Is it good policy to give financial aid to liberal arts majors?

[Pekka]

yeah, they are even worse and less producing.

[Whaleboy]

You're implying that liberal arts don't help the economy but I couldn't disagree more. Consider the case of someone who studies film, for example, and in later life a production of theirs nets millions at the box office; or someone who studies English and writes a bestseller providing jobs for many at a publishing house.

You see, you could look at these things directly, how much return on your investment do you get per student for, say, an economics student and an arts student, but if you take a wider view of things, what you're really doing by helping the liberal arts is diversifying your culture and society, increasing the number of economic opportunities available to all.

It is this which more than justifies the wisdom of investing in liberal arts.

[Pekka]

And how many liberal arts majors there are compared to published authors, film makers etc?

1:10 000?

And I still haven't said we don't need these people. I'm saying if we need to prioritize who we give money to, it should be someone with a real job.

[Whaleboy]

Then I would suggest you look at other ways liberal arts students and enthusiasts contribute to the economy. In fields like this, communication and conceptualising is key, as is the ability to spread your ideas to others. All of these are skills are absolutely key in business and I'm sure we all know people who have benefited in business from a background in the arts.

For example, what I have learned about language as a writer has been of fantastic help to me in my job as a salesman. My brother is a medical student and his class has been told by their lecturers to engage in an artistic study such as music or painting or literature, since this helps to improve their communication skills, and ability to understand and disseminate abstract concepts.

Lets not also forget that if you teach someone liberal arts, chanches are that person is going to teach others the same thing; have you ever met a person who's studied the arts and not shared that with you? With that in mind, I then return to my original points.

[Pekka]

"Then I would suggest you look at other ways liberal arts students and enthusiasts contribute to the economy. In fields like this, communication and conceptualising is key, as is the ability to spread your ideas to others. All of these are skills are absolutely key in business and I'm sure we all know people who have benefited in business from a background in the arts."



I mean not at your message, but your interpretation of your own message. You are, in fact correct, but there's no libbie art majors in real teams of men who currently pound the different managment and information and support systems in business. Except in hippie companies.

"My brother is a medical student and his class has been told by their lecturers to engage in an artistic study such as music or painting or literature, since this helps to improve their communication skills, and ability to understand and disseminate abstract concepts.
"

Yes, and your brother IS A DOCTOR. He didn't come a hippie plague, sucking money off of everyone, he returns the favour by healing people. So he took few classes.. so.. why do we need you guys again?

"Lets not also forget that if you teach someone liberal arts, chanches are that person is going to teach others the same thing"

These are negative points, not positive points.

Overall contribution from these people are 0. Culturally, yes, entertainment value, yes, needed, yes. The original question was should the society invest in these people, I say no. Not because I hate librul art "students", it's because there are other places the money is needed more.

Listen, I've heard some cats say to me that without philosophy, we wouldn't have anything today, we certainly could not pursue science. This statement struck me as something odd, I mean it came from philosophy defendor. I thought they were supposed to use their brains for thought plus realize the erronous logic of this statement. This statement alone makes me want to shoot these idiots. Yeah it will benefit the society, as in 1:100 000 of these will succeed some day in respectable field and that is not writing a book about how AI draws parallels to German writer Johan Fruczhek's thought of fascism in transparent cyberpunk future.

You know.. it's like.. grow up dude.

Do we need social thinkers, do we need philosophers, yes we do. Do we need to pay them? No we don't. All of these people are most likely from leftist side of the world, their parents are most likely lefitst and most likely upper middle class or higher income units. You know.. if you want to talk about stuff alld ay long and never really work, you know, let your parents pay for it.

[Shi Huangdi]

Granted, I'm not saying that the liberal arts and social sciences are worthless, if that was position I wouldn't have majored in econ and poli sci. Nor I am saying they should be abolished. But society's benefit to having one more student study art and having one more student studying biological engineering is not the same. Shouldn't we use our tax dollars in a manner likely to give the greatest return to society as a whole?

[Pekka]

If there's a set amount of money x... and we can distribute it and there's a nice amount of it.. I see no problem if we just spread it out and give everyone, with some certain priorities (mostly in science and research) who get more.

But if someone needs to go dry... it's got to be the ones who do not produce the same amount of value back in average.

[Saras]

Engineers can make, at the lowest cost possible, a bubbling, brown, sweet drink that goes well with rum and lime juice, and charge 0.10 dollars for it.

Masters of Liberal arts can make Coca Cola and charge 0.99 for it.

[Whaleboy]

You are, in fact correct, but there's no libbie art majors in real teams of men who currently pound the different managment and information and support systems in business. Except in hippie companies.

That's not correct. I'm being put through a philosophy degree by my company, and we sell aircraft metal to manufacturers so it's hardly a hippie organisation!

Business is not about degrees and qualifications, at least when you get to successful people. It's more about talent, experience, and how well you can communicate, listen, and get on with people. You don't need a wallfull of degrees to succeed in business, just the ability to work hard and use your mind.

Yes, and your brother IS A DOCTOR. He didn't come a hippie plague, sucking money off of everyone, he returns the favour by healing people. So he took few classes.. so.. why do we need you guys again?

You seem to have quite a skewed and prejudiced opinion of "liberal arts students" that contradicts the reality of the situation. Studying liberal arts doesn't make you some kind of leech, a black hole for society's resources. If it helps you to perform a job then why on earth not?

Let's also not forget the fact that no-one here does their job to benefit society. I sure as hell dont. I do my job because I enjoy it, it makes me feel good, it maintains my quality of life and keeps a roof over my head. If given the choice between paying taxes and not paying taxes, I wouldn't pay taxes; it's like choosing whether or not to have a payrise!

Of course, if everyone were given that same choice, everyone would choose the same as me, and society would have a big problem. The distribution of public finances has to be separate from the short sighted will of the people, otherwise there'd be no tax to speak of. In paying our taxes, we inherently trust the government to decide their best use. Whether or not they can be trusted is a different question entirely (dont get me started!).

In that light, it is fallacious to look at how two individuals, one who studies the arts and one who studies, say, business, will benefit society, since neither of them intend to benefit society. That one might end up richer than another is of no consequence. We need to look at the net effect on society of both, and as I have previously said, it becomes much more difficult to determine which is of more worth, since the artist may well have a myriad of positive effects on society.

I suppose to answer your point, you first need to establish a definition of "benefit"; i.e., if you are to decide who benefits society more, you need to say what you feel to be desirable. There are numerous utilitarian schools of thought you could use here. I would to loosely use JS Mills idea that "benefit" means the number of people in society that are able to fulfill and actualise their potential. I think, if we accept that, then the benefit of liberal arts for all is clear-cut and obvious.

Overall contribution from these people are 0. Culturally, yes, entertainment value, yes, needed, yes. The original question was should the society invest in these people, I say no. Not because I hate librul art "students", it's because there are other places the money is needed more.

Public spending should be balanced. We could all worry about where we think money is needed more but to perfectly honest with you, it's a problem that's tainted by the sensationalist press and narrow views of people like you and me, because we don't truly know what's going on in society, so we don't truly know where all the money should be spent. I would hate to be the person that is forced to prioritise some immediate economic concern over education and self-actualisation.

Listen, I've heard some cats say to me that without philosophy, we wouldn't have anything today, we certainly could not pursue science. This statement struck me as something odd, I mean it came from philosophy defendor. I thought they were supposed to use their brains for thought plus realize the erronous logic of this statement. This statement alone makes me want to shoot these idiots.

Imagine science without philosophy, imagine medicine without ethics, imagine politics without conscience, imagine life without wisdom. And you're telling me that philosophy is useless?

Do we need to pay them? No we don't. All of these people are most likely from leftist side of the world, their parents are most likely lefitst and most likely upper middle class or higher income units. You know.. if you want to talk about stuff alld ay long and never really work, you know, let your parents pay for it.

If there's a market for it, whether that be in the private sector or in government, why the hell shouldn't they be paid for their product?

[Whaleboy]

But society's benefit to having one more student study art and having one more student studying biological engineering is not the same. Shouldn't we use our tax dollars in a manner likely to give the greatest return to society as a whole?

While you're more than welcome to spend the next 25 years trying to work out which field will ultimately give the greatest return on investment, I have things to do today!

It makes more sense to consider the value of a given profession as a function of supply and demand, just like the value of anything else. I believe I have established a demand for liberal arts, accordingly it has value.

Once you start saying that one profession is more valuable than another, then you're treading on dangerous territory. Are you suggesting that a plumber or a bricklayer is less valuable than an economist? Whoever said that would be shot down like a German! We're only having this conversation because anti-intellectualism is in vogue at the moment and it is fashionable to ignore the benefits that three centuries of liberal arts since the Enlightenment has provided society.

But if someone needs to go dry... it's got to be the ones who do not produce the same amount of value back in average.

No-one needs to go dry though! Bare in mind that liberal arts benefit most from education, in business, it is experience that counts and given the choice of going into business or spending three years at university studying it, you should choose the former. You'll end up richer for it!

[Pekka]

"I'm being put through a philosophy degree by my company, and we sell aircraft metal to manufacturers so it's hardly a hippie organisation!"

Right, but THEY pay for it. They see a demand for you and your skills and pay for it.

"Studying liberal arts doesn't make you some kind of leech, a black hole for society's resources. If it helps you to perform a job then why on earth not?"

And most of the times it doesn't. If you need to take a major degree so you can communicate with others, then the problem is somewhere else to begin with.

"Let's also not forget the fact that no-one here does their job to benefit society. I sure as hell dont. I do my job because I enjoy it, it makes me feel good, it maintains my quality of life and keeps a roof over my head."

Yes, and with government subsidiaries, many others can enjoy a life that is not productive. I'm not talking about you, you are being financed by company and doing a real job. But the others, whose goal in life is to maintain their book collection of ancient thinkers and they see their emotional value as a social good, even when they don't contribute in any way.

"In paying our taxes, we inherently trust the government to decide their best use."

I don't trust my government to use the tax money correctly, in fact I disagree with it 100%. I pay taxes only because it would be illegal for me not to. I would pay taxes and agree with it, if it was spent wisely.

"In that light, it is fallacious to look at how two individuals, one who studies the arts and one who studies, say, business, will benefit society, since neither of them intend to benefit society."

And what light is that? The light of justification for people with imaginary value? We can crunch numbers of how productive a person is. Their intent does not matter, they have a factual amount of money they produce, whether they want it or not.

"since the artist may well have a myriad of positive effects on society."

Sure but we were talking about money here, not some feel good stuff.

"you first need to establish a definition of "benefit""

I thought it was pretty clear. Money talks.

"I would to loosely use JS Mills idea that "benefit" means the number of people in society that are able to fulfill and actualise their potential. I think, if we accept that, then the benefit of liberal arts for all is clear-cut and obvious."

Sure, if you want to feel good about wasting money.

" We could all worry about where we think money is needed more but to perfectly honest with you, it's a problem that's tainted by the sensationalist press and narrow views of people like you and me, because we don't truly know what's going on in society"

Yes we do. Something they might not teach librul art majors is mathematics. We can measure the success of our society in terms of how much we produce and consume. We can have highly educated thinkers for all we know and can have, but that doesn't put butter and bread on the table. Neither is 'making nice art', unless you sell it outside your borders and get new money in. This is difficult ot understand for many socialists, but you aren't one so I'm not talking down to you here.

"And you're telling me that philosophy is useless?"

No, I'm just wondering if they company should pay your degree right now. Do I actually have to point out the gross logical error to you that I gave as a sample?

"



If there's a market for it, whether that be in the private sector or in government, why the hell shouldn't they be paid for their product?"

I never said they shouldn't be paid for their PRODUCT. I said they shouldnt' be paid to 'realize' their dreams of massive book collections they'll never read. If they become productive, good for them, go go go. If not, money wasted.

[Fake Boris]

The story is simple. Human thought evolves along several disciplines. Each is closely related and connected and constitute a whole named 'civilization' - as Whalerdude said, can you imagine modern medicine without ethics, or science without the epistemological debates?
There comes liberal democracies, and universal education. The problem is that it costs money, so some people decide that your 'duty' to society is to pay back that money. Moreover, liberal arts have become academic disciplines - which puts them in the nasty position of having to justify their funding in regard to their alleged benefits (ie, the pay of their graduates).
So some bland actuaries paid to count bricks try to fix the wall, but what they forget is we need mortar too to make it stand.

[Pekka]

" as Whalerdude said, can you imagine modern medicine without ethics, or science without the epistemological debates?"

Are you librul arts major too? This is not what I implicated. The claim where someone said that without philosophy, you wouldn't have science today is grossly failing. THAT was the point. And it was ironic, because it was philosophy defendor that said it.

I'm not tal king about well imagine this without this without this... that's just not the point now is it? The point is, there is absolutely NO claims to be made that if this didn't happen then, then this couldn't have happened later on. That's similar to if no one invented the phone, we would not have phone today, because it wasn't invented then by someone. Or that we wouldn't have cell phones because we didn't have phones earlier.

Those are all logically false.

SOmething, I think, a philosopher SHOULD get.

I guess not.

Money wasted.

[Fake Boris]

No, that's the point - if things happened the way they did, it's clearly because they had to, otherwise they wouldn't have. The thesis is that culture is a tightly woven cloth - and now that experts have started calculating the 'cost' of liberal arts, they think they can throw it away.

[Pekka]

what ever.

OK boys, continue and please take it to higher abstract level pondering whether colour has a value or what ever.

As suspected, this has not got much to do with the OP and the thread.

I said EARLY ON if there's enough money to go around, let's spread it to every field, yes?

If not, then let's use it to more productive fields first.

So sorry but that's what I said, that's what I think right now about it, so you can continue talking and debating, I have stated my side already and it should be quite clear.

Ta-ta.

ps. "No, that's the point - if things happened the way they did, it's clearly because they had to, otherwise they wouldn't have."

BS.