Retitled: Modern philosophers are full of it!

[GePap]

Originally posted by Asher

That's never even been mentioned, so that's you pretending to read something that's not being said again.

You've just demonstrated admirably that public money is being wasted on twits like you to study Philosophy in university just so you can become a civil servant for a city and never use it again in your life. It becomes, as you say, irrelevant.

So why are we paying tax dollars for a piece of paper that is irrelevant for the people who take it? Because, again, as you said in Carly's case, the fact that she got an undergrad in Philosophy has absolutely no bearing on her abilities in real life.

Why are we paying for that? What is the usefulness of that field in modern, public universities?

Those are the key issues that you, Aggie, and nostromo have done your damnest to avoid, but it's pretty unavoidable now. That's why you've resorted to nothing but insults and "you just don't understand".

This argument is over, and you weren't on the winning side.

Carly went to Stanford. Last time I looked that is a private University. Last time I looked you live in Canada, so even if Carly had gone to a public US university, your complaints mean ****.

As for your endless rant about Canada funding humanities degrees, including Philosophy, maybe its because the people who run the Universities know that they exist as a repository of human knowledge and as a place to train people not only in certain job skills, but also in critical thinking.

One of the smartest kids I knew in Chicago decided to study Classics. He now works for some computer company . But what he wanted to study, what exited him intellectually was the Classical age. Now, I know that being exited intellectually by something might be beyond you, but the point of a University is to encourage and foster that. If people want to study Philosophy, and many people do, then Universities will have Philosophy, specially when most Philosophy classes are not on modern, but ancient philosophy.

In the end its called supply and demand. Many people demand philosophy classes, UNiversities supply them. That of course on top of the fact that Philosophy remains the original true discipline of any University, even after so many of its branches like the Sciences of Math have been given their own independent tracts.

It still is sad to see someone so close-minded and smal, incapable or unwilling to recognize that people out there actually seek intellectual, as opposed to fiscal, enrichment. Money is but a game. Some people, perish the thought, actually like making themselves better, if only in a small way, and I for one support institutions like Universities willing to partake in this human enrichment.

l

[Asher]

Originally posted by GePap
Carly went to Stanford. Last time I looked that is a private University. Last time I looked you live in Canada, so even if Carly had gone to a public US university, your complaints mean ****.

Oh, you can't be serious. Don't you have the ability to not pick apart specific examples with semantics and see the big picture? That's something that Philosophers seem to lack, which is amazing given what the field is supposedly about.

In the end its called supply and demand. Many people demand philosophy classes, UNiversities supply them.

So what, if people demanded free money the government should hand that out too?

Public money should be spent in the public interest, not special interests and selfish people who want to use public money to do something that will only benefit them.

Supply and demand is not how higher education should work. There should be standards set for what constitutes higher education, and we should not be spending taxpayer money on personal interest courses that have no real value to society.

Most students in university will give back to the society that funded them: art and dance students contribute to culture, theoretical physicists continue unlocking the secrets of our world and opening the door to new discoveries, biochemists and medicine are able to understand our bodies better, etc.

The odd man out, as I see it, is Philosophy today. They do nothing to give back to modern society with the knowledge they gain with their studies. Their reasoning for studying it is personal interest only. And if that is the case, and supply/demand is true like you said, there would be ample opportunities in the private sector for those people to learn all they want about Philosophy. In the public sector, it is a waste of my money.

[Nostromo]

Originally posted by Asher

That's f*cking bull****, a philosopher is a student of philosophy and a physicist is a student of physics.

It does not imply graduate or post-graduate level only, just like how I'm a computer scientist with just a bachelor's degree.

This is a disgusting attempt at weasling and semantics on your part, and yet again is classic of what we see from students of Philosophy these days.

Again, you (deliberately?) misunderstood me. I'm not trying to weasle out of an argument with semantics, I'm citing a sociological fact. Like I said, what we call today a professional philosopher is someone who teaches and, most importantly, does research in philosophy for a living (in other words they write books and articles and get them published). Its a sociological fact that the people who correspond to that description have, 99 % of the time, a graduate degrees in philosophy. If you don't have a graduate degree in philosophy, and if you don't teach in a good university, you'll have a very hard time getting published. These are just facts you were obviously ignorant of.

So, no, a major in philosophy doesn't make you a philosopher. Carly just studied philosophy for a while then she moved on. A professional philosopher, she ain't.

I never said that you had to have a graduate degree in computer science in order to be a computer scientist. So pointing out that you can be a computer scientist without having a graduate degree is beside the point.

[Asher]

Again, you (deliberately?) misunderstood me. I'm not trying to weasle out of an argument with semantics, I'm citing a sociological fact.

So a scientist is a scientist when he's got at least a graduate degree, a philosopher is a philosopher if he's got a graduate degree, etc?

That's just wrong. It's incorrect.

phi·los·o·pher Audio pronunciation of "philosopher" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (f-ls-fr)
n.

1. A student of or specialist in philosophy.
2. A person who lives and thinks according to a particular philosophy.
3. A person who is calm and rational under any circumstances.

Which of these definitions involve graduate degrees?

[GePap]

#1.

[Asher]

A student of philosophy = graduate student?

Fascinating.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Asher

So what, if people demanded free money the government should hand that out too?

Public money should be spent in the public interest, not special interests and selfish people who want to use public money to do something that will only benefit them.

Supply and demand is not how higher education should work. There should be standards set for what constitutes higher education, and we should not be spending taxpayer money on personal interest courses that have no real value to society.

Most students in university will give back to the society that funded them: art and dance students contribute to culture, theoretical physicists continue unlocking the secrets of our world and opening the door to new discoveries, biochemists and medicine are able to understand our bodies better, etc.

The odd man out, as I see it, is Philosophy today. They do nothing to give back to modern society with the knowledge they gain with their studies. Their reasoning for studying it is personal interest only. And if that is the case, and supply/demand is true like you said, there would be ample opportunities in the private sector for those people to learn all they want about Philosophy. In the public sector, it is a waste of my money.

Whatever. That you don't understand what Philosophers still contribute to society is irrelevant. One can hardly base an arguement on ignorance, and given that you insist on being ignorant of what modern philosophers contribute to society in your strange little quest to demean them, this will never be an arguement you will be able to make more than as a continious troll.

As for the public money's, well, the PUBLIC makes those decisions in funding, and somehow, I don't think that many people have complained to their public representatives about the funding of philosophy classes in their public universities. If you care, write an op-ed, write you legislator a letter. BUt it seems clear that changing University curricula to fit your prejudices is not high on anyone's legislative agenda.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Asher
A student of philosophy = graduate student?

Fascinating.

1. A student of or specialist in philosophy.

[Asher]

Do I really need to explain to you the logic of "or"?

Jesus...

Further still, since when did specialist = graduate student?

You guys are great. Somebody ought to teach your departments about logic and argument structure.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Asher
Do I really need to explain to you the logic of "or"?

Jesus...

Given that the dictionary people could just as easily have placed Student of philosophy and Specialist in philosophy as two seperate definitions, I think that it should be clear that they do not mean to say that someone just taking a philosophy class is a philosopher, even if that person was "by definition" a "philosopher".

Of course, given that rather cheap definition, YOU of all people are a philosopher, since you:

A person who lives and thinks according to a particular philosophy

NOw please go kill yourself.

[Asher]

GePap, words cannot describe the stupidity of your latest argument.

You really are trying to redefine "or" to twist it to try to prove a point.

Maybe once people who study Philosophy understand basic logical constructs they can form sensible arguments.

Even elementary school children fully understand the meaning of "or" -- please tell me you're not in anything important with the government.

[Nostromo]

Originally posted by Asher

So a scientist is a scientist when he's got at least a graduate degree, a philosopher is a philosopher if he's got a graduate degree, etc?

I never said that. Here's what I said:

what we call today a professional philosopher is someone who teaches and, most importantly, does research in philosophy for a living (in other words they write books and articles and get them published). Its a sociological fact that the people who correspond to that description have, 99 % of the time, a graduate degrees in philosophy.

So what is true of philosophy isn't necessarily true for all disciplines.

That's just wrong. It's incorrect.

Which of these definitions involve graduate degrees?

I cite a well-known fact and all you have for a response is a dictionary definition... And you accuse me of trying to weasel out of an argument with semantics? I suppose you're giving me a taste of my own semantical medecine, eh? You're such a funny guy But, to answer your question, I would say that a philsosopher is a specialist in philosophy, someone who teaches and does research in philosophy. Carly isn't a specialist in philosophy, never and couldn't teach philosophy, never did and couldn't do research in philosophy. A major isn't enough: your just begining to learn the ropes.

[GePap]

From:

Webster's New World Dictionary of American English
Third College Edition

Victoria Neufeldt Editor in Chief, Websters New World, Cleveland and New York, copyright 1988 by Simon and Schuster. ISBN: 0-13-947169-3

pg. 951

Or: conj. [[ME, in form of a contr. of other, auther, either, but actually < OE oththe (in ather..oththe, either, or)]] a coordinating conjunction introducing an alternative: specif, a) introducing the second of two possibilities [beer or wine] b) introducing any of the possibilities in a series, but usually used only before the last[apples, {or} pears, or plums] C) introducing a synonimous word or phrase [botany or the science of plants] d) introducing the second of two possiblities when the first is introduced by either or whether [either go away or stay, whether to go or stay] e) [Old Poet.] substantiated for either or whether as the first corrolative ["or in the heart or in the head].


Care to explain Oh genius which form the people who wrote that crappy definition meant? BY their structure, I assume C.

[GePap]

And use better dictionaries next time, as to not make an ass of yourself.

[Asher]

Is this a joke? Honestly?

Look, bolding another part of the definition works too!

a) introducing the second of two possibilities [beer or wine]

beer != wine

Oh my God.

No words.

Having to define and explain "or" to someone who seriously thinks he's winning an argument.

Philosophy.