 |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Asher
|
 |
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Why should I care what scientists did a hundred plus years ago? |
You shouldn't, it's irrelevant to the debate. As are what philosophers did a hundred plus years ago.
I don't understand why this is so hard for you guys to grasp.  I don't care about the past, I care about what the fields are doing in the present. The faculties of science are contributing back to the community, as a public university should be doing, today's philosophers who are paid off taxpayer's dollars aren't contributing back to the community. The best excuse for their existance I've heard is they get to debate ethics with eachother, because of course the common man cannot decide ethics -- we must rely on those philosophers to do it for us.
quote:
The only problem (and the logical fallacy) is that the original question asked you to compare a subjective (metaphysical) idea with a subjective idea using a subjective basis. You are asking to talk about something objective (vowels - physical) using a subjective basis. |
The original question wasn't relevant at all, neither was mine -- that was the point.
Philosophy is used on the most basic level when arguing why democracy is better than a dictatorship, it says nothing about why we need to fund philosophy majors at public universities. I'm still amazed you would ask such a silly question, if I didn't know better I'd say you didn't read the thread.
quote:
You assume that Locke, Burke, Hegel, Marx did not have a 'university level' philosophy? |
Oh, I'm sorry -- these people are modern philosophers?
Maybe I'm living in a different dimension than you are. 
quote:
Are we to be mired in the same political philosophical muck? Perhaps someone else with this derided 'university level' philosophy will come up with a new political system of ideas which may change things. |
Yes, I can't wait for the brilliant minds of philosophy majors at today's public institutions to magically invent a new form of government that will make everyone's life better. 
You've taken too many philosophy courses Imran, feel free to climb back down to the real world whenever you're ready and we'll still welcome you back. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Asher
|
|
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
What great asset to society does history provide? Or how about the study of Shakesperean literature? |
However:
History: "If we do not know history, we are doomed to repeat it."
Shakesperean literature is overrated crap. I'm sure many people love it, I don't see a purpose to it with taxpayer's dollars. You wanna learn about Shakespeare, great, go form a studygroup. An argument could be made about impact to culture, though.
quote:
Or for a "real" science, how about Astronomy, how does the study of galaxies on the other side of the universe help us? |
Is this a joke?
Astronomy is important because we can't live on this planet forever. Eventually we'll need to expand. We need to know what's out there, and mapping the stars is key to that.
Certainly assloads more useful than what the philosophy majors today are doing.
quote:
And as I mentioned earlier, there is such as a thing as "blue sky" research that is researched for the purpose of knowledge and does not have potential to help the average joe? Heck, in science the stated aim is to better understand the laws and nature of the universe, not to provide technology improvements. The role of the university is to provide knowledge, not to look for technological output to raise our standard of living. |
The better understanding certainly helps the average joe, why do you think it does not?
The problem is, philosophy today doesn't promote or lead to better understanding, they intentionally muddle everything and make it more complex so they have things to do.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Agathon
|
 |
Leafs 4TW!! - CPA
Dec 2002
time: 00:26
|
|
Oh f**k you are worse than that Berzerker idiot.
How can you criticise philosophy as it is conducted in universities when you have on this thread continually shown yourself ignorant of what is actually done by professional philosophers and have posted numerous howlers on the topic? How are you supposed to be taken seriously on the issue?
It's standard practice to have some knowledge, however limited, of the subject you are talking about. A few people now, added to myself, who have actually done more than kiddies' formal logic, have explained to you some of what philosophy does, but you have chosen to ignore their statements in favour of posting fatuous pseudo-objections because that is all you seem capable of.
It is all very well to have a "right-wing-lets-turn-universities-into-polytechnics" attitude, but you should at least be informed on the subject before you wade in like an amateur. Call me a pedant, but I think it is reasonable to have some conception of what you are proposing to abolish. You have shown no such thing on this thread.
Your comments about Shakespeare are risible. What it shows is that you are one of the stupid tasteless people, the people that prefer to watch "Temptation Island" instead of the History Channel, the people for whom three chords are too many. People who make statements of such astonishing philistinism are to be ignored on the matter of tertiary education policy because they are incapable of understanding what it's for. In fact your situation is as if a tone deaf man had called for the scrapping of the music department. Tertiary education is for those who understand what Aristotle means when he remarks that human beings by nature desire to know. I'm betting that's not you.
Fortunately, for those in the philosophy game and frankly for those interested in the survival of Western Civilisation, the in-bred and oafish do not tend to be listened to by serious people - which is I suspect the root of your malice toward "book larnin'" - you can't understand it so you have to put it down in the name of the "common people".
Well I guess we horrible philosophy snobs ought to just leave it at that. After all a discipline that has survived 2500 years has pretty good staying power.
Oh well, back on the "ignore" list for you.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Asher
|
|
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Agathon
How can you criticise philosophy as it is conducted in universities when you have on this thread continually shown yourself ignorant of what is actually done by professional philosophers and have posted numerous howlers on the topic? |
Instead of calling me ignorant on it, why don't you inform me.
You've done nothing but give away general bullshit contributions philosophers have made ("multiculturalism") or have made laughable references to real scientific breakthroughs that have little or nothing to do with philosophers (Turing machine, atomic theory).
quote:
A few people now, added to myself, who have actually done more than kiddies' formal logic, have explained to you some of what philosophy does, but you have chosen to ignore their statements in favour of posting fatuous pseudo-objections because that is all you seem capable of. |
All of what people in here have explained have either avoided the question (cite ancient philosophers) or given general bullshit that they pulled from their ass (we can't measure the contribution of today's philosophers yet, philosophers can invent new political structures which better people's lives...)
quote:
It is all very well to have a "right-wing-lets-turn-universities-into-polytechnics" attitude |
I don't believe in turning the universities into technical schools, I merely think PUBLIC universities should do research that will benefit the PUBLIC, since they are using the PUBLIC's money to do it. It's not that outrageous of a concept.
quote:
Your comments about Shakespeare are risible. What it shows is that you are one of the stupid tasteless people |
Because I don't like Shakespeare I'm stupid and tasteless?
You're the philosopher, right? The one whose forte is debate and argument? This is precisely why I think it's useless, you're a PhD student in it and you've shown a very pathetic form on here.
quote:
Oh well, back on the "ignore" list for you. |
Which philosophy does this fall under? Reminds me of the philosophy of a five year old, really.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Asher
|
|
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
1500+ isn't considered 'modern' to you? |
Certainly not. Hell, even the 70s are pretty old.
Remember what field I'm in, Imran.
What I mean by modern, is perhaps by the last 50 years or so, at the latest.
quote:
Hell, Marx wrote in the 1850s. |
What a great philosopher he was, look what he's done for our world.
Since we know only philosophers are behind political systems, which philosophers were behind Hitler's?
quote:
What do you consider modern and why? |
Last 50 years or so. Why? Because that's what's relevant to this debate, what recent contributions to philosophy are.
quote:
Do artists contribute to the community? Writers? Movie directors? How do you determine 'contribution' to society if you take culture out of the entire equation? |
I'm not taking culture out of it completely, I don't see philosophers contributing to culture either.
I see them bickering about it, but I don't see them doing anything. Can someone please give me an example of what a philosopher from the past 50 years has done to impact culture?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
cinch
|
|
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Jul 2002
time: 22:26
|
|
Asher:
I don't really understand this whole "what have you done for me lately?" angle... If you don't enjoy philosophy, fine. That's your business. But to say that it is unworthy of being taught at a university because you didn't get anything out of it... seems a little self-centred.
As for contributing to the community... What constitutes contribution? Writing code? Managing finance? Designing a bridge? All necessary things, to be sure, but certainly there has to be more to life than "complete task, break, repeat"... No?
I'm not saying philosophy is the answer to all of life's mysteries (though it could help...), just that it, along with literature/film/etc., is something that society needs to keep itself human.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Shi Huangdi
|
 |
Pittsburgh, PA
Apr 1999
time: 00:26
|
|
"
History: "If we do not know history, we are doomed to repeat it.""
That's an excellent reason for why we should teach history up to the secondary level. If a people are totally ignorant of the history of their country and the world, they will have an incomple understanding of both. However, if you are holding everything to a strict standard of being useful, it'd be hard to say what value most advanced historical research would be. For instance, what is the value of historical research into say, Ming dynasty China?
"Shakesperean literature is overrated crap. I'm sure many people love it, I don't see a purpose to it with taxpayer's dollars. You wanna learn about Shakespeare, great, go form a studygroup. "
Someone could have a similar argument about any type of literature, but yet we still have English departments that research and criticize them.
"Astronomy is important because we can't live on this planet forever. Eventually we'll need to expand. We need to know what's out there, and mapping the stars is key to that."
Perhaps thats a case for mapping the nearby stars, but what of distant galaxies. For a good example of "blue sky" research, Astronomers have been able to determine the age and size of the universe. That isn't helpful to us here on Earth, but it's knowledge relevant to the field and so it is studied.
"I believe the public universities exist as to give back to the communities. They provide a well-educated workforce to fulfill jobs which buoy the economy which benefits everyone, they also provide valuable research into areas that will affect people's lives. "
We have institutions like that here in the states, it's called Technical institutes: CalTech, Virginia Tech, etc. A university, however, exists to discover knowledge.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Asher
|
|
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by cinch
Asher:
I don't really understand this whole "what have you done for me lately?" angle... If you don't enjoy philosophy, fine. That's your business. But to say that it is unworthy of being taught at a university because you didn't get anything out of it... seems a little self-centred. |
It can be taught at universities, I just don't think public universities, especially in Canada, which are funded primarily by taxpayers, shouldn't have frivilous majors that don't benefit society.
Private institutions can go all out on it if they want, I don't care. I just like to know my money is being spent wisely.
quote:
As for contributing to the community... What constitutes contribution? Writing code? Managing finance? Designing a bridge? All necessary things, to be sure, but certainly there has to be more to life than "complete task, break, repeat"... No? |
Contributions to the community involve technological breakthroughs that make life better, improvements in health, improved knowledge of how the world works around us, etc. Hell, even the faculties that contribute to culture are worthy of tax money.
I've seen no evidence whatsoever of what my tax money is doing paying for philosophy majors. I admit I'm not a philosopher and don't really know what they DO precisely in the higher levels, but I also readily admit that there's no evidence they're doing anything useful.
Why do you need to be a full time philosopher to be a philosopher? Why can't you study a scientific field and still be a philosopher?
The whole field of philosophy baffles my mind.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Imran Siddiqui
|
 |
The Potterverse
Jan 1970
time: 00:26
|
|
quote:
Since we know only philosophers are behind political systems, which philosophers were behind Hitler's? |
Nietzsche's were HIGHLY influential, but the formulation of the intricate details were done by Barres and Mussolini.
quote:
Because that's what's relevant to this debate, what recent contributions to philosophy are. |
Why did you arbitrarily pick 50 years? I consider 200 years to be pretty 'modern'. You have Marx, Mill, Lenin, Trotsky, Bukarin, etc. in that time period.
quote:
What a great philosopher he was, look what he's done for our world. |
As much as I dislike communism, I will say that Marx's writings have been mostly good for the world, because of the advancment of workers' issues when it was needed.
quote:
I'm not taking culture out of it completely, I don't see philosophers contributing to culture either. |
In any 'culturally advanced' society you have a incredible amount of philosophers. I don't think that is mere coincidence.
quote:
Can someone please give me an example of what a philosopher from the past 50 years has done to impact culture? |
Well you have postmodernists which recently arose, whose philosophical ideals are a basis for "Seinfeld" and "Curb your Enthusiasm". For the US, both of those shows are culturally significant.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Asher
|
|
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
That's an excellent reason for why we should teach history up to the secondary level. If a people are totally ignorant of the history of their country and the world, they will have an incomple understanding of both. However, if you are holding everything to a strict standard of being useful, it'd be hard to say what value most advanced historical research would be. For instance, what is the value of historical research into say, Ming dynasty China? |
That's a valid point. I'm not too thrilled about history being in public universities anyway, but I do understand that it can be useful. I still cannot understand how philosophy can be useful today, despite some attempts to educate me in it, the only people who have stood up to defend it tend to be people in the field or in another "humanities"/"social science" field. 
quote:
Someone could have a similar argument about any type of literature, but yet we still have English departments that research and criticize them. |
Unfortunately.
quote:
Perhaps thats a case for mapping the nearby stars, but what of distant galaxies. |
That's why I whole-heartedly support investment in NASA.
quote:
For a good example of "blue sky" research, Astronomers have been able to determine the age and size of the universe. That isn't helpful to us here on Earth, but it's knowledge relevant to the field and so it is studied. |
Precisely. You have no need to explain to me why "obscure" science research is useful, I understand that perfectly.
quote:
We have institutions like that here in the states, it's called Technical institutes: CalTech, Virginia Tech, etc. A university, however, exists to discover knowledge. |
Technical Institutes, at least in Canada, are things like DeVry, SAIT, etc. They're not universities in that they don't teach thinking methodology or high-level thinking or abstraction, they teach you the technicals: HERE is how you program, HERE is how you network computers, etc. You'll find universitiy is quite different than that, but not because we have a department of philosophy.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Imran Siddiqui
|
|
The Potterverse
Jan 1970
time: 00:26
|
|
quote:
Imran, last I checked, Larry David didn't have a philosophy degree... |
You don't have to have a philosophy degree to be influenced by higher level philosophy. David is a very educated man (and did liberal arts in college). All social sciences is influenced by philosophy.
quote:
Because 50 years ago, the university system wasn't the same as it was 200 years ago, and that's the focus of this debate. |
100 years ago the university system wasn't the same as it was 200 years ago. What is your point?
quote:
Do you just not like it because you concede nothing useful has come in the last 50 years? |
On the contrary, Wittgenstein came within the last 50 years. Postmodernism, Fukiyama's 'The End of History' hypo, etc.
quote:
the only people who have stood up to defend it tend to be people in the field or in another "humanities"/"social science" field. |
Because we understand how important philosophy is to our fields (such as economics, history, political science, etc.).
The question remains WHY does Astronomy matter, after all it gives us no benefits in the present, but it MAY in the future. Philosophers in unversities today may come up with a new politics in the future. Why is one potential futuristic endevor favored over another? Is it because of your science background and inherant bias against anything dealing with 'social sciences'.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:26.
Apolyton Time is 00:26. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
26-02-2003 07:16
.
|