On the subject of shit that annoys me...

[James S]

[Maf54]

[refractor]

[Maf54]

[David Horn]

[James S]

[chuck]

You just have to keep going to school. I respect liberal arts degrees much more than I do a 'practical' degree. Liberal arts degrees are what I consider the display of traditional knowledge and intelligence. Granted, they aren't worth too much in the real world, but they do create intelligent, cultured individuals that can actually contribute to discussion and evaluate ideas well. I suppose I'm just a sucker for the romanticized idea of a traditonal liberal arts education, a la This Side of Paradise. On the other hand, I do admit that this liberal arts education generally does nothing in the way of providing actual marketable job skills, hence the going to more school part. I guess I just think that gen. ed. classes should be more diverse and liberally oriented and kids should actually pay attention to them. I know that too many people here at Radford go into the marketing program and succeed in life, but they're terribly uneducated oafs. It bothers me that these morons have a degree that's equivalent to my own, yet I know I'm much more intelligent than them.[/u]

[Andy]

Any two people will have different aptitudes; I wouldn't look at these marketing people in such a condescending manner. I'm sure they could go into a lot of detail about the nature of human perception, that would confuse both of us.

Besides, success is the best measure of real-world intelligence. If these marketing guys are leading more successful lives, who's really making the stupid decision? Of course, I know success is a vague term.

And I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the practical sciences, humanities are massivly subsidized by those practical sciences on every level of human existance. The converse can't be said.

[sponge]

[Maf54]

[chuck]

I didn't say the practical sciences are bad. Some of the world's greatest philosophers were mathematicians and scientists. I just don't particularly like business schools being considered part of universities. I don't think they're analogous. Academia is essentially the antithesis to the business world, at least to my mind.

[sandmann]

I'm a philosophy major and find it very difficult to believe that I'm wasting my time.

First of all, there is more to an education than monetary return on investment. I'm learning a lot that has other uses -- mostly in improving my mental quality of life.

Second, if anyone could inform me how getting a Biochemistry degree would help me become an author and/or lawyer, that would be great.

Third, degrees in the hard sciences are utterly useless except in research. I can't use it in my non-work life (like I can use philosophy), and I can't use it anywhere except when I am actively researching.

So tell me, why am I wasting my time?

[James S]

Andy, but what kind of success are you talking about, and is it truly success to everyone? Success is in the eye of the person that achieves it.

Sandy, if you intend to go to professional school and or become a writer then you're not wasting your time because you're enjoying yourself. But you don't need any kind of degree to write, and you can have any kind of degree to go to law school. But for people that are cutting themselves off at undergrad ... what do they think a philosophy major will do for them, or an english major, or history.

And personally, I don't understand how reading Kant and Nietzsche and Aristotle makes for a happier life. These people are just people with their own view of what the would is like and what they prescribe it ought to be like. None of them are different from the other. Simply because they write a book about their ideas doesn't make their ideas any more valid or interesting. And their penchant for redefining ordinary words like "good" and "virtue" and "is" is tiresome. Univocal language does not increase the value of life, especially when, in order to understand them, one has to learn their version of an univocal language. And the next philosopher always claims to have skimmed one layer deeper into the metaphysics of reality. Aristotle thinks virtue is the life of morals and happiness, Kant believes that there's only one underlying moral, Nietzsche looks at the competitive world and thinks that the concept of an underlying moral is preached to make people happy. The next person comes along and claims that commercialism and materials breed that competitiveness and it's the natural state... Great, thanks, in the mean time, my trip to the supermarket hasn't changed, whether my "free spirit" has been awakened or not.
Philosophy is ultimately a bunch of arrogant people that think they've got it all figured out and so they decide to write a book. They're not making life any better, not even for themselves. O'Connor died of lupus, Nietzsche of syphilis ... the only thing they have to show for it is a couple books, a herd of Nazi's backing your ideas, and ... what, tell me. Why should I care about philosophers.

[Brig]

[chuck]