Retitled: Modern philosophers are full of it!

[Asher]

Originally posted by GePap
I thought you had taken classes in logic. Anyone with half a brain (I guess that doesn't include you) would see the obvious flaws in your pitiful attempt to link one event to the other.

If anything you have posted up to know highlights the "quality" of your thinking, this is it. And its pretty damming.

Yes, it certainly is a stretch to take someone who has a degree in Philosophy from Stanford University, was hyped up for years on end by people in the Philosophy department as proof that they are versatile and useful in many fields (Philosophy profs at Stanford included), and totally ****ed everything up.

The funny thing here is how sad the people are trying to distance themselves from a public failure of your field. Not only did she have a Philosophy degree, but one from Stanford. Not only did she have a Stanford Philosophy degree, but she was hyped up by both Stanford and Philosophers in general, even giving the Stanford convocation speach in 2001. Then her failures became public, and suddenly she has nothing to do with Philosophy.

You guys are like Fiorina, only even less successful.

I just want to make it clear here -- Carly Fiorina has a BA in Philosophy from Stanford University. Now can you explain to me how this is unrelated to the success of modern Philosophers?

[Last Conformist]

One's starting to get the feeling Asher was sexually abused by philosophers as a kid or something ...

[Asher]

It's funny that they're taking shots at my arguments and logic, yet they're telling me Carly Fiorina isn't a modern philosopher because she double majored in History and Philosophy, not just Philosophy.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Asher
I just want to make it clear here -- Carly Fiorina has a BA in Philosophy from Stanford University. Now can you explain to me how this is unrelated to the success of modern Philosophers?

Its irrelevant you dolt.

Just as the fact Bernie Ebbers had a BA in physical education from Mississippi College is irrelevant to the biggest corporate downfall in history.

If anyone felt the need to hype Carly Fiorina and make an example of her is because of the infatuation with corporate success and making money, and hence the fact that a person who studied Philosophy as an undergrad could then move through life and become the first female CEO of a large corporation was supposed to show those kids enamored with money that HEY, you can end up making money if you study philosophy as well.

Carly Fiorina did not seek to make Philosophy her life- she moved on to trying to make it in the corporate world- her post graduate education being the obvious sign.

If Carly Fiorina had come in to run the company AS A PHILOSOPHER, and failed, then you would have a point. She came into the company as a businesswoman with a variety of different background experiences, one being her undergraduate philosophy studies.

That third parties used her example for their own financial benefits (Stanford University being a private enterprise) is also irrelevant to the claim you are miserably trying to make.

[Asher]

Originally posted by GePap


Its irrelevant you dolt.

I agree, Philosophy degrees are irrelevant.

I rest my case...

Game. Set. Match.

Though I do think it speaks volumes about her decision making and analytical ability. She was good enough to get a Philosophy degree from Stanford, yet she's made some of the most repeatedly boneheaded decision that even I, a lowly student, mocked easily.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Asher

I agree, Philosophy degrees are irrelevant.

I rest my case...

Game. Set. Match.

Though I do think it speaks volumes about her decision making and analytical ability. She was good enough to get a Philosophy degree from Stanford, yet she's made some of the most repeatedly boneheaded decision that even I, a lowly student, mocked easily.

You are an idiot, aren't you? I assume in your relationships you are the ones with the looks, cause you better not be the one with the brains...

BY your "logic", the fact she had a degree from the Sloan School of Business at MIT, one of the most prestigious business schools in the world, or the fact that she oversaw the spin-off of Lucent Technologies from AT&T are also irrelevant..and have no bearing on her, her qualities, or her experiences...no, simply her undergraduate degree matters in this discussion.

All I can see is a rather pathetic attempt to make links that logic would show simply do not exist.

[Agathon]

I have a suspicion that Fiorina did the same as Gil Amelio at Apple. Both were panned for their tenures, but in fact both completed major reorganizations of petrified companies and their successors took the credit.

This happens a lot in business. It didn't help that she was a woman in a male dominated field either.

And I'm still waiting for either Kuci or Asher to answer GePap's question.

[Nostromo]

Originally posted by Asher

Which modern philosophy student came up with the idea of liberty and natural rights?

Of course, philosophers of old came up with these ideas.
How did you come to the conclusion that contemporary philosophers don't do anything worthwhile? Basically, you don't know beans about what we do nowadays, in large part because you admittedly don't care about philosophy. Mind you, I'm not saying you should care about philosophy: we live in free country, after all. But for a self-proclaimed debater extraordinaire like yourself, for someone who prides himself on his rigour, on his reasoning skills, on his superior intelligence, you're case against philosophy shouldn't have to be based on slander, hasty generalizations and strawmen. And if you're so bright, why do you have to use all the dirty tricks in the book in order to make sure you always appear to be right?

All this to say that you bark, and you bark in a very entertaining way btw, but you don't bite.

Someone is having problems differenciating modern philosophers (as in, the twirps who major in Philosophy and then get their McJobs) from the philosophers of old.

And your having problems differenciating twirps who major in Philosophy and philosophers. Philosophers have obtained graduate degrees in philosophy, they usually work in philosophy departments, where they teach philosophy and do some research in philosophy, which they publish in good journals.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Asher
It's funny that they're taking shots at my arguments and logic, yet they're telling me Carly Fiorina isn't a modern philosopher because she double majored in History and Philosophy, not just Philosophy.

So, if I find someone who majored in compsci and went on to make a royal mess, you'd argue that compsci is worthless?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Asher

I agree, Philosophy degrees are irrelevant.

I rest my case...

Game. Set. Match.

Though I do think it speaks volumes about her decision making and analytical ability. She was good enough to get a Philosophy degree from Stanford, yet she's made some of the most repeatedly boneheaded decision that even I, a lowly student, mocked easily.

On another note on this post.

Your arguement, of we can call it that, was that her failure at head of HP was related, if not a caused by, her undergraduate degree in Philosophy.

For you to agree with my statement that that degree was irrelevant to her tenure at HP is for you to invalidate your own arguement.

Good job

[Nostromo]

It's funny that they're taking shots at my arguments and logic, yet they're telling me Carly Fiorina isn't a modern philosopher because she double majored in History and Philosophy, not just Philosophy.

First, you misunderstood me. If you have trouble identifying philosophers here are some common caracteristics:

Philosophers have obtained graduate degrees in philosophy, they usually work in philosophy departments, where they teach philosophy and do some research in philosophy, which they publish in good journals.

So even if she had only a major in philosophy, she wouldn't be a philosopher. A philosopher does research in philosophy for a living, just like a physicist does research in physics for a living.

Second, my point is that I don't see how her major in medieval philosophy could have possibly been the cause of her bad business decisions. So she didn't make those bad decisions because of her philosophy major, like you claim, but despite of it. If you're looking for a culprit, you better look at her MBA instead.

Now, if you want to say that a major in history of medieval philosophy is useless for running a big company, I would tend agree with you.

But if you want to conclude from this that philosophy majors are never useful, you'd have some work to do. You'd have to show, for example, that a good major in philosophy concentrating in ethics and philosophy of law would be useless to a lawer. You'd have to show that a good major in science studies (including philosophy of science) wouldn't be useful for a scientist, or someone who want to be involved in science or technology policy. You'd also have to show to all those people who study philosophy for the sake of it, simply because they're curious about certain issues, that they're basically wrong.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by nostromo


Second, my point is that I don't see how her major in medieval philosophy could have possibly been the cause of her bad business decisions. So she didn't make those bad decisions because of her philosophy major, like you claim, but despite of it.

In actuality both degrees left her woefully unprepared for business life. Real life experience is/was the only saving grace for Carly's career.

[Agathon]

On another note, it is amusing to see proponents of technology who have such a low opinion of philosophy and the arts, when the greatest technological achievement in history was really effected for no reason other than to provide a transformative experience to humanity, which is exactly what good philosophy and good art do.

People have given all sorts of spurious reasons why we sent people to the moon. Some of them (science, politics) were contributing factors, but the real reason is that human beings have always desired the transformative experience: the experience that enlarges our sense of what is humanly possible and which gives us a new take on ourselves and the world. Going to the moon is just a really difficult and expensive way to do it. Art and philosophy do the same thing, in different ways.

I love seeing science people complain about the arts and laud the moonshot. It's hypocrisy of the highest degree.

[Nostromo]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe

In actuality both degrees left her woefully unprepared for business life.

Nor was it their purpose.

[Last Conformist]

Sending people to the moon is the greatest technological achiement ever? Frankly, Aggie, you're an idiot. Not that that's news, I suppose.

Apollo was chiefly a triumph of economics and bureaucracy.