Total Posts:37|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

do schools kill creativity?

headphonegut
Posts: 4,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2010 6:24:32 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
what I mean is does the American school system kill creativity we have seen that in kids with disorders that doctors give them pills and tell them to calm down, or when students must conform to enforced rules that are employed by the no child left behind act. watch this video please give feed back.
crying to soldiers coming home to their dogs why do I torment myself with these videos?
USAPitBull63
Posts: 668
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2010 8:35:32 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
One can be creative and still "conform" to civilized societies.

And if one sees these as mutually exclusive, then (s)he should be more creative.
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2010 8:41:09 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
do schools kill creativity?
It's pretty good at it. Thank god it doesn't work on absolutely everyone.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
homework
Posts: 31
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2010 12:55:48 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/2/2010 6:24:32 PM, headphonegut wrote:
what I mean is does the American school system kill creativity we have seen that in kids with disorders that doctors give them pills and tell them to calm down, or when students must conform to enforced rules that are employed by the no child left behind act. watch this video please give feed back.


There aren't a lot of technological inventors who didn't go to school in the modern age. Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Einstein, some of the most creative people on Earth went to school. Certainly didn't kill their creativity. And how do you know if the rest of the school-going bunch who didn't come up with a theory of relativity got their creativity killed by school or were just never that creative in the first place?
Psychologists think they're experimental psychologists
Experimental psychologists think they're biologists
Biologists think they're biochemists
Biochemists think they're chemists
Chemists think they're physical chemists
Physical chemists think they're physicists
Physicists think they're theoretical physicists
Theoretical physicists think they're mathematicians
Mathematicians think they're metamathematicians
Metamathematicians think they're philosophers
Philosophers think they're Gods
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2010 1:00:09 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/6/2010 12:55:48 AM, homework wrote:
At 4/2/2010 6:24:32 PM, headphonegut wrote:
what I mean is does the American school system kill creativity we have seen that in kids with disorders that doctors give them pills and tell them to calm down, or when students must conform to enforced rules that are employed by the no child left behind act. watch this video please give feed back.


There aren't a lot of technological inventors who didn't go to school in the modern age. Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Einstein, some of the most creative people on Earth went to school. Certainly didn't kill their creativity.
Your response implies that technological innovation [beyond what all of human society has accomplished up to that point in time] is the only form of creativity, which is simply not true.
And how do you know if the rest of the school-going bunch who didn't come up with a theory of relativity got their creativity killed by school or were just never that creative in the first place?
We don't. You can't experiment on humans and get accurate results on any question, and definitely on whether or not people are more creative.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2010 1:01:51 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Guille School of Execution:

We don't kill creativity, but we sure kill creatively!
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2010 1:05:28 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/6/2010 1:00:09 AM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 4/6/2010 12:55:48 AM, homework wrote:
And how do you know if the rest of the school-going bunch who didn't come up with a theory of relativity got their creativity killed by school or were just never that creative in the first place?
We don't. You can't experiment on humans and get accurate results on any question, and definitely on whether or not people are more creative.

Clarification: I meant non-biological issues.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
homework
Posts: 31
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2010 1:40:29 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/6/2010 1:00:09 AM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 4/6/2010 12:55:48 AM, homework wrote:
At 4/2/2010 6:24:32 PM, headphonegut wrote:
what I mean is does the American school system kill creativity we have seen that in kids with disorders that doctors give them pills and tell them to calm down, or when students must conform to enforced rules that are employed by the no child left behind act. watch this video please give feed back.


There aren't a lot of technological inventors who didn't go to school in the modern age. Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Einstein, some of the most creative people on Earth went to school. Certainly didn't kill their creativity.
Your response implies that technological innovation [beyond what all of human society has accomplished up to that point in time] is the only form of creativity, which is simply not true.
And how do you know if the rest of the school-going bunch who didn't come up with a theory of relativity got their creativity killed by school or were just never that creative in the first place?
We don't. You can't experiment on humans and get accurate results on any question, and definitely on whether or not people are more creative.

I guess you can say that school thwarts some types of creativity but allow other types to blossom. But if we answer it this way, then the answer is definitely yes, there must be at least 1 instance where school thwarted creativity, so school does thwart creativity. But I think the question was more general than that, more of a cost-benefit of the effect of school on creativity in general. =/
Psychologists think they're experimental psychologists
Experimental psychologists think they're biologists
Biologists think they're biochemists
Biochemists think they're chemists
Chemists think they're physical chemists
Physical chemists think they're physicists
Physicists think they're theoretical physicists
Theoretical physicists think they're mathematicians
Mathematicians think they're metamathematicians
Metamathematicians think they're philosophers
Philosophers think they're Gods
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2010 8:43:29 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/6/2010 1:40:29 AM, homework wrote:
At 4/6/2010 1:00:09 AM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 4/6/2010 12:55:48 AM, homework wrote:
At 4/2/2010 6:24:32 PM, headphonegut wrote:
what I mean is does the American school system kill creativity we have seen that in kids with disorders that doctors give them pills and tell them to calm down, or when students must conform to enforced rules that are employed by the no child left behind act. watch this video please give feed back.


There aren't a lot of technological inventors who didn't go to school in the modern age. Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Einstein, some of the most creative people on Earth went to school. Certainly didn't kill their creativity.
Your response implies that technological innovation [beyond what all of human society has accomplished up to that point in time] is the only form of creativity, which is simply not true.
And how do you know if the rest of the school-going bunch who didn't come up with a theory of relativity got their creativity killed by school or were just never that creative in the first place?
We don't. You can't experiment on humans and get accurate results on any question, and definitely on whether or not people are more creative.

I guess you can say that school thwarts some types of creativity but allow other types to blossom. But if we answer it this way, then the answer is definitely yes, there must be at least 1 instance where school thwarted creativity, so school does thwart creativity. But I think the question was more general than that, more of a cost-benefit of the effect of school on creativity in general. =/

Your first response shows quite clearly how you don't think that. Now you're just straw manning me, and intentionally too, as my first response is explicitly what you just changed your position to.

At 4/2/2010 8:41:09 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
do schools kill creativity?
It's pretty good at it. Thank god it doesn't work on absolutely everyone.

As for "allows other types to blossom", you're gonna have to give a proof for that.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
homework
Posts: 31
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2010 3:04:54 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
i don't know how to selectively quote, so I'll just use " ".

"Your first response shows quite clearly how you don't think that. Now you're just straw manning me, and intentionally too, as my first response is explicitly what you just changed your position to."

I thought my response to your response was actually a revision of my position given your input, which i didn't contest. I just thought that this new position doesn't serve the purposes of answering the intended question very well.

"As for "allows other types to blossom", you're gonna have to give a proof for that."

Einstein probably wouldn't have came up with the theory of relativity if he didn't learn high school algebra.
Psychologists think they're experimental psychologists
Experimental psychologists think they're biologists
Biologists think they're biochemists
Biochemists think they're chemists
Chemists think they're physical chemists
Physical chemists think they're physicists
Physicists think they're theoretical physicists
Theoretical physicists think they're mathematicians
Mathematicians think they're metamathematicians
Metamathematicians think they're philosophers
Philosophers think they're Gods
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2010 3:13:24 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/6/2010 3:04:54 PM, homework wrote:
i don't know how to selectively quote, so I'll just use " ".

"Your first response shows quite clearly how you don't think that. Now you're just straw manning me, and intentionally too, as my first response is explicitly what you just changed your position to."

I thought my response to your response was actually a revision of my position given your input, which i didn't contest. I just thought that this new position doesn't serve the purposes of answering the intended question very well.
Then I'm not sure why you would revise in a direction which will always lead to meaninglessness. My own first response showed quite clearly that I was not thinking in "Does school [ever] kill creativity [in anyone]?".

"As for "allows other types to blossom", you're gonna have to give a proof for that."

Einstein probably wouldn't have came up with the theory of relativity if he didn't learn high school algebra.
Assumes that high school level algebra could not be taught without the public school system, which is not true. I'm sure it doesn't feel that way to a person that repeated the course ;P
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
homework
Posts: 31
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2010 3:28:45 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
"Then I'm not sure why you would revise in a direction which will always lead to meaninglessness."

That's how I roll.

"Assumes that high school level algebra could not be taught without the public school system, which is not true. I'm sure it doesn't feel that way to a person that repeated the course ;P"

the question is in regards to school's effect on creativity. If algebra taught in high school allowed einstein to reach his creative potential, then it did help his creativity. Yes, school is not NECESSARY for algebra, but neither is DDR to debate. But DDR still helps people better their skills.
Psychologists think they're experimental psychologists
Experimental psychologists think they're biologists
Biologists think they're biochemists
Biochemists think they're chemists
Chemists think they're physical chemists
Physical chemists think they're physicists
Physicists think they're theoretical physicists
Theoretical physicists think they're mathematicians
Mathematicians think they're metamathematicians
Metamathematicians think they're philosophers
Philosophers think they're Gods
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2010 4:02:54 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/6/2010 3:28:45 PM, homework wrote:
"Then I'm not sure why you would revise in a direction which will always lead to meaninglessness."

That's how I roll.
You'll fit in nicely with R_R as the semantics guys then.

"Assumes that high school level algebra could not be taught without the public school system, which is not true. I'm sure it doesn't feel that way to a person that repeated the course ;P"

the question is in regards to school's effect on creativity. If algebra taught in high school allowed einstein to reach his creative potential, then it did help his creativity. Yes, school is not NECESSARY for algebra, but neither is DDR to debate. But DDR still helps people better their skills.
True enough (though to be sure I am clueless as to how Dance Dance Revolution helps people better their debate skills).

Doubtless there are people who without school, would not in their course of life learn certain skill sets. That's not the point of the question, though, if we want to aim for meaning. The question is, do schools have a net negative effect on creativity? I probably wouldn't have learned the right hand rule or the quadratic equation if I didn't go to school, and perhaps I'll use them in the future, but that doesn't say anything about the other possible effects that school has had on me. Perhaps it has influenced me, by my failure in elementary school to understand english, to not become a great philosophical or poetry writer due to hazing, ostracizing, and its legacy? In that sense, has it not killed my creativity, at least in that direction?

The question of this topic is, if I understand it correctly, what we believe are the net effects of school. The effects that anything has on a person has both seen and unseen consequences. And you are not considering the unseen.

Which is perfectly fine, if that's what you want. That perspective will always lead you to happy endings no matter what you or anyone else does, because there is always a beneficial justification for every cause and every effect from someone out there.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
homework
Posts: 31
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2010 6:38:36 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
"though to be sure I am clueless as to how Dance Dance Revolution helps people better their debate skills" LOL
DDR - Debate Dot Org. I hope you were joking XD you've been here at least 20 times longer than me

"Doubtless there are people who without school, would not in their course of life learn certain skill sets. That's not the point of the question, though, if we want to aim for meaning. The question is, do schools have a net negative effect on creativity? I probably wouldn't have learned the right hand rule or the quadratic equation if I didn't go to school, and perhaps I'll use them in the future, but that doesn't say anything about the other possible effects that school has had on me. Perhaps it has influenced me, by my failure in elementary school to understand english, to not become a great philosophical or poetry writer due to hazing, ostracizing, and its legacy? In that sense, has it not killed my creativity, at least in that direction?

The question of this topic is, if I understand it correctly, what we believe are the net effects of school. The effects that anything has on a person has both seen and unseen consequences. And you are not considering the unseen.

Which is perfectly fine, if that's what you want. That perspective will always lead you to happy endings no matter what you or anyone else does, because there is always a beneficial justification for every cause and every effect from someone out there."

Then I guess this is about the time we come to the realization that any semblance of an accurate answer to this question almost impossible. Unless you want to go through the time of defining what constitutes positive effects and negative effects on creativity, and then somehow using those guidelines to calculate pos v neg for all schools, PLUS getting people to agree to the definitions of pos-neg. Yikes.

As unaccurate as "in my experience" answers are, I guess it's better than doing all that. But answering the question this way while knowing that there's an inherent lack of accuracy kind of defeats answering the question at all, eh?
Psychologists think they're experimental psychologists
Experimental psychologists think they're biologists
Biologists think they're biochemists
Biochemists think they're chemists
Chemists think they're physical chemists
Physical chemists think they're physicists
Physicists think they're theoretical physicists
Theoretical physicists think they're mathematicians
Mathematicians think they're metamathematicians
Metamathematicians think they're philosophers
Philosophers think they're Gods
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2010 6:53:02 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/6/2010 6:38:36 PM, homework wrote:
Then I guess this is about the time we come to the realization that any semblance of an accurate answer to this question almost impossible. Unless you want to go through the time of defining what constitutes positive effects and negative effects on creativity, and then somehow using those guidelines to calculate pos v neg for all schools, PLUS getting people to agree to the definitions of pos-neg. Yikes.
You don't have to go through all of those things. Just give your own judgement on what's good and bad, and answer the question. There is such a thing as intuitive sens that falls apart upon strict inspection, but otherwise provides accurate conclusions most of the time. One doesn't really have to go through a college philosophy course to have a vague sense of what's right and wrong.

As unaccurate as "in my experience" answers are, I guess it's better than doing all that. But answering the question this way while knowing that there's an inherent lack of accuracy kind of defeats answering the question at all, eh?
Not particularly. Depends on the degree of significance you give to those inherent lacks of accuracy. I find the inherent lack of accuracy in pinpointing responsibility in the bureaucracy of the state a big enough problem to not give a crap about what "the real issues are". Most people don't. You find the inherent lack of accuracy in judgment on whether or not schools kill creativity a big enough problem so that you won't answer the question. I don't.

There's an inherent lack of accuracy in language because language for every person is different, what each word means to each person differs based on heir experience in learning the word, and what concepts are associated to each word.

Most people really couldn't care less that it even exists.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
homework
Posts: 31
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2010 6:58:02 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I guess we'll just agree to disagree as usual.

But just 1 more comment before this thread dies, since it's just been us 2 for awhile.

Stop bashing on philosophy! D:
Psychologists think they're experimental psychologists
Experimental psychologists think they're biologists
Biologists think they're biochemists
Biochemists think they're chemists
Chemists think they're physical chemists
Physical chemists think they're physicists
Physicists think they're theoretical physicists
Theoretical physicists think they're mathematicians
Mathematicians think they're metamathematicians
Metamathematicians think they're philosophers
Philosophers think they're Gods
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2010 7:07:36 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/6/2010 6:58:02 PM, homework wrote:
I guess we'll just agree to disagree as usual.

But just 1 more comment before this thread dies, since it's just been us 2 for awhile.

Stop bashing on [institutionalized] philosophy! D:

No :D
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
homework
Posts: 31
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2010 7:16:48 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
meh. I guess I won't let it die just yet.

What's wrong with institutional philosophy?
Psychologists think they're experimental psychologists
Experimental psychologists think they're biologists
Biologists think they're biochemists
Biochemists think they're chemists
Chemists think they're physical chemists
Physical chemists think they're physicists
Physicists think they're theoretical physicists
Theoretical physicists think they're mathematicians
Mathematicians think they're metamathematicians
Metamathematicians think they're philosophers
Philosophers think they're Gods
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2010 7:47:09 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/6/2010 7:16:48 PM, homework wrote:
meh. I guess I won't let it die just yet.

What's wrong with institutional philosophy?

Institutionalized Philosophy: Old fat farts who got rich out of pretending to be productive twist the minds of young people to become intellectuals who will also become old fat farts who get rich out of pretending to be productive, all the while making them cocky and useless as hell - just like they are!


Philosophy, from my point of view, should be useful. All knowledge should be useful. If you cannot link every single piece of knowledge directly or indirectly back to reality and your own life and what you do or can do, it is useless except for pretending that you're using it usefully, i.e. writing up books and papers and giving speeches.

I don't count that as being productive.
I count that as mental masturbation.

I'm sure institutionalized philosophy does teach some philosophy that is useful and each person could do it on their own if they just thought about it a little. They definitely do in the beginning courses, I'm sure. But just as it is with this topic on school, they work like disinformation agents - give you some stuff you can use, then once you've bought into it and think they are truth prophets, they flood you with disconnected fluff and intellectual high-nose attitude.

I'm sure there are Einsteins out there who come out of philosophy programs and can link most or maybe even every last idea back to reality.

But I don't need that. And by what I identify as my main sources of inspiration and food for thought, I don't think anyone else does either.

I just watch anime.
And maybe a couple of novels every now and then.

And I think I'm pretty well off in terms of epistemology and semantics and such in basic aka useful philosophy. If I can do it, so can mos other people. It's really not that deep or hard.

It definitely isn't as lofty as the institutions paint them as.

I see it as fraud.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2010 8:24:12 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/6/2010 7:47:09 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
It definitely isn't as lofty as the institutions paint them as.

I see it as fraud.

From what I've seen "philosophers" don't usually misrepresent themselves.

they generally prize being straightforward and understandable.

And my (institutional) philosophy teachers certainly haven't presented philosophy as something on a pedestal, but rather something accessible to everyone.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2010 9:02:12 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/6/2010 8:24:12 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 4/6/2010 7:47:09 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
It definitely isn't as lofty as the institutions paint them as.

I see it as fraud.

From what I've seen "philosophers" don't usually misrepresent themselves.

they generally prize being straightforward and understandable.

And my (institutional) philosophy teachers certainly haven't presented philosophy as something on a pedestal, but rather something accessible to everyone.

Okay. Perhaps I will change my mind later when I have experience more like this myself.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2010 9:05:43 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/6/2010 8:24:12 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 4/6/2010 7:47:09 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
It definitely isn't as lofty as the institutions paint them as.

I see it as fraud.

From what I've seen "philosophers" don't usually misrepresent themselves.

they generally prize being straightforward and understandable.

And my (institutional) philosophy teachers certainly haven't presented philosophy as something on a pedestal, but rather something accessible to everyone.

Haha, have you read professional philosophers? Most of them are seemingly purposefully obfuscatory. :P
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2010 9:14:59 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/6/2010 9:05:43 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/6/2010 8:24:12 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 4/6/2010 7:47:09 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
It definitely isn't as lofty as the institutions paint them as.

I see it as fraud.

From what I've seen "philosophers" don't usually misrepresent themselves.

they generally prize being straightforward and understandable.

And my (institutional) philosophy teachers certainly haven't presented philosophy as something on a pedestal, but rather something accessible to everyone.

Haha, have you read professional philosophers? Most of them are seemingly purposefully obfuscatory. :P

The Kantians maybe.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2010 2:21:20 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/7/2010 2:11:17 AM, Puck wrote:
At 4/6/2010 9:14:59 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
The Kantians maybe.

You Kant know that for sure though. >.>

Why so Punny? :)
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
homework
Posts: 31
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2010 1:34:28 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
" young people to become intellectuals who will also become old fat farts who get rich out of pretending to be productive, all the while making them cocky and useless as hell - just like they are!"

1)Why do you get to judge what's useful and what's not?
2)The median income for a P F*ING HD in philosophy is 80-90k a year. My mom makes more than that with a f*ing associates degree. Not really the lifestyle of rich old fat farts...
http://www.payscale.com...(PhD),_Philosophy/Salary
http://www.payscale.com...(PhD),_Philosophy/Salary
3) Have you ever met or red a professional philosopher? If you have, what made you think of them as cocky? And if you haven't, just what are you basing this accusation off of?

"Philosophy, from my point of view, should be useful. All knowledge should be useful. If you cannot link every single piece of knowledge directly or indirectly back to reality and your own life and what you do or can do, it is useless except for pretending that you're using it usefully, i.e. writing up books and papers and giving speeches."

You do realize people have different definitions of "useful" than you? Mayhaps useful for some isn't just useful for a job or useful as in "productive"? Useful in terms of feeding the soul, useful as in excercizing the intellect, finding a different way of thinking, is an end in itself? Why isn't finding a different way of thinking applicable to "your own life", and why isn't finding a different way of thinking "what you do or can do"? Why is it justifiable to say that your conception of "usefulness" is the brand that is okay, but those other brands are either not to be acknowledged or inferior?

"I count that as mental masturbation."

Nietzsche came to a mental meltdown cause of philosophizing, finding that the meaning of the world is total nihilism, and spent a good part of his life in an insane ward. He must have been allergic to masturbation.

"once you've bought into it and think they are truth prophets, they flood you with disconnected fluff and intellectual high-nose attitude."

disconnected from the "usefulness" you mentioned earlier? Then this point is already answered.

"intellectual high-nose attitude?" You need to clarify what this means.

"But I don't need that. And by what I identify as my main sources of inspiration and food for thought, I don't think anyone else does either.
I just watch anime.
And maybe a couple of novels every now and then."


Good for you, you get all the inspiration and food for thought u need from anime and novels, and you don't need institutional philosophy. But the problem arises when you say

"I don't think anyone else does either"

That's a strong statement. From your unique intellectual journey, you have concluded that no one else needs different resources than you on that journey? You're confident enough to say that "these inspirations and food for thought, which are enough for me, ought to be enough for anyone"? That's especially weird considering you being an anarchist. It would be like me saying "the evidence I have seen which satisfies me in proving the good intent of the government, ought to be enough evidence for anyone". It's clearly not true for you, you kept digging for more evidence. Why should it be different for "intellectuals"?

"I see it as fraud."

It would only be fraud if they lied about what they're giving you. Do you know what they they say they're giving?

Holy cow this is interesting. :D
Psychologists think they're experimental psychologists
Experimental psychologists think they're biologists
Biologists think they're biochemists
Biochemists think they're chemists
Chemists think they're physical chemists
Physical chemists think they're physicists
Physicists think they're theoretical physicists
Theoretical physicists think they're mathematicians
Mathematicians think they're metamathematicians
Metamathematicians think they're philosophers
Philosophers think they're Gods
homework
Posts: 31
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2010 1:40:15 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
oops, the links I gave are bad, the URL is too long. I guess you'll have to copy and paste into address bar

payscale dot com/research/US/Degree=Doctorate_(PhD),_Philosophy/Salary

education-portal dot com/
articles/Doctor_of_Philosophy_(PhD)_in_Education:_Online_Degree.html
Psychologists think they're experimental psychologists
Experimental psychologists think they're biologists
Biologists think they're biochemists
Biochemists think they're chemists
Chemists think they're physical chemists
Physical chemists think they're physicists
Physicists think they're theoretical physicists
Theoretical physicists think they're mathematicians
Mathematicians think they're metamathematicians
Metamathematicians think they're philosophers
Philosophers think they're Gods
homework
Posts: 31
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2010 1:43:10 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
this is way off topic, Ima start a new thread in society called "institutional philosophy".
Psychologists think they're experimental psychologists
Experimental psychologists think they're biologists
Biologists think they're biochemists
Biochemists think they're chemists
Chemists think they're physical chemists
Physical chemists think they're physicists
Physicists think they're theoretical physicists
Theoretical physicists think they're mathematicians
Mathematicians think they're metamathematicians
Metamathematicians think they're philosophers
Philosophers think they're Gods