05-09-2003 02:15									#151
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Asher 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.

Debates between ypou an Agathon lead nowhere becuase you too are simply too similar in disposition when it comes to debating..like evil twins.

quote: 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.

The fallacy here is that there is any need for "new" ideas to make teaching philosophy important. When was the last time english teachers came out with a brand new concept? Or a brand new idea? Any new literary forms of expression come up lately? New letters perhaps? Has Shekespeare changed somehow in the last 400 years? NO, but the fact is that teaching english remains vital, and while the benefits of philosophy are not as clear as those of english, they remain as important and valid. The very same reason why it was important to teach philosophy 400 years ago remains today, because none of the subsets of the subject has replaced the core issues of philosophy and the study both of knowledge itself, man's relation to it, and man's condition.

quote: 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!

And your personal experiences have what? to do with any of this?

quote: 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.

Oh yeah, vast sums are spent on philoaophy, vast...huge, sort of big, well, not that big, big, OK, well, medium...no, not medium..adequate, well, barely adequate..

	05-09-2003 03:45									#152
	Inflate your Upload Space

On a related note, how do Art or Music classes make a material contribution? Or the humanities? Are they worthless according to you too?

	05-09-2003 03:53									#153
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by GePap The fallacy here is that there is any need for "new" ideas to make teaching philosophy important.

So why do we need people that cost so much to teach such basic things? The vast majority of people who study philosophy probably never make it past the second-year courses. And as someone who has recently taken those intro courses, I can assure you you need not be a genius to teach them.

quote: And your personal experiences have what? to do with any of this?

And your objections to my personal experiences have what? to do with any of this?
I'm helping you guys see where I'm coming from. Jeez.

quote: On a related note, how do Art or Music classes make a material contribution? Or the humanities? Are they worthless according to you too?

Culture! A lot of my CDs come from artists who've studied music at the university level. Humanities? You mean, Philosophy?

Personally I think religious studies is a joke, but that's for another thread...

	05-09-2003 04:05									#154
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

The humanities? General art analysis, drama, film, the other flaky stuff that can be fun...if the humanities were all just philosophy, they wouldn't have a separate HUM subsection anywhere.
Note also that History by its very nature will never contribute directly to our quality of life, especially not art history. Nor will poetry, or other English. If we all were to take to speaking in grunts, it wouldn't cause problems for mathematicians provided we all used the same system of grunts. How about mandatory foreign language classes? Can't you computer nerds just program us a better babelfish?
BTW, did you ever mention which philosophy courses you've taken, and which people they focused on? It would certainly help if we knew what ideas in particular you were dismissing as utter crap...

	05-09-2003 04:09									#155
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Either Magister Artium (MA) Politics/History at Potsdam University or MA Recent History and additional Politics/Philosophy at Humboldt Universtiy in Berlin. Decision by September 10, mainly affected by accomodation expenses!

	05-09-2003 04:15									#156
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Elok The humanities? General art analysis, drama, film, the other flaky stuff that can be fun...if the humanities were all just philosophy, they wouldn't have a separate HUM subsection anywhere. Note also that History by its very nature will never contribute directly to our quality of life, especially not art history.

Of course not, but I recognize History for what it is. History is far less useful than most faculties, but still useful. You can't forget the past, it teaches us invaluable things about the future...

quote: Can't you computer nerds just program us a better babelfish?

The linguists are the ones that need to figure out how to translate, we simply implement it on a computer.

quote: BTW, did you ever mention which philosophy courses you've taken, and which people they focused on? It would certainly help if we knew what ideas in particular you were dismissing as utter crap...

Only course I've taken thus far is Philosophy of Logic (Sentential and first-order logic from both deductive and semantic points of view, metatheory of logical systems, completeness, compactness, Lowenheim-Skolem, and undecidability theorems for first-order logic, as well as non-standard models, second-order logic, and Godel's first incompleteness theorem). That course is required for my degree, but I don't see why. It's grossly simplified Theoretical Computing with a touch of Discrete Math, with less content and more time, obviously geared for the philosophy kids.

I also have to take one other Philosophy course next term, so I'm taking one called Problems with Philosophy (skepticism, perception, personal identity, free will and determinism, God.)

	05-09-2003 04:28									#157
	Inflate your Upload Space

Okay, no Enlightenment, Existentialist, ancient Greek or Roman thinkers, no theologians of any sort, nothing from China or Japan, none of the really ancient stuff, so basically all you've really studied is the form of philosophy that most directly relates to your field of interest, which naturally is going to be disappointing compared to the thing itself. Are you sure you have authority to speak on the subject? And why are the events of the past important, but not the ideas that caused most of them?

	05-09-2003 04:30									#158
	Tired of ads?

Asher beats his boyfriend? why?

	05-09-2003 04:33									#159
	Support Apolyton

I said it has no place in a university, it doesn't mean I've not learned about from other means. One of my best friends, a CS student of course, is a total brainiac. He's fascinated by philosophy, reads about it all the time on his own, and in the many downtimes we have between class he'll just go on and on about it. A lot of it is really interesting, but the fact remains it's rather useless -- and it doesn't deserve tax money.

He's learning all this crap by himself, why do other people need to waste taxpayer's money to do it?

quote: Are you sure you have authority to speak on the subject?

Where do I go and ask for permission?

I have just as much authority as someone who teaches the damn thing. If we had it your way, the only people who could say something is useless is if they've taken every course it's offered. Why would somebody do that?

quote: And why are the events of the past important, but not the ideas that caused most of them?

If it's a history course, why is it not in the history department?

	05-09-2003 04:45									#160
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Freshman year:

PHYS-155 Physics
GENS-145 Antiquity and Modernity (freshman core)
POL-124 Politics and Environment
HIST-127 Islamic Civilization I

And I'm in the audition only choir, for another token credit.

	05-09-2003 04:49									#161
	Suffering from ads?

Gah. It's a figure of speech. I mean, are you sure you know enough about the subject to really speak about it in a meaningful way. While we're at it, it's possible to learn all about *any* subject on your own, and I don't think he(or you) knows as much as the professor. I just find it hard to believe. And it is not history because history is primarily the study of past events. I never said philosophy was history. It's similar insofar as it is information culled from countless generations of human experience. That's about it. I don't want to sound like a jerk, but could you please answer the question as I asked it?

	05-09-2003 04:52									#162
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Who said he knew as much as a professor?

quote: And why are the events of the past important, but not the ideas that caused most of them?

quote: And it is not history because history is primarily the study of past events.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but is "caused" in past tense? Did you not just relate them to events of the past? So let's see: past ideas related to past events, and this is not history---how?

quote: I don't want to sound like a jerk, but could you please answer the question as I asked it?

Um, which question? The one about "authority"?

I have as much of an authority as anyone else to brand something useless. If only professors of that discipline could do it, rest assured they'd fight for job security over common sense.

	05-09-2003 07:29									#163
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Asher So why do we need people that cost so much to teach such basic things? The vast majority of people who study philosophy probably never make it past the second-year courses. And as someone who has recently taken those intro courses, I can assure you you need not be a genius to teach them.

Basic? Since when is reading Plato, or Aristotle, or Kant, or Hegel, or Sartre, or Adorno, Mill, Hobbes, locke, Rousseau, Marx, Smith, Hume, Schoppenhaur, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Herder, Wittgenstein, Arendt or any other philosophers "basic"? It takes pretty complex and advanced ideas to deal adequately with half of those writers, so it is in no way basic.

As for what the vast majority of people do: given that, as i said earlier, philosophy is the foundational subject of the university many subject require it of you at a low level and rightfully so. Given the complexity and deeply theoretical nature of higher philosophy, most people don;t need it anymore than people need the higher levels of mathematics.

	05-09-2003 07:33									#164
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Don't bother GePap - he can't see the trees for the wood.

If somebody doesn't understand that universities are instituted in a large part to pursue knowledge for its own sake, even though this is common knowledge and the right to do so is vigorously defended by universities as a constitutive value, then that person is IMHO a total retard and not worth taking seriously.

That about describes Asher on this issue.

	05-09-2003 07:40									#165
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by GePap Basic? Since when is reading Plato, or Aristotle, or Kant, or Hegel, or Sartre, or Adorno, Mill, Hobbes, locke, Rousseau, Marx, Smith, Hume, Schoppenhaur, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Herder, Wittgenstein, Arendt or any other philosophers "basic"? It takes pretty complex and advanced ideas to deal adequately with half of those writers, so it is in no way basic.

Smith, Mill, Hobbes, Locke, and Marx were dealt with adequately in grade 10.

And what benefit does anyone get for "dealing with" those writers? Do people become smarter and suddenly have new ideas after spending taxpayer's money learning about what someone wrote about 3,000 years ago?

quote: Given the complexity and deeply theoretical nature of higher philosophy, most people don;t need it anymore than people need the higher levels of mathematics.

Indeed, but the higher levels of mathematics are useful almost immediately in other disciplines which are actually useful.

quote: If somebody doesn't understand that universities are instituted in a large part to pursue knowledge for its own sake, even though this is common knowledge and the right to do so is vigorously defended by universities as a constitutive value, then that person is IMHO a total retard and not worth taking seriously.

So someone who insists public money should not be wasted in dead-end persuits about the color of socks in alternate dimensions is a retard and not worth taking seriously?

If you're going to use public money, the public should get use out of that. The research done, and the subjects taught, should give back to that society -- otherwise, why the hell are we paying for it?

I'm not surprised anymore, but as a philosophy teacher you should do better than this. You've completely restricted the argument to "well that's not how it is, end of story, you are a retard". Did it ever cross your mind that the reason I'm *****ing about it is because I don't think that's how it should be? You counter that by saying, "That's how it is, you're such a retard!"

I'm not the retard here, Agathon. You're the one, remember, that tried to use the definition of University unsuccessfully and then tried the "well I'm smarter than you, so it's right" approach.

GePap is kicking your ass here with coherent arguments, he's got me pushed a lot closer to conceding usefulness than your pathetic arguments have ever done.

	05-09-2003 07:49									#166
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Asher Smith, Mill, Hobbes, Locke, and Marx were dealt with adequately in grade 10.

Unless you actually read the works of these individuals (whole books, not passages) in the 10th grade, I seriously doubt it.

quote: Indeed, but the higher levels of mathematics are useful almost immediately in other disciplines which are actually useful.

Not the most theoretical stuff, which then only gets used by some nutty physicist triyng to tell us there might be these tiny little strings..... By your rather limited (and as of yet undefended) and narrow definition of "usefullness", most theoretical physics in the past 50 years has been rather useless (how many practical side effects have come form studying quarks and bosons?), and this field is horribly expensive (those particle colliders are a lot of money).

In essence, you have an extremely narrow view of what is usefull, one which you have yet to actually defend (to do so would require, guess what, philosophy!). So, given that fact, further debate is, well, pointless.


On topic: I graduated last year, so:

Interviewing 101
Unemployment 253 (advanced)
Cooking 201
Phys Ed.

	05-09-2003 07:50									#167
	State of the Debate Address Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

What it's come down to now is I'd like to be shown how taking all these Philosophy classes would make you a "better thinker" or a "better scientist". Rather than vague blanket statements, can anyone argue why taking philosophy classes does anything for you to help you better yourself in the other fields?

If someone can argue coherently about that, I'll concede that a lot of Philosophy classes are useful.

Though I maintain the Philosophy of Logic classes are utter wastes of time.

	05-09-2003 07:53									#168
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by GePap Not the most theoretical stuff, which then only gets used by some nutty physicist triyng to tell us there might be these tiny little strings..... By your rather limited (and as of yet undefended) and narrow definition of "usefullness", most theoretical physics in the past 50 years has been rather useless (how many practical side effects have come form studying quarks and bosons?), and this field is horribly expensive (those particle colliders are a lot of money).

Not so...look into things like Ultraviolet Lithography if you want to see the effects of modern mathematics and physics having real-world impact. That's the only one I know off the top of my head, since it's a computer-related thing, so I'm sure there's tons more.

quote: In essence, you have an extremely narrow view of what is usefull, one which you have yet to actually defend (to do so would require, guess what, philosophy!). So, given that fact, further debate is, well, pointless.

What I define useful: research into fields directed enough to give results. Medical research, physics research, mathematical research, etc. -- all of these have proven to give us actual, real improvements to our lives in recent times.

Philosophy and English are hard to place. English can be cateogorized as useful in the cultural sense, but Philosophy has only been positioned as something that can help "strengthen" one's reasoning and make them better people. Which is so wonderfully vague that you'll have to excuse me while I gag until someone can substantiate that.

quote: On topic: I graduated last year, so: Interviewing 101 Unemployment 253 (advanced) Cooking 201 Phys Ed.

Obviously you took a humanities or social science degree.

I'm only half-done my degree and I've already got 3 jobs.

	05-09-2003 08:06									#169
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Asher If you're going to use public money, the public should get use out of that. The research done, and the subjects taught, should give back to that society -- otherwise, why the hell are we paying for it?

It does, you numbskull - just as research in Egyptology or any number of obscure subjects does. Some people are interested in philosophy, others in Egyptology, still others in stranger subjects. People are naturally curious - they value knowledge for its own sake. Just because you don't doesn't mean everyone else is the same. That's why you see all sorts of books on all sorts of weird subjects in bookstores, all written by university educated people and enjoyed by all and sundry. None of these books would be written if it was left up to the market.

It so happens that the best proven way of financing and facilitating this activity is the university system. A system which encourages the absolutely free flow of ideas. The market system cannot provide such goods, just as it can't provide universal health care or a military defence force. That's why universities are largely funded by taxation. These are the facts. You can rant until you are blue in the face, but this is what universities are for and why such odd subjects as philosophy are practiced in them and why they are largely funded by taxation as opposed to market forces.

How do I know this? Well, I read it in some philosophy books.

All this "debate" comes down to is that there are two sorts of people. Those who are naturally curious about the world and ideas and find value in satisfying their curiosity, and those who can't see any value in anything that doesn't have an immediate practical use or a marketable value. The former are the people who belong at universities, the latter somewhere else. You are one of the latter.

I study Plato because I find him an interesting thinker. Hundreds of students I've taught feel the same way. So do the people who buy books about him at Chapters.

The answer to why we have philosophy is the same as the answer to why we have tax funded symphony orchestras. People like them and find value in them. The fact that you don't is neither here nor there. There are plenty of things I can't stand that the government supports through taxation, but I don't object to tax being spent on them, simply because I realise that if it was left to the market all of us would miss out because they wouldn't exist. I know this because I've read Hobbes, the political philosopher who first brought this to the notice of humanity.

(I can't believe I'm having to explain collective action problems to you again).

That's why you're an idiot - you can't see that all of us have to put up with public money being spent on things we don't like in order to ensure that it is also spent on things we like. That's the price of living in a pluralist society.

If you don't like anything the government does then I'm afraid you are SOOL because the vast majority of people do (even though they might not realise it). So suck it up. You will likely have to finance things you don't like for the rest of your life. The alternative just doesn't work.

	05-09-2003 08:15									#170
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Asher Obviously you took a humanities or social science degree. I'm only half-done my degree and I've already got 3 jobs.

Yes, but in 30 years you will still be at one of those jobs, while I and my fellow social science graduates will be the ones deciding the fate of said job

Dance tech monkey, DANCE!

	05-09-2003 08:18									#171
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Agathon The market system cannot provide such goods

So there are no private universities?

quote: That's why universities are largely funded by taxation. These are the facts. You can rant until you are blue in the face, but this is what universities are for and why such odd subjects as philosophy are practiced in them and why they are largely funded by taxation as opposed to market forces. How do I know this? Well, I read it in some philosophy books.

You had to read philosophy books to understand public taxation supporting universities?

I support subsidizing universities, I also support universities that are more practical than what they are today. Disinterested inquiry has taken us where we are now, and now it's up to those fields that have splintered off to carry the torch. Things are too complex for philosophers to do anymore, which is why they resort to things like arguing (and spending taxpayer's money on) arguing about "What is happiness" and something about the "I am lying" paradox.

quote: All this "debate" comes down to is that there are two sorts of people. Those who are naturally curious about the world and ideas and find value in satisfying their curiosity, and those who can't see any value in anything that doesn't have an immediate practical use or a marketable value. The former are the people who belong at universities, the latter somewhere else. You are one of the latter.

This isn't any more correct than saying universities should all be polytechnic schools.

Universities, as per their definition, are merely places of higher learning. That includes things such as computer science. Nowhere in the definition, in any dictionary that I've found, does it say anything about universities being places purely for satisfying curiousity. They're for educating people, and some of them also for conducting research. Once again you're cornered into the wall, basing your argument about "what a university is", even though the very definitions of the language you use tell everyone otherwise.

What you think a university is isn't the case. It's not as specifically defined as you would like for your job security, it's a place of higher learning and research. Period.

quote: That's why you're an idiot - you can't see that all of us have to put up with public money being spent on things we don't like in order to ensure that it is also spent on things we like. That's the price of living in a pluralist society.

It also doesn't mean I have to like it, which would make you an idiot for taking issue with my taking issue with not liking it. How's that for philosophy for you?

I don't think symphonies should be tax subsidized (indeed, this was a huge issue for the Calgary Philharmonic -- they asked for funding but the governments said no, so corporations pulled through and resurrected it).

Leave this to GePap, Agathon, you're tearing down all his hard work.

	05-09-2003 08:20									#172
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by GePap Yes, but in 30 years you will still be at one of those jobs, while I and my fellow social science graduates will be the ones deciding the fate of said job Dance tech monkey, DANCE!

Hardly. Look at technology companies, GePap, name any one of them with social science lackies up at the top.

HP-Compaq, IBM, Microsoft, Sun, Siebel, etc etc all have management that come from technical (computer) backgrounds, many of them with MBAs as well. Hell, a few of Sun's execs are alumnis at my very school, before it was as good as it is now at CS.

And as you probably know, it is my intention to get an MBA down the road.

I also see you don't understand the difference between, say, a programming/IT diploma from a college and a computer science degree from a university. The college diploma people remain the codemonkeys (not "tech monkey"), while the CS people move up to management since they've developed problemsolving and teamworking skills.

It also says a lot that arguably the most successful company ever (Microsoft) got there with a bunch of computer guys than economists, business, or management graduates. Intel's the same way.

	05-09-2003 08:30									#173
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

How best to put it?

In a sense, philosophy is the language of knowledge. It gives us the basic vocabulary of higher education, as well as the basic rules (the grammar) of it. Now, as it were, people are inherently native users of this language, but as with any other language, ones proficiency at it varies either with inherent skill or with practice. It is very possible to become rather fluent in this language without knowing what the things you are using are. For example, most (english-speaking) people speak english just fine, but ask them to break down their sentences into their grammatical components..well, don't expect miracles from the general populace. So yes, it is possible for an individual to live their entire lives and be fluent (if not a master of) this language of knowledge without studying it academically. That being said, learning the rules, the grammar of knowledge gives one a much better understanding of what they are using. For many, this improves ones ability to ue said language, for others perhaps not as much.

So, in eccense, to study philosophy is to attempt to study the underlying basis, rules, and tricks of knowledge and mans relation to it: it does not affect or improve all individual equally anymore than taking a grammar course turns everyone into Oscar Wilde.

As for your own personal experiences: the quality of a philosophy class can vary greatly, just as the quality of any language or english class can vary greatly. Perhaps it would do you fine to examine the offering of philosophy courses in your uni, ask students for their feedback and what they saw, specially like-minded ones whom for some reason took a more general course.

	05-09-2003 08:33									#174
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Asher Hardly. Look at technology companies, GePap, name any one of them with social science lackies up at the top. HP-Compaq, IBM, Microsoft, Sun, Siebel, etc etc all have management that come from technical (computer) backgrounds, many of them with MBAs as well. Hell, a few of Sun's execs are alumnis at my very school, before it was as good as it is now at CS. And as you probably know, it is my intention to get an MBA down the road. I also see you don't understand the difference between, say, a programming/IT diploma from a college and a computer science degree from a university. The college diploma people remain the codemonkeys (not "tech monkey"), while the CS people move up to management since they've developed problemsolving and teamworking skills. It also says a lot that arguably the most successful company ever (Microsoft) got there with a bunch of computer guys than economists, business, or management graduates. Intel's the same way.

Ohh, corporations... blah. They come and go, but us social science people are the ones to get our hands on the reigns of power..play with your little chips and money, while we make the policy you have to deal with and live under.

	05-09-2003 08:35									#175
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

I'm thinking this threadjack needs it's own thread, because this really has VERY little to do with the thread topic, except very tangentially.

	05-09-2003 08:36									#176
	Support Apolyton

This threadjack has had many threads of it's own already.

Since when are threadjacks more than tangentially connected? I have seen worse.

	05-09-2003 08:37									#177
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by GePap Ohh, corporations... blah. They come and go, but us social science people are the ones to get our hands on the reigns of power..play with your little chips and money, while we make the policy you have to deal with and live under.

We all know corporations control the politicians, which control the country.

	05-09-2003 08:38									#178
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: I have seen worse.

Interestingly they all involve Asher .

	05-09-2003 08:39									#179
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Asher We all know corporations control the politicians, which control the country.

Only in those genteel states were people are too wimpy to use good old fashioned jackboots to the throat.

	05-09-2003 08:39									#180
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by GePap How best to put it? In a sense, philosophy is the language of knowledge. It gives us the basic vocabulary of higher education, as well as the basic rules (the grammar) of it. Now, as it were, people are inherently native users of this language, but as with any other language, ones proficiency at it varies either with inherent skill or with practice. It is very possible to become rather fluent in this language without knowing what the things you are using are. For example, most (english-speaking) people speak english just fine, but ask them to break down their sentences into their grammatical components..well, don't expect miracles from the general populace. So yes, it is possible for an individual to live their entire lives and be fluent (if not a master of) this language of knowledge without studying it academically. That being said, learning the rules, the grammar of knowledge gives one a much better understanding of what they are using. For many, this improves ones ability to ue said language, for others perhaps not as much. So, in eccense, to study philosophy is to attempt to study the underlying basis, rules, and tricks of knowledge and mans relation to it: it does not affect or improve all individual equally anymore than taking a grammar course turns everyone into Oscar Wilde. As for your own personal experiences: the quality of a philosophy class can vary greatly, just as the quality of any language or english class can vary greatly. Perhaps it would do you fine to examine the offering of philosophy courses in your uni, ask students for their feedback and what they saw, specially like-minded ones whom for some reason took a more general course.

Well I suppose, it's somewhat useful then under this light. It can stay, for now.

But certain teachers at the UofT, they have to go.