ideas .




Try to remember that I have no grouse with philosophy , only with what certain ( and I mean only a certain few ) philosophers have done with it ( mostly a lot of the current batch ) . There are quite a few good ones out there , you know ( as I'm sure you do ) .

[Asher]

Originally posted by JimmyCracksCorn
But I'll give you credit. It takes alot of balls to claim that a 50 year old profession (if you really stretch it) can suddenly supercede one thats been around for as long as hominids have been able to think subjectively.

The car has superceded the buggy, too.

It's not that CS replaced philosophy, it's that philosophy was partitioned and those partitions break off into specialities that do genuine work.

[Pekka]

it's just dynos crying and mongering, because they're dying breed ..

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by JimmyCracksCorn
But if it weren't for philosophy, I'd still be living on the savannah somewhere in Africa. Its philosphical knowledge of society and of progess which has been propagating within our specieis for hundreds of thousands of years (maybe even millions) that separates us from our distant ancestral past

Oh come on, this is a patently ludicrous thing to say. The arising of civilization had much more to do with technological advancement and geographic/climatic situations than it ever had to do with philosophy. Civilization sparked philosophy, not vice-versa.

[pchang]

Philosphy is a key tech in Civ. I think the gaming world has confused his view on the real world.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Hasn't philosophy contributed to computer science? I don't know much about either, but I seem to remember someone saying so.

In a very minimal way.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Some of you guys think that they only purpose in life is making and playing with gadgets. That's pretty sad really.

Making and playing with gadgets is enjoyable. How is it sad to think that our purpose in life is to enjoy ourselves?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Oh come on, this is a patently ludicrous thing to say. The arising of civilization had much more to do with technological advancement and geographic/climatic situations than it ever had to do with philosophy. Civilization sparked philosophy, not vice-versa.

Frankly, I'd rather live under some "unenlightened" government at our level of technology than the most democratic, liberal society conceivable at the ancient Greeks' level of technology...

[Imran Siddiqui]

Our level of technology probably would not have been achieved without capitalist theory which greatly accelerated technological advancement.

[Kuciwalker]

It might not have been achieved as quickly. It would never have achieved without actual scientists.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
It might not have been achieved as quickly. It would never have achieved without actual scientists.

But keep in mind that this is still intertwined with philosophy. Scientific method, naturalism, etc. were derived via philosophy. Today, philosophers of science such as Robert Pennock are helping fend off the pseudoscience crap of creationists and their ilk.

[Kuciwalker]

They don't need actual, full-time philosophers () to be derived, though.