04-09-2003 06:08									#121
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Do you realize you've built an entire argument soley on the definition of university, in your eyes?

Philosophers and semantics, rawr.

I do love how you advocate spending tax money on useless things, though. Is there a way to get Chretien to pay for some porn sites for me? Want to expand my sexual knowledge, etc.

	04-09-2003 06:11									#122
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

And just so you know, because your entire argument seems to be based on the definition of university including something about philosophy...it doesn't.

quote: u·ni·ver·si·ty P Pronunciation Key (yn-vûrs-t) n. pl. u·ni·ver·si·ties An institution for higher learning with teaching and research facilities constituting a graduate school and professional schools that award master's degrees and doctorates and an undergraduate division that awards bachelor's degrees. The buildings and grounds of such an institution. The body of students and faculty of such an institution.

	04-09-2003 06:32									#123
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Asher Do you realize you've built an entire argument soley on the definition of university, in your eyes?

In my eyes and as the institutions themselves spell out in their charters. It's what educated people understand by the term "university". I assumed you were an educated person; I must have been mistaken.

Again, you seem to be implying that universities have no business engaging in the search for knowledge for its own sake. That is a ridiculous assertion since that is exactly the business that universities are in - that's what they do. If you want to argue that they shouldn't, go for it. But a lot more than philosophy will vanish and you will have created something else.

But that wasn't the argument. My argument is that philosophy is a paradigmatic example of the sort of thing that universities are set up for. Nowhere have you even come close to refuting this, nor have you provided an argument for changing universities into some other sort of institution.

I'm talking about universities as they actually exist. Apparently you are not.

	04-09-2003 06:39									#124
	Put an end to popups!

Apparently Asher's a utilitarian. Fancy that, he's a philosopher in his own sense!

	04-09-2003 06:43									#125
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Agathon In my eyes and as the institutions themselves spell out in their charters. It's what educated people understand by the term "university". I assumed you were an educated person; I must have been mistaken.

Who do you expect to pull with this ****? It's not defined like that anywhere, and it's the frickin' cornerstone to your argument, and now suddenly you retreat to a typical elitist "well it is because I said so and know better" stance. Bravo, Agathon, you continually prove my point about modern university philosophers.

quote: Again, you seem to be implying that universities have no business engaging in the search for knowledge for its own sake.

Public universities should not fund philosophy departments that don't do anything but research frivilous things. Simple as that. You can claim it's ridiculous, but I think it's ridiculous to take funds from something useful and helpful to people than to fund philosophers that simply think about random stuff.

quote: But that wasn't the argument. My argument is that philosophy is a paradigmatic example of the sort of thing that universities are set up for. Nowhere have you even come close to refuting this, nor have you provided an argument for changing universities into some other sort of institution.

How can I refute something when it's not an actual argument? See, it all comes down to "what universities are set up for". I've shown you the definition, every single definition I've seen defines it similarly, none of them have a requirement or even imply one for philosophy. Again, your entire argument rests upon the "purpose" of the university. You've even said:

quote: I can if that's what they are for. The meaning of "university" is roughly what I described. "University" implies a certain function. If you want to change the meaning of the word, that's your problem - I speak English.

which I've completely torn down with ease by a simple check of the meaning of the word.

Just face it, Agathon, you just got your ass owned by a twatish computer science student who thinks Philosophy is a bunch of bullshit -- in an argument (which you're supposed to be good at), about philosophy (your field).

How embarassing can it get for you? Keep posting, we'll have to see.

	04-09-2003 06:44									#126
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by monolith94 Apparently Asher's a utilitarian. Fancy that, he's a philosopher in his own sense!

Everyone is, which is precisely why the department of philosophy is bullshit. Anyone can be a philosopher, some of the most famous and useful "philosophers" are mathmeticians who've never considered themselves philosophers.

	04-09-2003 06:54									#127
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Software Engineering
Ecology
Behavioral Ecology
Molecular Biology
Intro to Greek Civ (degree requirement.. wanted to take Roman Civ since I know some Latin, but it conflicted w/ my other classes)

	04-09-2003 07:00									#128
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Asher Just face it, Agathon, you just got your ass owned by a twatish computer science student who thinks Philosophy is a bunch of bullshit -- in an argument (which you're supposed to be good at), about philosophy (your field).

My my, you are a dreamer. You always say this, and always without the slightest justification. I suppose it makes you feel better.

If you can't accept that universities have the purpose which they actually have and which they themselves declare they have then I suppose there's no hope for you.

Try reading their statements of purpose. None I've seen say "we must limit ourselves to research that focuses on utilitarian goals". All say things like "We must foster intellectual inquiry in both pure and applied fields".

Face it, you're wrong about this and no amount of your facile prose will change this.

I can't be bothered with this anymore. I usually get paid to read and respond to terrible student arguments and this one of yours is worse than most. At least most of them can understand where they've gone wrong.

	04-09-2003 07:01									#129
	Got spare money?

I wonder why Asher keeps quoting the figure of 50 years?

	04-09-2003 07:08									#130
	Support Apolyton

"Everyone is"

Heh - for a second I thought you were implying that everyone is a utilitarian...

	04-09-2003 07:12									#131
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Agathon I can't be bothered with this anymore. I usually get paid to read and respond to terrible student arguments and this one of yours is worse than most. At least most of them can understand where they've gone wrong.

It's not your fault that it's over your head, we all aren't made equal.

You've changed your argument numerous times, and I've kept mine the same. And now you're leaving.

That says a lot about just how "bad" my argument is. You were reduced to rhetoric about university mission statements, which boggles the mind why you think that proves philosophy useful in the slightest.

quote: I wonder why Asher keeps quoting the figure of 50 years?

Is consistency rare in the field of philosophy? Would you prefer if I used a random number generator each time I re-asked the question? Would I fit in better as a philosopher?

	04-09-2003 07:19									#132
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by GePap I wonder why Asher keeps quoting the figure of 50 years?

Because that's how much older we feel after having to repeat the same point endless times with the faint hope that he might actually get it.

	04-09-2003 07:20									#133
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

You say philosophy has come up with no new innovations in 50 years. lets take that claim and examine it. first of all, in saying that there hasve been no innovations in 50 years, one must assume you think it has lead to innovation at some point. Now, so using you statement we know you think at some point philosophy has brought about innovation:

So the question becomes: why no new innovations?

I can see two distinct possible answers:
1. It has reached the limits of inquiry: all that can be learned from philosophy has been.
2. The current method of philosophical research is flawed and will not lead to further innovations.

If the first one is true, then philosophy remains a vital thing to teach at a university, since it becomes the sole field of human endevour to reach a climax: and obviosuly, having gottent his information, people who believe themseles educated should have it. now, since the issues are so cmplex, the university level is the appropriate one.

If number 2 is correct, then the aim of the university must be to come up with a new and innovative philosophical method to return to an age of contributions: a great reason to maintain research (after all, fusion research has yet to give us anything new..does not mean we should stop, if we think there is innovation left to be made).

Or you could believe a third option, which is that philosophy as has been (or what is defined as philosophy today) has never lead to any innovations: but that would mean you have been making false or misleading statements all along, and that could not possibly be correct, now could it Asher?

	04-09-2003 07:21									#134
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Im taking audio applications, audio recording techniques, promotion for audio, world civilizations, some other audio class, and college math (which i might test out of)

	04-09-2003 07:32									#135
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by GePap You say philosophy has come up with no new innovations in 50 years.

Your first sentence and you couldn't even get it correct.

And people thought I was silly for repeating the question 100 times, but maybe it needed 101.

I was asking YOU guys if there had been any, since I wasn't aware of any. There is a difference.

quote: If the first one is true, then philosophy remains a vital thing to teach at a university, since it becomes the sole field of human endevour to reach a climax

But if philosophy is simply about thinking and indescriminate inquiry or whatever the word is, all you'd be doing is rehashing old crap over again. Philosophy would then be moved, in this scenerio, under History and you'd have "History of Philosophy" classes.

quote: but that would mean you have been making false or misleading statements all along, and that could not possibly be correct, now could it Asher?

The person making false and misleading statements here is you, from the very first sentence.

	04-09-2003 07:41									#136
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

To quote Asher:

quote: Public universities are subsidized to help society in some way. Throwing money into monetary black holes that have obviously done diddly squat for the past fifty years does not benefit society, and takes funding away from noble causes such as cancer research.

Now, you say you used that figure in the following way:

quote: I was asking YOU guys if there had been any, since I wasn't aware of any. There is a difference.

Interstingly enough, that first statement is not framed as a question, but a statement.......

	04-09-2003 08:04									#137
	Remove this text

Because I'd asked you 99 times before that to quote some innovations. You couldn't provide any, hence it was assumed thereafter there were none.

	04-09-2003 08:26									#138
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Ah, an elemetary mistake that someone who's taken philosohy might not make. I mean, it is pretty obvious that no answer does not equal an affirmative response. Given that you could not possibly know why I or Agathon or Elok have not answered (uless you are telepathic) it is impossible for you to asume what no answer means. So you made that statement of your own free will, and hence what i say remains valid.

As for why I did not answer:I think the question biased, with regards to what a "contribution" means (which I gathered from context of your arguements, ie, what does count as a contribution).

	04-09-2003 08:28									#139
	Support Apolyton

You didn't answer the question because you don't have an answer. That much is obvious. And now, like a true philosopher, you're playing with semantics.

How many times must you boys prove my point?

In the real world, if you ask the same question repeatedly and pointedly and various people refuse to give an answer and ignore it the vast majority of the time and construct strawmen as distractions, it is safely assumed that they don't have an answer for you. While that might not be "proper" in philosophy, neither is the form of this entire debate, so I fail to see why you're using strict philosophy rules to selectively try to win some points when convenient.

You either have an answer, or you don't. Throw out any idea of contributions Philosophy might have made, in your eyes, and I'll let you know if I think the discovery that time warps in a curved fashion in the 6th dimension according to Jacob Blein from Manheimer University counts.

	04-09-2003 08:34									#140
	Inflate your Upload Space

The difference between man and woman is just semantics (given that those are only words used to describe the things).

Philosophy contributes each and every day to society, by giving students the skills to examine the source of their knowledge and to challenge it more effectively. It adds to each and every moral and religious debate ever held (in fact, is the basis for them)..it is seen in action every single day here in Poly, in dozen of posts by dozens of posters. Your bias as to what counts (which can be spotted so simply after your snide and dissmissive attack on a important subject,semantics) as a contibution (which is then conpounded by your political biases) makes attempting to answer your question a fools errand.

So Asher, have you stopped beating your boyfriend? Yes/no?

	04-09-2003 08:40									#141
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by GePap Philosophy contributes each and every day to society, by giving students the skills to examine the source of their knowledge and to challenge it more effectively.

If you buy this product today, it will enhance your happiness and fortify your confidence with ease and no mess whatsoever.

quote: It adds to each and every moral and religious debate ever held (in fact, is the basis for them)

Moral and religious debates?
Morals are one of the dumbest things one could argue about...
People who switch religions on the basis of debate are obviously not truly religious, as religion requires faith.

quote: ..it is seen in action every single day here in Poly, in dozen of posts by dozens of posters. Your bias as to what counts (which can be spotted so simply after your snide and dissmissive attack on a important subject,semantics)

semantics exist as a way to complicate things in debates. They do serve a purpose, they don't deserve to be abused like philosophers do all the time. It's like a safety blanket for them.

quote: as a contibution (which is then conpounded by your political biases) makes attempting to answer your question a fools errand.

I don't count that as a contribution for simple reasons. It's not necessary.

People can still debate morals, people can still debate religion, and people can still play with semantics to try to win arguments with or without philosophy. That's the crux of your argument, plain and simple.

quote: So Asher, have you stopped beating your boyfriend? Yes/no?

WTF?

Somehow I think if I asked you if you stopped beating your wife, I'd get a kick swift in the ass to Mingapulco.

	04-09-2003 08:48									#142
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Asher Moral and religious debates? Morals are one of the dumbest things one could argue about... People who switch religions on the basis of debate are obviously not truly religious, as religion requires faith.

Oh boy..... no, this speaks for itself.

quote: semantics exist as a way to complicate things in debates. They do serve a purpose, they don't deserve to be abused like philosophers do all the time. It's like a safety blanket for them.

No, semantics exist as a way of making the arguement exact, in so far as it can be sued to reach agreed upon definitions for terms and such, which are vital to intelliegent debate. now, if you don;t care for inteliegent debate....

quote: I don't count that as a contribution for simple reasons. It's not necessary.

Computer science most certainly is not necessary..heck, science is not necessary at all either (craft yes, science no) and the history of man more than amply shows the truth of this...wait, unless you are using some weird, unexplained personal definition of what "necessary" means, which of course would make continued debate impossible.

quote: People can still debate morals, people can still debate religion, and people can still play with semantics to try to win arguments with or without philosophy. That's the crux of your argument, plain and simple.

NO, the crux is that in doing so, they imporve their ability to understand, and thus become better scientists and more productive members of society.

quote: WTF? Somehow I think if I asked you if you stopped beating your wife, I'd get a kick swift in the ass to Mingapulco.

can't handle a prime example of a biased question? More aggregious than your's certainly, but sharing some characteristics.

	04-09-2003 08:57									#143
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by GePap Oh boy..... no, this speaks for itself.

Don't like my philosophy, boy?
It's simple: everyone has their own morals, there is no baseline and no right or wrong. Thus, arguing about morals is as futile is arguing about why philosophy is useless with people who desperately try to find ways to make it sound useful.

quote: No, semantics exist as a way of making the arguement exact, in so far as it can be sued to reach agreed upon definitions for terms and such, which are vital to intelliegent debate. now, if you don;t care for inteliegent debate....

They may exist for that, but this is not a formal debate, and it never was. VERY frequently philosophers abuse semantics, as you did here, to squirm your way into an assumption based on one out of about a hundred (SEMANTIC ALERT: REAL COUNT WAS NOT 100!!! ) questions was assuming there were no benefits, as none were provided.

quote: Computer science most certainly is not necessary

It is for what you're doing right now.
I could do without someone studying philosophy in university in the past, oh, 100 years to do what I'm doing right now. But if nobody studied computer science in the past 100 years, you'd be doing something a helluva lot different than talking to me online right now.

quote: ..heck, science is not necessary at all either (craft yes, science no) and the history of man more than amply shows the truth of this...wait, unless you are using some weird, unexplained personal definition of what "necessary" means, which of course would make continued debate impossible.

Necessary as in, needed for what we have. Studying philosophy in university hasn't changed anything for what I have right now, so it is thus unnecessary.

quote: NO, the crux is that in doing so, they imporve their ability to understand, and thus become better scientists and more productive members of society.

Scientists use the scientific method, where is the room to argue with hard evidence and results?

Philosophy is used more in the social sciencey areas, but a simple argument & debate class would accomplish the same thing.

quote: can't handle a prime example of a biased question? More aggregious than your's certainly, but sharing some characteristics.

So asking where the benefits are to philosophy is akin to asking someone if they stopped beating their boyfriend...?

That's one of the most lame things you've said thus far in the debate. The question wasn't biased, the question was simple. What's biased is I know very well there probably isn't an answer, because philosophy is intangible and is simply a formalized way of thinking.

It's stupid to waste public money on. Philosophy of Logic especially, that is totally useless and purely academic. Which is okay but Agathon, he enjoys spending money on useless things admittedly, but I'd prefer more medicinal research for my tax dollars, thanks.

Philosophy is simply an obsolete department. The only useful functions of it (to some people, I suppose) could easily be moved into the faculties they directly affect. Like the Philosophy of Film class should be a Film class, not Philosophy. The Philosophy of Logic classes should be eliminated in their entirity, completedly useless, convoluted crap that exists for purely academic reasons.

	04-09-2003 09:02									#144
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

What round is this, between Asher and GePap?

And whoever the victor is, who does that person contend on the next level of the bracket?

	04-09-2003 09:06									#145
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Agathon got KOed a while ago when he tried using the meaning of university as the reason philosophy is necessary. One of the weakest arguments I've heard from him in a while, and easily knocked down.

GePap is doing much better, he's almost making it sound useful. Unfortunately, he's succumbing to the vast, unprovable generalizations that people have made before in that "philosophy improves lives!".

I've seen no theorys from philosophers recently that have been useful, nor any ideas or concepts coming from them.

I see them all the time on TV telling me what is and isn't ethical, like they're some supergod capable of judging what is or isn't...I see them in the classroom arguing about Plato and Socratese, and I see the philosophy students smoking a bong in the washroom and barely passing and understanding the Philosophy of Logic courses we were in. For the compsci students it was a joke, but the philosophy kids (only a few of them)...man, the dumbest questions. Grr!

I'm still unconvinced the world would be worse off if we elminated the philosophy department and used the money to boost medical research funding.

	04-09-2003 09:27									#146
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Agathon Man they teach you guys some **** philosophy at Calgary.

I wonder what kind of courses they teach at Calgary. Look at those 4xx CS courses, they would be 2xx courses at my alma mater.

	04-09-2003 09:29									#147
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger I wonder what kind of courses they teach at Calgary. Look at those 4xx CS courses, they would be 2xx courses at my alma mater.

4xx = third year.
And what is your alma mater, UR?

I don't think you know enough about them. The I/O, for example, is the third assembly course I'll take, but it doesn't say that on there. The Software Engineering one is also not the first I've taken, most of these are second or third level of those courses, not the first like you seem to assume.

(though I'd doubt you'd reply to this at all, because if you gave me the name of your alma mater and I compared the courses to their third year courses, I can guarantee you they'd be similar..you probably know that too, hence why you'll now ignore this thread )

	04-09-2003 17:12									#148
	Increase Your PM Length

This discussion explains a great deal about Asher. No understanding of philosophy = no basis for ethics = I Microsoft!

	04-09-2003 17:22									#149
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by MrFun What round is this, between Asher and GePap? And whoever the victor is, who does that person contend on the next level of the bracket?

Ironically, Asher is winning mainly by use of philosophy; by careful thinking, he has determined that the "floor" is whatever direction the soles of his feet are facing, and therefore has come to the conclusion that Agathon and GePap are TKOs, as are the side of the ring and most of the audience...

	04-09-2003 17:28									#150
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Not to be quarrelsome, but I think that Asher's views are more the result of his psychology than his philosophy.