Which of the following is the most worthless?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


You've developed a regrettable reading deficiency. By the very fact that he claims that the useful disciplines were "forked off" from filosofy he implies that the other disciplines were always studied. Duh.

So he thinks Gender Issues were always studied?

[KrazyHorse]

so the good old days were when philosophers were dealing mistakenly, non-empirically with issues more properly addressed through scientific method, and today, when they have confined themselves to issues that cant be resolved by experiment, they are useless?

They were, at least, striving toward useable knowledge in the old days (no matter how poorly). The heirs of useful ancient philosophy are the scientists. The heirs of useless ancient philosophy are the philosophers. Quite simple, really.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Not everybody has the ability or temperament to receive a technical or scientific degree.

I'm sure I could go down for a while to that level

[rah]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Not everybody has the ability or temperament to receive a technical or scientific degree. That's fine. This doesn't make them bad people, or even stupid, and certainly not useless.

What is useless is putting hordes of them through 4 years of makework which most of them will never use, and which fails to touch most of them.

Actually one of the better lines.

But there are those that it's not totally makework and it does touch them. There are going to be slugs in any line of study, even *GASP* technical people. I've been in training classes where people where just going through the motion to be certified. They didn't care about learning, they just wanted to pass the test. Are they any different.

It happens in any field. BUT I'll agree with you that more come from the non technical disciplines.


And remember that most of those poly sci majors go on to law school. And we know how valuable lawyers are.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


So he thinks Gender Issues were always studied?

Actually, gender issues were studied by ancient philosophers. They might not have called it that, or thought of it as a separate issue, but the relationship between the genders was discussed by ancient philosophers. It was all part of "philosophy" to them. Science, politics, morality, "gender issues",...

[Pekka]

duke, the art of killing people in wars is a vital thing, not to be underestimated. Of course, the one with good engineering can have better tech in their weapons, and therefore make it easier to kill people. You ask a soldier if he wants a blade or a guided missile, I think most of them would prefer the guided missile. War is an important factor in human interraction, it is the very epitomy of using power, and getting your will done.

Of course it is a horrible thing, but would you rather have a weak army or a strong army? If you prefer strong, then you need some good technology, them blades are quite outdated. So is it a force of good, all this technology? Well, it's a force, I let the philosophers decide if it's good or not .

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
They were, at least, striving toward useable knowledge in the old days (no matter how poorly). The heirs of useful ancient philosophy are the scientists. The heirs of useless ancient philosophy are the philosophers. Quite simple, really.

Look, as long as you dont actually know the content of modern phil, and are just going by the online posts of a few Canadian philosophy types, you sound like an idiot on this subject. Youre not converting anyone not already on your side. If you dont mind sounding like an idiot, go ahead.

[KrazyHorse]

Look, as long as you dont actually know the content of modern phil, and are just going by the online posts of a few Canadian philosophy types, you sound like an idiot on this subject. Youre not converting anyone not already on your side. If you dont mind sounding like an idiot, go ahead.

Actually, I'm not the one who can't even parse a simple sentence.

You're outgunned, dude. Give it up.

[lord of the mark]

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1134/is_6_112/ai_105371468/print

a scientist writes a book defending the humanities, and a philosopher takes issue with it for not being "pro-science" enough.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

Look, as long as you dont actually know the content of modern phil, and are just going by the online posts of a few Canadian philosophy types, you sound like an idiot on this subject. Youre not converting anyone not already on your side. If you dont mind sounding like an idiot, go ahead.

Actually, I'm not the one who can't even parse a simple sentence.

You're outgunned, dude. Give it up.

Look, forget Ashers Gepaping of a vague and contradictory sentence.

Youre talking about what modern philosophy says, and you dont even know what it says, in at least some of youre posts youre reacting to what folks like moi (who only took three phil courses, and those over 25 years ago) say. Its as stupid as someone talking about what physics says who hasnt studied phyics, -ditto for economics, sociology, chemistry, or any other field of human endeavour. Surely it makes sense to decide not to study something cause you dont think its worth it, but it does NOT make sense to pontificate on it without having studied it. It always sounds foolish, whatever the subject.

When one hasnt studied a subject, it makes sense to have a certain humility in commenting on its content. THAT is simple. An inability to grasp that does not argue well for the general reasoning ability beyond their specialties of scientists.

[KrazyHorse]

I don't understand what relevance you think that has.

Perhaps I'm just being dense, but the fact that Nazis were in favour of rocket research doesn't make me like Nazis.

But maybe that's just me.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Look, forget Ashers Gepaping of a vague and contradictory sentence.

You're the only one GePaping here. It was obvious to me what he meant from the start, and it should have been obvious to anybody with a working mind.

For your information, I responded to your critique of the post before even reading his response (which seemed to be fundamentally the same as mine).

Running and gunning doesn't work here. I disaggregate complex issues far too well.

Youre talking about what modern philosophy says, and you dont even know what it says, in at least some of youre posts youre reacting to what folks like moi (who only took three phil courses, and those over 25 years ago) say

I have no idea what the hell you're attempting to say here. Please clarify. I am of course reacting to what you say. That is the essence of conversation.

but it does NOT make sense to pontificate on it without having studied it. It always sounds foolish, whatever the subject.

You are wrong. I am not attempting to pontificate on what modern philosophy says. I am pontificating on the usefulness of anything it could possibly say.

I don't have to read an architect's blueprint to know that his plan for a building whose foundation starts at an altitude of 27000 m above sea level is wrong.

When one hasnt studied a subject, it makes sense to have a certain humility in commenting on its content

I am not commenting on the content. You still haven't grasped that. It is up to those defending modern philosphy to define their field of study, their methodology and their goals. If they cannot do so in a manner which is sufficiently agreed upon, specific and logically sound then they fail. I haven't seen anybody yet manage to do so. I'm certainly not going to read dozens of books to get this understanding, since the lack of a sufficient summary tells me that such an understanding doesn't exist.

THAT is simple. An inability to grasp that does not argue well for the general reasoning ability beyond their specialties of scientists.

One day you might sting me, but not like this.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

but it does NOT make sense to pontificate on it without having studied it. It always sounds foolish, whatever the subject.

You are wrong. I am not attempting to pontificate on what modern philosophy says. I am pontificating on the usefulness of anything it could possibly say.

I don't have to read an architect's blueprint to know that his plan for a building whose foundation starts at an altitude of 27000 m above sea level is wrong.

You have to know what hes building, and where hes starting it. Maybe not from a blueprint, but from a good description. Youre like someone critiquing architecture without knowing who the architects are, what theyre building, how or why, just cause you dont like something some canadian architecture student says on an internet forum.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Patroklos
So you think there are too many, thats fine. I also think there are too many lawyers.

You may remember a few years ago when computer programers were a dime a dozen, spawned a very funny movie.

Seriously. For somebody who was extolling the benefit of an arts education on the recipient's writing skills you need to stop making so many stupid mistakes.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

I am not commenting on the content. You still haven't grasped that. It is up to those defending modern philosphy to define their field of study, their methodology and their goals.

I can tell you that not all economists can agree on their methodologies or goals. Marxist and institutionalists do things rather differently from neoclassical economists, its just that unversities find it convenient to put them in the same departments. I suspect its the same wrt philosophy.