Total Posts:33|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Humanities LOL

Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2013 4:50:51 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
"Some professors flinch when they hear colleagues talking about the need to prepare students for jobs." http://www.nytimes.com...

Wait, you mean, the liberal arts university education was designed hundreds of years ago as an exclusive finishing school for upper-class men? And now we have to actually prepare young people for their careers?
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Logic_on_rails
Posts: 2,445
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2013 10:38:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
It is so good to see an OP with such depth, and comprehension of the linked articles within a source... So clearly has the entire source been analysed and a holistic view been given. Don't tell me a good humanities student wouldn't develop those skills... Tut tut.

The humanities are not the enemy of STEM, nor is STEM the enemy of the humanities. Both are required.

And another thing, you should take care to seem less arrogant. Trite babble proclaimed as learned condescension is not endearing in the slightest..
"Tis not in mortals to command success
But we"ll do more, Sempronius, we"ll deserve it
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2013 12:42:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Good. STEM is so much more imperative in our world than humanities- I'd much rather have people be working on nanotechnology than "a critical juxtaposition of the nature of language between pre-Enlightenemnt and post-Enlightement time periods."
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2013 12:53:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/3/2013 12:42:22 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Good. STEM is so much more imperative in our world than humanities- I'd much rather have people be working on nanotechnology than "a critical juxtaposition of the nature of language between pre-Enlightenemnt and post-Enlightement time periods."

STEM is more marketable, sure, but I don't see how that makes it more important than the humanities, in the broadest sense of what it means for an education to be important.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2013 12:54:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/2/2013 10:38:56 PM, Logic_on_rails wrote:
It is so good to see an OP with such depth, and comprehension of the linked articles within a source... So clearly has the entire source been analysed and a holistic view been given. Don't tell me a good humanities student wouldn't develop those skills... Tut tut.

The humanities are not the enemy of STEM, nor is STEM the enemy of the humanities. Both are required.

And another thing, you should take care to seem less arrogant. Trite babble proclaimed as learned condescension is not endearing in the slightest..

If you've read WSA's threads about sex/anarchy for the past 12 months, this really shouldn't surprise you.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2013 1:01:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/3/2013 12:53:01 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/3/2013 12:42:22 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Good. STEM is so much more imperative in our world than humanities- I'd much rather have people be working on nanotechnology than "a critical juxtaposition of the nature of language between pre-Enlightenemnt and post-Enlightement time periods."

STEM is more marketable, sure, but I don't see how that makes it more important than the humanities, in the broadest sense of what it means for an education to be important.

Because it provides real, tangible results that benefit society- humanities, most of the time, doesn't (especially current humanities).
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2013 1:06:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/3/2013 12:54:30 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/2/2013 10:38:56 PM, Logic_on_rails wrote:
It is so good to see an OP with such depth, and comprehension of the linked articles within a source... So clearly has the entire source been analysed and a holistic view been given. Don't tell me a good humanities student wouldn't develop those skills... Tut tut.

The humanities are not the enemy of STEM, nor is STEM the enemy of the humanities. Both are required.

And another thing, you should take care to seem less arrogant. Trite babble proclaimed as learned condescension is not endearing in the slightest..

If you've read WSA's threads about sex/anarchy for the past 12 months, this really shouldn't surprise you.

especially the part about "trite babble"
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2013 1:14:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/3/2013 1:01:43 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 11/3/2013 12:53:01 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/3/2013 12:42:22 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Good. STEM is so much more imperative in our world than humanities- I'd much rather have people be working on nanotechnology than "a critical juxtaposition of the nature of language between pre-Enlightenemnt and post-Enlightement time periods."

STEM is more marketable, sure, but I don't see how that makes it more important than the humanities, in the broadest sense of what it means for an education to be important.

Because it provides real, tangible results that benefit society- humanities, most of the time, doesn't (especially current humanities).

That's a very narrow subset of all the possible criteria by which one could reasonably assign value to something. If you measure philosophy by how many diseases it cures, or poetry by the number of buildings it erects, or history by whether it feeds the homeless, of course you'll get a poor result. But that's not the sort of value these things intend or pretend to offer. Bastiat's suggestion that we pay as much attention to the unseen as to the seen is instructive in this regard, and the value of the humanities (or, at least some of them) cannot (and should not) be sought in superficial material production. You will not find the humanities manufacturing nanotechnology, but you will find their various signatures inscribed in each and all of its uses. In a way, marginalizing thought for the sake of production only guarantees that the people who benefit from scientific discoveries are in no way worthy or capable of using or appreciating them.
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2013 2:01:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/3/2013 1:59:45 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 11/3/2013 1:53:14 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
Are you religious, by any chance?

No, not really.

Then Y U read St. Augustine and use religious metaphors in your sig?
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2013 2:12:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/3/2013 2:01:21 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 11/3/2013 1:59:45 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 11/3/2013 1:53:14 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
Are you religious, by any chance?

No, not really.

Then Y U read St. Augustine and use religious metaphors in your sig?

Theology offers a wide range of conceptual and literary tools. It is not necessary that I be religious to make free and guiltless use of them. In some ancient cultures (and perhaps even today), children consecrated their playthings to one or more deities by sacrificing them in temple, usually at an altar. This effected both a passage from childhood to adulthood and, at the same time, the relegation of toys and playtime to a forbidden zone of use. I see myself simply performing the contrary operation with respect to theology.
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2013 2:17:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/3/2013 2:12:44 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 11/3/2013 2:01:21 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 11/3/2013 1:59:45 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 11/3/2013 1:53:14 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
Are you religious, by any chance?

No, not really.

Then Y U read St. Augustine and use religious metaphors in your sig?

Theology offers a wide range of conceptual and literary tools. It is not necessary that I be religious to make free and guiltless use of them. In some ancient cultures (and perhaps even today), children consecrated their playthings to one or more deities by sacrificing them in temple, usually at an altar. This effected both a passage from childhood to adulthood and, at the same time, the relegation of toys and playtime to a forbidden zone of use. I see myself simply performing the contrary operation with respect to theology.

Well, do you consider yourself "spiritual?" Where do you stand on the plausibility of God, even if you probably don't consider the question important?
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2013 2:27:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/3/2013 2:17:46 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 11/3/2013 2:12:44 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
Theology offers a wide range of conceptual and literary tools. It is not necessary that I be religious to make free and guiltless use of them. In some ancient cultures (and perhaps even today), children consecrated their playthings to one or more deities by sacrificing them in temple, usually at an altar. This effected both a passage from childhood to adulthood and, at the same time, the relegation of toys and playtime to a forbidden zone of use. I see myself simply performing the contrary operation with respect to theology.

Well, do you consider yourself "spiritual?" Where do you stand on the plausibility of God, even if you probably don't consider the question important?

I do not consider myself spiritual. I also do not think the question is especially important--I do not think we can really answer questions like "Is there a God?", and that, in either case, we have no business waiting around to be saved. For my part, I do not think something like a perfect life can be found in hope of transcendence, or other worlds, or divine saviors. The hope of a day of glorious redemption (whether in the sense of a return of Christ, or of becoming Enlightened, or of revealing scientifically a final and decisive Truth) is, in my mind, futile and disappointing, and is really only representative of a failure to come to terms with transience, to encounter nihilism without being destroyed by it. In that sense, it isn't just that we cannot hope to answer the question of God, but that it isn't really a question we have reason to ask.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2013 3:16:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/3/2013 1:01:43 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 11/3/2013 12:53:01 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/3/2013 12:42:22 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Good. STEM is so much more imperative in our world than humanities- I'd much rather have people be working on nanotechnology than "a critical juxtaposition of the nature of language between pre-Enlightenemnt and post-Enlightement time periods."

STEM is more marketable, sure, but I don't see how that makes it more important than the humanities, in the broadest sense of what it means for an education to be important.

Because it provides real, tangible results that benefit society- humanities, most of the time, doesn't (especially current humanities).

Frankly, I think there's a legitimate debate to be had over whether the humanities as it exists currently is net harmful to society.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2013 3:44:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/3/2013 3:16:21 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/3/2013 1:01:43 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 11/3/2013 12:53:01 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/3/2013 12:42:22 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Good. STEM is so much more imperative in our world than humanities- I'd much rather have people be working on nanotechnology than "a critical juxtaposition of the nature of language between pre-Enlightenemnt and post-Enlightement time periods."

STEM is more marketable, sure, but I don't see how that makes it more important than the humanities, in the broadest sense of what it means for an education to be important.

Because it provides real, tangible results that benefit society- humanities, most of the time, doesn't (especially current humanities).

Frankly, I think there's a legitimate debate to be had over whether the humanities as it exists currently is net harmful to society.

and Frankly, I think there's a legitimate debate to be lost over that....
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
ClassicRobert
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2013 3:48:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/3/2013 3:44:00 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/3/2013 3:16:21 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/3/2013 1:01:43 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 11/3/2013 12:53:01 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/3/2013 12:42:22 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Good. STEM is so much more imperative in our world than humanities- I'd much rather have people be working on nanotechnology than "a critical juxtaposition of the nature of language between pre-Enlightenemnt and post-Enlightement time periods."

STEM is more marketable, sure, but I don't see how that makes it more important than the humanities, in the broadest sense of what it means for an education to be important.

Because it provides real, tangible results that benefit society- humanities, most of the time, doesn't (especially current humanities).

Frankly, I think there's a legitimate debate to be had over whether the humanities as it exists currently is net harmful to society.

and Frankly, I think there's a legitimate debate to be lost over that....
Debate me: Economic decision theory should be adjusted to include higher-order preferences for non-normative purposes http://www.debate.org...

Do you really believe that? Or not? If you believe it, you should man up and defend it in a debate. -RoyLatham

My Pet Fish is such a Douche- NiamC

It's an app to meet friends and stuff, sort of like an adult club penguin- Thett3, describing Tinder
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2013 4:10:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/3/2013 3:44:00 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/3/2013 3:16:21 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/3/2013 1:01:43 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 11/3/2013 12:53:01 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/3/2013 12:42:22 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Good. STEM is so much more imperative in our world than humanities- I'd much rather have people be working on nanotechnology than "a critical juxtaposition of the nature of language between pre-Enlightenemnt and post-Enlightement time periods."

STEM is more marketable, sure, but I don't see how that makes it more important than the humanities, in the broadest sense of what it means for an education to be important.

Because it provides real, tangible results that benefit society- humanities, most of the time, doesn't (especially current humanities).

Frankly, I think there's a legitimate debate to be had over whether the humanities as it exists currently is net harmful to society.

and Frankly, I think there's a legitimate debate to be lost over that....

By your standard for sure. I see it as a corrupting influence for its promotion of ideals you hold.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2013 4:13:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Present day humanities is essentially a breeding house of parrots disposing the world over the anti-life philosophy of the dark ages. Whether that is better or worse than the chaos of aimless destruction I don't know.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2013 10:59:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/3/2013 4:13:38 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Present day humanities is essentially a breeding house of parrots disposing the world over the anti-life philosophy of the dark ages. Whether that is better or worse than the chaos of aimless destruction I don't know.

Given the factual impossibility for anyone, particularly someone who has not engaged in a lifetime of relevant scholarship, to even begin to apprehend, much less process, the volume of information implied in such a statement, you will understand my suspicion concerning this claim. At the very least, the idea of the humanities consisting in a bunch of parroting is, in my experience, the opposite of what's true. This is not to say that there is much originality (I have my own problems with features of the academy), but that, contrarily, employment in most departments is very competitive, which leads to a lot of scholarly nitpicking in an attempt to make a name for oneself. There is a kind of parroting, because many papers often take the form of "exactly what this other person said, except modification", but, assuming I understand you correctly, I have not yet encountered the species of conformism to which you gesture (and I would argue I have adequate experience with Ayn Rand, verifiable through research into my deep forum history, to make a guess at the sort of thing you're talking about).
thett3
Posts: 14,349
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2013 11:20:29 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/3/2013 3:48:03 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
At 11/3/2013 3:44:00 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/3/2013 3:16:21 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/3/2013 1:01:43 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 11/3/2013 12:53:01 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/3/2013 12:42:22 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Good. STEM is so much more imperative in our world than humanities- I'd much rather have people be working on nanotechnology than "a critical juxtaposition of the nature of language between pre-Enlightenemnt and post-Enlightement time periods."

STEM is more marketable, sure, but I don't see how that makes it more important than the humanities, in the broadest sense of what it means for an education to be important.

Because it provides real, tangible results that benefit society- humanities, most of the time, doesn't (especially current humanities).

Frankly, I think there's a legitimate debate to be had over whether the humanities as it exists currently is net harmful to society.

and Frankly, I think there's a legitimate debate to be lost over that....
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2013 5:20:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/3/2013 10:59:39 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 11/3/2013 4:13:38 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Present day humanities is essentially a breeding house of parrots disposing the world over the anti-life philosophy of the dark ages. Whether that is better or worse than the chaos of aimless destruction I don't know.

Given the factual impossibility for anyone, particularly someone who has not engaged in a lifetime of relevant scholarship, to even begin to apprehend, much less process, the volume of information implied in such a statement, you will understand my suspicion concerning this claim. At the very least, the idea of the humanities consisting in a bunch of parroting is, in my experience, the opposite of what's true. This is not to say that there is much originality (I have my own problems with features of the academy), but that, contrarily, employment in most departments is very competitive, which leads to a lot of scholarly nitpicking in an attempt to make a name for oneself. There is a kind of parroting, because many papers often take the form of "exactly what this other person said, except modification", but, assuming I understand you correctly, I have not yet encountered the species of conformism to which you gesture (and I would argue I have adequate experience with Ayn Rand, verifiable through research into my deep forum history, to make a guess at the sort of thing you're talking about).

The is precisely the kind of parroting I'm talking about. The publish or perish precedent academics are faced with pushes them to modify for modication's sake. There is merely the semblance of change. Dissent from fundamentals means exclusion from the intellectual scene academia has completely monopolized. People are allowed to make little, tentative moves forward (or should that be backward) but are not allowed to do anything too radical. The humanities as a whole has a glaring and overwhelming slant to the left. It dogmatically preaches collectivist ideals, actively smearing, misrepresenting or ignoring ideas which don't agree. I don't mean to say that you're a parrot, nor that the humanities has no positive elements or independent thinkers. Just that, overall, there is urgent need for reform.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2013 6:46:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
With STEM fields, there are at least some natural barriers to absurdity. The humanities, however, run unchecked and unchallenged in their propagation of distorted and depraved notions. Walk into any philosophy classroom and you will be taught that you can't know and that life is guilt. They are teaching the kind of stuff that would necessarily bring us to disaster.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2013 6:49:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/4/2013 6:46:03 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
With STEM fields, there are at least some natural barriers to absurdity. The humanities, however, run unchecked and unchallenged in their propagation of distorted and depraved notions. Walk into any philosophy classroom and you will be taught that you can't know and that life is guilt. They are teaching the kind of stuff that would necessarily bring us to disaster.

Not that I know anything about how the system works, but I thought the point of an education in philosophy was to be knowledgeable about philosophy,... not to adhere to one school of thought within it.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2013 6:52:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/4/2013 6:49:11 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/4/2013 6:46:03 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
With STEM fields, there are at least some natural barriers to absurdity. The humanities, however, run unchecked and unchallenged in their propagation of distorted and depraved notions. Walk into any philosophy classroom and you will be taught that you can't know and that life is guilt. They are teaching the kind of stuff that would necessarily bring us to disaster.

Not that I know anything about how the system works, but I thought the point of an education in philosophy was to be knowledgeable about philosophy,... not to adhere to one school of thought within it.

Ideally, yes. But in reality, impartiality is the exception, not the rule.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2013 7:27:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/4/2013 6:49:11 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/4/2013 6:46:03 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
With STEM fields, there are at least some natural barriers to absurdity. The humanities, however, run unchecked and unchallenged in their propagation of distorted and depraved notions. Walk into any philosophy classroom and you will be taught that you can't know and that life is guilt. They are teaching the kind of stuff that would necessarily bring us to disaster.

Not that I know anything about how the system works, but I thought the point of an education in philosophy was to be knowledgeable about philosophy,... not to adhere to one school of thought within it.

Except that most philosophy is absolutely bullsh!t conjecture. Solipsism is an excellent example, as it attempts to portray this deep understanding of reality while providing no evidence. Theories and evidence must go hand in hand to accomplish something, and philosophy doesn't provide any evidence.

Regardless, even if we do live in a Matrix or if you're the only person who is truly alive, how would that affect your daily life? More often than not, it wouldn't. Philosophy requires a pragmatist approach, e.x. objective reality.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."