# 'Why Study Philosophy'



## midcan5

I often read that students should study some field of knowledge that leads to productive work. But consider that my eventual working world did not even exist when I started college. My degree was eventually in Liberal Arts as I was never sure what I wanted to be when I grew up. When you examine the degrees of many of the national leaders in technology or business, their degree is often not related to their work. How is that, some  even dropped out of school. So then maybe we need to ask what makes a person a good citizen and a productive member of society. Could it be a liberal education steeped in philosophy? 

"Is a liberal arts education for everyone? Probably not. Some people would rather do just about anything than major in philosophy, and that is fine. *But a liberal arts education forms students to be a thoughtful and concerned citizens, and that is the subtext here. Educated, concerned citizens arent going to sit back and let the economic elite run the show.* McCrory can critique the educated elite all that he wants, but when you pal around with the likes of Art Pope you really have no business accusing anyone else of elitism.

McCrory himself studied political science and education. Bennett, who was interviewing him, has a PhD in  you guessed it  philosophy. *The underlying assumption appears to be that if youre part of the upper class, you can enjoy the luxury of a liberal arts education. If youre lower or middle class, the public institutions that are supposed to be part of the mythical American dream, that level playing field, should only offer courses in skilled trades.* Wealthy young people will get a liberal arts education. Poor and middle class young people will choose a trade."

Femmonite: Notes from an Employed Philosopher


----------



## Michelle420

midcan5 said:


> I often read that students should study some field of knowledge that leads to productive work. But consider that my eventual working world did not even exist when I started college. My degree was eventually in Liberal Arts as I was never sure what I wanted to be when I grew up. When you examine the degrees of many of the national leaders in technology or business, their degree is often not related to their work. How is that, some  even dropped out of school. So then maybe we need to ask what makes a person a good citizen and a productive member of society. Could it be a liberal education steeped in philosophy?
> 
> "Is a liberal arts education for everyone? Probably not. Some people would rather do just about anything than major in philosophy, and that is fine. *But a liberal arts education forms students to be a thoughtful and concerned citizens, and that is the subtext here. Educated, concerned citizens arent going to sit back and let the economic elite run the show.* McCrory can critique the educated elite all that he wants, but when you pal around with the likes of Art Pope you really have no business accusing anyone else of elitism.
> 
> McCrory himself studied political science and education. Bennett, who was interviewing him, has a PhD in  you guessed it  philosophy. *The underlying assumption appears to be that if youre part of the upper class, you can enjoy the luxury of a liberal arts education. If youre lower or middle class, the public institutions that are supposed to be part of the mythical American dream, that level playing field, should only offer courses in skilled trades.* Wealthy young people will get a liberal arts education. Poor and middle class young people will choose a trade."
> 
> Femmonite: Notes from an Employed Philosopher



I have noticed a lot of law students were steeped in philosophy classes in undergraduate schooling.

I like to read some philosophy just because I get a different viewpoint or insight into ways of looking at things in life.

I have more of a preference in studying social theories though.


----------



## Skull Pilot

There is no need at all to go to college to study liberal arts.

You can do it on your own for free.  The funny thing is that the public is convinced that they have to spend tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars to read a book.


----------



## dblack

My oldest is getting his PhD in philosophy. His goal is a tenure track teaching position out of school, but that's tough to pull off. But the odds have been against him all along and he knocks down every barrier in his way, so I'm not too worried. Even if that doesn't pan out, he'll be prepared for any number of professional jobs out of school. He's a pretty good framing carpenter too.


----------



## Michelle420

Skull Pilot said:


> There is no need at all to go to college to study liberal arts.
> 
> You can do it on your own for free.  The funny thing is that the public is convinced that they have to spend tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars to read a book.



Well I agree with you about the free education.

I think it's BS that the government "requires" a college degree for some types of jobs.

It's just a way to make money off people.

But as far as your comment on getting your own education with books, absolutely.


----------



## Michelle420

dblack said:


> My oldest is getting his PhD in philosophy. His goal is a tenure track teaching position out of school, but that's tough to pull off. But the odds have been against him all along and he knocks down every barrier in his way, so I'm not too worried. Even if that doesn't pan out, he'll be prepared for any number of professional jobs out of school. He's a pretty good framing carpenter too.



He's a dedicated person !


----------



## Wry Catcher

Reading philosophy is an active event, much like reading a book on Mathematics or legal judgments.  The authors, translators and editors of works of the great philosophers are not often the best writers, for their efforts to cover all bases leads to many parenthetic paragraphs.  Most works require intense concentration and note taking.

The payoff is worth it.  When the light bulb goes off it's like hitting the game winning home run or sinking that last second basket.


----------



## dblack

drifter said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no need at all to go to college to study liberal arts.
> 
> You can do it on your own for free.  The funny thing is that the public is convinced that they have to spend tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars to read a book.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well I agree with you about the free education.
> 
> I think it's BS that the government "requires" a college degree for some types of jobs.
> 
> It's just a way to make money off people.
> 
> But as far as your comment on getting your own education with books, absolutely.
Click to expand...


Hmmm... this could be an whole 'nuther thread, wherein I expound on the co-opting of public education as a screening service for business, rather than genuine liberal education. In a nutshell, education should about teaching, not evaluating, endorsing or otherwise 'vetting', students.


----------



## Michelle420

dblack said:


> drifter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no need at all to go to college to study liberal arts.
> 
> You can do it on your own for free.  The funny thing is that the public is convinced that they have to spend tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars to read a book.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well I agree with you about the free education.
> 
> I think it's BS that the government "requires" a college degree for some types of jobs.
> 
> It's just a way to make money off people.
> 
> But as far as your comment on getting your own education with books, absolutely.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmmm... this could be an whole 'nuther thread, wherein I expound on the co-opting of public education as a screening service for business, rather than genuine liberal education. In a nutshell, education should about teaching, not evaluating, endorsing or otherwise 'vetting', students.
Click to expand...


Make a thread on that topic we can go there and see if anyone else has a different perspective. Send me a link please.


----------



## Friends

dblack said:


> My oldest is getting his PhD in philosophy. His goal is a tenure track teaching position out of school, but that's tough to pull off. But the odds have been against him all along and he knocks down every barrier in his way, so I'm not too worried. Even if that doesn't pan out, he'll be prepared for any number of professional jobs out of school. He's a pretty good framing carpenter too.



It is a good thing he knows carpentry. 

A liberal arts degree does not prepare one for a realistic job, and it may alienate one from one's co-workers. The liberal arts graduate will want to talk about Plato or Homer. His co-workers will be talking about last night's ball game or what happened on a sit com.


----------



## dblack

Friends said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> My oldest is getting his PhD in philosophy. His goal is a tenure track teaching position out of school, but that's tough to pull off. But the odds have been against him all along and he knocks down every barrier in his way, so I'm not too worried. Even if that doesn't pan out, he'll be prepared for any number of professional jobs out of school. He's a pretty good framing carpenter too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is a good thing he knows carpentry.
> 
> A liberal arts degree does not prepare one for a realistic job, and it may alienate one from one's co-workers. The liberal arts graduate will want to talk about Plato or Homer. His co-workers will be talking about last night's ball game or what happened on a sit com.
Click to expand...


Heh... yeah, I'm sure his head full of highfalutin ideas will cause him no end of trouble. 

Anyway, he handles himself pretty well amongst the plebs. I'm sure he'll be fine.


----------



## Friends

midcan5 said:


> The underlying assumption appears to be that if you&#8217;re part of the upper class, you can enjoy the luxury of a liberal arts education. If you&#8217;re lower or middle class, the public institutions that are supposed to be part of the mythical &#8220;American dream,&#8221; that level playing field, should only offer courses in skilled trades. Wealthy young people will get a liberal arts education. Poor and middle class young people will choose a trade.


 
A liberal arts degree is fine for people who do not need to earn a living. It is also fine for people who manage to get admitted to an elite university. If you have Harvard on your resume employers will hire you because of the IQ power that enabled you to get in. They know they can train you. In addition, many bosses think having a Ivy trained subordinate is a status symbol. 

If you go to a fair to middling college or university employers want someone who can, as they put it, "Hit the ground running." They want someone they can put into a cubicle and expect that person to be as productive as the person who sat there for five years. 

I know what I am talking about. My degree was in political science. When I was working as a stock clerk my boss told me, "You are intelligent. You work hard. You do a good job. Nevertheless, we have nothing in common. As far as I am concerned, that is a problem. When I come to work I want to talk about last night's ball game or a fishing trip I was on. You are not interested in that."

He was right. I was not interested. He was not interested in what I wanted to talk about about, which would have been a book I was reading, a magazine article I had read, or a documentary I has seen on television. That was not a termination interview. Nevertheless, that boss had already given me a bad job review for contrived and picayune reasons. When the time came to lay people off I was on the list.

When I was trying to get another job as a stock clerk I kept applying for jobs that asked for a high school degree and six months of experience. I had a year and a half experience. I kept getting rejected. Finally a job counselor told me that I should not tell prospective employers about my college degree. She said it meant that I was overqualified.

That is what you get from a liberal arts degree. You are not qualified to do anything that takes a certain amount of intelligence. You are over qualified for anything you can learn on the job.


----------



## Friends

dblack said:


> Friends said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> My oldest is getting his PhD in philosophy. His goal is a tenure track teaching position out of school, but that's tough to pull off. But the odds have been against him all along and he knocks down every barrier in his way, so I'm not too worried. Even if that doesn't pan out, he'll be prepared for any number of professional jobs out of school. He's a pretty good framing carpenter too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is a good thing he knows carpentry.
> 
> A liberal arts degree does not prepare one for a realistic job, and it may alienate one from one's co-workers. The liberal arts graduate will want to talk about Plato or Homer. His co-workers will be talking about last night's ball game or what happened on a sit com.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Heh... yeah, I'm sure his head full of highfalutin ideas will cause him no end of trouble.
> 
> Anyway, *he handles himself pretty well amongst the plebs. I'm sure he'll be fine.*
Click to expand...


I am glad to hear that. He could have learned those skills by reading Dale Carnegie's How to Win Friends and Influence People. Nevertheless, he is getting an expensive education that will almost certainly not help him on the job market. It might harm those with less social understanding and social skills. 

I am in favor of learning about philosophy, literature, history, and the social sciences if one finds those subjects interesting. They can be learned for free with a library card.


----------



## Friends

Science is important. Science grew from the speculations of ancient philosophers. Nevertheless, I see little point in studying the works of contemporary philosophers. The last philosopher who had an effect on history, and who is worth studying for that reason, was Karl Marx. Existentialism is a lot of fancy words and complex sentences about nothing. 

Everything I needed to know about philosophy I learned from reading, A History of Western Philosophy by Bertrand Russell. In addition, I enjoyed studying several works by Aristotle and Plato in college. A seminar I took after college in Das Kapital that was given by the American Communist Party was also interesting.


----------



## editec

A liberal arts education prepares one to be a leader of society.

Sadly there are far fewer billets for leaders in this society than potential leaders.


----------



## dblack

editec said:


> A liberal arts education prepares one to be a leader of society.
> 
> Sadly there are far fewer billets for leaders in this society than potential leaders.



It also prepares us to be educated critics of our leaders.


----------



## Friends

Once I read an autobiographical account of an alcoholic who lived during the 1920s. He wrote about how alcohol ruined his life. He had a job as a factory manager, and lost it because of drinking. Then he moved to Washington, DC and got a job as a magazine editor. He lost that job for the same reason.

The thing I noticed reading his account was that every time he got fired he managed to get another prestigious and well paying position that he had no experience or training in. When a much smaller percentage of people had university degrees that was possible. Now it is not. 

Our economy is becoming increasingly competitive. It is becoming increasingly unforgiving of mistakes, bad decisions, and simple bad luck. The worst mistake a college student can make is to get a degree that does not obviously lead to a job after graduation.

Also, many young people overestimate their talent. High goals are fine, but have something to fall back on if your dreams do not come true. If you want to be an actor don't major in drama. If you want to be a novelist don't major in literature. Major in something you will be able to do for a living while trying to be successful in one of those fields.


----------



## dblack

Friends said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Friends said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is a good thing he knows carpentry.
> 
> A liberal arts degree does not prepare one for a realistic job, and it may alienate one from one's co-workers. The liberal arts graduate will want to talk about Plato or Homer. His co-workers will be talking about last night's ball game or what happened on a sit com.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Heh... yeah, I'm sure his head full of highfalutin ideas will cause him no end of trouble.
> 
> Anyway, *he handles himself pretty well amongst the plebs. I'm sure he'll be fine.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am glad to hear that. He could have learned those skills by reading Dale Carnegie's How to Win Friends and Influence People.
Click to expand...


Actually, he learned those skills, in part, working construction to finance his education.



> Nevertheless, he is getting an expensive education that will almost certainly not help him on the job market. It might harm those with less social understanding and social skills.



You really don't know what you're talking about. That's not a slam, I just haven't given you all the details. He's the most practical person I know (yes, much more so than his father), and he has taken all this into account. He's worked his way into a highly ranked PhD program with an excellent placement record. And he's doing quite well so far. I appreciate your concern, and while it might be good advice for someone wondering what to do, it doesn't apply here.


----------



## Friends

dblack said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> A liberal arts education prepares one to be a leader of society.
> 
> Sadly there are far fewer billets for leaders in this society than potential leaders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It also prepares us to be educated critics of our leaders.
Click to expand...


In addition it prepares us to be educated critics of our bosses. Unfortunately, most bosses do not like being criticized. Unless you can advise your boss on how to achieve what he is trying to achieve, and unless your advice works you are best off keeping your mouth shut. Even then, it is a good idea to excel in your own job before giving any advice at all. 

The most important single factor in a job is a good relationship with your immediate supervisor. You will not get that by telling him why you don't like him, and how he is unsuited for his position.


----------



## Friends

dblack said:


> Friends said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Heh... yeah, I'm sure his head full of highfalutin ideas will cause him no end of trouble.
> 
> Anyway, *he handles himself pretty well amongst the plebs. I'm sure he'll be fine.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am glad to hear that. He could have learned those skills by reading Dale Carnegie's How to Win Friends and Influence People.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, he learned those skills, in part, working construction to finance his education.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nevertheless, he is getting an expensive education that will almost certainly not help him on the job market. It might harm those with less social understanding and social skills.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You really don't know what you're talking about. That's not a slam, I just haven't given you all the details. He's the most practical person I know (yes, much more so than his father), and he has taken all this into account. He's worked his way into a highly ranked PhD program with an excellent placement record. And he's doing quite well so far. I appreciate your concern, and while it might be good advice for someone wondering what to do, it doesn't apply here.
Click to expand...


I hope things work out for him. Nevertheless, it is always a bad idea to learn something that you can only teach. You are competing with everyone else who is learning that. If you want to be a teacher learn something that you can do for a living.


----------



## percysunshine

There is an old Bill Cosby joke (and album) where he recounts dating a philosophy major in college while he was a physical education major. She wandered around asking "Why is there air?" He replied that it was a dumb question. Everyone knows that air was for blowing up basketballs, footballs, and vollyballs....


----------



## dblack

Friends said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Friends said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am glad to hear that. He could have learned those skills by reading Dale Carnegie's How to Win Friends and Influence People.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, he learned those skills, in part, working construction to finance his education.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nevertheless, he is getting an expensive education that will almost certainly not help him on the job market. It might harm those with less social understanding and social skills.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You really don't know what you're talking about. That's not a slam, I just haven't given you all the details. He's the most practical person I know (yes, much more so than his father), and he has taken all this into account. He's worked his way into a highly ranked PhD program with an excellent placement record. And he's doing quite well so far. I appreciate your concern, and while it might be good advice for someone wondering what to do, it doesn't apply here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I hope things work out for him. Nevertheless, it is always a bad idea to learn something that you can only teach. You are competing with everyone else who is learning that. If you want to be a teacher learn something that you can do for a living.
Click to expand...


You seem preoccupied with education as "job-training". Is that really the only value you see in it?


----------



## Wry Catcher

Skull Pilot said:


> There is no need at all to go to college to study liberal arts.
> 
> You can do it on your own for free.  The funny thing is that the public is convinced that they have to spend tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars to read a book.



Wow.  You are so wrong.  Most of those books were written by persons who attended a _University_ or (in the distant past) had at least a single mentor.  And today, most survey courses in the liberal arts can be taken at a Community College where the student can live at home and pay less per unit.

In a university graduate seminars allow one to study a narrow field with assigned reading and then spend a semester in a small group testing their own theories, getting and giving feedback, asking questions and answering them.

Liberal Arts allows one to study a single topic within the structure of different disciplines. For example, in my sophomore year I had separate courses in the Philosophy, Political Science and History departments all of which were focused on ancient Greece.  

A Liberal Arts education provides perspective.  A cure for myopic 'thinking' which dominates too many threads on the USMB.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Wry Catcher said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no need at all to go to college to study liberal arts.
> 
> You can do it on your own for free.  The funny thing is that the public is convinced that they have to spend tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars to read a book.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.  You are so wrong.  Most of those books were written by persons who attended a _University_ or (in the distant past) had at least a single mentor.  And today, most survey courses in the liberal arts can be taken at a Community College where the student can live at home and pay less per unit.
> 
> In a university graduate seminars allow one to study a narrow field with assigned reading and then spend a semester in a small group testing their own theories, getting and giving feedback, asking questions and answering them.
> 
> Liberal Arts allows one to study a single topic within the structure of different disciplines. For example, in my sophomore year I had separate courses in the Philosophy, Political Science and History departments all of which were focused on ancient Greece.
> 
> A Liberal Arts education provides perspective.  A cure for myopic 'thinking' which dominates too many threads on the USMB.
Click to expand...


You can do all that outside of a university setting for free.

It's myopic to think that learning can only take place if you pay for it.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Friends said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> A liberal arts education prepares one to be a leader of society.
> 
> Sadly there are far fewer billets for leaders in this society than potential leaders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It also prepares us to be educated critics of our leaders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In addition it prepares us to be educated critics of our bosses. Unfortunately, most bosses do not like being criticized. Unless you can advise your boss on how to achieve what he is trying to achieve, and unless your advice works you are best off keeping your mouth shut. Even then, it is a good idea to excel in your own job before giving any advice at all.
> 
> The most important single factor in a job is a good relationship with your immediate supervisor. You will not get that by telling him why you don't like him, and how he is unsuited for his position.
Click to expand...


A good supervisor appreciates constructive criticism and isn't interested in cultivating obsequious workers.  A lousy supervisor/manager/director lacks introspection and always seems to ask, "how does this effect *me*" when things go awry or new ideas/methods are proffered.  I patronized a few lousy ones before I became a boss and made an effort to actively listened to the mavericks while tuning out the ass kissers.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Friends said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> A liberal arts education prepares one to be a leader of society.
> 
> Sadly there are far fewer billets for leaders in this society than potential leaders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It also prepares us to be educated critics of our leaders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In addition it prepares us to be educated critics of our bosses. Unfortunately, most bosses do not like being criticized. Unless you can advise your boss on how to achieve what he is trying to achieve, and unless your advice works you are best off keeping your mouth shut. Even then, it is a good idea to excel in your own job before giving any advice at all.
> 
> The most important single factor in a job is a good relationship with your immediate supervisor. You will not get that by telling him why you don't like him, and how he is unsuited for his position.
Click to expand...




Skull Pilot said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no need at all to go to college to study liberal arts.
> 
> You can do it on your own for free.  The funny thing is that the public is convinced that they have to spend tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars to read a book.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.  You are so wrong.  Most of those books were written by persons who attended a _University_ or (in the distant past) had at least a single mentor.  And today, most survey courses in the liberal arts can be taken at a Community College where the student can live at home and pay less per unit.
> 
> In a university graduate seminars allow one to study a narrow field with assigned reading and then spend a semester in a small group testing their own theories, getting and giving feedback, asking questions and answering them.
> 
> Liberal Arts allows one to study a single topic within the structure of different disciplines. For example, in my sophomore year I had separate courses in the Philosophy, Political Science and History departments all of which were focused on ancient Greece.
> 
> A Liberal Arts education provides perspective.  A cure for myopic 'thinking' which dominates too many threads on the USMB.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can do all that outside of a university setting for free.
> 
> It's myopic to think that learning can only take place if you pay for it.
Click to expand...


I never suggested "learning can only take place if you pay for it"; I simply suggested your ideal of learning is like someone sitting in a cave with their back to the world and learning about it from the shadows passing by.


----------



## Unkotare

Skull Pilot said:


> There is no need at all to go to college to study liberal arts.
> 
> You can do it on your own for free.  The funny thing is that the public is convinced that they have to spend tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars to read a book.





You on this again? You still don't understand what you are talking about.


----------



## Unkotare

drifter said:


> But as far as your comment on getting your own education with books, absolutely.






You can read a lot of material that way, but you cannot get an education that way; in Philosophy as much or more than any other area of the humanities.


----------



## Unkotare

Friends said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> My oldest is getting his PhD in philosophy. His goal is a tenure track teaching position out of school, but that's tough to pull off. But the odds have been against him all along and he knocks down every barrier in his way, so I'm not too worried. Even if that doesn't pan out, he'll be prepared for any number of professional jobs out of school. He's a pretty good framing carpenter too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is a good thing he knows carpentry.
> 
> A liberal arts degree does not prepare one for a realistic job, and it may alienate one from one's co-workers. The liberal arts graduate will want to talk about Plato or Homer. His co-workers will be talking about last night's ball game or what happened on a sit com.
Click to expand...



And now we know all sorts of things about you (as if we didn't before).


----------



## Unkotare

Friends said:


> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The underlying assumption appears to be that if youre part of the upper class, you can enjoy the luxury of a liberal arts education. If youre lower or middle class, the public institutions that are supposed to be part of the mythical American dream, that level playing field, should only offer courses in skilled trades. Wealthy young people will get a liberal arts education. Poor and middle class young people will choose a trade.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A liberal arts degree is fine for people who do not need to earn a living. It is also fine for people who manage to get admitted to an elite university. If you have Harvard on your resume employers will hire you because of the IQ power that enabled you to get in. They know they can train you. In addition, many bosses think having a Ivy trained subordinate is a status symbol.
> 
> If you go to a fair to middling college or university employers want someone who can, as they put it, "Hit the ground running." They want someone they can put into a cubicle and expect that person to be as productive as the person who sat there for five years.
> 
> I know what I am talking about. My degree was in political science. When I was working as a stock clerk my boss told me, "You are intelligent. You work hard. You do a good job. Nevertheless, we have nothing in common. As far as I am concerned, that is a problem. When I come to work I want to talk about last night's ball game or a fishing trip I was on. You are not interested in that."
> 
> He was right. I was not interested. He was not interested in what I wanted to talk about about, which would have been a book I was reading, a magazine article I had read, or a documentary I has seen on television. That was not a termination interview. Nevertheless, that boss had already given me a bad job review for contrived and picayune reasons. When the time came to lay people off I was on the list.
> 
> When I was trying to get another job as a stock clerk I kept applying for jobs that asked for a high school degree and six months of experience. I had a year and a half experience. I kept getting rejected. Finally a job counselor told me that I should not tell prospective employers about my college degree. She said it meant that I was overqualified.
> 
> That is what you get from a liberal arts degree. You are not qualified to do anything that takes a certain amount of intelligence. You are over qualified for anything you can learn on the job.
Click to expand...




Sounds to me like you have poor social skills, an inferiority complex, and are basically incompetent. This fits with everything else you've posted here. Don't blame your degree or your managers. You are just a loser.


----------



## Unkotare

Friends said:


> Nevertheless, he is getting an expensive education that will almost certainly not help him on the job market. It might harm those with less social understanding and social skills.





Not everyone is a loser just because YOU are.


----------



## editec

dblack said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> A liberal arts education prepares one to be a leader of society.
> 
> Sadly there are far fewer billets for leaders in this society than potential leaders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It also prepares us to be educated critics of our leaders.
Click to expand...


What it can not do in four short years is prepare you for the real world.  

The liberal arts degree is useful if you keep educating yourself throughout your life.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Wry Catcher said:


> Friends said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> It also prepares us to be educated critics of our leaders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In addition it prepares us to be educated critics of our bosses. Unfortunately, most bosses do not like being criticized. Unless you can advise your boss on how to achieve what he is trying to achieve, and unless your advice works you are best off keeping your mouth shut. Even then, it is a good idea to excel in your own job before giving any advice at all.
> 
> The most important single factor in a job is a good relationship with your immediate supervisor. You will not get that by telling him why you don't like him, and how he is unsuited for his position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.  You are so wrong.  Most of those books were written by persons who attended a _University_ or (in the distant past) had at least a single mentor.  And today, most survey courses in the liberal arts can be taken at a Community College where the student can live at home and pay less per unit.
> 
> In a university graduate seminars allow one to study a narrow field with assigned reading and then spend a semester in a small group testing their own theories, getting and giving feedback, asking questions and answering them.
> 
> Liberal Arts allows one to study a single topic within the structure of different disciplines. For example, in my sophomore year I had separate courses in the Philosophy, Political Science and History departments all of which were focused on ancient Greece.
> 
> A Liberal Arts education provides perspective.  A cure for myopic 'thinking' which dominates too many threads on the USMB.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can do all that outside of a university setting for free.
> 
> It's myopic to think that learning can only take place if you pay for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never suggested "learning can only take place if you pay for it"; I simply suggested your ideal of learning is like someone sitting in a cave with their back to the world and learning about it from the shadows passing by.
Click to expand...


Why because I read it in a book without someone telling me first to read it then telling me what he thinks it means  which I am supposed to regurgitate back on a test?

I'll read it myself and come up with my own interpretation.  You can parrot back the professor to whom you paid a ridiculous amount of money to do what you could have done for free.


----------



## Katzndogz

A liberal arts education alone is worthless.   It can add and enhance a substantive education but standing alone, it means nothing.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Katzndogz said:


> A liberal arts education alone is worthless.   It can add and enhance a substantive education but standing alone, it means nothing.



Which is why you're an idiot to pay for it.


----------



## Unkotare

Katzndogz said:


> A liberal arts education alone is worthless.   It can add and enhance a substantive education but standing alone, it means nothing.



You don't understand what a liberal arts education is supposed to be.


----------



## Unkotare

Skull Pilot said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Friends said:
> 
> 
> 
> In addition it prepares us to be educated critics of our bosses. Unfortunately, most bosses do not like being criticized. Unless you can advise your boss on how to achieve what he is trying to achieve, and unless your advice works you are best off keeping your mouth shut. Even then, it is a good idea to excel in your own job before giving any advice at all.
> 
> The most important single factor in a job is a good relationship with your immediate supervisor. You will not get that by telling him why you don't like him, and how he is unsuited for his position.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can do all that outside of a university setting for free.
> 
> It's myopic to think that learning can only take place if you pay for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never suggested "learning can only take place if you pay for it"; I simply suggested your ideal of learning is like someone sitting in a cave with their back to the world and learning about it from the shadows passing by.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why because I read it in a book without someone telling me first to read it then telling me what he thinks it means  which I am supposed to regurgitate back on a test?
> 
> I'll read it myself and come up with my own interpretation.
Click to expand...




And most likely miss the point entirely. You can waste your time and indulge in empty self-affirmation for free, but you won't be learning.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Unkotare said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never suggested "learning can only take place if you pay for it"; I simply suggested your ideal of learning is like someone sitting in a cave with their back to the world and learning about it from the shadows passing by.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why because I read it in a book without someone telling me first to read it then telling me what he thinks it means  which I am supposed to regurgitate back on a test?
> 
> I'll read it myself and come up with my own interpretation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And most likely miss the point entirely. You can waste your time and indulge in empty self-affirmation for free, but you won't be learning.
Click to expand...


Yeah OK.

If I read the same books some prof tells you to read I will learn the same stuff you do for free.

If I read more books than your prof tells you to read I will learn more than you.

Just because you need to be spoon fed doesn't mean everyone does.


----------



## Unkotare

Skull Pilot said:


> If I read the same books some prof tells you to read I will learn the same stuff you do for free.
> 
> If I read more books than your prof tells you to read I will learn more than you.





Wrong and wrong. You're kind of an idiot, aren't you?


----------



## Skull Pilot

Unkotare said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I read the same books some prof tells you to read I will learn the same stuff you do for free.
> 
> If I read more books than your prof tells you to read I will learn more than you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong and wrong. You're kind of an idiot, aren't you?
Click to expand...


Gee how did people learn before there were colleges and egotistical professors?

I wonder.


----------



## Skull Pilot

All these self taught people must be stupid according to Ukunthair

Autodidactic Profiles - AUTODIDACTIC PRESS - lifelong learning advocate


----------



## Unkotare

Skull Pilot said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I read the same books some prof tells you to read I will learn the same stuff you do for free.
> 
> If I read more books than your prof tells you to read I will learn more than you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong and wrong. You're kind of an idiot, aren't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gee how did people learn before there were colleges and egotistical professors?
> 
> I wonder.
Click to expand...



You wonder because you don't know. You don't know because you are stupid. Feeling self-satisfied doesn't make you any less of an idiot. Sorry to break the news to you.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Unkotare said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong and wrong. You're kind of an idiot, aren't you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gee how did people learn before there were colleges and egotistical professors?
> 
> I wonder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You wonder because you don't know. You don't know because you are stupid. Feeling self-satisfied doesn't make you any less of an idiot. Sorry to break the news to you.
Click to expand...


Only idiots believe that education cannot take place outside of a classroom.


----------



## Dante

Skull Pilot said:


> There is no need at all to go to college to study liberal arts.
> 
> You can do it on your own for free.  The funny thing is that the public is convinced that they have to spend tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars to read a book.



yeah, and end up like many of the self deluded nitwits who post here.

self education is tough, tougher than anyone can imagine, if one wants to get it right. Lots of self educated fools out there who join the ranks of the poorly educated who hold degrees,

without really a serious critical thinking skill set, self education can make somebody more of a fool than when they started out


----------



## Unkotare

Skull Pilot said:


> All these self taught people must be stupid according to Ukunthair
> 
> Autodidactic Profiles - AUTODIDACTIC PRESS - lifelong learning advocate




Every lazy fool like you wants to believe he is Ramanujan. Guess what? You're not.


----------



## Unkotare

Skull Pilot said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gee how did people learn before there were colleges and egotistical professors?
> 
> I wonder.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You wonder because you don't know. You don't know because you are stupid. Feeling self-satisfied doesn't make you any less of an idiot. Sorry to break the news to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only idiots believe that education cannot take place outside of a classroom.
Click to expand...



Thanks for demonstrating once again that you don't understand the concept.


----------



## Dante

midcan5 said:


> I often read that students should study some field of knowledge that leads to productive work. But consider that my eventual working world did not even exist when I started college. My degree was eventually in Liberal Arts as I was never sure what I wanted to be when I grew up. When you examine the degrees of many of the national leaders in technology or business, their degree is often not related to their work. How is that, some  even dropped out of school. So then maybe we need to ask what makes a person a good citizen and a productive member of society. Could it be a liberal education steeped in philosophy?
> 
> "Is a liberal arts education for everyone? Probably not. Some people would rather do just about anything than major in philosophy, and that is fine. *But a liberal arts education forms students to be a thoughtful and concerned citizens, and that is the subtext here. Educated, concerned citizens arent going to sit back and let the economic elite run the show.* McCrory can critique the educated elite all that he wants, but when you pal around with the likes of Art Pope you really have no business accusing anyone else of elitism.
> 
> McCrory himself studied political science and education. Bennett, who was interviewing him, has a PhD in  you guessed it  philosophy. *The underlying assumption appears to be that if youre part of the upper class, you can enjoy the luxury of a liberal arts education. If youre lower or middle class, the public institutions that are supposed to be part of the mythical American dream, that level playing field, should only offer courses in skilled trades.* Wealthy young people will get a liberal arts education. Poor and middle class young people will choose a trade."
> 
> Femmonite: Notes from an Employed Philosopher



Bill Bennett? I joined his site a few times (pay $$$) in order to download things. He was part of the John Silber team from Texas who took over Boston University in the 1960s. 



> newsobserver.com blogs
> Under the Dome
> McCrory wants to revamp higher ed funding -- takes aim at UNC-Chapel Hill
> Submitted by John_Frank on 2013-01-29 09:27
> Tags: Under the Dome | Bill Bennett | Education | Gov. Pat McCrory | governor | higher education | Pat McCrory | Republican
> 
> UPDATED: Gov. Pat McCrory said he would propose legislation to overhaul the way higher education is funded in North Carolina, putting the emphasis on job creation not liberal arts and taking specific aim at the state's flagship university.
> 
> "I think some of the educational elite have taken over our education where we are offering courses that have no chance of getting people jobs," McCrory told conservative talk show host Bill Bennett, the former education secretary for President Ronald Reagan, during an interview Tuesday morning. (Listen to the audio here.
> 
> ...
> 
> The Republican governor said he instructed his staff Monday to draft legislation that would change how much state money universities and community colleges receive "not based on how many butts in seats but how many of those butts can get jobs."
> 
> "Right now we pay based on how many students you have, not how many jobs you are getting people into," he said.
> 
> At the same time, McCrory seemed to contradict himself, saying he supported a liberal arts curriculum. "I do believe in liberal arts education," the Catawba College graduate said. "I got one."
> 
> Moments later, the radio host said, "How many PhDs in philosophy do I need to subsidize? ...That's my field."
> 
> "You and I agree," McCrory added.
> 
> ...
> 
> Also in the interview, McCrory used the academic scandal at UNC-CH involving athletes to drive the point. "It's even hit our athletic departments. Sad to say, at Carolina, our great basketball program, they took Swahili on a night study course where they didn't have to do any work and got B-pluses," McCrory added. "What are we teaching these courses for if they are not going to help get a job."
> 
> UPDATE: McCrory's comments drew immediate fire from faculty across the UNC system, who stressed that higher education is about much more than job training.
> 
> A sampling of the reaction:
> 
> Read more here: McCrory wants to revamp higher ed funding -- takes aim at UNC-Chapel Hill | newsobserver.com projects
> 
> McCrory wants to revamp higher ed funding -- takes aim at UNC-Chapel Hill | newsobserver.com projects


----------



## Dante

Unkotare said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You wonder because you don't know. You don't know because you are stupid. Feeling self-satisfied doesn't make you any less of an idiot. Sorry to break the news to you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only idiots believe that education cannot take place outside of a classroom.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for demonstrating once again that you don't understand the concept.
Click to expand...


I don't know whether to laugh or cry on this one.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Unkotare said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> All these self taught people must be stupid according to Ukunthair
> 
> Autodidactic Profiles - AUTODIDACTIC PRESS - lifelong learning advocate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every lazy fool like you wants to believe he is Ramanujan. Guess what? You're not.
Click to expand...


And every idiot with a Bullshit degree in psych thinks they're fucking Carl Yung.

Anyone with an ounce of intelligence can learn everything in any liberal arts curriculum without going to college to do it.

But it's the ounce of intelligence that you are missing.


----------



## Dante

Skull Pilot said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> All these self taught people must be stupid according to Ukunthair
> 
> Autodidactic Profiles - AUTODIDACTIC PRESS - lifelong learning advocate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every lazy fool like you wants to believe he is Ramanujan. Guess what? You're not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And every idiot with a Bullshit degree in psych thinks they're fucking Carl Yung.
> 
> Anyone with an ounce of intelligence can learn everything in any liberal arts curriculum without going to college to do it.
> 
> But it's the ounce of intelligence that you are missing.
Click to expand...


Too bad you consistently ruin your own good points made in a post. 

You are right on Carl Yung[sic], but then you go off the rails with your poor understanding of _learning_ entails. Many people who have degrees have learned shit, that is true. Not everyone who takes up liberal arts learns everything, but I've met more phony's who have paid people to take tests in courses that were specialized, not lib arts.

Not everyone can learn on their own. Even fewer people learn well on their own.


----------



## Unkotare

Skull Pilot said:


> Anyone with an ounce of intelligence can learn everything in any liberal arts curriculum without going to college to do it.
> .





You continue to prove you don't know what the hell you are talking about. You poor, ignorant fool.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Dante said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every lazy fool like you wants to believe he is Ramanujan. Guess what? You're not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And every idiot with a Bullshit degree in psych thinks they're fucking Carl Yung.
> 
> Anyone with an ounce of intelligence can learn everything in any liberal arts curriculum without going to college to do it.
> 
> But it's the ounce of intelligence that you are missing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Too bad you consistently ruin your own good points made in a post.
> 
> You are right on Carl Yung[sic], but then you go off the rails with your poor understanding of _learning_ entails. Many people who have degrees have learned shit, that is true. Not everyone who takes up liberal arts learns everything, but I've met more phony's who have paid people to take tests in courses that were specialized, not lib arts.
> 
> Not everyone can learn on their own. Even fewer people learn well on their own.
Click to expand...


That's just an excuse.

That attitude is drilled into every kid's head from day one and it's pure bullshit.

The thing you all leave out is desire. A person of average intelligence can teach himself anything if he has the desire to do so.

And  liberal arts curriculum is the easiest place to start.

The problem is the will not the ability.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Unkotare said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone with an ounce of intelligence can learn everything in any liberal arts curriculum without going to college to do it.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You continue to prove you don't know what the hell you are talking about. You poor, ignorant fool.
Click to expand...


You have not proven that a person cannot master a liberal arts curriculum without going to college.

So prove it.


----------



## Unkotare

Skull Pilot said:


> A person of average intelligence can teach himself anything if he has the desire to do so.





If you had even half of an average intelligence you'd realize that is wrong.


----------



## Unkotare

Skull Pilot said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone with an ounce of intelligence can learn everything in any liberal arts curriculum without going to college to do it.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You continue to prove you don't know what the hell you are talking about. You poor, ignorant fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have not proven that a person cannot master a liberal arts curriculum without going to college.
> 
> So prove it.
Click to expand...



Do you think that "a liberal arts education" is just a matter of reading a bunch of stuff?


----------



## Skull Pilot

Unkotare said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You continue to prove you don't know what the hell you are talking about. You poor, ignorant fool.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have not proven that a person cannot master a liberal arts curriculum without going to college.
> 
> So prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think that "a liberal arts education" is just a matter of reading a bunch of stuff?
Click to expand...


It's your position that one cannot master the material in a liberal arts curriculum without attending college.

Prove your point then we can proceed. After all with that expensive education that you couldn't get anywhere but a college you should be able to right?


----------



## Dante

it's decided: cry not laugh


----------



## Dante

Skull Pilot said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> And every idiot with a Bullshit degree in psych thinks they're fucking Carl Yung.
> 
> Anyone with an ounce of intelligence can learn everything in any liberal arts curriculum without going to college to do it.
> 
> But it's the ounce of intelligence that you are missing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Too bad you consistently ruin your own good points made in a post.
> 
> You are right on Carl Yung[sic], but then you go off the rails with your poor understanding of _learning_ entails. Many people who have degrees have learned shit, that is true. Not everyone who takes up liberal arts learns everything, but I've met more phony's who have paid people to take tests in courses that were specialized, not lib arts.
> 
> Not everyone can learn on their own. Even fewer people learn well on their own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's just an excuse.
> 
> That attitude is drilled into every kid's head from day one and it's pure bullshit.
> 
> The thing you all leave out is desire. A person of average intelligence can teach himself anything if he has the desire to do so.
> 
> And  liberal arts curriculum is the easiest place to start.
> 
> The problem is the will not the ability.
Click to expand...


Ahh, now you move the goal post a little bit to the left.


----------



## Unkotare

Skull Pilot said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have not proven that a person cannot master a liberal arts curriculum without going to college.
> 
> So prove it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think that "a liberal arts education" is just a matter of reading a bunch of stuff?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's your position that one cannot master the material in a liberal arts curriculum without attending college.
> 
> Prove your point then we can proceed. After all with that expensive education that you couldn't get anywhere but a college you should be able to right?
Click to expand...


I asked you a question. That you are unwilling to answer is just one more piece of evidence that you do not understand what learning really is. You are proving the point, but you are too dim-witted to realize it. No surprise there.


----------



## uscitizen

Skull Pilot said:


> There is no need at all to go to college to study liberal arts.
> 
> You can do it on your own for free.  The funny thing is that the public is convinced that they have to spend tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars to read a book.



Tens of millions do it daily.
Just watch Fox or listen to talk radio.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Unkotare said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think that "a liberal arts education" is just a matter of reading a bunch of stuff?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's your position that one cannot master the material in a liberal arts curriculum without attending college.
> 
> Prove your point then we can proceed. After all with that expensive education that you couldn't get anywhere but a college you should be able to right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I asked you a question. That you are unwilling to answer is just one more piece of evidence that you do not understand what learning really is. You are proving the point, but you are too dim-witted to realize it. No surprise there.
Click to expand...


I asked you to prove your point and you can't.  No surprise there.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Dante said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> Too bad you consistently ruin your own good points made in a post.
> 
> You are right on Carl Yung[sic], but then you go off the rails with your poor understanding of _learning_ entails. Many people who have degrees have learned shit, that is true. Not everyone who takes up liberal arts learns everything, but I've met more phony's who have paid people to take tests in courses that were specialized, not lib arts.
> 
> Not everyone can learn on their own. Even fewer people learn well on their own.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's just an excuse.
> 
> That attitude is drilled into every kid's head from day one and it's pure bullshit.
> 
> The thing you all leave out is desire. A person of average intelligence can teach himself anything if he has the desire to do so.
> 
> And  liberal arts curriculum is the easiest place to start.
> 
> The problem is the will not the ability.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ahh, now you move the goal post a little bit to the left.
Click to expand...


So you think it's impossible to master the subject matter in a liberal arts curriculum without attending college?


----------



## Skull Pilot

uscitizen said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no need at all to go to college to study liberal arts.
> 
> You can do it on your own for free.  The funny thing is that the public is convinced that they have to spend tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars to read a book.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tens of millions do it daily.
> Just watch Fox or listen to talk radio.
Click to expand...


Since when is the idiot box a liberal arts course?


----------



## editec

I suspect that many of the board's detractors of liberal arts education are not themselves very educated and are basically guessing what the term really means.

For those of you who imagine that Libral Arts education is entirely something on can get by reading?

Try reading Husseral without having a professor in philosophy to help you get it.

Based on the ignorance I see getting a pass from some here?

Its pretty clear that many of you haven't a clue how to think logically.

The number one lesson of liberal education is how to get past all the magical thinking that so many of this boards people count on to create their world views.

that isn't to say that liberal arts does not also fall victim to magical thinking.

In economics for example, the invisible hand of the market is a pretty good example of magical thinking.

In theory it isn't magical thinking, of course, but the world is not a theory, its a de facto reality.

And the basic premise of the invisible hand of the market is based on the magical thinking theory (usually unstated) that every person is an informed person motivated by their own self interests to make the correct decisions.

If that were true?

There would be NO STOCK MARKET, nop bubbles, no economic problems at all.

Now how can I know that?

Logic, kid. Simple logic.


----------



## Skull Pilot

editec said:


> I suspect that many of the board's detractors of liberal arts education are not themselves very educated and are basically guessing what the term really means.
> 
> For those of you who imagine that Libral Arts education is entirely something on can get by reading?
> 
> Try reading Husseral without having a professor in philosophy to help you get it.



There are endless sources you can find that will do that. Why settle for one professor's opinion when you can get multiple opinions for free?

There is nothing in an undergraduate liberal arts curriculum that cannot be learned outside of a university.


----------



## Unkotare

Hey Skullfuck, do you think that a liberal arts education is just a matter of reading a bunch of stuff?


----------



## Skull Pilot

Unkotare said:


> Hey Skullfuck, do you think that a liberal arts education is just a matter of reading a bunch of stuff?



Hey Ukunthair prove your position and I'll answer your question.

BTW there is a difference between reading and studying


----------



## Unkotare

Skull Pilot said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Skullfuck, do you think that a liberal arts education is just a matter of reading a bunch of stuff?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Ukunthair prove your position and I'll answer your question.
> 
> BTW there is a difference between reading and studying
Click to expand...





Answer my question and the position will prove itself. I think you realize at this point that you are full of shit but you don't want to come right out and admit it.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Unkotare said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Skullfuck, do you think that a liberal arts education is just a matter of reading a bunch of stuff?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Ukunthair prove your position and I'll answer your question.
> 
> BTW there is a difference between reading and studying
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Answer my question and the position will prove itself. I think you realize at this point that you are full of shit but you don't want to come right out and admit it.
Click to expand...


The only thing you'll miss if you study on your own are the boring lectures 3 days a week.

If you give me all the course materials for any bachelor degree program including sources used outside the required texts I will be able to pass the course with an above average grade.

It' ain't difficult.


----------



## Unkotare

So it's settled. You have no fucking idea what learning is or what a liberal arts education is intended to be or impart. You are an ignorant fool flapping your gums about something you don't understand.


----------



## Unkotare

Given his miconceptions and severe limitations, an idiot like Skullfuck would absolutely be wasting his time in a degree program because he would be incapable of understanding why he is there or what he could get out of actually learning. His disability should not be assumed as applying to everyone. A hopeless case like Skullfuck could sit in a library until the end of time and he would not 'learn' a damn thing.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Unkotare said:


> Given his miconceptions and severe limitations, an idiot like Skullfuck would absolutely be wasting his time in a degree program because he would be incapable of understanding why he is there or what he could get out of actually learning. His disability should not be assumed as applying to everyone. A hopeless case like Skullfuck could sit in a library until the end of time and he would not 'learn' a damn thing.



FYI I have 2 bachelors degrees, A BS in electrical engineering, a BA in Management and an MBA
Just because you have to be told what things mean by a teacher does not mean everyone else is a stupid as you.

Tell me what I'm missing if i can achieve passing grades in all the coursework required for a degree in any liberal arts curriculum via independent study?

The answer is nothing.


----------



## Unkotare

Skull Pilot said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Given his miconceptions and severe limitations, an idiot like Skullfuck would absolutely be wasting his time in a degree program because he would be incapable of understanding why he is there or what he could get out of actually learning. His disability should not be assumed as applying to everyone. A hopeless case like Skullfuck could sit in a library until the end of time and he would not 'learn' a damn thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FYI I have 2 bachelors degrees, A BS in electrical engineering, a BA in Management and an MBA
> Just because you have to be told what things mean by a teacher does not mean everyone else is a stupid as you.
> 
> Tell me what I'm missing if i can achieve passing grades in all the coursework required for a degree in any liberal arts curriculum via independent study?
> 
> The answer is nothing.
Click to expand...



What you are missing is the actual point of a real education. Just because you wasted your time and money doesn't mean that everyone does.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Unkotare said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Given his miconceptions and severe limitations, an idiot like Skullfuck would absolutely be wasting his time in a degree program because he would be incapable of understanding why he is there or what he could get out of actually learning. His disability should not be assumed as applying to everyone. A hopeless case like Skullfuck could sit in a library until the end of time and he would not 'learn' a damn thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FYI I have 2 bachelors degrees, A BS in electrical engineering, a BA in Management and an MBA
> Just because you have to be told what things mean by a teacher does not mean everyone else is a stupid as you.
> 
> Tell me what I'm missing if i can achieve passing grades in all the coursework required for a degree in any liberal arts curriculum via independent study?
> 
> The answer is nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What you are missing is the actual point of a real education. Just because you wasted your time and money doesn't mean that everyone does.
Click to expand...


All education is "real".

So tell me if i can pass every test required to get a degree without ever going to class, then how is some sheep who sat through 3 lectures a week more educated than I if we both demonstrate the same mastery of the subject?

BTW he's not but you go ahead and try to prove your point.  I could use a laugh.


----------



## Unkotare

Skull Pilot said:


> So tell me if i can pass every test required to get a degree without ever going to class, then how is some sheep who sat through 3 lectures a week more educated than I if we both demonstrate the same mastery of the subject?




You shouldn't be able to pass the course that way because you would not have demonstrated mastery of the subject. You shouldn't need this explained to you, moron. Congratulations on having wasted so much time and money. No wonder why you're such a bitter douchebag.


----------



## Dante

Skull Pilot said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's just an excuse.
> 
> That attitude is drilled into every kid's head from day one and it's pure bullshit.
> 
> The thing you all leave out is desire. A person of average intelligence can teach himself anything if he has the desire to do so.
> 
> And  liberal arts curriculum is the easiest place to start.
> 
> The problem is the will not the ability.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ahh, now you move the goal post a little bit to the left.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you think it's_ impossible to master_ the subject matter in a liberal arts curriculum without attending college?
Click to expand...


For the average Joe, yes. For really intelligent people with good critical thinking skills, probably unless they have friends outside of their solitary existence. 

Most education has a component that is built in that is all about learning and experiencing alongside others


----------



## Skull Pilot

Unkotare said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> So tell me if i can pass every test required to get a degree without ever going to class, then how is some sheep who sat through 3 lectures a week more educated than I if we both demonstrate the same mastery of the subject?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You shouldn't be able to pass the course that way because you would not have demonstrated mastery of the subject. You shouldn't need this explained to you, moron. Congratulations on having wasted so much time and money. No wonder why you're such a bitter douchebag.
Click to expand...


You still haven't told me how sitting in a lecture 3 days a week makes some idiot who gets lower grades than I do more educated.

You can't do it can you?

I'm starting to suspect that you are a teacher.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Dante said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ahh, now you move the goal post a little bit to the left.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you think it's_ impossible to master_ the subject matter in a liberal arts curriculum without attending college?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For the average Joe, yes. For really intelligent people with good critical thinking skills, probably unless they have friends outside of their solitary existence.
> 
> Most education has a component that is built in that is all about learning and experiencing alongside others
Click to expand...


It must be tough having such limited faith in your abilities.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Look here

A free course from MIT on logic.  Yale, Harvard, Notre Dame, Tufts, Stanford and Johns Hopkins offer courses as well.  All for free.

Logic I | Linguistics and Philosophy | MIT OpenCourseWare

Buy the text, read the lecture notes, do the assignments and you will learn everything the students at MIT learned for free.

Too bad you all think you're too stupid to try it.


----------



## Unkotare

Skull Pilot said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> So tell me if i can pass every test required to get a degree without ever going to class, then how is some sheep who sat through 3 lectures a week more educated than I if we both demonstrate the same mastery of the subject?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You shouldn't be able to pass the course that way because you would not have demonstrated mastery of the subject. You shouldn't need this explained to you, moron. Congratulations on having wasted so much time and money. No wonder why you're such a bitter douchebag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You still haven't told me how sitting in a lecture 3 days a week makes some idiot who gets lower grades than I do more educated.
Click to expand...



Participating in the class, asking questions, attending group sessions (often mandatory in such courses) moderated by a T.A. and interacting with other like-minded scholars to sharpen and develop real understanding of the material, and demonstrating an ability to communicate effectively about the subject at hand are all part of LEARNING. You seem proud of yourself for knowing how to READ. You also seem quite bitter about all the time and money you obviously wasted. You are a fool, and you want to insist that everyone else be one as well.


----------



## Unkotare

Skull Pilot said:


> Look here
> 
> A free course from MIT on logic.  Yale, Harvard, Notre Dame, Tufts, Stanford and Johns Hopkins offer courses as well.  All for free.
> 
> Logic I | Linguistics and Philosophy | MIT OpenCourseWare
> 
> Buy the text, read the lecture notes, do the assignments and you will learn everything the students at MIT learned for free.



No, you will not (as if we needed any more evidence as to why the likes of you could never attend an MIT or Harvard or Tufts, etc. )

Those can be interesting and fun. More and more schools are offering them. It's a good and generous public service to make them available. It's a great study aid for students to supplement notes taken during the lecture too. But they don't give you a degree for watching. Guess why.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Unkotare said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You shouldn't be able to pass the course that way because you would not have demonstrated mastery of the subject. You shouldn't need this explained to you, moron. Congratulations on having wasted so much time and money. No wonder why you're such a bitter douchebag.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You still haven't told me how sitting in a lecture 3 days a week makes some idiot who gets lower grades than I do more educated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Participating in the class, asking questions, attending group sessions (often mandatory in such courses) moderated by a T.A. and interacting with other like-minded scholars to sharpen and develop real understanding of the material, and demonstrating an ability to communicate effectively about the subject at hand are all part of LEARNING. You seem proud of yourself for knowing how to READ. You also seem quite bitter about all the time and money you obviously wasted. You are a fool, and you want to insist that everyone else be one as well.
Click to expand...


One does not need to go to a college to talk with other people about any subject.

And if you want to hone your communication skills, you can do that for free too.
Toastmasters International - Home

And tell me if all that is so important then why is it that in most cases class participation is only 10% of the grade and assignments and test scores the other 90%?


----------



## Skull Pilot

Unkotare said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look here
> 
> A free course from MIT on logic.  Yale, Harvard, Notre Dame, Tufts, Stanford and Johns Hopkins offer courses as well.  All for free.
> 
> Logic I | Linguistics and Philosophy | MIT OpenCourseWare
> 
> Buy the text, read the lecture notes, do the assignments and you will learn everything the students at MIT learned for free.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you will not (as if we needed any more evidence as to why the likes of you could never attend an MIT or Harvard or Tufts, etc. )
> 
> Those can be interesting and fun. More and more schools are offering them. It's a good and generous public service to make them available. It's a great study aid for students to supplement notes taken during the lecture too. But they don't give you a degree for watching. Guess why.
Click to expand...


No i attended Boston University and Worcester Polytechnic.

And I'm not talking about a degree.  I am talking about the acquisition of knowledge. Just because you have a degree does not mean you will know more about a subject than a dedicated autodidact. As i said if i can get the same or better grades on the coursework than paying students then I didn't need to pay for the class to get the same education.


----------



## Unkotare

Skull Pilot said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> You still haven't told me how sitting in a lecture 3 days a week makes some idiot who gets lower grades than I do more educated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Participating in the class, asking questions, attending group sessions (often mandatory in such courses) moderated by a T.A. and interacting with other like-minded scholars to sharpen and develop real understanding of the material, and demonstrating an ability to communicate effectively about the subject at hand are all part of LEARNING. You seem proud of yourself for knowing how to READ. You also seem quite bitter about all the time and money you obviously wasted. You are a fool, and you want to insist that everyone else be one as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One does not need to go to a college to talk with other people about any subject.
Click to expand...



Talk to whom? The guy you bump into in the gutter when you get tossed out of a bar at night? Someone - if you could scare up ONE person interested enough in the subject to have read the same material and on the same time frame as you, who ends up being even more ignorant and dim-witted than YOU? (if such a thing is possible) Or people equally interested and invested in the material and reasonably equal in their ability to engage said material? All focused on the same material at the same time, guided by those who know and understand the material better than you do and can help you avoid wasting time down side roads of misconceptions and other errors (side roads YOU would strut proudly down all by yourself, convinced you have 'mastered' the material)? Material presented and interepreted by a true expert - sometimes a leading authority IN THE WORLD on the subject? Learned people willing and capable of providing meaningful feedback when YOU inevitably get it all fucking wrong? 

Face it, you have no fucking clue what it means to LEARN. That's why you wasted so much time and money. Sucker.


----------



## Unkotare

Skull Pilot said:


> And I'm not talking about a degree.  I am talking about the acquisition of knowledge.





 You just keep proving the point over and over again.


----------



## Unkotare

Skull Pilot said:


> As i said if i can get the same or better grades on the coursework than paying students then I didn't need to pay for the class to get the same education.




You clearly didn't get any kind of education. It was nice of you to make a donation to some fine institutions though.




Do yourself a favor and stop watching Good Will Hunting over and over.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Unkotare said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> As i said if i can get the same or better grades on the coursework than paying students then I didn't need to pay for the class to get the same education.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You clearly didn't get any kind of education. It was nice of you to make a donation to some fine institutions though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do yourself a favor and stop watching Good Will Hunting over and over.
Click to expand...


So tell me why is classroom participation for the most part only counted as 10% of the grade and tests and assignments the other 90%?

Every course I ever took used the same ratios.  So obviously the profs thought test scores and the completion of assigned work to be much more important than classroom participation and even attendance.

So is my suspicion that you are a teacher or a wannabe professor true?

Only teachers think they are indispensable to the learning process.


----------



## Unkotare

Skull Pilot said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> As i said if i can get the same or better grades on the coursework than paying students then I didn't need to pay for the class to get the same education.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You clearly didn't get any kind of education. It was nice of you to make a donation to some fine institutions though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do yourself a favor and stop watching Good Will Hunting over and over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So tell me why is classroom participation for the most part only counted as 10% of the grade and tests and assignments the other 90%?
Click to expand...



If you hadn't missed out completely on getting a real education you'd have the tools to figure that out for yourself. Unfortunately, your ignorance will lead you to the wrong conclusion. You poor, stupid bastard.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Unkotare said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You clearly didn't get any kind of education. It was nice of you to make a donation to some fine institutions though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do yourself a favor and stop watching Good Will Hunting over and over.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So tell me why is classroom participation for the most part only counted as 10% of the grade and tests and assignments the other 90%?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If you hadn't missed out completely on getting a real education you'd have the tools to figure that out for yourself. Unfortunately, your ignorance will lead you to the wrong conclusion. You poor, stupid bastard.
Click to expand...


So again you won't answer the question.  Maybe you should ask a TA what to say


----------



## Unkotare

Skull Pilot said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> So tell me why is classroom participation for the most part only counted as 10% of the grade and tests and assignments the other 90%?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you hadn't missed out completely on getting a real education you'd have the tools to figure that out for yourself. Unfortunately, your ignorance will lead you to the wrong conclusion. You poor, stupid bastard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So again you won't answer the question.  Maybe you should ask a TA what to say
Click to expand...


LOL! You just can't help proving the point over and over!


----------



## Skull Pilot

Unkotare said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you hadn't missed out completely on getting a real education you'd have the tools to figure that out for yourself. Unfortunately, your ignorance will lead you to the wrong conclusion. You poor, stupid bastard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So again you won't answer the question.  Maybe you should ask a TA what to say
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL! You just can't help proving the point over and over!
Click to expand...


So you think that if I can ace all the tests and assignments of a course without attending class that some idiot like you who rides a curve and participates in Q&A with a teaching assistant has a better understanding of the material?

Please prove your position.  If you're so smart it should be easy.

I won't hold my breath though because your reluctance to do so is evidence enough of your inability.


----------



## Unkotare

Skull Pilot said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> So again you won't answer the question.  Maybe you should ask a TA what to say
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL! You just can't help proving the point over and over!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you think that if I can ace all the tests and assignments of a course without attending class that some idiot like you who rides a curve and participates in Q&A with a teaching assistant has a better understanding of the material?
Click to expand...




I've already explained this for you. You like to read, so go back and read what I wrote again. 


It's no surprise that you aren't learning anything from all this. You just don't seem capable.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Unkotare said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL! You just can't help proving the point over and over!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you think that if I can ace all the tests and assignments of a course without attending class that some idiot like you who rides a curve and participates in Q&A with a teaching assistant has a better understanding of the material?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've already explained this for you. You like to read, so go back and read what I wrote again.
> 
> 
> It's no surprise that you aren't learning anything from all this. You just don't seem capable.
Click to expand...


I don't need to listen to you flap your lips in order to learn.

You might not be able to learn on your own but don't project your disabilities onto me.

Do you really think it matters in the end if I got a 4.0 in  course that I didn't participate in a discussion with a teaching assistant?

As i said you must be a wannabe professor.


----------



## Unkotare

Skull Pilot said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you think that if I can ace all the tests and assignments of a course without attending class that some idiot like you who rides a curve and participates in Q&A with a teaching assistant has a better understanding of the material?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've already explained this for you. You like to read, so go back and read what I wrote again.
> 
> 
> It's no surprise that you aren't learning anything from all this. You just don't seem capable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't need to listen to you flap your lips in order to learn.
Click to expand...




You have more than proven that you don't even know what that means.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Unkotare said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've already explained this for you. You like to read, so go back and read what I wrote again.
> 
> 
> It's no surprise that you aren't learning anything from all this. You just don't seem capable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't need to listen to you flap your lips in order to learn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have more than proven that you don't even know what that means.
Click to expand...


And you have?

You have yet to answer one of my questions thereby demonstrating your inability to support your argument.

No go have a discussion with some fellow students and teaching assistants to try and figure it out.


----------



## Unkotare

Skull Pilot said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't need to listen to you flap your lips in order to learn.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have more than proven that you don't even know what that means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you have?
> 
> You have yet to answer one of my questions thereby demonstrating your inability to support your argument.
> 
> No go have a discussion with some fellow students and teaching assistants to try and figure it out.
Click to expand...




You've had everything explained to you that you need, but you are too stupid to understand any of it. That's why you wasted so much time and money. Poor fool.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Unkotare said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have more than proven that you don't even know what that means.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you have?
> 
> You have yet to answer one of my questions thereby demonstrating your inability to support your argument.
> 
> No go have a discussion with some fellow students and teaching assistants to try and figure it out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've had everything explained to you that you need, but you are too stupid to understand any of it. That's why you wasted so much time and money. Poor fool.
Click to expand...


And you don't understand that sitting around gabbing with other students about the assignments is not necessary to learn the course material.

it's the measurable end result that matters.  It's all that ever matters.


----------



## Unkotare

The sad fool clearly has no idea what learning is, let alone a liberal arts education, let alone Philosophy. 


You're just dancing around like a clown at this point, fool.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Unkotare said:


> The sad fool clearly has no idea what learning is, let alone a liberal arts education, let alone Philosophy.
> 
> 
> You're just dancing around like a clown at this point, fool.



And you still haven't proven your point .

So just answer this question.

If two people take a test on a subject or write a paper on a topic and get the exact same grade from the same professor could you tell which one spent 3 days a week in class and had regular chit chats with a teaching assistant and which one studied independently?

That's about as simple as I can make the question so you should have no trouble answering it.


----------



## Unkotare

Skull Pilot said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> The sad fool clearly has no idea what learning is, let alone a liberal arts education, let alone Philosophy.
> 
> 
> You're just dancing around like a clown at this point, fool.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you still haven't proven your point .
Click to expand...



Do I need to tell you to go back and read what I already told you over and over? Are you going into JakeFakey mode because you have nothing left to say?


----------



## Unkotare

Skull Pilot said:


> If two people take a test on a subject or write a paper on a topic and get the exact same grade from the same professor could you tell which one spent 3 days a week in class and had regular chit chats with a teaching assistant and which one studied independently?





If I were familiar with the course and with each of the students and their work prior to taking the course? Sure. You don't really understand the question you asked, because you don't understand the first thing about really learning. 

And by the way, trying to use phrases like "spending time" and "chit chat" as diminutives is clumsy and obvious. Don't bother trying to be clever; you're unqualified.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Unkotare said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> If two people take a test on a subject or write a paper on a topic and get the exact same grade from the same professor could you tell which one spent 3 days a week in class and had regular chit chats with a teaching assistant and which one studied independently?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I were familiar with the course and with each of the students and their work prior to taking the course? Sure. You don't really understand the question you asked, because you don't understand the first thing about really learning.
> 
> And by the way, trying to use phrases like "spending time" and "chit chat" as diminutives is clumsy and obvious. Don't bother trying to be clever; you're unqualified.
Click to expand...


OOOH sensitive aren't we Mr TA wannabe Professor.

If there is no measurable difference between the 2 students then one method of learning is no different than the other.

So get over yourself.  Your need for validation is pathetic.


----------



## Unkotare

Skull Pilot said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> If two people take a test on a subject or write a paper on a topic and get the exact same grade from the same professor could you tell which one spent 3 days a week in class and had regular chit chats with a teaching assistant and which one studied independently?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I were familiar with the course and with each of the students and their work prior to taking the course? Sure. You don't really understand the question you asked, because you don't understand the first thing about really learning.
> 
> And by the way, trying to use phrases like "spending time" and "chit chat" as diminutives is clumsy and obvious. Don't bother trying to be clever; you're unqualified.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OOOH sensitive aren't we Mr TA wannabe Professor.
> 
> If there is no measurable difference between the 2 students then one method of learning is no different than the other.
> 
> So get over yourself.  Your need for validation is pathetic.
Click to expand...




Now you've been reduced to sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting, "LALALALALALALALALALALA!" Seems about the right level for you. I answered your question and revealed your childish little 'technique.' You've got nothing left but repetition and denial. I don't blame you for being frustrated at all the time and money you wasted.


----------



## MikeK

Friends said:


> [...]
> 
> If you go to a fair to middling college or university employers want someone who can, as they put it, "Hit the ground running." They want someone they can put into a cubicle and expect that person to be as productive as the person who sat there for five years.
> 
> I know what I am talking about. My degree was in political science. When I was working as a stock clerk my boss told me, "You are intelligent. You work hard. You do a good job. Nevertheless, we have nothing in common. As far as I am concerned, that is a problem. When I come to work I want to talk about last night's ball game or a fishing trip I was on. You are not interested in that."
> 
> He was right. I was not interested. He was not interested in what I wanted to talk about about, which would have been a book I was reading, a magazine article I had read, or a documentary I has seen on television. That was not a termination interview. Nevertheless, that boss had already given me a bad job review for contrived and picayune reasons. When the time came to lay people off I was on the list.
> 
> When I was trying to get another job as a stock clerk I kept applying for jobs that asked for a high school degree and six months of experience. I had a year and a half experience. I kept getting rejected. Finally a job counselor told me that I should not tell prospective employers about my college degree. She said it meant that I was overqualified.
> 
> That is what you get from a liberal arts degree. You are not qualified to do anything that takes a certain amount of intelligence. You are over qualified for anything you can learn on the job.



A shipwrecked sailor is washed ashore in a place inhabited by a genetically blind race.  In spite of their deficiency, his kind and accommodating hosts are productively competent and fully capable of sustaining their well organized colony because of exceptionally well developed compensatory senses.  

When the sailor speaks to them in terms of things he can or cannot "see," such as "colors, clouds" and "beauty," these peculiar pronouncements combined with his frequent stumbling and his comparatively limited ability to move about and function during those times which he speaks of as "darkness" and "night," cause his sightless hosts to regard him as defective, delusional, and capable of only marginal performance.  

In the land of the blind, sometimes the one-eyed man is not king.


----------



## Unkotare

Whoa. Someone get the gong...


----------



## Skull Pilot

Unkotare said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I were familiar with the course and with each of the students and their work prior to taking the course? Sure. You don't really understand the question you asked, because you don't understand the first thing about really learning.
> 
> And by the way, trying to use phrases like "spending time" and "chit chat" as diminutives is clumsy and obvious. Don't bother trying to be clever; you're unqualified.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OOOH sensitive aren't we Mr TA wannabe Professor.
> 
> If there is no measurable difference between the 2 students then one method of learning is no different than the other.
> 
> So get over yourself.  Your need for validation is pathetic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now you've been reduced to sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting, "LALALALALALALALALALALA!" Seems about the right level for you. I answered your question and revealed your childish little 'technique.' You've got nothing left but repetition and denial. I don't blame you for being frustrated at all the time and money you wasted.
Click to expand...


There is nothing magical about  TA like you leading a Q&A session once a week.

You just can't face the fact that you are not as important as you think you are.

As I said the only thing that counts is measurable results and if you get exactly the same results from 2 different courses of action then there is no appreciable difference between those actions.

That's how things work outside of academia, you know what the rest of us call the real world where you don't get graded on a curve.


----------



## Unkotare

Skull Pilot said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> OOOH sensitive aren't we Mr TA wannabe Professor.
> 
> If there is no measurable difference between the 2 students then one method of learning is no different than the other.
> 
> So get over yourself.  Your need for validation is pathetic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now you've been reduced to sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting, "LALALALALALALALALALALA!" Seems about the right level for you. I answered your question and revealed your childish little 'technique.' You've got nothing left but repetition and denial. I don't blame you for being frustrated at all the time and money you wasted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is nothing magical about  TA like you leading a Q&A session once a week.
> 
> You just can't face the fact that you are not as important as you think you are.
Click to expand...



Weak attempts at distraction like focusing on "TA" and repeating it endlessly, or pretending this has anything to do with me personally, strongly suggest you realize at this point that your foolish argument has fallen completely apart.


----------



## Unkotare

Skull Pilot said:


> As I said the only thing that counts is measurable results and if you get exactly the same results from 2 different courses of action then there is no appreciable difference between those actions.






You obviously haven't thought that through. But then, you clearly never learned to think carefully.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Unkotare said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I said the only thing that counts is measurable results and if you get exactly the same results from 2 different courses of action then there is no appreciable difference between those actions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You obviously haven't thought that through. But then, you clearly never learned to think carefully.
Click to expand...


You just can't admit that there's nothing special about being a teacher.

You could not tell the difference between two equally knowledgeable students based on performance alone even if you do believe you have magic powers as  T.A.

So go figure out the curve for your next exam.  What's it going to be a C+ equals an A?


----------



## Unkotare

Skull Pilot said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I said the only thing that counts is measurable results and if you get exactly the same results from 2 different courses of action then there is no appreciable difference between those actions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You obviously haven't thought that through. But then, you clearly never learned to think carefully.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just can't admit that there's nothing special about being a teacher.
Click to expand...



You've got a real hang-up going on, huh? Were you beaten by a teacher as a child or something? Don't be scared, they won't hurt you (you're doing more than enough of that to yourself).


----------



## Unkotare

Skull Pilot said:


> You could not tell the difference between two equally knowledgeable students based on performance alone





I already answered your question about this. Pay attention. No wonder why you can't learn anything.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Unkotare said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> You could not tell the difference between two equally knowledgeable students based on performance alone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I already answered your question about this. Pay attention. No wonder why you can't learn anything.
Click to expand...


Go consult your study group little sheep we know you're no good on your own.


----------



## Unkotare

Skull Pilot said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> You could not tell the difference between two equally knowledgeable students based on performance alone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I already answered your question about this. Pay attention. No wonder why you can't learn anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go consult your study group little sheep we know you're no good on your own.
Click to expand...



What study group is that? In any case, it's easy to see that you never learned a damn thing on your own. In fact, you can't even understand the topic.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Unkotare said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> I already answered your question about this. Pay attention. No wonder why you can't learn anything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Go consult your study group little sheep we know you're no good on your own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What study group is that? In any case, it's easy to see that you never learned a damn thing on your own. In fact, you can't even understand the topic.
Click to expand...


hey you're the one that needed a TA to explain shit to you not me and now you are a TA you must be so proud.  Run along now and go give some moron a curved grade so it looks like you know how to teach


----------



## Skull Pilot

Unkotare said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You obviously haven't thought that through. But then, you clearly never learned to think carefully.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You just can't admit that there's nothing special about being a teacher.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You've got a real hang-up going on, huh? Were you beaten by a teacher as a child or something? Don't be scared, they won't hurt you (you're doing more than enough of that to yourself).
Click to expand...


No I honestly can say I can't remember any of my college professor's names because quite frankly after I passed their classes they were irrelevant just like you.


----------



## Unkotare

Skull Pilot said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Go consult your study group little sheep we know you're no good on your own.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What study group is that? In any case, it's easy to see that you never learned a damn thing on your own. In fact, you can't even understand the topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> hey you're the one that needed a TA to explain shit to you not me and now you are a TA you must be so proud.
Click to expand...




I never said I was a TA, you moron. This pattern of assume and repeat is one of the most reliable indicators of an idiot who cannot communicate trying to tread water in a discussion. You see it all the time here, and you fit the type to a T.


----------



## Unkotare

Skull Pilot said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> You just can't admit that there's nothing special about being a teacher.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've got a real hang-up going on, huh? Were you beaten by a teacher as a child or something? Don't be scared, they won't hurt you (you're doing more than enough of that to yourself).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I honestly can say I can't remember any of my college professor's names .
Click to expand...




What's even more certain is that none of them remember yours. Idiots like you who are basically just making a donation to the college are a generic dime a dozen.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Unkotare said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've got a real hang-up going on, huh? Were you beaten by a teacher as a child or something? Don't be scared, they won't hurt you (you're doing more than enough of that to yourself).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No I honestly can say I can't remember any of my college professor's names .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's even more certain is that none of them remember yours. Idiots like you who are basically just making a donation to the college are a generic dime a dozen.
Click to expand...


Well i currently make more than any of them so I don't give a fuck what they think

They're the ones stuck teaching the same thing over and over trying to tell themselves that they are absolutely indispensable.  Kind of like you do.


----------



## UKRider

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cl7Zg8P0z3M]Monty Python - International Philosophy - YouTube[/ame]

It was something to watch. 

Philosophers arguing.


----------



## Unkotare

Skull Pilot said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> No I honestly can say I can't remember any of my college professor's names .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's even more certain is that none of them remember yours. Idiots like you who are basically just making a donation to the college are a generic dime a dozen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well i currently make more than any of them .
Click to expand...





So do drug kingpins, inside traders, and corrupt politicians. Congratulations, you ignorant scumbag. You won't understand this, but you also clearly missed something else important that a liberal arts education might have given you.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Unkotare said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's even more certain is that none of them remember yours. Idiots like you who are basically just making a donation to the college are a generic dime a dozen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well i currently make more than any of them .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So do drug kingpins, inside traders, and corrupt politicians. Congratulations, you ignorant scumbag. You won't understand this, but you also clearly missed something else important that a liberal arts education might have given you.
Click to expand...


Yeah like how to suck up to a professor.

As I said there's nothing special about teachers like all those profs in the school of management who have never run a business so get over yourself.


----------



## Unkotare

At this point it seems that your inability to understand all this stems from some strange inferiority complex. You should see someone about that.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Unkotare said:


> At this point it seems that your inability to understand all this stems from some strange inferiority complex. You should see someone about that.



No it seems to me that because you're a Teaching Assistant that you think you have magical powers and you can tell from test scores alone who has the "real" education and who doesn't.

Quite frankly I don't really hold reverence for any occupation or people that need to justify their own professions with put downs.

There are many roads to a great city and yours is not the only one and since you seem to think that then your education isn't very real.


----------



## editec

Skull Pilot said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suspect that many of the board's detractors of liberal arts education are not themselves very educated and are basically guessing what the term really means.
> 
> For those of you who imagine that Libral Arts education is entirely something on can get by reading?
> 
> Try reading Husseral without having a professor in philosophy to help you get it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are endless sources you can find that will do that. Why settle for one professor's opinion when you can get multiple opinions for free?
> 
> There is nothing in an undergraduate liberal arts curriculum that cannot be learned outside of a university.
Click to expand...


Skull I do not doubt that some people are autodidacts with the intellectual horsepower to do without the benefit of superior scholars to guide them in their studies.

Neither do I doubt that most people (even autodidacts) greatly benefit from having superior scholars there to help them find their way in subjects where (unguided) most people lose their way.

This question, as with most social science questions,  does not have YES or NO answer, obviously.


----------



## Unkotare

Skull Pilot said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> At this point it seems that your inability to understand all this stems from some strange inferiority complex. You should see someone about that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it seems to me that because you're a Teaching Assistant.
Click to expand...





But I'm not, and I never said that I was. You just made a stupid assumption and then repeated it over and over like some Rain Man mental patient. A classic sign of a mindless idiot unable to accept he's lost the argument. 


Stop feeling so threatened. No one forced you to waste all that time and money.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Unkotare said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> At this point it seems that your inability to understand all this stems from some strange inferiority complex. You should see someone about that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it seems to me that because you're a Teaching Assistant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But I'm not, and I never said that I was. You just made a stupid assumption and then repeated it over and over like some Rain Man mental patient. A classic sign of a mindless idiot unable to accept he's lost the argument.
> 
> 
> Stop feeling so threatened. No one forced you to waste all that time and money.
Click to expand...


yeah you threaten me. not

And I still suspect you are a teacher because you are the one who gets defensive when I say they are not necessary


----------



## Unkotare

Skull Pilot said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it seems to me that because you're a Teaching Assistant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But I'm not, and I never said that I was. You just made a stupid assumption and then repeated it over and over like some Rain Man mental patient. A classic sign of a mindless idiot unable to accept he's lost the argument.
> 
> 
> Stop feeling so threatened. No one forced you to waste all that time and money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> yeah you threaten me. not
Click to expand...



That's not what I said. Just how damn stupid are you?


----------



## Skull Pilot

editec said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suspect that many of the board's detractors of liberal arts education are not themselves very educated and are basically guessing what the term really means.
> 
> For those of you who imagine that Libral Arts education is entirely something on can get by reading?
> 
> Try reading Husseral without having a professor in philosophy to help you get it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are endless sources you can find that will do that. Why settle for one professor's opinion when you can get multiple opinions for free?
> 
> There is nothing in an undergraduate liberal arts curriculum that cannot be learned outside of a university.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Skull I do not doubt that some people are autodidacts with the intellectual horsepower to do without the benefit of superior scholars to guide them in their studies.
> 
> Neither do I doubt that most people (even autodidacts) greatly benefit from having superior scholars there to help them find their way in subjects where (unguided) most people lose their way.
> 
> This question, as with most social science questions,  does not have YES or NO answer, obviously.
Click to expand...


Well scholars can be found outside of universities.

Course curricula are readily available and really is that not a guide? You can even get syllabi for individual classes to use as a guide.

To say a university or a professor is an absolute necessity in order to get a "real " education is patently false.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Unkotare said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> But I'm not, and I never said that I was. You just made a stupid assumption and then repeated it over and over like some Rain Man mental patient. A classic sign of a mindless idiot unable to accept he's lost the argument.
> 
> 
> Stop feeling so threatened. No one forced you to waste all that time and money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yeah you threaten me. not
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what I said. Just how damn stupid are you?
Click to expand...


Not stupid enough to think that there's only one way to learn something.


----------



## editec

Skull Pilot said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are endless sources you can find that will do that. Why settle for one professor's opinion when you can get multiple opinions for free?
> 
> There is nothing in an undergraduate liberal arts curriculum that cannot be learned outside of a university.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull I do not doubt that some people are autodidacts with the intellectual horsepower to do without the benefit of superior scholars to guide them in their studies.
> 
> Neither do I doubt that most people (even autodidacts) greatly benefit from having superior scholars there to help them find their way in subjects where (unguided) most people lose their way.
> 
> This question, as with most social science questions,  does not have YES or NO answer, obviously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well scholars can be found outside of universities.
> 
> Course curricula are readily available and really is that not a guide? You can even get syllabi for individual classes to use as a guide.
> 
> *To say a university or a professor is an absolute necessity in order to get a "real " education is patently false*.
Click to expand...


Yeah, so?

Who said that?

Not me, obviously.


----------



## rightwinger

The best reason to study Philosophy is that it is a good place to meet chicks

I studied Engineering.......God, do I know


----------



## Skull Pilot

editec said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> Skull I do not doubt that some people are autodidacts with the intellectual horsepower to do without the benefit of superior scholars to guide them in their studies.
> 
> Neither do I doubt that most people (even autodidacts) greatly benefit from having superior scholars there to help them find their way in subjects where (unguided) most people lose their way.
> 
> This question, as with most social science questions,  does not have YES or NO answer, obviously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well scholars can be found outside of universities.
> 
> Course curricula are readily available and really is that not a guide? You can even get syllabi for individual classes to use as a guide.
> 
> *To say a university or a professor is an absolute necessity in order to get a "real " education is patently false*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, so?
> 
> Who said that?
> 
> Not me, obviously.
Click to expand...


Ukunthair has been bleating that over and over I didn't attribute it to you so chill.


----------



## Unkotare

Skull Pilot said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> yeah you threaten me. not
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what I said. Just how damn stupid are you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not stupid enough to think that there's only one way to learn something.
Click to expand...




You've proven that you are stupid enough to waste enormous time and money to learn NOTHING.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Unkotare said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what I said. Just how damn stupid are you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not stupid enough to think that there's only one way to learn something.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've proven that you are stupid enough to waste enormous time and money to learn NOTHING.
Click to expand...


I learned plenty especially that professors ain't the be all end all of learning.

Seems to me your the one who can't figure things out on your own even with your "real" education


----------



## Unkotare

Skull Pilot said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not stupid enough to think that there's only one way to learn something.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've proven that you are stupid enough to waste enormous time and money to learn NOTHING.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I learned plenty
Click to expand...




You have demonstrated here that you did not.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Unkotare said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've proven that you are stupid enough to waste enormous time and money to learn NOTHING.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I learned plenty
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have demonstrated here that you did not.
Click to expand...

I learned to learn on my own something you are incapable of.


----------



## Unkotare

Skull Pilot said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I learned plenty
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have demonstrated here that you did not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I learned to learn on my own something you are incapable of.
Click to expand...




You did not LEARN anything. You've made that perfectly clear. What you did was waste many years of your life and make a generous donation to fine institutions of higher learning. The students who actually went there to learn no doubt benefited from your generosity if not your ignorance.


----------



## Daktoria

I'm just gunna step in here and teach Skull Pilot what he's missing.  It's rather embarrassing:

One, you can't make someone stop talking or prevent someone from talking in the first place.  It doesn't matter if you're right and someone else is wrong.  Someone else will continue uttering gibberish just to get on your nerves.

Two, if someone makes brutal assertions about you, it's not your obligation to disprove someone.  Have some self-respect.  

Three, if you make complex statements with multiple necessities, and someone cherry-picks a possibility, you've already won the argument due to unaddressed points.

Four, everyone is not goodwilling.  Let it go.  Some people are deliberately provocative just to see how far they can egg you on.  They enjoy seeing your head spin.

You won.  Declare victory and move on.


----------



## Publius1787

midcan5 said:


> I often read that students should study some field of knowledge that leads to productive work. But consider that my eventual working world did not even exist when I started college. My degree was eventually in Liberal Arts as I was never sure what I wanted to be when I grew up. When you examine the degrees of many of the national leaders in technology or business, their degree is often not related to their work. How is that, some  even dropped out of school. So then maybe we need to ask what makes a person a good citizen and a productive member of society. Could it be a liberal education steeped in philosophy?
> 
> "Is a liberal arts education for everyone? Probably not. Some people would rather do just about anything than major in philosophy, and that is fine. *But a liberal arts education forms students to be a thoughtful and concerned citizens, and that is the subtext here. Educated, concerned citizens aren&#8217;t going to sit back and let the economic elite run the show.* McCrory can critique the educated elite all that he wants, but when you pal around with the likes of Art Pope you really have no business accusing anyone else of elitism.
> 
> McCrory himself studied political science and education. Bennett, who was interviewing him, has a PhD in &#8211; you guessed it &#8211; philosophy. *The underlying assumption appears to be that if you&#8217;re part of the upper class, you can enjoy the luxury of a liberal arts education. If you&#8217;re lower or middle class, the public institutions that are supposed to be part of the mythical &#8220;American dream,&#8221; that level playing field, should only offer courses in skilled trades.* Wealthy young people will get a liberal arts education. Poor and middle class young people will choose a trade."
> 
> Femmonite: Notes from an Employed Philosopher



I once asked every liberal in this forum the following.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...ciple-do-liberals-hang-their-ideology-on.html

No one answered. It is highly unlikely many, if not most, have never read philosophy. That was the day liberals proved to me that they knew nothing about philosophy.


----------



## Unkotare

You really think this is the place for your partisan political rant? You don't have the rest of the entire fucking site for that?


----------



## midcan5

This piece answers several of the questions noted above.

'Why Study Philosophy' 

"In addition to requiring you to master broadly applicable skills such as research and writing, a liberal arts course of study that spans multiple disciplines also requires students to make connections between seemingly disparate subjects.  Art and computing, for example, equals Apple Computer.  And on a smaller scale, while my lack of business knowledge came at a cost when I was running a company, most of the ideas that made us successful derived from multi-disciplinary approaches that I and the liberal arts grads I tended to hire brought to product design and problem solving.

Now liberal arts programs normally balance broad exposure to different subjects with the requirement to concentrate in one area.  And the reason why we have different majors is that (1) they appeal to different types of people and (2) they each bring something unique to the study of what it means to be human."  Why Philosophy? - Philosophy is Dead Hawking - Degree of Freedom


----------



## Unkotare

That was about Liberal Arts education in general. It didn't really address the OP.


----------



## Vikrant

There will be no human advancement possible without us engaging in what we call philosophy. A philosopher is an escaped prisoner who can see and hear things we the prisoners cannot. It is the philosopher in Ramanujan who made him see infinity that we the prisoners cannot. 

Plato explains this beautifully in his book Republic using an allegory which has come to be known as The Allegory of the Cave. 



> And now look again, and see what will naturally follow if the prisoners are released and disabused of their error. At first, when any one of them is liberated and compelled suddenly to stand up and turn his neck around and walk and look towards the fire light, he will suffer sharp pains; the glare will distress him, and he will be unable to see the realities of which in his former state he had seen in the shadows; and then conceive someone saying to him that what he saw before was an illusion, but that now, when he is approaching nearer to being and his eye is turned towards more real existence, he has a clearer vision -- -What will be his reply? As you may further imagine that his instructor is pointing to the objects as they pass and requiring him to name them, will he not be perplexed? Will he not fancy that the shadows which he formerly saw are truer than the objects which are now shown to him?


----------



## midcan5

Philosophy student wins 'The Nation's' essay contest.

"Not only have we as a society lost many of the principles of popular participation in decision-making that are fundamental to democracy; many of our citizens are completely unaware even of what has been lost. Over the past five years as I worked to finish my degree I would get up every day at 2 am to join many of the working poor in my area to load up big brown UPS trucks. For a large portion of my co-workers, civil society and the social bonds that keep society functioning have completely disappearedas have the hopes, dreams and aspirations of better days. Far worse, their own capacities to recognize this state of affairs and do anything about it are in disrepair. When a person lacks knowledge of the basic functioning of the political process, when one lacks the economic stability required to engage and take part in building a vibrant political movement, then not only are political questions passed over, but questions of political solutions are totally eradicated from ones vocabulary."

Thirty Years Late to a Class War | The Nation


----------



## MikeK

Skull Pilot said:


> There is no need at all to go to college to study liberal arts.
> 
> You can do it on your own for free.  The funny thing is that the public is convinced that they have to spend tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars to read a book.


You're ignoring the value of guidance and exposure to like minds and the developed intellects of one's professors and senior students.

A Liberal Arts education usually will not enable one to acquire wealth.  But it can lead to life of creative satisfaction and, hopefully, happiness and contentment.


----------



## Vikrant

Einstein's theory of relativity introduces the concept of 4th dimension. You need to have a great deal of philosopher in you capable of thinking out of box to even remotely understand this concept.


----------



## oldfart

I passed on this thread a few days ago, and after reading it decided to go back to the OP as the basis for comment!  



midcan5 said:


> I often read that students should study some field of knowledge that leads to productive work. But consider that my eventual working world did not even exist when I started college. My degree was eventually in Liberal Arts as I was never sure what I wanted to be when I grew up. When you examine the degrees of many of the national leaders in technology or business, their degree is often not related to their work. How is that, some  even dropped out of school. So then maybe we need to ask what makes a person a good citizen and a productive member of society. Could it be a liberal education steeped in philosophy?



For a variety of reasons, perhaps a majority of professional change careers over the course of a lifetime.  I have had five or six often overlapping (economics professor & practicing economist, historian and writer, professional CPE speaker and sponsor, tax litigator, small businessman, financial services advisor, plus avocations and a few minor gigs.  You are right to note that the best preparation for such a working life is a broad education.  



midcan5 said:


> "Is a liberal arts education for everyone? Probably not. Some people would rather do just about anything than major in philosophy, and that is fine. *But a liberal arts education forms students to be a thoughtful and concerned citizens, and that is the subtext here. Educated, concerned citizens arent going to sit back and let the economic elite run the show.*



The issue of elites is problematical.  We can't get around the fact that they exist.  But there is a vast difference between a class or elite based on inherited privilege, one based on financial success, one based on notable accomplishments which are socially recognized, and another based on personal characteristics, respect, and leadership.  Some of the education given each kind of elite has potential to make them useless or counterproductive to society (I feel that training the best and brightest in creating instruments of worldwide economic destruction and inculcating in the belief that this is a service to mankind which justifies wealth acquisition seen in no other part of society as an entitlement is an example of this).  Conversely, socially responsible members of any elite who give of time and resources to encourage all of us to do those specific things which make us a better society (the Dalai Lama comes to mind) advance our society and civilization.  

But when we educate any elite we expect to exercise a leadership role, there is a kitbag of experiences and skills that enable them to cope with the challenges before them;  critical thinking skills, communication skills, working in groups, emotional maturity, exposure to people of varied backgrounds and abilities, and a well functioning ethical compass.  



midcan5 said:


> The underlying assumption appears to be that if youre part of the upper class, you can enjoy the luxury of a liberal arts education. If youre lower or middle class, the public institutions that are supposed to be part of the mythical American dream, that level playing field, should only offer courses in skilled trades.  Wealthy young people will get a liberal arts education. Poor and middle class young people will choose a trade."



While this is too often the case, it is the hallmark of a dying culture.  As social and economic mobility decline, so does the overall vitality of the society.  Everyone with the ability and inclination to receive a "liberal arts education" and become a lifetime learner should be allowed and encouraged to do so, without a crushing financial burden.  I see no evidence that we have a surplus of such people or will in the future ever have one.  We need all the good people we can produce.


----------



## midcan5

For the interested thinker.

videos: Wireless Philosophy | Recently Uploaded Videos | Wi Phi

Philosophy talk: Welcome to Philosophy Talk | Philosophy Talk

excellent blog: Leiter Reports: A Philosophy Blog

rationality: The poverty of rationality ? Crooked Timber

good evil: Good and Evil (1956). By Peter T. Geach in ANALYSIS Vol. 17 32?42. // Fair Use Repository

freewill books: Paul Russell on Free Will and Responsibility | Five Books | Five Books

Philosopher "This blog holds a collection of philosophical enquiries and arguments which are updated monthly. Whilst some articles are written with professional philosopher's in mind, all work here is aimed foremost at inspiring people to take up an interest in philosophy by way of challenging, against the grain, discussion on a range of philosophical topics." 


"To achieve success in philosophy would be, to use a contemporary turn of phrase, to 'know one's way around' ... not in that unreflective way in which the centipede of the story knew its way around before it faced the question, 'how do I walk?', but in that reflective way which means that no intellectual holds are barred."  Wilfrid Sellars


----------



## Book of Jeremiah

dblack said:


> Friends said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Heh... yeah, I'm sure his head full of highfalutin ideas will cause him no end of trouble.
> 
> Anyway, *he handles himself pretty well amongst the plebs. I'm sure he'll be fine.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am glad to hear that. He could have learned those skills by reading Dale Carnegie's How to Win Friends and Influence People.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, he learned those skills, in part, working construction to finance his education.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nevertheless, he is getting an expensive education that will almost certainly not help him on the job market. It might harm those with less social understanding and social skills.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You really don't know what you're talking about. That's not a slam, I just haven't given you all the details. He's the most practical person I know (yes, much more so than his father), and he has taken all this into account. He's worked his way into a highly ranked PhD program with an excellent placement record. And he's doing quite well so far. I appreciate your concern, and while it might be good advice for someone wondering what to do, it doesn't apply here.
Click to expand...


You must be very proud of him for all he has accomplished, DBlack.  He sounds like a remarkable young man!  Congratulations!


----------



## dblack

Jeremiah said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Friends said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am glad to hear that. He could have learned those skills by reading Dale Carnegie's How to Win Friends and Influence People.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, he learned those skills, in part, working construction to finance his education.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nevertheless, he is getting an expensive education that will almost certainly not help him on the job market. It might harm those with less social understanding and social skills.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You really don't know what you're talking about. That's not a slam, I just haven't given you all the details. He's the most practical person I know (yes, much more so than his father), and he has taken all this into account. He's worked his way into a highly ranked PhD program with an excellent placement record. And he's doing quite well so far. I appreciate your concern, and while it might be good advice for someone wondering what to do, it doesn't apply here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You must be very proud of him for all he has accomplished, DBlack.  He sounds like a remarkable young man!  Congratulations!
Click to expand...


Yeah... definitely. Thanks!


----------



## Delta4Embassy

If your only reason for studying is to get a good paying job then lots of academic fields will seem silly. But when you figure philosophy teaches you how to reason and analyze, the applications are obvious. I'm biased towards psychology though myself since every job involving other people benefits from psychology, but philosophy's good too. 

Higher learning shouldn't be just about getting a job and making money. Pretty sure everyone you'd read and learn about in Philosophy didn't go on to make a lot of money.  Yet their contributions ensured them a measure of immortality. Whereas how many sub-management drones can you name from 100 years ago? Drones might make more money and live comfortably, but when they die no one will notice beyond their immediate families.


----------



## gnarlylove

as a BA wielding philosopher, i went in it a lot richer than i am now (once i was undebted, now highly indebt). however, my mind and the rest of my life was enriched beyond measure and so i consider myself end the end better off poor and with philosophy (and taoism) then with money and whatever else it buys (exclusion).


----------



## Unkotare

gnarlylove said:


> as [sic] a BA wielding philosopher, i [sic] went in it a lot richer than i [sic] am now (once i was undebted [sic], now highly indebt [sic]). however [sic], my mind and the rest of my life was enriched beyond measure and so i [sic] consider myself end the end [sic] [sic] better off poor and with philosophy (and taoism) then with money and whatever else it buys (exclusion).





You must have taken a lot more care with your writing when you were in school if you managed to graduate.


----------



## gnarlylove

I didn't know I was under examination. I thought the internet (or rather keyboard) was largely a loose and lax medium to express ideas without overly straining the hand by necessitating proper grammar. I guess you hold me to a standard that I'd argue has little application on internet message boards. I don't intend to strip away basic sentence structure but god forbid an academic blends with his fellow man by ignoring otherwise universally understood meanings like i=I and so on.

Either way, I'm glad we aren't babbling like in many other forums. Or perhaps I should elucidate, our babbling is erudite and lacks regular ad hominem attacks and is therefore worthy...or something like that.


----------



## Unkotare

gnarlylove said:


> I didn't know I was under examination.





You should be under examination by yourself if you respect both subject and object.


----------



## Unkotare

gnarlylove said:


> ...god forbid an academic blends with his fellow man by ignoring otherwise universally understood meanings like i=I and so on.





Having an undergraduate degree makes you "an academic" distinguished from "his fellow man"?


...........................


----------



## JakeStarkey

*'Why Study Philosophy' *  My disciplines of English, history, and philosophy at university helped me as a military leader, as an individual involved with community and school organizations, and in the family business.  Graduate degrees and courses in management and IT certainly were well ground in my earlier education and employment.  Whether in military or business, the greater the shared success and cooperation, the greater the mission accomplishment.


----------



## gnarlylove

Unkotare said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...god forbid an academic blends with his fellow man by ignoring otherwise universally understood meanings like i=I and so on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Having an undergraduate degree makes you "an academic" distinguished from "his fellow man"?
> 
> 
> ...........................
Click to expand...


lo and behold I can see you are a true academic. one that cannot move beyond the superficiality of knowing words and not hearts, the egocentric thought that your hierarchy of ranking people happens to be the right one. it's clear you've never lived homelessly or understand the value of challenging your views. i know you don't need to since your understanding of the world is and has been the correct one for quite some time.

sadly, i have no interest in comparing my degree with your OBVIOUSLY better/more knowledgeable/higher degrees of learning. for degrees do not make the man but his life lived: to realize real respect comes from knowing thyself. I know myself. peroid. i aint got no reason to think your semantic games have much to tell me how to come to know myself.

i know my posts don't and doesnter fit your rigorously demandly for academically workly so tell me again, why are you on a message board? Have you not read the normal lanague of American dialogue on here. i sea, u just wanted to pretend you had something important to say when it had no value. well how noble of you, sire, to teach me. i have never seen such grace in essential work done by an self-respecting academic like yourself in correcting my typing wiles.


----------



## Unkotare

gnarlylove said:


> degrees do not make the man but his life lived: .





Oh yeah, of course. That's why in your very first post on this thread you made a point of declaring what degree you held. Yeah, very credible. I believe you this much:


----------



## Unkotare

gnarlylove said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...god forbid an academic blends with his fellow man by ignoring otherwise universally understood meanings like i=I and so on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Having an undergraduate degree makes you "an academic" distinguished from "his fellow man"?
> 
> 
> ...........................
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lo and behold I can see you are a true academic. one that cannot move beyond the superficiality of knowing words and not hearts, the egocentric thought that your hierarchy of ranking people happens to be the right one. it's clear you've never lived homelessly or understand the value of challenging your views. i know you don't need to since your understanding of the world is and has been the correct one for quite some time.
> 
> sadly, i have no interest in comparing my degree with your OBVIOUSLY better/more knowledgeable/higher degrees of learning. for degrees do not make the man but his life lived: to realize real respect comes from knowing thyself. I know myself. peroid. i aint got no reason to think your semantic games have much to tell me how to come to know myself.
> 
> i know my posts don't and doesnter fit your rigorously demandly for academically workly so tell me again, why are you on a message board? Have you not read the normal lanague of American dialogue on here. i sea, u just wanted to pretend you had something important to say when it had no value. well how noble of you, sire, to teach me. i have never seen such grace in essential work done by an self-respecting academic like yourself in correcting my typing wiles.
Click to expand...







You know, for a self-described "academic" you sure do come across as a lazy dimwit.


----------



## gnarlylove

i know i'm so dimwitted. you are a god and yet you won't accept my praise. let me try again: you are my master, please suck from me the life essence that your need in order to sustain your superior complex.

the whole point of this thread was to say why study philosophy and i noted, without rigorous grammar. i guess that makes me stupid for noting i have lived in the academic world but fail to adhere to its magical standards. by deviation ergo i am earning the title dimwit. i understand your logic: and its vapid. from 16-22 i pursued philosophy in my private life every day reading long articles i printed at school and from 18-22 i pursued it in academia. what i learned that helped shape my life but i guess this extremely short time spent in academia is farts to you. and i am ok with that. it doesn't matter that i fail to live up to your highly respectable standards of name calling and proper punctuation. i guess by not using it it follows deductively that i don't know it. i guess in your world of vapid logic that short of logic flies. i'm intentionally not adhering to your vacuous attempt to unnecessarily correct my grammar. i guess if it doesn't adhere to your standards you don't know how to read it? must be. idk. i don't know why you cannot accept the fact that you are jesus christ himself. why stop with whatever you identify with today? i won't go making any claims because unlike you i'm not so ignorant that i assume i know you and have wisdom to share by calling me dimwitted. man get a life!


----------



## Unkotare

gnarlylove said:


> i know i'm so dimwitted. you are a god and yet you won't accept my praise. let me try again: you are my master, please suck from me the life essence that your need in order to sustain your superior complex.
> 
> the whole point of this thread was to say why study philosophy and i noted, without rigorous grammar. i guess that makes me stupid for noting i have lived in the academic world but fail to adhere to its magical standards. by deviation ergo i am earning the title dimwit. i understand your logic: and its vapid. from 16-22 i pursued philosophy in my private life every day reading long articles i printed at school and from 18-22 i pursued it in academia. what i learned that helped shape my life but i guess this extremely short time spent in academia is farts to you. and i am ok with that. it doesn't matter that i fail to live up to your highly respectable standards of name calling and proper punctuation. i guess by not using it it follows deductively that i don't know it. i guess in your world of vapid logic that short of logic flies. i'm intentionally not adhering to your vacuous attempt to unnecessarily correct my grammar. i guess if it doesn't adhere to your standards you don't know how to read it? must be. idk. i don't know why you cannot accept the fact that you are jesus christ himself. why stop with whatever you identify with today? i won't go making any claims because unlike you i'm not so ignorant that i assume i know you and have wisdom to share by calling me dimwitted. man get a life!






Let's see: You're eager to go out of your way to sound like a pretentious douchebag, but too lazy to do so using proper English. Yup, I believe I called you correctly from the beginning. 

Maybe you should calm down and start again.


----------



## Unkotare

Really, it's ok. Just start over. Drop the silly persona, express yourself like a normal person, and try to pay a little attention to the use of proper English. Shouldn't be too difficult.


----------



## midcan5

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XuwYvFlNGns]How philosophy can save your life: Jules Evans at TEDxBreda - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## gnarlylove

start with the the unexamined life is not worth living, at 21 take drugs and 5 years later pursue soulful nourishment and meditation. got it.

great video. but it only speaks to an audience who views philosophy as partly valuable already. most people can't accept marx was a decent guy concerned for under paid over worked workers, nor can they accept the concept of philosophy, which is mostly drivel to a normal reader at first, can improve their life or has the solution. this site is exemplary in showing no matter one's take on logic and philosophy, everyone assumes they are right and have grand ideas, esp those who take logic and flush it first thing every morning yet claim it as their own. i try to flush aspects of western thought (like "contradictions are necessarily bad") because it narrows perception and is often pedantic, like gaylord unkotare the III.
edited: still a great video though. the problem of philosophy is it usually only appeals to those who already subscribe. meditation is far more open and available but with those two in tandem, one can really grow.


----------



## Unkotare

gnarlylove said:


> everyone assumes they are right and have grand ideas, esp those who take logic and flush it first thing every morning yet claim it as their own. i try to flush aspects of western thought...





You should have studied harder in school, and you should stop being a hypocrite. 

This is not the fresh start I recommended for you.


----------



## rightwinger

I went to college and studied Engineering

The main advantage of studying Phylosopy is that the women are much better looking


----------



## Unkotare

rightwinger said:


> I went to college and studied Engineering
> 
> The main advantage of studying Phylosopy is that the women are much better looking



Meh, not so much (ok, maybe better than Engineering chicks...). The good looking broads were in Journalism, Foreign Languages, or the Fine Arts. Some attractive dames in Psychology, but they were mostly bat-shit crazy and not worth the trouble.


----------



## midcan5

"Many philosophical theories try to evade the uncomfortable truth that luck and fate play a role in the conduct of our moral lives, argues philosopher Paul Russell. He chooses the best books on free will and responsibility."

Paul Russell on Free Will and Responsibility | Five Books | Five Books


----------



## Shrimpbox

I skipped about eight pages and on the twelfth page I saw some of the same posts as before, but I would like to comment on the op.

I was at a liberal arts college for two and a half years and left before they kicked me out. I just didn't have the discipline or the interest to hit the books, but it was the most stimulating and interesting time of my life as I rubbed shoulders with more intelligent people than I have since in one place. But my brain was like a sponge and my mind was like putty. Thoughts were like the drugs( of which there were many) and each new one got you high with possibilities. I was intellectually immature as were most of my classmates and there were some things I did( going to the march in Washington against the Vietnam war) where I behaved as one in a herd instead of thinking for myself. I probably could have fallen into either the left or the right camp depending on the environment I was in. Churchills quote is so apt about a liberal at twenty and a conservative at forty.

The letter in the op reinforces the stereotype of far left academia. I say that because if you read the whole thing it is impossible to separate the philosophy from the political harangue about not letting fat cats run her state. Her second major seems to be women's issues as well as her second job, her first job is working for duke, an institution located I believe in the golden triangle of NC and the heart of liberalville. She lives in an environment of extreme liberalism and I am not persuaded that she will ever come up for air. Isn't maintaining an open mind a prerequisite for any philosopher. The drift of the article insinuates that liberal arts and philosophy can only be appreciated and utilized by progressive thinkers with the reverse being that those knuckle dragging conservatives really don't have the brain power to apply  and argue for conservative values with philosophical tenets, a recurring and ubiquitous conceit here lately.

I agree with the promotion of well rounded individuals seasoned with philosophy. Philosophy should be sex neutral, should apply to all mankind ( and womankind) in the most quintessential generic fashion and the promotion of it should be devoid of a political agenda.


----------



## midcan5

More food for thought.

"Singer is one the most famous ethicists alive today. He also draws the most ire, and inspires the most vociferous denunciations. Among his most influential (and argued-over) beliefs: that relatively wealthy people have a moral duty to donate relatively large amounts of money to people suffering in poverty; that "speciesism" causing mistreatment of animals is "as indefensible as the most blatant racism;" and that, in certain instances, euthanasia of profoundly disabled and suffering people is morally justifiable. (Please take the time to read Singer's own writings on these issues before leaping to attack or defend him.)" Peter Singer Is Here to Talk About Right and Wrong


----------



## midcan5

Two more items of interest.

Review of Rebecca Goldstein?s philosophy book Plato at the Googleplex.

Why Study Philosophy? 'To Challenge Your Own Point of View' - Hope Reese - The Atlantic


----------



## midcan5

More on topic.

Leiter Reports: A Philosophy Blog: Why study philosophy?


----------



## Unkotare

But what are your thoughts?


----------



## midcan5

Unkotare said:


> But what are your thoughts?



My thoughts are all over this board, check the links in my sig as well. 

Additional thought from Peter Singer on Humanities today.

"GDI recently released a ranked list of the top 100 Global Thought Leaders for 2013. The ranking includes economists, psychologists, authors, political scientists, physicists, anthropologists, information scientists, biologists, entrepreneurs, theologians, physicians, and people from several other disciplines. Yet three of the top five global thinkers are philosophers: Slavoj iek, Daniel Dennett, and me. GDI classifies a fourth, Jürgen Habermas, as a sociologist, but the report acknowledges that he, too, is arguably a philosopher."

Peter Singer explains why the world's leading thinkers are philosophers. - Project Syndicate


----------



## Unkotare

midcan5 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> But what are your thoughts?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My thoughts are all over this board, check the links in my sig as well.
Click to expand...




On _this_ topic.


----------



## Avatar4321

Same reason you you study any other topic, so you can get a better understanding of the world around you.


----------



## midcan5

The recent debate....

Physicists Should Stop Saying Silly Things about Philosophy | Sean Carroll

Philosophy begins where physics ends, and physics begins where philosophy ends | The Curious Wavefunction, Scientific American Blog Network

An interview with John Searle ? CRASSH

John Searle: The Philosopher in the World by Tim Crane | NYRblog | The New York Review of Books


----------



## Unkotare

midcan5 said:


> The recent debate....
> 
> Physicists Should Stop Saying Silly Things about Philosophy | Sean Carroll
> 
> Philosophy begins where physics ends, and physics begins where philosophy ends | The Curious Wavefunction, Scientific American Blog Network
> 
> An interview with John Searle ? CRASSH
> 
> John Searle: The Philosopher in the World by Tim Crane | NYRblog | The New York Review of Books



So, what do you think?


----------



## MaryL

Physics is about the real world, and how it works. Philosophy and religion is more about the human psyche and intuition, arts  and  mysticism. Here in the world, few can feed themselves or their families with what are just pie in the sky  pipe dreams.


----------



## Unkotare

MaryL said:


> Physics is about the real world, and how it works. Philosophy and religion is more about the human psyche and intuition, arts  and  mysticism.





You just demonstrated that you do not understand any of the three fields.


----------



## jillian

Unkotare said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Physics is about the real world, and how it works. Philosophy and religion is more about the human psyche and intuition, arts  and  mysticism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You just demonstrated that you do not understand any of the three fields.
Click to expand...


you've become reality impaired


----------



## Unkotare

jillian said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Physics is about the real world, and how it works. Philosophy and religion is more about the human psyche and intuition, arts  and  mysticism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You just demonstrated that you do not understand any of the three fields.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you've become reality impaired
Click to expand...


----------



## Asclepias

There are many different types of philosophies. Some are detrimental to survival. Others lead you astray.  A study of all of them is definitely beneficial.  People paying for the privilege to obtain a degree in a specific discipline only tells employers you have the aptitude for the work.  It has almost nothing to do with being a well rounded human.


----------



## WelfareQueen

And the philosophies of the west and east are so different.  How have they helped or hurt their respective cultures.  

It is an interesting question.  Wish I knew the answer.


----------



## midcan5

WelfareQueen said:


> And the philosophies of the west and east are so different.  How have they helped or hurt their respective cultures.
> 
> It is an interesting question.  Wish I knew the answer.



Interesting question, all philosophies are ways of framing the world, of making sense of it. Consider the very different world views of the Chinese and the American. The Chinese have a culture that is more about community than America, which is more about the individual. Which is best or what combination works best is the hard part. If you doubt this visit Chinatown in any America city or even wonder why there is no Irishtown? 

I want to add a book on Science and one on the Philosophy of science to this thread for interested readers. Sagan's book should be required reading for everyone, the other book I just came across and while it is topic I find interesting I do not yet have an opinion on it. 

'The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark'  Carl Sagan 

'It Started with Copernicus: Vital Questions about Science'  Keith Parsons 

"What is the use of studying philosophy if all that it does for you is to enable you to talk with some plausibility about some abstruse questions of logic if it does not improve your thinking about the important questions of everyday life?" Wittgenstein
.


----------



## Unkotare

WelfareQueen said:


> And the philosophies of the west and east are so different.




The more familiar you are with both, the less so it seems. This is the case with many things/peoples/etc.


----------



## Unkotare

midcan5 said:


> The Chinese have a culture that is more about community than America, which is more about the individual.
> .





Only to a degree. Many people tend to exaggerate this distinction on both sides.


----------



## Moonglow

Skull Pilot said:


> There is no need at all to go to college to study liberal arts.
> 
> You can do it on your own for free.  The funny thing is that the public is convinced that they have to spend tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars to read a book.



Shows your lack of knowledge on the subject...


----------



## Moonglow

Hell religion is a philosophy and yet we have not heard one person say anything bad about it as a major in college, that it's a waste of time...


----------



## Youch

midcan5 said:


> I often read that students should study some field of knowledge that leads to productive work. But consider that my eventual working world did not even exist when I started college. My degree was eventually in Liberal Arts as I was never sure what I wanted to be when I grew up. When you examine the degrees of many of the national leaders in technology or business, their degree is often not related to their work. How is that, some  even dropped out of school. So then maybe we need to ask what makes a person a good citizen and a productive member of society. Could it be a liberal education steeped in philosophy?
> 
> "Is a liberal arts education for everyone? Probably not. Some people would rather do just about anything than major in philosophy, and that is fine. *But a liberal arts education forms students to be a thoughtful and concerned citizens, and that is the subtext here. Educated, concerned citizens arent going to sit back and let the economic elite run the show.* McCrory can critique the educated elite all that he wants, but when you pal around with the likes of Art Pope you really have no business accusing anyone else of elitism.
> 
> McCrory himself studied political science and education. Bennett, who was interviewing him, has a PhD in  you guessed it  philosophy. *The underlying assumption appears to be that if youre part of the upper class, you can enjoy the luxury of a liberal arts education. If youre lower or middle class, the public institutions that are supposed to be part of the mythical American dream, that level playing field, should only offer courses in skilled trades.* Wealthy young people will get a liberal arts education. Poor and middle class young people will choose a trade."



Please show a correlation between a degree in the liberal arts and being a good citizen!?!?  

Why study philosophy?  Because it is thought-provoking.  

Tip for the casual reader....if you don't yet know what you want to be "when you grow up" then a far wiser degree than a liberal arts degree would be a business degree; doing so not only provides a foundation for your personal economic growth and stability, but it opens far more doors of opportunity than a degree in liberal arts.  I'd get a degree in liberal arts because a topic is interesting....I'd get a degree in business because of the greater relative value.


----------



## midcan5

Youch said:


> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I often read that students should study some field of knowledge that leads to productive work. But consider that my eventual working world did not even exist when I started college. My degree was eventually in Liberal Arts as I was never sure what I wanted to be when I grew up. When you examine the degrees of many of the national leaders in technology or business, their degree is often not related to their work. How is that, some  even dropped out of school. So then maybe we need to ask what makes a person a good citizen and a productive member of society. Could it be a liberal education steeped in philosophy?
> 
> "Is a liberal arts education for everyone? Probably not. Some people would rather do just about anything than major in philosophy, and that is fine. *But a liberal arts education forms students to be a thoughtful and concerned citizens, and that is the subtext here. Educated, concerned citizens arent going to sit back and let the economic elite run the show.* McCrory can critique the educated elite all that he wants, but when you pal around with the likes of Art Pope you really have no business accusing anyone else of elitism.
> 
> McCrory himself studied political science and education. Bennett, who was interviewing him, has a PhD in  you guessed it  philosophy. *The underlying assumption appears to be that if youre part of the upper class, you can enjoy the luxury of a liberal arts education. If youre lower or middle class, the public institutions that are supposed to be part of the mythical American dream, that level playing field, should only offer courses in skilled trades.* Wealthy young people will get a liberal arts education. Poor and middle class young people will choose a trade."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please show a correlation between a degree in the liberal arts and being a good citizen!?!?
> 
> Why study philosophy?  Because it is thought-provoking.
> 
> Tip for the casual reader....if you don't yet know what you want to be "when you grow up" then a far wiser degree than a liberal arts degree would be a business degree; doing so not only provides a foundation for your personal economic growth and stability, but it opens far more doors of opportunity than a degree in liberal arts.  I'd get a degree in liberal arts because a topic is interesting....I'd get a degree in business because of the greater relative value.
Click to expand...


You seem very sure of a philosophy of life that makes little sense to me. Did for instance a business degree make any of those who helped create the great recession question their motives and actions or did it just give them the tools to stay legal without any consequences? Would then a more liberal arts study help make a more moral business person? Who knows but it is clear a business degree may give you business tools, does it give you citizen tools is the harder question. And do this sometime, check out the degrees of some of our top business performers. Carly Fiorina for instance. You lived in a world  that is Socialist in form, now try the corporate world for a different life experience - Been in both mostly the latter. 

Sagan's book above gives a great many comparisons between cultures and education, it should be required reading for all Americans imho. Read it read it read it. 

 "Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes that you can do these things. Among them are a few Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid." President Dwight Eisenhower

"The imposition of short-term profit methods in an area which is only indirectly and in the long run profit-oriented could not possibly have worked. Expecting business methods and market forces to do the job of government, when business and the market fought desperately against every humane and social accomplishment of government over the last two centuries, makes no sense at all. The public interest and the profit motive may be made to cooperate through wise political leadership, but they are not interchangeable. They are nevertheless being treated as if they were. What this implies is that the public does not believe that the governmental structures work. But then the politicians and the public servants don't believe it either." John Ralston Saul 'Voltaire's Bastards'

"In this country were unprecedentedly safe, comfortable, and well fed, with more and better venues for stimulation. And yet if you were asked, 'Is this a happy or unhappy country?' youd check the 'unhappy' box. Were living in an era of emotional poverty, which is something that serious drug addicts feel most keenly."  David Foster Wallace

"Turns out selfishness actually destroys society. Who couldve guessed?" Alan Greenspan testified before a senate committee in the aftermath of the financial crisis, in October of 2008.


*Interesting web sites below, the quotes are funny and the source was from Brian Leiter's excellent blog.* 

Philosophy Professor Quotes

Leiter Reports: A Philosophy Blog

The Browser | Writing worth reading
Rust Belt Philosophy
Edge.org
Aeon Magazine ? ideas and culture


----------



## Youch

midcan5 said:


> You seem very sure of a philosophy of life that makes little sense to me.



I've not stated a philosophy in this thread.  Thus, your comment, and all that follows, is shallow and baseless.  If you care to discuss political philosophy, bring  it on...



midcan5 said:


> Did for instance a business degree make any of those who helped create the great recession question their motives and actions or did it just give them the tools to stay legal without any consequences?



You missed the point entirely, despite the fact that I spelled it out clleearly the first time.

Rather than repeat myself, are you engaging me in an argument?  If so, I am very happy to comply.  But to date, I've not seen anything deserving of a towlette.



midcan5 said:


> Would then a more liberal arts study help make a more moral business person?





midcan5 said:


> Who knows but it is clear a business degree may give you business tools, does it give you citizen tools is the harder question.





midcan5 said:


> And do this sometime, check out the degrees of some of our top business performers. Carly Fiorina for instance. You lived in a world  that is Socialist in form, now try the corporate world for a different life experience - Been in both mostly the latter.





midcan5 said:


> Sagan's book above gives a great many comparisons between cultures and education, it should be required reading for all Americans imho. Read it read it read it.
> 
> 
> 
> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes that you can do these things. Among them are a few Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid." President Dwight Eisenhower
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The imposition of short-term profit methods in an area which is only indirectly and in the long run profit-oriented could not possibly have worked. Expecting business methods and market forces to do the job of government, when business and the market fought desperately against every humane and social accomplishment of government over the last two centuries, makes no sense at all. The public interest and the profit motive may be made to cooperate through wise political leadership, but they are not interchangeable. They are nevertheless being treated as if they were. What this implies is that the public does not believe that the governmental structures work. But then the politicians and the public servants don't believe it either." John Ralston Saul 'Voltaire's Bastards'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "In this country were unprecedentedly safe, comfortable, and well fed, with more and better venues for stimulation. And yet if you were asked, 'Is this a happy or unhappy country?' youd check the 'unhappy' box. Were living in an era of emotional poverty, which is something that serious drug addicts feel most keenly."  David Foster Wallace
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Turns out selfishness actually destroys society. Who couldve guessed?" Alan Greenspan testified before a senate committee in the aftermath of the financial crisis, in October of 2008.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Vikrant

Well, to do anything worthwhile in the field of philosophy, you will need a very creative brain. The unfortunate reality of the evolution is that not all of us have been endowed with a creative brain. So there will always be people who will be drawn towards vocational field of study such as a degree in business. There is nothing wrong with it and please understand that I am not trying to trivialize the achievement of someone who has acquired a diploma in business. 

Philosophy is for thinkers. There is not a single serious academic discipline out there which is not indebted to the methods of philosophy. Philosophy is a discipline which promotes logical thinking. It is preposterous to assume that we can make significant gains in the field of science and technology without being capable of logical thinking.


----------



## Unkotare

Vikrant said:


> Well, to do anything worthwhile in the field of philosophy, you will need a very creative brain. The unfortunate reality of the evolution is that not all of us have been endowed with a creative brain. So there will always be people who will be drawn towards vocational field of study such as a degree in business. There is nothing wrong with it and please understand that I am not trying to trivialize the achievement of someone who has acquired a diploma in business.
> 
> Philosophy is for thinkers. There is not a single serious academic discipline out there which is not indebted to the methods of philosophy. Philosophy is a discipline which promotes logical thinking. It is preposterous to assume that we can make significant gains in the field of science and technology without being capable of logical thinking.





^^^ Best post on this thread.


----------



## Vikrant

Unkotare said:


> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, to do anything worthwhile in the field of philosophy, you will need a very creative brain. The unfortunate reality of the evolution is that not all of us have been endowed with a creative brain. So there will always be people who will be drawn towards vocational field of study such as a degree in business. There is nothing wrong with it and please understand that I am not trying to trivialize the achievement of someone who has acquired a diploma in business.
> 
> Philosophy is for thinkers. There is not a single serious academic discipline out there which is not indebted to the methods of philosophy. Philosophy is a discipline which promotes logical thinking. It is preposterous to assume that we can make significant gains in the field of science and technology without being capable of logical thinking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ^^^ Best post on this thread.
Click to expand...


Thank you for the kind words! 

And, it is not just science and technology which is indebted to philosophy. Think about our modern justice system. The entire concept started with philosophical questions and serious deliberations upon them. 

Why should we punish?
Whom should we punish?
How should we punish?
How much should we punish? 

These were the philosophical questions that were initially entertained by philosophers who pioneered the philosophy of justice.


----------



## Mount Brocken

I have a BA in Philosophy and have had nothing but trouble in the job market.  I think this stems from the laziness of businesses that would prefer specialized degrees over training a well rounded, educated person.


----------



## Unkotare

Mount Brocken said:


> I have a BA in Philosophy and have had nothing but trouble in the job market.  I think this stems from the laziness of businesses that would prefer specialized degrees over training a well rounded, educated person.




Don't blame businesses for your failure to prove yourself fit for a position. Learn to sell yourself better, or go enhance your skills. Sitting around blaming the companies that didn't hire you is real laziness.


----------



## Mount Brocken

Oh, sell myself or be lazy...hmmm...I think there maybe an informal fallacy here...Sounds like either be a prostitute or be lazy....


----------



## Mount Brocken

This sounds like libertarian philosophy....I don't subscribe to it.


----------



## Vikrant

Mount Brocken said:


> I have a BA in Philosophy and have had nothing but trouble in the job market.  I think this stems from the laziness of businesses that would prefer specialized degrees over training a well rounded, educated person.



Have you not been asked to prove 1 + 1 = 3 in one of your job interviews?


----------



## NoNukes

Skull Pilot said:


> There is no need at all to go to college to study liberal arts.
> 
> You can do it on your own for free.  The funny thing is that the public is convinced that they have to spend tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars to read a book.



Learning in an academic setting can be  a much more enriched experience than learning on your own.


----------



## Mount Brocken

Vikrant said:


> Mount Brocken said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a BA in Philosophy and have had nothing but trouble in the job market.  I think this stems from the laziness of businesses that would prefer specialized degrees over training a well rounded, educated person.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you not been asked to prove 1 + 1 = 3 in one of your job interviews?
Click to expand...

lol oddly enough no  ha


----------



## Vikrant

Mount Brocken said:


> lol oddly enough no  ha



Utilization of the degree you have is an individual issue. Having a degree even in a specialized field will not automatically guarantee your success. I have known quite a few people with degrees in engineering who drifted jobless for a significant portion of their 20s till they found a way to land and hold a job. Job interviews are nerve-racking for some people and a bad one sends them in depression. In a nutshell, succeeding in life requires, apart from a university degree, a host of different skills that include overcoming rejection, recognizing your weak points and working on them, getting along with people, identifying a career where you excel, good work ethics and so on.


----------



## Mount Brocken

Vikrant said:


> Mount Brocken said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol oddly enough no  ha
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Utilization of the degree you have is an individual issue. Having a degree even in a specialized field will not automatically guarantee your success. I have known quite a few people with degrees in engineering who drifted jobless for a significant portion of their 20s till they found a way to land and hold a job. Job interviews are nerve-racking for some people and a bad one sends them in depression. In a nutshell, succeeding in life requires, apart from a university degree, a host of different skills that include overcoming rejection, recognizing your weak points and working on them, getting along with people, identifying a career where you excel, good work ethics and so on.
Click to expand...

I agree with that!


----------



## Unkotare

Mount Brocken said:


> ...Sounds like either be a prostitute or be lazy....




If you don't want a job, don't bitch about not finding one. If you want a job, don't bitch about working for it. Either or, champ.


----------



## Mount Brocken

Unkotare said:


> Mount Brocken said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Sounds like either be a prostitute or be lazy....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't want a job, don't bitch about not finding one. If you want a job, don't bitch about working for it. Either or, champ.
Click to expand...

If you dislike bitching don't bitch about bitching


----------



## Unkotare

Mount Brocken said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mount Brocken said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Sounds like either be a prostitute or be lazy....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't want a job, don't bitch about not finding one. If you want a job, don't bitch about working for it. Either or, champ.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you dislike bitching don't bitch about bitching
Click to expand...




That's not clever, it's irrational. You fail. Now get off your ass and go do something about your situation, unless you're satisfied with it as is.


----------



## Mount Brocken

Unkotare said:


> Mount Brocken said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mount Brocken said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Sounds like either be a prostitute or be lazy....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't want a job, don't bitch about not finding one. If you want a job, don't bitch about working for it. Either or, champ.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you dislike bitching don't bitch about bitching
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not clever, it's irrational. You fail. Now get off your ass and go do something about your situation, unless you're satisfied with it as is.
Click to expand...

I have been...but you wouldn't know that since you creep around forums all day bitching at people and trying to make yourself look better, or smarter, than others.  The University of Prague or the Cato Institute could use a faculty member, researcher, like you.


----------



## Unkotare

Mount Brocken said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mount Brocken said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mount Brocken said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Sounds like either be a prostitute or be lazy....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't want a job, don't bitch about not finding one. If you want a job, don't bitch about working for it. Either or, champ.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you dislike bitching don't bitch about bitching
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not clever, it's irrational. You fail. Now get off your ass and go do something about your situation, unless you're satisfied with it as is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have been....
Click to expand...



Really? This: "I have a BA in Philosophy and have had nothing but trouble in the job market. I think this stems from the laziness of businesses that would prefer specialized degrees over training a well rounded, educated person." just sounds like bitching to me.


----------



## Mount Brocken

Unkotare said:


> Mount Brocken said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mount Brocken said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mount Brocken said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Sounds like either be a prostitute or be lazy....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't want a job, don't bitch about not finding one. If you want a job, don't bitch about working for it. Either or, champ.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you dislike bitching don't bitch about bitching
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not clever, it's irrational. You fail. Now get off your ass and go do something about your situation, unless you're satisfied with it as is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have been....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Really? This: "I have a BA in Philosophy and have had nothing but trouble in the job market. I think this stems from the laziness of businesses that would prefer specialized degrees over training a well rounded, educated person." just sounds like bitching to me.
Click to expand...

Well you proven yourself to be an insensitive, rude and arrogant person.  So, what sounds like one thing to you, doesn't mean much to me.


----------



## Unkotare

Mount Brocken said:


> Well you proven yourself to be an insensitive, rude and arrogant person.




That's just great precious, but such tender feelings won't help you get a job. Neither will sitting around whining about the people who _don't_ hire you.


----------



## Mount Brocken

Unkotare said:


> Mount Brocken said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well you proven yourself to be an insensitive, rude and arrogant person.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's just great precious, but such tender feelings won't help you get a job. Neither will sitting around whining about the people who _don't_ hire you.
Click to expand...

Like I said.  You are wasting your 'talent' in a forum.  You should be a professor at some prestigious university or a researcher for the Cato Institute.  You are an under achiever and you have room to criticize me?  ha


----------



## Unkotare

Mount Brocken said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mount Brocken said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well you proven yourself to be an insensitive, rude and arrogant person.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's just great precious, but such tender feelings won't help you get a job. Neither will sitting around whining about the people who _don't_ hire you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like I said.  You are wasting your 'talent' in a forum.
Click to expand...



And you are wasting your time with clumsy, failed attempts at bandying words with me instead of finding some "non-lazy" company that will hire you.


----------



## Mount Brocken

Unkotare said:


> Mount Brocken said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mount Brocken said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well you proven yourself to be an insensitive, rude and arrogant person.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's just great precious, but such tender feelings won't help you get a job. Neither will sitting around whining about the people who _don't_ hire you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like I said.  You are wasting your 'talent' in a forum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And you are wasting your time with clumsy, failed attempts at bandying words with me instead of finding some "non-lazy" company that will hire you.
Click to expand...

lol good one...but doesn't let you off the hook for being an under achiever.


----------



## Unkotare

Mount Brocken said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mount Brocken said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mount Brocken said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well you proven yourself to be an insensitive, rude and arrogant person.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's just great precious, but such tender feelings won't help you get a job. Neither will sitting around whining about the people who _don't_ hire you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like I said.  You are wasting your 'talent' in a forum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And you are wasting your time with clumsy, failed attempts at bandying words with me instead of finding some "non-lazy" company that will hire you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol good one...but doesn't let you off the hook for being an under achiever.
Click to expand...



You are really bad at ad-hominem. You should try a different approach.


----------



## Mount Brocken

Unkotare said:


> Mount Brocken said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mount Brocken said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mount Brocken said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well you proven yourself to be an insensitive, rude and arrogant person.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's just great precious, but such tender feelings won't help you get a job. Neither will sitting around whining about the people who _don't_ hire you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like I said.  You are wasting your 'talent' in a forum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And you are wasting your time with clumsy, failed attempts at bandying words with me instead of finding some "non-lazy" company that will hire you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol good one...but doesn't let you off the hook for being an under achiever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are really bad at ad-hominem. You should try a different approach.
Click to expand...

Nor are you proficient at ad hoc.


----------



## Unkotare

How are all those "lazy" companies treating you?


----------



## Mount Brocken

Unkotare said:


> How are all those "lazy" companies treating you?


If you have a point, make it.


----------



## Unkotare

Mount Brocken said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> How are all those "lazy" companies treating you?
> 
> 
> 
> If you have a point, make it.
Click to expand...



It was a simple question. The conventional response would be a simple answer.


----------



## Mount Brocken

I honestly don't know how to answer.  It seems like a loaded question in the sense that it assumes something about companies and how they treat people; particularly when one characterizes them as lazy in a specific, not general, sense.  You are taking what I said and trying to make a point, I just can't figure out what that point is.  And furthermore, as to answering it, I would say not well I suppose.  For with the level of income inequality at an all time high, and when fewer and fewer individuals determine the conditions of the workplace, I would have to say not well at all.


----------



## Unkotare

Mount Brocken said:


> I honestly don't know how to answer.  It seems like a loaded question in the sense that it assumes something about companies and how they treat people; particularly when one characterizes them as lazy in a specific, not general, sense.  You are taking what I said and trying to make a point, I just can't figure out what that point is.  And furthermore, as to answering it, I would say not well I suppose.  For with the level of income inequality at an all time high, and when fewer and fewer individuals determine the conditions of the workplace, I would have to say not well at all.




Do you even realize what you're doing?

Pointing the finger everywhere but where it belongs.


----------



## Mount Brocken

Being cryptic doesn't make you anymore profound.  I know what you are doing however.  You are being a jerk.


----------



## Mount Brocken

Mount Brocken said:


> Being cryptic doesn't make you anymore profound.  I know what you are doing however.  You are being a jerk.


Actually my finger's' belong in my ears as to


Unkotare said:


> Mount Brocken said:
> 
> 
> 
> I honestly don't know how to answer.  It seems like a loaded question in the sense that it assumes something about companies and how they treat people; particularly when one characterizes them as lazy in a specific, not general, sense.  You are taking what I said and trying to make a point, I just can't figure out what that point is.  And furthermore, as to answering it, I would say not well I suppose.  For with the level of income inequality at an all time high, and when fewer and fewer individuals determine the conditions of the workplace, I would have to say not well at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you even realize what you're doing?
> 
> Pointing the finger everywhere but where it belongs.
Click to expand...

And so these conditions are irrelevant?


----------



## Mount Brocken

Don't answer that question.  I am not interested in such a discussion with one that is all about 'pull one's self up by one's own bootstrap' rhetoric.  It is typical Tea Party/Libertarian drivel.


----------



## Vikrant

Well, since this is a thread about philosophy, let us inject some philosophy into the discussion and put the attribute of laziness through what the philosophers call rigor. Is laziness truly a vice? Not necessarily and not always, I would say. Consider a scenario where you have two people; both of them have to haul bunch of loads between point x and point y. The hardworking one does not mind the hard work and keeps hauling the load by placing them on his shoulders, head, back, etc. but the lazy one decides to build a wheelbarrow to carry the load. This reduces the work load significantly for the lazy guy and thus allows him to sit all day and do nothing and be lazy. This begets another question: does laziness provide impetus that results in invention?


----------



## Mount Brocken

Vikrant said:


> Well, since this is a thread about philosophy, let us inject some philosophy into the discussion and put the attribute of laziness through what the philosophers call rigor. Is laziness truly a vice? Not necessarily and not always, I would say. Consider a scenario where you have two people; both of them have to haul bunch of loads between point x and point y. The hardworking one does not mind the hard work and keeps hauling the load by placing them on his shoulders, head, back, etc. but the lazy one decides to build a wheelbarrow to carry the load. This reduces the work load significantly for the lazy guy and thus allows him to sit all day and do nothing and be lazy. This begets another question: does laziness provide impetus that results in invention?


Good point!


----------



## Unkotare

Mount Brocken said:


> Being cryptic doesn't make you anymore profound.  I know what you are doing however.




I know what you're doing too. But do you?


----------



## Unkotare

Mount Brocken said:


> I am not interested in such a discussion with one that is all about 'pull one's self up by one's own bootstrap' rhetoric.




Wow, that says a lot about you. I sure as hell don't blame all those companies for being "lazy."


----------



## Unkotare

Vikrant said:


> Consider a scenario where you have two people; both of them have to haul bunch of loads between point x and point y. The hardworking one does not mind the hard work and keeps hauling the load by placing them on his shoulders, head, back, etc. but the lazy one decides to build a wheelbarrow to carry the load.




That's not laziness, and would in no way ensure less labor. It would increase productivity, however.


----------



## Vikrant

Unkotare said:


> That's not laziness, and would in no way ensure less labor. It would increase productivity, however.



Once the wheelbarrow is ready, the lazy one will have to just make one trip while the hard working one will have to make multiple trips.


----------



## Mount Brocken

Unkotare said:


> Mount Brocken said:
> 
> 
> 
> Being cryptic doesn't make you anymore profound.  I know what you are doing however.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know what you're doing too. But do you?
Click to expand...

Wasting my time seeking a meaningful conversation with someone serious about one.


----------



## Mount Brocken

Unkotare said:


> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Consider a scenario where you have two people; both of them have to haul bunch of loads between point x and point y. The hardworking one does not mind the hard work and keeps hauling the load by placing them on his shoulders, head, back, etc. but the lazy one decides to build a wheelbarrow to carry the load.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not laziness, and would in no way ensure less labor. It would increase productivity, however.
Click to expand...

Where do the parts for a wheelbarrow come from?


----------



## Unkotare

Vikrant said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's not laziness, and would in no way ensure less labor. It would increase productivity, however.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once the wheelbarrow is ready, the lazy one will have to just make one trip while the hard working one will have to make multiple trips.
Click to expand...


Once the wheelbarrow is ready, many more trips can be taken in less time and thus more can be accomplished. Moving one load doesn't mean there is no more work left to be done.


----------



## Vikrant

Mount Brocken said:


> Where do the parts for a wheelbarrow come from?



Let us assume the parts were littered here and there. The lazy man simply assembles the wheelbarrow from the parts.


----------



## Vikrant

Unkotare said:


> Once the wheelbarrow is ready, many more trips can be taken in less time and thus more can be accomplished. Moving one load doesn't mean there is no more work left to be done.



We work to fulfill certain objective. It is rational to assume that we do not work just to work. 

Let us say that the task of carrying load from point x to point y has an explicit objective of securing wood to light fire to cook and keep the cave/home/dwelling warm. You only need certain amount of wood to accomplish that. Let us say you can only carry 50Lb of wood per trip without a wheelbarrow. You need 100Lb of wood daily to meet your needs. Let us say with the wheelbarrow you can carry 200Lb of wood in one trip. So the lazy guy with the wheelbarrow has to only make one trip every two day. While the hard working guy has to make two trips per day. 

You cannot deny that laziness provides a powerful incentive towards invention.


----------



## Unkotare

Vikrant said:


> You cannot deny that laziness provides a powerful incentive towards invention.





I can deny it and I do.


----------



## Unkotare

Vikrant said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once the wheelbarrow is ready, many more trips can be taken in less time and thus more can be accomplished. Moving one load doesn't mean there is no more work left to be done.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We work to fulfill certain objective. It is rational to assume that we do not work just to work.
Click to expand...




It is not rational to assume that the completion of one task means there are no further tasks to complete. The invention of the Cotton Gin didn't discourage slavery, it encouraged more. Why is that?


----------



## dadsgm

Because it is mental fun.


----------



## midcan5

But sir I was inebriated and while I normally think quite straight this drink it just made me another person. Hm, son, that's nice but given your action I have no choice. Please sir, I promise. 

The Cold Logic of Drunk People - The Atlantic

Interesting site: Rust Belt Philosophy


----------



## MikeK

drifter said:


> I have noticed a lot of law students were steeped in philosophy classes in undergraduate schooling.


A strong philosophical orientation facilitates abstract reasoning, which is essential to comprehending and navigating the convoluted aspects of legal process.  Philosophy is to the mind what a telescope is to the eye.


----------



## Igrok_

Philosophy is only an attempt of society of atheists to understand (or make it up) the meaning of their lives. In other peoples' societies that is called a religion, which explains all necessary for living and people's behaviour.


----------



## Igrok_

MikeK said:


> A strong philosophical orientation


"Strong philosophical orientation" implies the basis (axioms in mathematics), from wich using logical proves you can derivate something 'new' (which is already included in that basis, but not so obviously).


----------



## midcan5

Why, maybe because if you have the answer maybe you're not asking any questions. Answers often close the mind. 

A Day at the Park - Comics that say something. - Quora


----------



## Darkwind

Wry Catcher said:


> Friends said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> A liberal arts education prepares one to be a leader of society.
> 
> Sadly there are far fewer billets for leaders in this society than potential leaders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It also prepares us to be educated critics of our leaders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In addition it prepares us to be educated critics of our bosses. Unfortunately, most bosses do not like being criticized. Unless you can advise your boss on how to achieve what he is trying to achieve, and unless your advice works you are best off keeping your mouth shut. Even then, it is a good idea to excel in your own job before giving any advice at all.
> 
> The most important single factor in a job is a good relationship with your immediate supervisor. You will not get that by telling him why you don't like him, and how he is unsuited for his position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no need at all to go to college to study liberal arts.
> 
> You can do it on your own for free.  The funny thing is that the public is convinced that they have to spend tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars to read a book.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow.  You are so wrong.  Most of those books were written by persons who attended a _University_ or (in the distant past) had at least a single mentor.  And today, most survey courses in the liberal arts can be taken at a Community College where the student can live at home and pay less per unit.
> 
> In a university graduate seminars allow one to study a narrow field with assigned reading and then spend a semester in a small group testing their own theories, getting and giving feedback, asking questions and answering them.
> 
> Liberal Arts allows one to study a single topic within the structure of different disciplines. For example, in my sophomore year I had separate courses in the Philosophy, Political Science and History departments all of which were focused on ancient Greece.
> 
> A Liberal Arts education provides perspective.  A cure for myopic 'thinking' which dominates too many threads on the USMB.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can do all that outside of a university setting for free.
> 
> It's myopic to think that learning can only take place if you pay for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never suggested "learning can only take place if you pay for it"; I simply suggested your ideal of learning is like someone sitting in a cave with their back to the world and learning about it from the shadows passing by.
Click to expand...

Um...no.  Plato is not the right lesson to address his position.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Darkwind said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Friends said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> A liberal arts education prepares one to be a leader of society.
> 
> Sadly there are far fewer billets for leaders in this society than potential leaders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It also prepares us to be educated critics of our leaders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In addition it prepares us to be educated critics of our bosses. Unfortunately, most bosses do not like being criticized. Unless you can advise your boss on how to achieve what he is trying to achieve, and unless your advice works you are best off keeping your mouth shut. Even then, it is a good idea to excel in your own job before giving any advice at all.
> 
> The most important single factor in a job is a good relationship with your immediate supervisor. You will not get that by telling him why you don't like him, and how he is unsuited for his position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no need at all to go to college to study liberal arts.
> 
> You can do it on your own for free.  The funny thing is that the public is convinced that they have to spend tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars to read a book.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow.  You are so wrong.  Most of those books were written by persons who attended a _University_ or (in the distant past) had at least a single mentor.  And today, most survey courses in the liberal arts can be taken at a Community College where the student can live at home and pay less per unit.
> 
> In a university graduate seminars allow one to study a narrow field with assigned reading and then spend a semester in a small group testing their own theories, getting and giving feedback, asking questions and answering them.
> 
> Liberal Arts allows one to study a single topic within the structure of different disciplines. For example, in my sophomore year I had separate courses in the Philosophy, Political Science and History departments all of which were focused on ancient Greece.
> 
> A Liberal Arts education provides perspective.  A cure for myopic 'thinking' which dominates too many threads on the USMB.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can do all that outside of a university setting for free.
> 
> It's myopic to think that learning can only take place if you pay for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never suggested "learning can only take place if you pay for it"; I simply suggested your ideal of learning is like someone sitting in a cave with their back to the world and learning about it from the shadows passing by.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Um...no.  Plato is not the right lesson to address his position.
Click to expand...


In your opinion, what would be the right lesson?

We all need mentors, those who tell us to turn around (not necessarily in those words). 

The best advice I got from a supervisor/mentor as a young investigator was this: Interview everyone twice,  listen actively to all before you begin to put it all together and make a decision.  

Of course my training included more hints when interviewing as well as the difference between an interview and an interrogation.


----------



## Unkotare

Maybe the better question is: why not study Philosophy?


----------



## Wry Catcher

Unkotare said:


> Maybe the better question is: why not study Philosophy?



I agree.  However, philosophy is challenging and many concepts have multiple and conflicting responses making its study difficult for those who seek simple answers.


----------



## Darkwind

Wry Catcher said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Friends said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> A liberal arts education prepares one to be a leader of society.
> 
> Sadly there are far fewer billets for leaders in this society than potential leaders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It also prepares us to be educated critics of our leaders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In addition it prepares us to be educated critics of our bosses. Unfortunately, most bosses do not like being criticized. Unless you can advise your boss on how to achieve what he is trying to achieve, and unless your advice works you are best off keeping your mouth shut. Even then, it is a good idea to excel in your own job before giving any advice at all.
> 
> The most important single factor in a job is a good relationship with your immediate supervisor. You will not get that by telling him why you don't like him, and how he is unsuited for his position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no need at all to go to college to study liberal arts.
> 
> You can do it on your own for free.  The funny thing is that the public is convinced that they have to spend tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars to read a book.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow.  You are so wrong.  Most of those books were written by persons who attended a _University_ or (in the distant past) had at least a single mentor.  And today, most survey courses in the liberal arts can be taken at a Community College where the student can live at home and pay less per unit.
> 
> In a university graduate seminars allow one to study a narrow field with assigned reading and then spend a semester in a small group testing their own theories, getting and giving feedback, asking questions and answering them.
> 
> Liberal Arts allows one to study a single topic within the structure of different disciplines. For example, in my sophomore year I had separate courses in the Philosophy, Political Science and History departments all of which were focused on ancient Greece.
> 
> A Liberal Arts education provides perspective.  A cure for myopic 'thinking' which dominates too many threads on the USMB.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can do all that outside of a university setting for free.
> 
> It's myopic to think that learning can only take place if you pay for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never suggested "learning can only take place if you pay for it"; I simply suggested your ideal of learning is like someone sitting in a cave with their back to the world and learning about it from the shadows passing by.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Um...no.  Plato is not the right lesson to address his position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In your opinion, what would be the right lesson?
> 
> We all need mentors, those who tell us to turn around (not necessarily in those words).
> 
> The best advice I got from a supervisor/mentor as a young investigator was this: Interview everyone twice,  listen actively to all before you begin to put it all together and make a decision.
> 
> Of course my training included more hints when interviewing as well as the difference between an interview and an interrogation.
Click to expand...

Kant would be more apt...

What would the be the _a priori_ when talking about learning outside the established norms?


----------



## Darkwind

Unkotare said:


> Maybe the better question is: why not study Philosophy?


The study of philosophy teaches only one lesson...

Care to take a stab at that?


----------



## Wry Catcher

Darkwind said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Friends said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> It also prepares us to be educated critics of our leaders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In addition it prepares us to be educated critics of our bosses. Unfortunately, most bosses do not like being criticized. Unless you can advise your boss on how to achieve what he is trying to achieve, and unless your advice works you are best off keeping your mouth shut. Even then, it is a good idea to excel in your own job before giving any advice at all.
> 
> The most important single factor in a job is a good relationship with your immediate supervisor. You will not get that by telling him why you don't like him, and how he is unsuited for his position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.  You are so wrong.  Most of those books were written by persons who attended a _University_ or (in the distant past) had at least a single mentor.  And today, most survey courses in the liberal arts can be taken at a Community College where the student can live at home and pay less per unit.
> 
> In a university graduate seminars allow one to study a narrow field with assigned reading and then spend a semester in a small group testing their own theories, getting and giving feedback, asking questions and answering them.
> 
> Liberal Arts allows one to study a single topic within the structure of different disciplines. For example, in my sophomore year I had separate courses in the Philosophy, Political Science and History departments all of which were focused on ancient Greece.
> 
> A Liberal Arts education provides perspective.  A cure for myopic 'thinking' which dominates too many threads on the USMB.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can do all that outside of a university setting for free.
> 
> It's myopic to think that learning can only take place if you pay for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never suggested "learning can only take place if you pay for it"; I simply suggested your ideal of learning is like someone sitting in a cave with their back to the world and learning about it from the shadows passing by.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Um...no.  Plato is not the right lesson to address his position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In your opinion, what would be the right lesson?
> 
> We all need mentors, those who tell us to turn around (not necessarily in those words).
> 
> The best advice I got from a supervisor/mentor as a young investigator was this: Interview everyone twice,  listen actively to all before you begin to put it all together and make a decision.
> 
> Of course my training included more hints when interviewing as well as the difference between an interview and an interrogation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Kant would be more apt...
> 
> What would the be the _a priori_ when talking about learning outside the established norms?
Click to expand...


Nothing, but sitting in a cave and watching the world go by in shadow doesn't seem to provide an experience of reality, but in the most minimal manner.


----------



## Mindful

Wry Catcher said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Friends said:
> 
> 
> 
> In addition it prepares us to be educated critics of our bosses. Unfortunately, most bosses do not like being criticized. Unless you can advise your boss on how to achieve what he is trying to achieve, and unless your advice works you are best off keeping your mouth shut. Even then, it is a good idea to excel in your own job before giving any advice at all.
> 
> The most important single factor in a job is a good relationship with your immediate supervisor. You will not get that by telling him why you don't like him, and how he is unsuited for his position.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can do all that outside of a university setting for free.
> 
> It's myopic to think that learning can only take place if you pay for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never suggested "learning can only take place if you pay for it"; I simply suggested your ideal of learning is like someone sitting in a cave with their back to the world and learning about it from the shadows passing by.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Um...no.  Plato is not the right lesson to address his position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In your opinion, what would be the right lesson?
> 
> We all need mentors, those who tell us to turn around (not necessarily in those words).
> 
> The best advice I got from a supervisor/mentor as a young investigator was this: Interview everyone twice,  listen actively to all before you begin to put it all together and make a decision.
> 
> Of course my training included more hints when interviewing as well as the difference between an interview and an interrogation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Kant would be more apt...
> 
> What would the be the _a priori_ when talking about learning outside the established norms?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing, but sitting in a cave and watching the world go by in shadow doesn't seem to provide an experience of reality, but in the most minimal manner.
Click to expand...


You've read The Allegory of The Cave?


----------



## Mindful

Let's discuss philosophers: such as Roger  Scruton.


----------



## Unkotare

Skull Pilot said:


> There is no need at all to go to college to study liberal arts.
> 
> You can do it on your own for free.  The funny thing is that the public is convinced that they have to spend tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars to read a book.




What an idiot... ^^^^^


----------



## Moonglow

Mindful said:


> Let's discuss philosophers: such as Roger  Scruton.


Emanuel Kant..


----------



## Abishai100

*The People's Pie*

It seems that the modern world (i.e., eTrade) creates a lot of room for the application of philosophy and rhetoric to social contracts (i.e., World Bank).

There are two main forms of government: Republicanism and Monarchy.  The former is based on direct contracts with the ruled while the latter is based on the authority of the elect.

Socialist governments still often refer to their ruled nations as republics, and fundamentalist religious states still refer to their specially-ordained elected rulers/governors/figureheads as divine prophets and kings.

People throw the word Republicanism and Republic around rather liberally, while Monarchy is reserved for discussions about majesty and ordainment.

The approach to modern socio-economics requires a philosophy education even if modest.  If you have a cursory understanding of Rousseau, Hobbes, and/or Durkheim, you're in pretty good shape to analyze Lenin's influence or the Shahs of Iran and their impact on OPEC and capitalism.

It seems that the modern comic book avatar --- i.e., Daredevil (Marvel Comics), a daring vigilante --- makes a philosopher out of any layman interested in _traffic theology_.





Hong Kong Economics


----------



## Unkotare

Abishai100 said:


> *The People's Pie*
> 
> It seems that the modern world (i.e., eTrade) creates a lot of room for the application of philosophy and rhetoric to social contracts (i.e., World Bank).
> 
> There are two main forms of government: Republicanism and Monarchy.




There are quite a few more than just those.


----------



## Unkotare

Abishai100 said:


> The approach to modern socio-economics requires a philosophy education even if modest.




And do you have one?


----------



## PK1

Why study Philosophy?
My take ...
A: To exercise your mind, and in so doing, expand your AWARENESS of what is out there (a perspective of reality) and hopefully connect the dots within & between behavioral patterns (physical, bio, psych) that reflect life as we experience it or know about it thru other forms of evidence.

Sometimes, perceptual enhancements like LSD may assist in one's examination of "reality", but i prefer the natural options.

Or, one can watch TV, go to movies, read books, and listen to preachers to fill one's mind with thoughts & beliefs, but I prefer to think for myself & question so-called "authorities".
Philosophy sharpens thinking skills, hopefully.


----------



## Unkotare

Cooking your brain with acid doesn't "assist" anything.


----------



## PK1

Unkotare said:


> Cooking your brain with acid doesn't "assist" anything.



Cooking?
Have you tried it?
It definitely is an experience that changes your awareness, and in so doing, provides other perspectives.
Having said that, I am not advocating continual usage of LSD. I myself can count on one hand my usage.


----------



## Unkotare

PK1 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cooking your brain with acid doesn't "assist" anything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cooking?
> Have you tried it?
> It definitely is an experience that changes your awareness, and in so doing, provides other perspectives.
> Having said that, I am not advocating continual usage of LSD. I myself can count on one hand my usage.
Click to expand...




If you want to talk about being a burnout, go do it somewhere else. That is not what this topic is about.


----------



## PK1

Unkotare said:


> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cooking your brain with acid doesn't "assist" anything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cooking?
> Have you tried it?
> It definitely is an experience that changes your awareness, and in so doing, provides other perspectives.
> Having said that, I am not advocating continual usage of LSD. I myself can count on one hand my usage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to talk about being a burnout, go do it somewhere else. That is not what this topic is about.
Click to expand...


Looks like you cannot answer a question. 
Burnout? You are showing your ignorance.
This topic is about psychological awareness, and LSD is definitely a part of that.


----------



## Unkotare

PK1 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cooking your brain with acid doesn't "assist" anything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cooking?
> Have you tried it?
> It definitely is an experience that changes your awareness, and in so doing, provides other perspectives.
> Having said that, I am not advocating continual usage of LSD. I myself can count on one hand my usage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to talk about being a burnout, go do it somewhere else. That is not what this topic is about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Looks like you cannot answer a question.
> Burnout? ...
Click to expand...



Burnout. Get off the drugs and go study some actual Philosophy, kid.


----------



## PK1

Unkotare said:


> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cooking your brain with acid doesn't "assist" anything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cooking?
> Have you tried it?
> It definitely is an experience that changes your awareness, and in so doing, provides other perspectives.
> Having said that, I am not advocating continual usage of LSD. I myself can count on one hand my usage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to talk about being a burnout, go do it somewhere else. That is not what this topic is about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Looks like you cannot answer a question.
> Burnout? ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Burnout. Get off the drugs and go study some actual Philosophy, kid.
Click to expand...


Looks like you are closed-minded and prefer ignorance. Not the philosophical type. Prefer dogma?


----------



## Unkotare

PK1 said:


> [ Not the philosophical type.




I have a degree in Philosophy. How about you, junky?


----------



## PK1

Unkotare said:


> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [ Not the philosophical type.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have a degree in Philosophy. How about you, junky?
Click to expand...


Name calling shows your immaturity. Wow, you have a degree in Philosophy ... from a mail order "university"?
How about providing some substance to whatever claim you're trying to justify? Most people with degrees are not that bright. I don't advertise my doctoral education at an ivy league school to win debates. Although my specialty is developmental psychology, philosophy of science is a secondary interest.


----------



## Unkotare

PK1 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [ Not the philosophical type.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have a degree in Philosophy. How about you, junky?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most people with degrees are not that bright.
Click to expand...



And now we know something about you, dropout.


----------



## PK1

Unkotare said:


> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [ Not the philosophical type.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have a degree in Philosophy. How about you, junky?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most people with degrees are not that bright.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And now we know something about you, dropout.
Click to expand...


I am not a dropout, for the record.
So you have nothing of substance to contribute to my comments?
Why don't you impress me with your degree and say something intelligent.


----------



## Unkotare

PK1 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [ Not the philosophical type.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have a degree in Philosophy. How about you, junky?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most people with degrees are not that bright.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And now we know something about you, dropout.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not a dropout, for the record.
> So you have nothing of substance to contribute to my comments?
Click to expand...



Yes, get off the drugs and actually study philosophy.


----------



## PK1

Unkotare said:


> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [ Not the philosophical type.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have a degree in Philosophy. How about you, junky?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most people with degrees are not that bright.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And now we know something about you, dropout.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not a dropout, for the record.
> So you have nothing of substance to contribute to my comments?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, get off the drugs and actually study philosophy.
Click to expand...


And how does that erroneous statement contribute to any kind of philosophical understanding?


----------



## Unkotare

PK1 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a degree in Philosophy. How about you, junky?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most people with degrees are not that bright.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And now we know something about you, dropout.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not a dropout, for the record.
> So you have nothing of substance to contribute to my comments?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, get off the drugs and actually study philosophy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And how does that erroneous statement contribute to any kind of philosophical understanding?
Click to expand...





You brought it up, junkie.


----------



## PK1

Unkotare said:


> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most people with degrees are not that bright.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And now we know something about you, dropout.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not a dropout, for the record.
> So you have nothing of substance to contribute to my comments?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, get off the drugs and actually study philosophy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And how does that erroneous statement contribute to any kind of philosophical understanding?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You brought it up, junkie.
Click to expand...


I reviewed all your posts in this 2-yr-old thread and have not read ANYTHING responsive & intelligent from you about the topic "Why Study Philosophy"!
Your only responsive opinion was to agree with Vikrant's post (8/12/2014).

Was your alleged degree in Philosophy a waste? No intelligent opinion of your own?

Looks like you're a hypocrite too. In your 3/3/2013 post, *YOU* wrote:
"_I asked you a question. That you are unwilling to answer is just one more piece of evidence that you do not understand what learning really is._"

I've asked you a Q too; whether you experienced LSD, but you were unwilling to answer -- _*just one more piece of evidence that YOU do not understand what learning really is*_.


----------



## Unkotare

PK1 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> And now we know something about you, dropout.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not a dropout, for the record.
> So you have nothing of substance to contribute to my comments?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, get off the drugs and actually study philosophy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And how does that erroneous statement contribute to any kind of philosophical understanding?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You brought it up, junkie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I reviewed all your posts in this 2-yr-old thread and have not read ANYTHING responsive & intelligent from you about the topic "Why Study Philosophy"!....
Click to expand...



"Responsive and intelligent" like expounding upon the virtues of dropping acid? Grow the fuck up, kid.


----------



## Unkotare

PK1 said:


> I've asked you a Q too; whether you experienced LSD....




Based on my comments thus far, what do you think, junkie? How fucking stupid are you, burnout?


----------



## PK1

Unkotare said:


> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've asked you a Q too; whether you experienced LSD....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Based on my comments thus far, what do you think, junkie? How fucking stupid are you, burnout?
Click to expand...


So, you are incapable of providing a simple yes/no answer to a simple question? Temperamental issues, and resorting to derision? 
What's more revealing is your lack of intelligent thought about the thread's topic.
A philosopher you're not.
Your comments, or lack of, reflect a pretender among our midst, one that may not even have a HS degree.
Grow up. First get a handle on your emotional intelligence, then focus on constructive criticism ... if you have relevant intellect to contribute.


----------



## Unkotare

PK1 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've asked you a Q too; whether you experienced LSD....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Based on my comments thus far, what do you think, junkie? How fucking stupid are you, burnout?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, you are incapable of providing a simple yes/no answer to a simple question? Temperamental issues, and resorting to derision?
Click to expand...



Grow some thicker skin, kid.


----------



## Unkotare

PK1 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've asked you a Q too; whether you experienced LSD....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Based on my comments thus far, what do you think, junkie? How fucking stupid are you, burnout?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> A philosopher you're not.
> Your comments, or lack of, reflect a pretender among our midst, one that may not even have a HS degree.
Click to expand...




Sorry junior, your inferiority complex is well-founded. One of my degrees is in fact a BA in Philosophy. You shouldn't have dropped out.


----------



## Unkotare

Friends said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> My oldest is getting his PhD in philosophy. His goal is a tenure track teaching position out of school, but that's tough to pull off. But the odds have been against him all along and he knocks down every barrier in his way, so I'm not too worried. Even if that doesn't pan out, he'll be prepared for any number of professional jobs out of school. He's a pretty good framing carpenter too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is a good thing he knows carpentry.
> 
> A liberal arts degree does not prepare one for a realistic job, and it may alienate one from one's co-workers. The liberal arts graduate will want to talk about Plato or Homer. His co-workers will be talking about last night's ball game or what happened on a sit com.
Click to expand...



What an idiot.


----------



## dblack

Unkotare said:


> Friends said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> My oldest is getting his PhD in philosophy. His goal is a tenure track teaching position out of school, but that's tough to pull off. But the odds have been against him all along and he knocks down every barrier in his way, so I'm not too worried. Even if that doesn't pan out, he'll be prepared for any number of professional jobs out of school. He's a pretty good framing carpenter too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is a good thing he knows carpentry.
> 
> A liberal arts degree does not prepare one for a realistic job, and it may alienate one from one's co-workers. The liberal arts graduate will want to talk about Plato or Homer. His co-workers will be talking about last night's ball game or what happened on a sit com.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What an idiot.
Click to expand...

There's an element of truth to it. Still, I'm glad he assumed a little higher.


----------



## PK1

Unkotare said:


> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've asked you a Q too; whether you experienced LSD....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Based on my comments thus far, what do you think, junkie? How fucking stupid are you, burnout?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> A philosopher you're not.
> Your comments, or lack of, reflect a pretender among our midst, one that may not even have a HS degree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry junior, your inferiority complex is well-founded. One of my degrees is in fact a BA in Philosophy. You shouldn't have dropped out.
Click to expand...


Sorry pretender; you have not demonstrated any thoughts reflective of any degree.


----------



## Unkotare

PK1 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've asked you a Q too; whether you experienced LSD....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Based on my comments thus far, what do you think, junkie? How fucking stupid are you, burnout?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> A philosopher you're not.
> Your comments, or lack of, reflect a pretender among our midst, one that may not even have a HS degree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry junior, your inferiority complex is well-founded. One of my degrees is in fact a BA in Philosophy. You shouldn't have dropped out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry pretender; you have not demonstrated any thoughts reflective of any degree.
Click to expand...



Whether some dropout junkie believes or not, it is true. Back to your therapist, kid.


----------



## PK1

Unkotare said:


> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've asked you a Q too; whether you experienced LSD....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Based on my comments thus far, what do you think, junkie? How fucking stupid are you, burnout?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> A philosopher you're not.
> Your comments, or lack of, reflect a pretender among our midst, one that may not even have a HS degree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry junior, your inferiority complex is well-founded. One of my degrees is in fact a BA in Philosophy. You shouldn't have dropped out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry pretender; you have not demonstrated any thoughts reflective of any degree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Whether some dropout junkie believes or not, it is true. Back to your therapist, kid.
Click to expand...


Gee, you're getting real tiresome. Why don't you contribute a philosophical thought on the topic at hand?


----------



## Unkotare

PK1 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Based on my comments thus far, what do you think, junkie? How fucking stupid are you, burnout?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A philosopher you're not.
> Your comments, or lack of, reflect a pretender among our midst, one that may not even have a HS degree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry junior, your inferiority complex is well-founded. One of my degrees is in fact a BA in Philosophy. You shouldn't have dropped out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry pretender; you have not demonstrated any thoughts reflective of any degree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Whether some dropout junkie believes or not, it is true. Back to your therapist, kid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gee, you're getting real tiresome.
Click to expand...


Then go take a nap, little boy.


----------



## PK1

Unkotare said:


> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A philosopher you're not.
> Your comments, or lack of, reflect a pretender among our midst, one that may not even have a HS degree.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry junior, your inferiority complex is well-founded. One of my degrees is in fact a BA in Philosophy. You shouldn't have dropped out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry pretender; you have not demonstrated any thoughts reflective of any degree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Whether some dropout junkie believes or not, it is true. Back to your therapist, kid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gee, you're getting real tiresome.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then go take a nap, little boy.
Click to expand...


So you admit you don't have philosophical thoughts, or any intelligent ones for that matter ...


----------



## Unkotare

PK1 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry junior, your inferiority complex is well-founded. One of my degrees is in fact a BA in Philosophy. You shouldn't have dropped out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry pretender; you have not demonstrated any thoughts reflective of any degree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Whether some dropout junkie believes or not, it is true. Back to your therapist, kid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gee, you're getting real tiresome.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then go take a nap, little boy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you admit you don't have philosophical thoughts, or any intelligent ones for that matter ...
Click to expand...



Dropping acid again, junkie?


----------



## PK1

Unkotare said:


> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry pretender; you have not demonstrated any thoughts reflective of any degree.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whether some dropout junkie believes or not, it is true. Back to your therapist, kid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gee, you're getting real tiresome.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then go take a nap, little boy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you admit you don't have philosophical thoughts, or any intelligent ones for that matter ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Dropping acid again, junkie?
Click to expand...


Apparently, you wasted yen on any education you had. Would have been better to get a good therapist.


----------



## Unkotare

PK1 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whether some dropout junkie believes or not, it is true. Back to your therapist, kid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gee, you're getting real tiresome.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then go take a nap, little boy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you admit you don't have philosophical thoughts, or any intelligent ones for that matter ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Dropping acid again, junkie?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently, you wasted yen on any education you had...
Click to expand...



??? Why would I pay in yen?


----------



## midcan5

'what is it like to be a philosopher?'

what is it like to be a philosopher


----------



## Delta4Embassy

Why study philosophy?

Don't. Last thing the world needs is 7 billion smart people when a handfull have already invented nuclear weapons and genetic enginering.


----------



## Abishai100

*Metropolis Marmalade*

A philosophy major will come out of college ironically curious about the transcendental weight of super-bouncy-balls in our civilization of traffic malleability (i.e., eTrade).

I obtained a degree in Cognitive Science at the prestigious Ivy League school Dartmouth College, and now I study connections between social consciousness (i.e., religion) and conceptual economics (i.e., capitalism).




Airport 1975 (Film)


----------



## midcan5

I thought this worth sharing.

'The overall argument of the book is that in utopia, where humans have all their material needs satisfied at the push of a button, what we would do would be play games, and therefore playing games is the ideal of human activity.'

"In the mid twentieth century the philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein famously asserted that games are indefinable; there are no common threads that link them all. "Nonsense," said the sensible Bernard Suits: "playing a game is a voluntary attempt to overcome unnecessary obstacles." The short book Suits wrote demonstrating precisely that is as playful as it is insightful, as stimulating as it is delightful. Through the jocular voice of Aesop's Grasshopper, a "shiftless but thoughtful practitioner of applied entomology," Suits not only argues that games can be meaningfully defined; he also suggests that playing games is a central part of the ideal of human existence, and so games belong at the heart of any vision of Utopia. This new edition of The Grasshopper includes illustrations from Frank Newfeld created for the book's original publication, as well as an introduction by Thomas Hurka and a new appendix on the meaning of 'play.'"

'The Grasshopper, third edition: Games, Life and Utopia' by Bernard Suits


----------



## midcan5

Another good reason.  Philosophy sessions boost primary school results - BBC News


----------



## Abishai100

*Extraction Egg Nog*

The way particles in the universe bond together is interesting.  A simple insect such as the water-strider which balances itself on the hydrogen bonds in water knows this.

The way materials in the universe interact is interesting.  An innocent rat unwittingly chewing on an electric wire (otherwise insulated in rubber) in a home will feel the impacf of this.

The measurement of object/material reactions informs our understanding of physics.

When we study philosophy, we are better acquainted with ideas about systems and intersections.

For the modern era of electrical grids (i.e., computing networks), the demand for students with a rudimentary understanding of systems analysis is high.

A clever philosophy major can say, "If we study eTrade in terms of sociology or economics, we could conclude that business today IS philosophy."


----------



## Unkotare

No need to try so hard to justify the study of Philosophy.


----------



## midcan5

A few books for the interested.

Nigel Warburton on Introductions to Philosophy | Five Books

"My research had convinced me that our selves are something we construct, not something we discover. I had found that when we are children, we don’t connect the “I” of the present to the “I” of the past and the future. We learn to be who we are."
How David Hume Helped Me Solve My Midlife Crisis

.


----------



## midcan5

Should children do philosophy? — Aeon


----------



## Delta4Embassy

midcan5 said:


> I often read that students should study some field of knowledge that leads to productive work. But consider that my eventual working world did not even exist when I started college. My degree was eventually in Liberal Arts as I was never sure what I wanted to be when I grew up. When you examine the degrees of many of the national leaders in technology or business, their degree is often not related to their work. How is that, some  even dropped out of school. So then maybe we need to ask what makes a person a good citizen and a productive member of society. Could it be a liberal education steeped in philosophy?
> 
> "Is a liberal arts education for everyone? Probably not. Some people would rather do just about anything than major in philosophy, and that is fine. *But a liberal arts education forms students to be a thoughtful and concerned citizens, and that is the subtext here. Educated, concerned citizens arent going to sit back and let the economic elite run the show.* McCrory can critique the educated elite all that he wants, but when you pal around with the likes of Art Pope you really have no business accusing anyone else of elitism.
> 
> McCrory himself studied political science and education. Bennett, who was interviewing him, has a PhD in  you guessed it  philosophy. *The underlying assumption appears to be that if youre part of the upper class, you can enjoy the luxury of a liberal arts education. If youre lower or middle class, the public institutions that are supposed to be part of the mythical American dream, that level playing field, should only offer courses in skilled trades.* Wealthy young people will get a liberal arts education. Poor and middle class young people will choose a trade."
> 
> Femmonite: Notes from an Employed Philosopher




Chicks man. Chicks love philosophers.


----------



## midcan5

Kinda interesting on what it's like to be....

Interviews

"The society which scorns excellence in plumbing because plumbing is a humble activity, and tolerates shoddiness in philosophy because philosophy is an exalted activity, will have neither good plumbing nor good philosophy. Neither its pipes nor its theories will hold water." John W. Gardner


----------



## Unkotare

Delta4Embassy said:


> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I often read that students should study some field of knowledge that leads to productive work. But consider that my eventual working world did not even exist when I started college. My degree was eventually in Liberal Arts as I was never sure what I wanted to be when I grew up. When you examine the degrees of many of the national leaders in technology or business, their degree is often not related to their work. How is that, some  even dropped out of school. So then maybe we need to ask what makes a person a good citizen and a productive member of society. Could it be a liberal education steeped in philosophy?
> 
> "Is a liberal arts education for everyone? Probably not. Some people would rather do just about anything than major in philosophy, and that is fine. *But a liberal arts education forms students to be a thoughtful and concerned citizens, and that is the subtext here. Educated, concerned citizens arent going to sit back and let the economic elite run the show.* McCrory can critique the educated elite all that he wants, but when you pal around with the likes of Art Pope you really have no business accusing anyone else of elitism.
> 
> McCrory himself studied political science and education. Bennett, who was interviewing him, has a PhD in  you guessed it  philosophy. *The underlying assumption appears to be that if youre part of the upper class, you can enjoy the luxury of a liberal arts education. If youre lower or middle class, the public institutions that are supposed to be part of the mythical American dream, that level playing field, should only offer courses in skilled trades.* Wealthy young people will get a liberal arts education. Poor and middle class young people will choose a trade."
> 
> Femmonite: Notes from an Employed Philosopher
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chicks man. Chicks love philosophers.
Click to expand...





This is true.


----------



## midcan5

I loved this piece as it is something I too have experienced in life.  A bit off topic but interesting as we often forget luck. 

Asymmetrical Luck - Discrimination and Disadvantage


----------



## midcan5

A few more items for your perusal. 

The philosophical role of illness – and how it can teach us to live reflectively

Thought experiments: the films that turn us into philosophers


----------



## SuperDemocrat

I think studying philosophy for the sake of doing so is stupid and pompous.   There is rarely a need to study any kind of philosophy at all unless it pertains to you area of interest such as the philosophy of science.   If you were a scientist you may want to study the different philosphies of different scientist in order understand what your own philosphy should be.   One should study knowledge that has a purpose and utility to their own lives and that is it but I can understand that pursuing knowledge for its own sake can be useful to developing the mind so a liberal arts degree might be good for people who have underdeveloped brains.


----------



## SuperDemocrat

Sometimes when I read these threads I'm kind of reminded of this scene.


----------



## dblack

Here's a nice answer to the thread:


----------



## Mindful

I've just discovered the Pensees.


----------



## Treeshepherd

Mindful said:


> I've just discovered the Pensees.


I enjoyed that. Pascal is very thoughtful and passionate.


----------



## midcan5

Over twenty thousand views, amazing. 

Interviews

And food for thought:

Philosophy of Language | Aeon

The link between language and cognition is a red herring | Aeon Ideas

Western logic has held contradictions as false for centuries. Is that wrong? | Aeon Videos

Free speech is vital to human flourishing, but it’s in a decade-long slump | Aeon Videos

"Today, however, the increasingly high-pitched appeal by politicians to "our values" sounds ever emptier – alone the confusion of "principles", which require some kind of justification, with "values", which are more or less attractive, irritates me beyond all measure. We can see our political institutions being robbed more and more of their democratic substance during the course of the technocratic adjustment to global market imperatives. Our capitalist democracies are about to shrink to mere façade democracies. These developments call for a scientifically informed enlightenment. But none of the pertinent scientific disciplines – neither economics nor political science or sociology – can, in and of themselves, provide this enlightenment. The diverse contributions of these disciplines have to be processed in the light of a critical self-understanding. Since Hegel and Marx it is precisely this that is "the task of critical social theory, which I continue to regard as the core of the philosophical discourse of modernity." Habermas  Critique and communication: Philosophy's missions - Michaël Fssel, Jürgen Habermas A conversation with Jürgen Habermas


----------



## Unkotare

Mindful said:


> I've just discovered the Pensees.




Well, don't overdo it or you'll go blind.


----------



## Mindful

Unkotare said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've just discovered the Pensees.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, don't overdo it or you'll go blind.
Click to expand...


Why would I?

Or are you just being stupid?


----------



## Unkotare

Mindful said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've just discovered the Pensees.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, don't overdo it or you'll go blind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would I?
> 
> Or are you just being stupid?
Click to expand...








You're a fun person.


----------



## Kristian

*Thinks about eating through who is american tricks far from but it is another citizen how try to taken my place far from but he understand nothing he can't far from and now it is to late to change place I knowless now. 

Over ten years with no disciplin from my eating through guy. Now he has realized my victorius I can eat close to my self instict. My big victorius far from his tricky foreigns.*


----------



## Kristian

*I laugh on his face in class 3 in school. He haved small eyes. Over 50 in age now if it is he how break far from me. But he lose after over ten year in kamph.   *


----------



## Moonglow

Kristian said:


> *Thinks about eating through who is american tricks far from but it is another citizen how try to taken my place far from but he understand nothing he can't far from and now it is to late to change place I knowless now.
> 
> Over ten years with no disciplin from my eating through guy. Now he has realized my victorius I can eat close to my self instict. My big victorius far from his tricky foreigns.*


Are you typing with peanut butter in your mouth?


----------



## Moonglow

Kristian said:


> *I laugh on his face in class 3 in school. He haved small eyes. Over 50 in age now if it is he how break far from me. But he lose after over ten year in kamph.   *


que?


----------



## Mindful

Moonglow said:


> Kristian said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I laugh on his face in class 3 in school. He haved small eyes. Over 50 in age now if it is he how break far from me. But he lose after over ten year in kamph.   *
> 
> 
> 
> que?
Click to expand...


lol


----------



## yiostheoy

midcan5 said:


> Over twenty thousand views, amazing.
> 
> Interviews
> 
> And food for thought:
> 
> Philosophy of Language | Aeon
> 
> The link between language and cognition is a red herring | Aeon Ideas
> 
> Western logic has held contradictions as false for centuries. Is that wrong? | Aeon Videos
> 
> Free speech is vital to human flourishing, but it’s in a decade-long slump | Aeon Videos
> 
> "Today, however, the increasingly high-pitched appeal by politicians to "our values" sounds ever emptier – alone the confusion of "principles", which require some kind of justification, with "values", which are more or less attractive, irritates me beyond all measure. We can see our political institutions being robbed more and more of their democratic substance during the course of the technocratic adjustment to global market imperatives. Our capitalist democracies are about to shrink to mere façade democracies. These developments call for a scientifically informed enlightenment. But none of the pertinent scientific disciplines – neither economics nor political science or sociology – can, in and of themselves, provide this enlightenment. The diverse contributions of these disciplines have to be processed in the light of a critical self-understanding. Since Hegel and Marx it is precisely this that is "the task of critical social theory, which I continue to regard as the core of the philosophical discourse of modernity." Habermas  Critique and communication: Philosophy's missions - Michaël Fssel, Jürgen Habermas A conversation with Jürgen Habermas


I wanted to read through your latest post before tackling your original post.

This sounds like global political philosophy to me.

We have learned from sad experience that the more foreigners we let into a country, the more it hurts the native residents.

Therefore from the view of happiness for the majority, I would say closing borders is the best way to preserve your own way of life.

Sounds Machiavellian but oh well.

It is the latest trend especially in the American GOP.


----------



## yiostheoy

midcan5 said:


> I often read that students should study some field of knowledge that leads to productive work. But consider that my eventual working world did not even exist when I started college. My degree was eventually in Liberal Arts as I was never sure what I wanted to be when I grew up. When you examine the degrees of many of the national leaders in technology or business, their degree is often not related to their work. How is that, some  even dropped out of school. So then maybe we need to ask what makes a person a good citizen and a productive member of society. Could it be a liberal education steeped in philosophy?
> 
> "Is a liberal arts education for everyone? Probably not. Some people would rather do just about anything than major in philosophy, and that is fine. *But a liberal arts education forms students to be a thoughtful and concerned citizens, and that is the subtext here. Educated, concerned citizens arent going to sit back and let the economic elite run the show.* McCrory can critique the educated elite all that he wants, but when you pal around with the likes of Art Pope you really have no business accusing anyone else of elitism.
> 
> McCrory himself studied political science and education. Bennett, who was interviewing him, has a PhD in  you guessed it  philosophy. *The underlying assumption appears to be that if youre part of the upper class, you can enjoy the luxury of a liberal arts education. If youre lower or middle class, the public institutions that are supposed to be part of the mythical American dream, that level playing field, should only offer courses in skilled trades.* Wealthy young people will get a liberal arts education. Poor and middle class young people will choose a trade."
> 
> Femmonite: Notes from an Employed Philosopher


College has turned into trade school for most people.

It was for me too.

I had to study debits, credits, algebra, calculus, interest/principal theory, stats, micro econ, macro econ, business law, and taxes in order to perform in my own profession.

But I still had time for one college philosophy class, which turned out to be a history survey class with lots of interesting discussion.

The classroom discussions were more interesting than the book.

We did not use Bertrand Russell's book but I wish we had.

Professional ethics is the most practical application of Philosophy to my technical field of work.


----------



## Unkotare

Someone doesn't understand what America is...^^^


----------



## Unkotare

_“A little learning is a dangerous thing 
Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring: 
There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, 
And drinking largely sobers us again. "_


----------



## yiostheoy

Unkotare said:


> Someone doesn't understand what America is...^^^


America is changing.

As is England.

Same reason.

The vermin of immigration.


----------



## Unkotare

Cambridge University philosopher and historian William Whewell first used the term "scientist" in 1834.


Thales of Miletus


Hu Shi


Ibn al-Haytham, 


Ge Hong


William Gilbert


Francis Bacon


----------



## Unkotare

yiostheoy said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Someone doesn't understand what America is...^^^
> 
> 
> 
> America is changing.......
Click to expand...




America has always been changing. That - along with immigration - is one of the hallmarks of America. Anyone who understands America would know that.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

My Daughter has just started studying Philosophy at a top University.She was told that a decent Philosophy degree could be used as a platform for many diverse career path.

Personally I would prefer it if she had done an English Lit course instead but there you go.

She is amazing.

She got her first job at the age of 14. She went into the chippy and told them that they needed more staff because she had to wait 20 minutes the night before. They hired her on the spot.


----------



## Wry Catcher

yiostheoy said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Someone doesn't understand what America is...^^^
> 
> 
> 
> America is changing.
> 
> As is England.
> 
> Same reason.
> 
> The vermin of immigration.
Click to expand...


Yeah man, it started with the damn English, then the Irish, Germans and Italians.


----------



## Subatomic

Wry Catcher said:


> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Someone doesn't understand what America is...^^^
> 
> 
> 
> America is changing.
> 
> As is England.
> 
> Same reason.
> 
> The vermin of immigration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah man, it started with the damn English, then the Irish, Germans and Italians.
Click to expand...

Have you noticed in LA there's little Italy, little Tokyo, China Town..ect... Ummm, so where's little Mexico? Well the truth is we can't use "little" in this case, just "Los Angeles" will do [emoji6]

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G530AZ using USMessageBoard.com mobile app


----------



## Wry Catcher

Subatomic said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Someone doesn't understand what America is...^^^
> 
> 
> 
> America is changing.
> 
> As is England.
> 
> Same reason.
> 
> The vermin of immigration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah man, it started with the damn English, then the Irish, Germans and Italians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have you noticed in LA there's little Italy, little Tokyo, China Town..ect... Ummm, so where's little Mexico? Well the truth is we can't use "little" in this case, just "Los Angeles" will do [emoji6]
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G530AZ using USMessageBoard.com mobile app
Click to expand...


Umm. yeah I've noticed.  What's your point?


----------



## Subatomic

Wry Catcher said:


> Subatomic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Someone doesn't understand what America is...^^^
> 
> 
> 
> America is changing.
> 
> As is England.
> 
> Same reason.
> 
> The vermin of immigration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah man, it started with the damn English, then the Irish, Germans and Italians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have you noticed in LA there's little Italy, little Tokyo, China Town..ect... Ummm, so where's little Mexico? Well the truth is we can't use "little" in this case, just "Los Angeles" will do [emoji6]
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G530AZ using USMessageBoard.com mobile app
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Umm. yeah I've noticed.  What's your point?
Click to expand...

Oh you've noticed? Great! Life is grand isn't it? [emoji460] Lol

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G530AZ using USMessageBoard.com mobile app


----------



## Oz of Sahul

Philosophy is a good subject but I can agree that one doesn't need to go to Uni to study it, unless he/she wished to study what is already 'known'. To study what is to 'know' requires being out there in the world.
There is a New Philosophy emerging that is called 'Global Philosophy' where Philosophers are attending to the new playing field of how the world has become the way it is and why? Discovering where it all started and where it will all end.
I give you a taste. The continuous use of the 'End of the World' perception can be found used by the USA culture often. In fact, its a strong factor of USA consciousness. But this can be explained by the fact that USA really is at the 'End of the World' regarding the International DateLine. Of how the USA began with 'Hope & Glory', kinda puts this in its place. Something wonderful at the start but 'doom' in the end. Australia on the other hand (to bring balance) started with the 'doom' of a Penal Colony but it perceives its future as wonderful in the end, especially when it is at the Start of the World. So with this in consideration, the understanding of 'how the world works' begins and why Societies are the way they are and will be, etc.
There is much much more to it all - as is all that there is to 'know' about the world today. So you could say - sure the 'old' Philosophies are good, but the New Philosophies will be just as good. Welcome to the Renaissance of Philosophy.


----------



## Unkotare

Large-grip Crayon nonsense from the uneducated.


----------



## midcan5

Does studying Philosophy make you smarter or are you just smart?  I don't mean in the test smarter either because I have found through a lifetime of a variety of jobs, military service, and managing people that intelligence is a complicated thing and some of the smartest people are really dumb when it comes to life and even work. In the end does the study make one a better citizen? If so then one can understand why conservatives often argue against knowledge as knowledge frees one from ideology. 

Philosophy and standardized test scores:  causation or correlation?

Link below came from article above. 

https://campuspress.yale.edu/shellykagan/files/2016/07/Why-Study-Philosophy-1fwj3ad.pdf

"In November I realized that there was a major defect in my account of emotions that meant that I had to write a new book showing the primary role of fear, and how fear infects all the other emotions. So that's the most recent large change."  Martha Nussbaum


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

If one combined a Philosophy Major with an Art Major  ....one could "draw their own conclusions" expertly ...


----------



## yiostheoy

I think if you/I spelled out philosophy for the average person, then even they could get it.

However not being very bright they would never appreciate philosophy or its importance.

And then they would just fall back on their usual fallacies -- worshipping religion as science or worshipping science as religion.


----------



## MikeK

midcan5 said:


> Does studying Philosophy make you smarter or are you just smart?  I don't mean in the test smarter either because I have found through a lifetime of a variety of jobs, military service, and managing people that intelligence is a complicated thing and some of the smartest people are really dumb when it comes to life and even work. In the end does the study make one a better citizen? If so then one can understand why conservatives often argue against knowledge as knowledge frees one from ideology.
> 
> Philosophy and standardized test scores:  causation or correlation?
> 
> Link below came from article above.
> 
> https://campuspress.yale.edu/shellykagan/files/2016/07/Why-Study-Philosophy-1fwj3ad.pdf
> 
> "In November I realized that there was a major defect in my account of emotions that meant that I had to write a new book showing the primary role of fear, and how fear infects all the other emotions. So that's the most recent large change."  Martha Nussbaum


----------



## MikeK

midcan5 said:


> [...]
> 
> If so then one can understand why conservatives often argue against knowledge as knowledge frees one from ideology.
> 
> [...]


This is a valid observation but it doesn't apply only to conservatives.  There are dimwits on both sides of the political divide.


----------



## yiostheoy

Knowledge is simply data that we have evidence about.

Without Philosophy there is no way to process knowledge and then you are no better off than a superstitious Religionist or worse a scientist who has made Science their Religion.


----------



## PK1

yiostheoy said:


> usual fallacies -- worshipping religion as science or worshipping science as religion.


Non-critical worshipping is NOT philosophy.
Philosophy is the basis of science.
Non-critical faith is the basis of religion, salted with confirmation bias for cultural variants.


----------



## task0778

PK1 said:


> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> usual fallacies -- worshipping religion as science or worshipping science as religion.
> 
> 
> 
> Non-critical worshipping is NOT philosophy.
> Philosophy is the basis of science.
> Non-critical faith is the basis of religion, salted with confirmation bias for cultural variants.
Click to expand...


Not sure what you mean by 'non-critical', but philosophy is about more than just science.   Philosophy also deals with the metaphysical side of existence, abstract studies of the nature of existence, meaning of life, spirituality and religion, and man's values, behavior, and beliefs.    So, your personal brand of philosophy might be the foundation upon which you base your religious faith and worship.   IMHO the two are connected, you actions are an extension of your philosophy.


----------



## PK1

task0778 said:


> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> usual fallacies -- worshipping religion as science or worshipping science as religion.
> 
> 
> 
> Non-critical worshipping is NOT philosophy.
> Philosophy is the basis of science.
> Non-critical faith is the basis of religion, salted with confirmation bias for cultural variants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not sure what you mean by 'non-critical', but philosophy is about more than just science.   Philosophy also deals with the metaphysical side of existence, abstract studies of the nature of existence, meaning of life, spirituality and religion, and man's values, behavior, and beliefs.    So, your personal brand of philosophy might be the foundation upon which you base your religious faith and worship.   IMHO the two are connected, you actions are an extension of your philosophy.
Click to expand...

True; philosophy has variants that study what "reality" may be.
I prefer the approaches reflective of ontology, logic, and epistemology.
In other words, if one makes a *claim*, it should not only be rational, but there should be some "objective" evidence associated with it.
Obviously, science rules that domain, as well as ignosticism/agnosticism beyond the observable.


----------



## midcan5

One of my best threads.  Lots of views and hopefully thinking. An interesting piece on two pragmatists:

"What is it about philosophy that makes long dead philosophers interesting in a way that long dead physicists are not?" Fans of Einstein might object, but it’s an intriguing question and typical of their inviting style."

"The crux of their dispute centered on how far to take pragmatism. Rorty thought that the things we believe to be true aren’t actually connected to reality: There is the stuff we say, and then there is the actual world, and never the twain shall meet. We agree on certain conventions in order to function, but we’ll never arrive at anything like truth. Putnam meanwhile held to the idea, as he wrote, that "there is a way to do justice to our sense that knowledge claims are responsible to reality." In other words, it was possible, as he saw it, to be a pragmatist without jettisoning truth altogether."

A Marriage of Minds

And what's it like. Interviews

"I would say quite seriously, that I am a socialist in economics, a liberal in politics, and a conservative in culture." Daniel Bell


----------



## task0778

midcan5 said:


> One of my best threads.  Lots of views and hopefully thinking. An interesting piece on two pragmatists:
> 
> "What is it about philosophy that makes long dead philosophers interesting in a way that long dead physicists are not?" Fans of Einstein might object, but it’s an intriguing question and typical of their inviting style."
> 
> "The crux of their dispute centered on how far to take pragmatism. Rorty thought that the things we believe to be true aren’t actually connected to reality: There is the stuff we say, and then there is the actual world, and never the twain shall meet. We agree on certain conventions in order to function, but we’ll never arrive at anything like truth. Putnam meanwhile held to the idea, as he wrote, that "there is a way to do justice to our sense that knowledge claims are responsible to reality." In other words, it was possible, as he saw it, to be a pragmatist without jettisoning truth altogether."
> 
> A Marriage of Minds
> 
> And what's it like. Interviews
> 
> "I would say quite seriously, that I am a socialist in economics, a liberal in politics, and a conservative in culture." Daniel Bell



First of all, let me admit that my knowledge of pragmatism is abysmally incomplete.   But that's not going to stop me from making what may be an ignorant post, nothing unusual there:
_
" Rorty thought that the things we believe to be true aren’t actually connected to reality: There is the stuff we say, and then there is the actual world, and never the twain shall meet. We agree on certain conventions in order to function, but we’ll never arrive at anything like truth. "_

No doubt I am misunderstand this, but the things we believe to be true may or may not be connected to reality.   To say we'll never arrive anything like the truth is IMHO selling ourselves too short;  who's to say mankind will not stumble on the truth one way or another, and I'm not sure that in some subjects like religion, one person's truth is not another's.   It could be that the concept of one real truth is all there is for everybody is a gross assumption.   And I'm not even sure that what was real truth yesterday will be the real truth tomorrow, I wouldn't say we know everything there is to know about reality just yet.   But to assert that we'll never get there is a little too pessimistic for me, it could take a long time, but maybe we'll eventually get there.


----------



## ding

task0778 said:


> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> One of my best threads.  Lots of views and hopefully thinking. An interesting piece on two pragmatists:
> 
> "What is it about philosophy that makes long dead philosophers interesting in a way that long dead physicists are not?" Fans of Einstein might object, but it’s an intriguing question and typical of their inviting style."
> 
> "The crux of their dispute centered on how far to take pragmatism. Rorty thought that the things we believe to be true aren’t actually connected to reality: There is the stuff we say, and then there is the actual world, and never the twain shall meet. We agree on certain conventions in order to function, but we’ll never arrive at anything like truth. Putnam meanwhile held to the idea, as he wrote, that "there is a way to do justice to our sense that knowledge claims are responsible to reality." In other words, it was possible, as he saw it, to be a pragmatist without jettisoning truth altogether."
> 
> A Marriage of Minds
> 
> And what's it like. Interviews
> 
> "I would say quite seriously, that I am a socialist in economics, a liberal in politics, and a conservative in culture." Daniel Bell
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, let me admit that my knowledge of pragmatism is abysmally incomplete.   But that's not going to stop me from making what may be an ignorant post, nothing unusual there:
> _
> " Rorty thought that the things we believe to be true aren’t actually connected to reality: There is the stuff we say, and then there is the actual world, and never the twain shall meet. We agree on certain conventions in order to function, but we’ll never arrive at anything like truth. "_
> 
> No doubt I am misunderstand this, but the things we believe to be true may or may not be connected to reality.   To say we'll never arrive anything like the truth is IMHO selling ourselves too short;  who's to say mankind will not stumble on the truth one way or another, and I'm not sure that in some subjects like religion, one person's truth is not another's.   It could be that the concept of one real truth is all there is for everybody is a gross assumption.   And I'm not even sure that what was real truth yesterday will be the real truth tomorrow, I wouldn't say we know everything there is to know about reality just yet.   But to assert that we'll never get there is a little too pessimistic for me, it could take a long time, but maybe we'll eventually get there.
Click to expand...

There is a final state of fact for everything and once it is discovered it will be known that it was always that way and will always be that way.  This is called reality or objective truth.  The confusion on objective truth or reality comes from the perception of reality which is subjective, but that does not mean it is not possible to be objective and see reality or objective truth.  All one must do is have no preference for an outcome and the consequences to one's self.


----------



## Kognisjon

Reading philosophy is an active event, much like reading a book on Mathematics or legal judgments. The authors, translators and editors of works of the great philosophers are not often the best writers, for their efforts to cover all bases leads to many parenthetic paragraphs. Most works require intense concentration and note taking


----------



## midcan5

"The land is not my own yet here I abide, casting my drooping Eye upon the world."  AO

Greetings fellow thinkers and assorted whiners, hope all are well.  A few pieces to enlighten, cultivate, aggravate, or whatever, the mind. 

"Lately, academia has grown more sensitive to how its culture flattens and normalises those who populate its ranks. Impostor syndrome is a way of explaining how non-standard identities can provoke alienation. Class is one such structure of exclusion, alongside race, gender, sexual identity and disability. But what are the epistemic costs of ‘fitting’? If we look only at alienation, we ignore the ways in which that subtly enforced sameness diminishes understanding." Amy Olberding  How useful is 'impostor syndrome' in academia? | Aeon Essays

Journeyman Philosopher: Who and what do you think you are?
Journeyman Philosopher: Free will revisited

Free speech and the big I.  The Philosopher's Beard: Can Free Speech Survive the Internet?

'I Was a Bank Robber Until I Read Kant - The one thing that criminals and philosophers share is a sense of being an outsider
I Was a Bank Robber Until I Read Kant

The History Of Philosophy

"To compare life to a road can indeed be fruitful in many ways, but we must consider how life is unlike a road. In a physical sense a road is an external actuality, no matter whether anyone is walking on it or not, no matter how the individual travels on it - the road is the road. But in the spiritual sense, the road comes into existence only when we walk on it. That is, the road is how it is walked."  Soren Kierkegaard, 'Provocations'


"A philosopher is a blind man, in a dark cellar, at midnight, looking for a black cat that isn't there. He is distinguished from a theologian in that the theologian finds the cat."  anon


----------



## Mindful

midcan5 said:


> "The land is not my own yet here I abide, casting my drooping Eye upon the world."  AO
> 
> Greetings fellow thinkers and assorted whiners, hope all are well.  A few pieces to enlighten, cultivate, aggravate, or whatever, the mind.
> 
> "Lately, academia has grown more sensitive to how its culture flattens and normalises those who populate its ranks. Impostor syndrome is a way of explaining how non-standard identities can provoke alienation. Class is one such structure of exclusion, alongside race, gender, sexual identity and disability. But what are the epistemic costs of ‘fitting’? If we look only at alienation, we ignore the ways in which that subtly enforced sameness diminishes understanding." Amy Olberding  How useful is 'impostor syndrome' in academia? | Aeon Essays
> 
> Journeyman Philosopher: Who and what do you think you are?
> Journeyman Philosopher: Free will revisited
> 
> Free speech and the big I.  The Philosopher's Beard: Can Free Speech Survive the Internet?
> 
> 'I Was a Bank Robber Until I Read Kant - The one thing that criminals and philosophers share is a sense of being an outsider
> I Was a Bank Robber Until I Read Kant
> 
> The History Of Philosophy
> 
> "To compare life to a road can indeed be fruitful in many ways, but we must consider how life is unlike a road. In a physical sense a road is an external actuality, no matter whether anyone is walking on it or not, no matter how the individual travels on it - the road is the road. But in the spiritual sense, the road comes into existence only when we walk on it. That is, the road is how it is walked."  Soren Kierkegaard, 'Provocations'
> 
> 
> "A philosopher is a blind man, in a dark cellar, at midnight, looking for a black cat that isn't there. He is distinguished from a theologian in that the theologian finds the cat."  anon



The Allegory of the Cave does it for me.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Mindful said:


> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The land is not my own yet here I abide, casting my drooping Eye upon the world."  AO
> 
> Greetings fellow thinkers and assorted whiners, hope all are well.  A few pieces to enlighten, cultivate, aggravate, or whatever, the mind.
> 
> "Lately, academia has grown more sensitive to how its culture flattens and normalises those who populate its ranks. Impostor syndrome is a way of explaining how non-standard identities can provoke alienation. Class is one such structure of exclusion, alongside race, gender, sexual identity and disability. But what are the epistemic costs of ‘fitting’? If we look only at alienation, we ignore the ways in which that subtly enforced sameness diminishes understanding." Amy Olberding  How useful is 'impostor syndrome' in academia? | Aeon Essays
> 
> Journeyman Philosopher: Who and what do you think you are?
> Journeyman Philosopher: Free will revisited
> 
> Free speech and the big I.  The Philosopher's Beard: Can Free Speech Survive the Internet?
> 
> 'I Was a Bank Robber Until I Read Kant - The one thing that criminals and philosophers share is a sense of being an outsider
> I Was a Bank Robber Until I Read Kant
> 
> The History Of Philosophy
> 
> "To compare life to a road can indeed be fruitful in many ways, but we must consider how life is unlike a road. In a physical sense a road is an external actuality, no matter whether anyone is walking on it or not, no matter how the individual travels on it - the road is the road. But in the spiritual sense, the road comes into existence only when we walk on it. That is, the road is how it is walked."  Soren Kierkegaard, 'Provocations'
> 
> 
> "A philosopher is a blind man, in a dark cellar, at midnight, looking for a black cat that isn't there. He is distinguished from a theologian in that the theologian finds the cat."  anon
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Allegory of the Cave does it for me.
Click to expand...


Shadow over substance, I'd want to know more?


----------



## midcan5

Greetings thoughtful USMB readers.  A few links for the thoughtful. 

Interesting magazine check out the edition on *Fake News*, excellent.  New Philosopher | Magazine

"Human beings do not live in the objective world alone ... but are very much at the mercy of the particular language which has become the medium of expression for their society. It is quite an illusion to imagine that one adjusts to reality essentially without the use of language and that language is merely an incidental means of solving specific problems of communication or reflection. The fact of the matter is that the 'real world' is to a large extent unconsciously built upon the language habits of the group. No two languages are ever sufficiently similar to be considered as representing the same social reality. The worlds in which different societies live are distinct worlds, not merely the same world with different labels attached ... *We see and hear and otherwise experience very largely as we do because the language habits of our community predispose certain choices of interpretation.*"  Edward Sapir

Lots of Philosopher interviews:  Whatever it is, we're against it. -

"Better ways of thinking, feeling, and acting—around problems of meaning and meaninglessness; self and society; ethics, purpose, and value."  Meaningness

*"The moment we no longer have a free press, anything can happen.* What makes it possible for a totalitarian or any other dictatorship to rule is that people are not informed; how can you have an opinion if you are not informed? If everybody always lies to you, the consequence is not that you believe the lies, but rather that nobody believes anything any longer. This is because lies, by their very nature, have to be changed, and a lying government has constantly to rewrite its own history. On the receiving end you get not only one lie—a lie which you could go on for the rest of your days—but you get a great number of lies, depending on how the political wind blows. And a people that no longer can believe anything cannot make up its mind. It is deprived not only of its capacity to act but also of its capacity to think and to judge. And with such a people you can then do what you please."   Hannah Arendt   Hannah Arendt: From an Interview


----------



## Wry Catcher

From midcan5's interesting and thought provoking link:

_For Frankfurt, a bullshitter “is neither on the side of the true nor on the side of the false… He does not care whether the things he says describe reality correctly. He just picks them out, or makes them up, to suit his purpose”. These words, first published in 2005, capture something central to the phenomenon that has come to be called fake news: the belief that emotive impact is not only the supreme test of a story, but the only metric that matters.

‘Alternative facts’ can always be mustered if you equate truth with the most aggressive opinion in the room. The world according to the bullshitter is whatever he wishes it to be. ‘Fake news’ is whatever people he disagrees with are saying. There’s a purity to this that is almost Platonic.

F_or the curious, read the link and pay attention to the term "bullshitter" which aptly describes Donald Trump and his claim about cheering on 9-11 in NJ.


----------



## Mindful

Boethius: The Consolation of Philosophy


----------



## IsaacNewton

All education is beneficial. Education in general demystifies almost everything so people aren't afraid of things anymore. You see much clearer when you know how things actually work. The less educated one is the easier for people to fool you. A liberal arts degree produces a rounder human being and much better citizen.


----------



## midcan5

More stuff for the thinkers.

"Philosophy and politics majors earn more than any other humanities degree through all stages of their careers."

"Philosophy majors outperform business majors in earning power later in their careers, and they outperform biology majors at all stages of their careers. Mid-career median salaries for philosophy majors are reported to be $85,100.[31]"

American Catholic Philosophical Association - Publications

And this too:

Interesting comments on African philosophy

Existence and Consolation -

"Politics is opposed to morality, as philosophy to naiveté."  Emmanuel Levinas

"Human beings do not live in the objective world alone ... but are very much at the mercy of the particular language which has become the medium of expression for their society. It is quite an illusion to imagine that one adjusts to reality essentially without the use of language and that language is merely an incidental means of solving specific problems of communication or reflection. The fact of the matter is that the 'real world' is to a large extent unconsciously built upon the language habits of the group. No two languages are ever sufficiently similar to be considered as representing the same social reality. The worlds in which different societies live are distinct worlds, not merely the same world with different labels attached ... We see and hear and otherwise experience very largely as we do because the language habits of our community predispose certain choices of interpretation."  Edward Sapir


----------



## ptbw forever

midcan5 said:


> I often read that students should study some field of knowledge that leads to productive work. But consider that my eventual working world did not even exist when I started college. My degree was eventually in Liberal Arts as I was never sure what I wanted to be when I grew up. When you examine the degrees of many of the national leaders in technology or business, their degree is often not related to their work. How is that, some  even dropped out of school. So then maybe we need to ask what makes a person a good citizen and a productive member of society. Could it be a liberal education steeped in philosophy?
> 
> "Is a liberal arts education for everyone? Probably not. Some people would rather do just about anything than major in philosophy, and that is fine. *But a liberal arts education forms students to be a thoughtful and concerned citizens, and that is the subtext here. Educated, concerned citizens arent going to sit back and let the economic elite run the show.* McCrory can critique the educated elite all that he wants, but when you pal around with the likes of Art Pope you really have no business accusing anyone else of elitism.
> 
> McCrory himself studied political science and education. Bennett, who was interviewing him, has a PhD in  you guessed it  philosophy. *The underlying assumption appears to be that if youre part of the upper class, you can enjoy the luxury of a liberal arts education. If youre lower or middle class, the public institutions that are supposed to be part of the mythical American dream, that level playing field, should only offer courses in skilled trades.* Wealthy young people will get a liberal arts education. Poor and middle class young people will choose a trade."
> 
> Femmonite: Notes from an Employed Philosopher


You are most certainly not a philosopher in any way.


----------



## midcan5

"What you believe to be true will control you, whether it’s true or not." Jeremy LaBorde 

Greetings thinkers and doers, hope all are well.   Wanted to share a few interesting pieces for your thinking enjoyment. Hume, censorship, and a book on the mind everyone should read.  

'The mind requires some relaxation, and cannot always support its bent to care and industry.'

Hume is the amiable, modest, generous philosopher we need today | Aeon Essays

'Censorship And Social Media: Keeping Up With The Joneses'

Censorship and social media: Keeping up with the Joneses | 3 Quarks Daily

'Incognito: The Secret Lives of the Brain'  David Eagleman

Incognito: The Secret Lives of the Brain by David Eagleman

"Politics is opposed to morality, as philosophy to naivete."  Emmanuel Levinas


----------



## Unkotare

ptbw forever said:


> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I often read that students should study some field of knowledge that leads to productive work. But consider that my eventual working world did not even exist when I started college. My degree was eventually in Liberal Arts as I was never sure what I wanted to be when I grew up. When you examine the degrees of many of the national leaders in technology or business, their degree is often not related to their work. How is that, some  even dropped out of school. So then maybe we need to ask what makes a person a good citizen and a productive member of society. Could it be a liberal education steeped in philosophy?
> 
> "Is a liberal arts education for everyone? Probably not. Some people would rather do just about anything than major in philosophy, and that is fine. *But a liberal arts education forms students to be a thoughtful and concerned citizens, and that is the subtext here. Educated, concerned citizens arent going to sit back and let the economic elite run the show.* McCrory can critique the educated elite all that he wants, but when you pal around with the likes of Art Pope you really have no business accusing anyone else of elitism.
> 
> McCrory himself studied political science and education. Bennett, who was interviewing him, has a PhD in  you guessed it  philosophy. *The underlying assumption appears to be that if youre part of the upper class, you can enjoy the luxury of a liberal arts education. If youre lower or middle class, the public institutions that are supposed to be part of the mythical American dream, that level playing field, should only offer courses in skilled trades.* Wealthy young people will get a liberal arts education. Poor and middle class young people will choose a trade."
> 
> Femmonite: Notes from an Employed Philosopher
> 
> 
> 
> You are most certainly not a philosopher in any way.
Click to expand...



And you are?


----------



## Votto

midcan5 said:


> I often read that students should study some field of knowledge that leads to productive work. But consider that my eventual working world did not even exist when I started college. My degree was eventually in Liberal Arts as I was never sure what I wanted to be when I grew up. When you examine the degrees of many of the national leaders in technology or business, their degree is often not related to their work. How is that, some  even dropped out of school. So then maybe we need to ask what makes a person a good citizen and a productive member of society. Could it be a liberal education steeped in philosophy?
> 
> "Is a liberal arts education for everyone? Probably not. Some people would rather do just about anything than major in philosophy, and that is fine. *But a liberal arts education forms students to be a thoughtful and concerned citizens, and that is the subtext here. Educated, concerned citizens arent going to sit back and let the economic elite run the show.* McCrory can critique the educated elite all that he wants, but when you pal around with the likes of Art Pope you really have no business accusing anyone else of elitism.
> 
> McCrory himself studied political science and education. Bennett, who was interviewing him, has a PhD in  you guessed it  philosophy. *The underlying assumption appears to be that if youre part of the upper class, you can enjoy the luxury of a liberal arts education. If youre lower or middle class, the public institutions that are supposed to be part of the mythical American dream, that level playing field, should only offer courses in skilled trades.* Wealthy young people will get a liberal arts education. Poor and middle class young people will choose a trade."
> 
> Femmonite: Notes from an Employed Philosopher



Yes, concerned and thoughtful and educated citizens that are outnumbered by voters.

Why not just go stick your head in a fan instead?


----------



## Lulllaboo

I graduated from the Faculty of Philosophy.


----------



## Unkotare

Lulllaboo said:


> I graduated from the Faculty of Philosophy.



Huh?


----------



## midcan5

Interesting OP on Russell.

"In the welter of conflicting fanaticisms, one of the few unifying forces is scientific truthfulness, by which I mean the habit of basing our beliefs upon observations and inferences as impersonal, and as much divested of local and temperamental bias, as is possible for human beings. To have insisted upon the introduction of this virtue into philosophy, and to have invented a powerful method by which it can be rendered fruitful, are the chief merits of the philosophical school of which I am a member. The habit of careful veracity acquired in the practice of this philosophical method can be extended to the whole sphere of human activity, producing, wherever it exists, a lessening of fanaticism with an increasing capacity of sympathy and mutual understanding. In abandoning a part of its dogmatic pretensions, philosophy does not cease to suggest and inspire a way of life."

Footnotes to Plato | Bertrand Russell: Science and philosophy


And reading recommendation:  Things That Bother Me: Death, Freedom, the Self, Etc. by Galen Strawson


----------



## midcan5

A philosopher picks his favorite Americans of the 20th Century - my picks below

http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2018/10/my-five-favorite-americans-of-the-20th-century.htm

'My five favorite Americans of the 20th-century'

1.  Eugene Debs.  Stalwart if unsuccessful socialist agitator for an alternative to devotion to the market.
2.  H.L. Mencken.  Merciless critic of religious, patriotic and other bullshit, with his own parochial prejudices to be sure, but a great writer who punched up, down, and sideways without apology.
3.  A. Philip Randolph. The most important labor and civil rights leader of the century, who made MLK possible, and who always championed, from the beginning, the interdependence of racial and economic progress.
4.  Franklin Delano Roosevelt.  He betrayed his class and saved America from fascism and probably saved the world from the Nazis.  The Reagan reaction of the last forty years was against his vision for social democracy.
5.  Bayard Rustin.  He organized the 1963 March on Washington, and worked with A. Philip Randolph on behalf of the same goals:  Randolph and Rustin were a team.  He did all this as a gay African-American, and in the face of enormous bigotry both within and outside the movement.  A person of enormous dignity and courage, whom I had the privilege to interview in the early 1980s.  I will never forget it.

Your favorites?  

My favorites.  Usually I would select writers or artists but this time I selected people who actually did good things for all Americans.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt
Lyndon Baines Johnson
Harry S. Truman
Jimmy Carter
Pete Seeger

"Greatness is not found in possessions, power, position, or prestige. It is discovered in goodness, humility, service, and character."   William Arthur Ward


----------



## Unkotare

midcan5 said:


> A philosopher picks his favorite Americans of the 20th Century - my picks below
> 
> http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2018/10/my-five-favorite-americans-of-the-20th-century.htm
> 
> 'My five favorite Americans of the 20th-century'
> 
> 1.  Eugene Debs.  Stalwart if unsuccessful socialist agitator for an alternative to devotion to the market.
> 2.  H.L. Mencken.  Merciless critic of religious, patriotic and other bullshit, with his own parochial prejudices to be sure, but a great writer who punched up, down, and sideways without apology.
> 3.  A. Philip Randolph. The most important labor and civil rights leader of the century, who made MLK possible, and who always championed, from the beginning, the interdependence of racial and economic progress.
> 4.  Franklin Delano Roosevelt.  He betrayed his class and saved America from fascism and probably saved the world from the Nazis.  The Reagan reaction of the last forty years was against his vision for social democracy.
> 5.  Bayard Rustin.  He organized the 1963 March on Washington, and worked with A. Philip Randolph on behalf of the same goals:  Randolph and Rustin were a team.  He did all this as a gay African-American, and in the face of enormous bigotry both within and outside the movement.  A person of enormous dignity and courage, whom I had the privilege to interview in the early 1980s.  I will never forget it.
> 
> Your favorites?
> 
> My favorites.  Usually I would select writers or artists but this time I selected people who actually did good things for all Americans.
> 
> Franklin Delano Roosevelt
> Lyndon Baines Johnson
> Harry S. Truman
> Jimmy Carter
> Pete Seeger
> 
> "Greatness is not found in possessions, power, position, or prestige. It is discovered in goodness, humility, service, and character."   William Arthur Ward





 You really think that piece of shit FDR did good things for “all Americans”? Give me a fucking break.  And he betrayed his class? What a fucking joke that ass. He served his classes just fine.


----------



## denmark

Unkotare said:


> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A philosopher picks his favorite Americans of the 20th Century - my picks below
> 
> http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2018/10/my-five-favorite-americans-of-the-20th-century.htm
> 
> 'My five favorite Americans of the 20th-century'
> 
> 1.  Eugene Debs.  Stalwart if unsuccessful socialist agitator for an alternative to devotion to the market.
> 2.  H.L. Mencken.  Merciless critic of religious, patriotic and other bullshit, with his own parochial prejudices to be sure, but a great writer who punched up, down, and sideways without apology.
> 3.  A. Philip Randolph. The most important labor and civil rights leader of the century, who made MLK possible, and who always championed, from the beginning, the interdependence of racial and economic progress.
> 4.  Franklin Delano Roosevelt.  He betrayed his class and saved America from fascism and probably saved the world from the Nazis.  The Reagan reaction of the last forty years was against his vision for social democracy.
> 5.  Bayard Rustin.  He organized the 1963 March on Washington, and worked with A. Philip Randolph on behalf of the same goals:  Randolph and Rustin were a team.  He did all this as a gay African-American, and in the face of enormous bigotry both within and outside the movement.  A person of enormous dignity and courage, whom I had the privilege to interview in the early 1980s.  I will never forget it.
> 
> Your favorites?
> 
> My favorites.  Usually I would select writers or artists but this time I selected people who actually did good things for all Americans.
> 
> Franklin Delano Roosevelt
> Lyndon Baines Johnson
> Harry S. Truman
> Jimmy Carter
> Pete Seeger
> 
> "Greatness is not found in possessions, power, position, or prestige. It is discovered in goodness, humility, service, and character."   William Arthur Ward
> 
> 
> 
> You really think that piece of shit FDR did good things for “all Americans”? Give me a fucking break.  And he betrayed his class? What a fucking joke that ass. He served his classes just fine.
Click to expand...

Was it not FDR that gave USA “social security”? 
Or, is that too “socialistic” for you? LOL!


----------



## Unkotare

denmark said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A philosopher picks his favorite Americans of the 20th Century - my picks below
> 
> http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2018/10/my-five-favorite-americans-of-the-20th-century.htm
> 
> 'My five favorite Americans of the 20th-century'
> 
> 1.  Eugene Debs.  Stalwart if unsuccessful socialist agitator for an alternative to devotion to the market.
> 2.  H.L. Mencken.  Merciless critic of religious, patriotic and other bullshit, with his own parochial prejudices to be sure, but a great writer who punched up, down, and sideways without apology.
> 3.  A. Philip Randolph. The most important labor and civil rights leader of the century, who made MLK possible, and who always championed, from the beginning, the interdependence of racial and economic progress.
> 4.  Franklin Delano Roosevelt.  He betrayed his class and saved America from fascism and probably saved the world from the Nazis.  The Reagan reaction of the last forty years was against his vision for social democracy.
> 5.  Bayard Rustin.  He organized the 1963 March on Washington, and worked with A. Philip Randolph on behalf of the same goals:  Randolph and Rustin were a team.  He did all this as a gay African-American, and in the face of enormous bigotry both within and outside the movement.  A person of enormous dignity and courage, whom I had the privilege to interview in the early 1980s.  I will never forget it.
> 
> Your favorites?
> 
> My favorites.  Usually I would select writers or artists but this time I selected people who actually did good things for all Americans.
> 
> Franklin Delano Roosevelt
> Lyndon Baines Johnson
> Harry S. Truman
> Jimmy Carter
> Pete Seeger
> 
> "Greatness is not found in possessions, power, position, or prestige. It is discovered in goodness, humility, service, and character."   William Arthur Ward
> 
> 
> 
> You really think that piece of shit FDR did good things for “all Americans”? Give me a fucking break.  And he betrayed his class? What a fucking joke that ass. He served his classes just fine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Was it not FDR that gave USA “social security”?
> ...
Click to expand...



And?


----------



## denmark

Unkotare said:


> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A philosopher picks his favorite Americans of the 20th Century - my picks below
> 
> http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2018/10/my-five-favorite-americans-of-the-20th-century.htm
> 
> 'My five favorite Americans of the 20th-century'
> 
> 1.  Eugene Debs.  Stalwart if unsuccessful socialist agitator for an alternative to devotion to the market.
> 2.  H.L. Mencken.  Merciless critic of religious, patriotic and other bullshit, with his own parochial prejudices to be sure, but a great writer who punched up, down, and sideways without apology.
> 3.  A. Philip Randolph. The most important labor and civil rights leader of the century, who made MLK possible, and who always championed, from the beginning, the interdependence of racial and economic progress.
> 4.  Franklin Delano Roosevelt.  He betrayed his class and saved America from fascism and probably saved the world from the Nazis.  The Reagan reaction of the last forty years was against his vision for social democracy.
> 5.  Bayard Rustin.  He organized the 1963 March on Washington, and worked with A. Philip Randolph on behalf of the same goals:  Randolph and Rustin were a team.  He did all this as a gay African-American, and in the face of enormous bigotry both within and outside the movement.  A person of enormous dignity and courage, whom I had the privilege to interview in the early 1980s.  I will never forget it.
> 
> Your favorites?
> 
> My favorites.  Usually I would select writers or artists but this time I selected people who actually did good things for all Americans.
> 
> Franklin Delano Roosevelt
> Lyndon Baines Johnson
> Harry S. Truman
> Jimmy Carter
> Pete Seeger
> 
> "Greatness is not found in possessions, power, position, or prestige. It is discovered in goodness, humility, service, and character."   William Arthur Ward
> 
> 
> 
> You really think that piece of shit FDR did good things for “all Americans”? Give me a fucking break.  And he betrayed his class? What a fucking joke that ass. He served his classes just fine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Was it not FDR that gave USA “social security”?
> ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And?
Click to expand...

You have a problem answering simple questions?


----------



## Unkotare

denmark said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A philosopher picks his favorite Americans of the 20th Century - my picks below
> 
> http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2018/10/my-five-favorite-americans-of-the-20th-century.htm
> 
> 'My five favorite Americans of the 20th-century'
> 
> 1.  Eugene Debs.  Stalwart if unsuccessful socialist agitator for an alternative to devotion to the market.
> 2.  H.L. Mencken.  Merciless critic of religious, patriotic and other bullshit, with his own parochial prejudices to be sure, but a great writer who punched up, down, and sideways without apology.
> 3.  A. Philip Randolph. The most important labor and civil rights leader of the century, who made MLK possible, and who always championed, from the beginning, the interdependence of racial and economic progress.
> 4.  Franklin Delano Roosevelt.  He betrayed his class and saved America from fascism and probably saved the world from the Nazis.  The Reagan reaction of the last forty years was against his vision for social democracy.
> 5.  Bayard Rustin.  He organized the 1963 March on Washington, and worked with A. Philip Randolph on behalf of the same goals:  Randolph and Rustin were a team.  He did all this as a gay African-American, and in the face of enormous bigotry both within and outside the movement.  A person of enormous dignity and courage, whom I had the privilege to interview in the early 1980s.  I will never forget it.
> 
> Your favorites?
> 
> My favorites.  Usually I would select writers or artists but this time I selected people who actually did good things for all Americans.
> 
> Franklin Delano Roosevelt
> Lyndon Baines Johnson
> Harry S. Truman
> Jimmy Carter
> Pete Seeger
> 
> "Greatness is not found in possessions, power, position, or prestige. It is discovered in goodness, humility, service, and character."   William Arthur Ward
> 
> 
> 
> You really think that piece of shit FDR did good things for “all Americans”? Give me a fucking break.  And he betrayed his class? What a fucking joke that ass. He served his classes just fine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Was it not FDR that gave USA “social security”?
> ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have a problem answering simple questions?
Click to expand...



You have a problem with simple logic?


----------



## denmark

Unkotare said:


> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A philosopher picks his favorite Americans of the 20th Century - my picks below
> 
> http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2018/10/my-five-favorite-americans-of-the-20th-century.htm
> 
> 'My five favorite Americans of the 20th-century'
> 
> 1.  Eugene Debs.  Stalwart if unsuccessful socialist agitator for an alternative to devotion to the market.
> 2.  H.L. Mencken.  Merciless critic of religious, patriotic and other bullshit, with his own parochial prejudices to be sure, but a great writer who punched up, down, and sideways without apology.
> 3.  A. Philip Randolph. The most important labor and civil rights leader of the century, who made MLK possible, and who always championed, from the beginning, the interdependence of racial and economic progress.
> 4.  Franklin Delano Roosevelt.  He betrayed his class and saved America from fascism and probably saved the world from the Nazis.  The Reagan reaction of the last forty years was against his vision for social democracy.
> 5.  Bayard Rustin.  He organized the 1963 March on Washington, and worked with A. Philip Randolph on behalf of the same goals:  Randolph and Rustin were a team.  He did all this as a gay African-American, and in the face of enormous bigotry both within and outside the movement.  A person of enormous dignity and courage, whom I had the privilege to interview in the early 1980s.  I will never forget it.
> 
> Your favorites?
> 
> My favorites.  Usually I would select writers or artists but this time I selected people who actually did good things for all Americans.
> 
> Franklin Delano Roosevelt
> Lyndon Baines Johnson
> Harry S. Truman
> Jimmy Carter
> Pete Seeger
> 
> "Greatness is not found in possessions, power, position, or prestige. It is discovered in goodness, humility, service, and character."   William Arthur Ward
> 
> 
> 
> You really think that piece of shit FDR did good things for “all Americans”? Give me a fucking break.  And he betrayed his class? What a fucking joke that ass. He served his classes just fine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Was it not FDR that gave USA “social security”?
> ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have a problem answering simple questions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have a problem with simple logic?
Click to expand...

Apparently, you have that problem.
 It does not take much logic to answer simple questions.


----------



## Unkotare

denmark said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You really think that piece of shit FDR did good things for “all Americans”? Give me a fucking break.  And he betrayed his class? What a fucking joke that ass. He served his classes just fine.
> 
> 
> 
> Was it not FDR that gave USA “social security”?
> ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have a problem answering simple questions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have a problem with simple logic?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Apparently, you have that problem.
> ...
Click to expand...




Apparently, you think that saddling future generations with an unsustainable entitlement program somehow negates throwing over 100,000 innocent Americans into concentration camps.


----------



## Karl Rand

midcan5 said:


> More stuff for the thinkers.
> 
> "Philosophy and politics majors earn more than any other humanities degree through all stages of their careers."
> 
> "Philosophy majors outperform business majors in earning power later in their careers, and they outperform biology majors at all stages of their careers. Mid-career median salaries for philosophy majors are reported to be $85,100.[31]"
> 
> American Catholic Philosophical Association - Publications
> 
> And this too:
> 
> Interesting comments on African philosophy
> 
> Existence and Consolation -
> 
> "Politics is opposed to morality, as philosophy to naiveté."  Emmanuel Levinas
> 
> "Human beings do not live in the objective world alone ... but are very much at the mercy of the particular language which has become the medium of expression for their society. It is quite an illusion to imagine that one adjusts to reality essentially without the use of language and that language is merely an incidental means of solving specific problems of communication or reflection. The fact of the matter is that the 'real world' is to a large extent unconsciously built upon the language habits of the group. No two languages are ever sufficiently similar to be considered as representing the same social reality. The worlds in which different societies live are distinct worlds, not merely the same world with different labels attached ... We see and hear and otherwise experience very largely as we do because the language habits of our community predispose certain choices of interpretation."  Edward Sapir


HMMMM. Sapir comes across a little too much like Bishop Berkeley for my taste .
The employment outcomes for philosophers is interesting. One aspect of recent academia I’m all to aware of is you can take an intelligent student, put them through an M BA degree and often a complete moron comes out the other end. And we go on to appoint these drips as deans of universities. Or as that old Hungarian saying has it ‘The fish rots from the head down’.


----------



## denmark

Unkotare said:


> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> Was it not FDR that gave USA “social security”?
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> And?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have a problem answering simple questions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have a problem with simple logic?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Apparently, you have that problem.
> ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Apparently, you think that saddling future generations with an unsustainable entitlement program somehow negates throwing over 100,000 innocent Americans into concentration camps.
Click to expand...

Agreed; the US internment of Japanese & German civilians during WWII was an embarrassment to US valued liberty.
However, social security at old age is not to be dismissed, but fixed. It’s a separate issue.


----------



## Karl Rand

Living as I do in a nation operating very sucessfully on a mix of capitalism and the welfare state I find the black and white arguments Americans have about all this utterly mindless and absurdly tribal. Wake up America !


----------



## Karl Rand

Unkotare said:


> You have a problem with simple logic?


Anyone who imagines logic is simple has a problem, including quantum logic, informal logic, deontic logic, higher order logic, intentional logic, mathematical logic, pluralitive logic, combinatory logic, three valued logic, symbolic logic, formal logic, second order logic, logical atomism etc  - - -   -   -    -      -          - Take for instance in a language supposedly logically perfect ( whatever that means) the logical form of a proposition, a set of propositions, or an argument is determined by the grammatical form of the sentence, the set of sentences, or the argument-text expressing it. Nightmarish stuff, really.


----------



## Karl Rand

Unkotare said:


> Someone doesn't understand what America is...^^^


America no longer understands what America is.


----------



## Karl Rand

Kognisjon said:


> Reading philosophy is an active event, much like reading a book on Mathematics or legal judgments. The authors, translators and editors of works of the great philosophers are not often the best writers, for their efforts to cover all bases leads to many parenthetic paragraphs. Most works require intense concentration and note taking


Some works are still nonsense after years of concentrated devotion and note taking.
In fact some I find become more confusing everytime they cross one's desk. 
’The World as Will and Representation’ comes to mind. On the other hand Rand’s formal philosophy ( yes, she did dive that deep contrary to anything academic snobbery asserts) become clearer and clearer and more apparently mistaken with each reading, apart from her epistemology which is for me  a simple yet unsurpassed achievment.


----------



## Unkotare

Karl Rand said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have a problem with simple logic?
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who imagines logic is simple has a problem, including quantum logic, informal logic, deontic logic, higher order logic, intentional logic, mathematical logic, pluralitive logic, combinatory logic, three valued logic, symbolic logic, formal logic, second order logic, logical atomism etc  - - -   -   -    -      -          - Take for instance in a language supposedly logically perfect ( whatever that means) the logical form of a proposition, a set of propositions, or an argument is determined by the grammatical form of the sentence, the set of sentences, or the argument-text expressing it. Nightmarish stuff, really.
Click to expand...




As I was saying...


----------



## Unkotare

Karl Rand said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Someone doesn't understand what America is...^^^
> 
> 
> 
> America no longer understands what America is.
Click to expand...



Pretentious douche baggery


----------



## Karl Rand

Unkotare said:


> Karl Rand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Someone doesn't understand what America is...^^^
> 
> 
> 
> America no longer understands what America is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Pretentious douche baggery
Click to expand...

It’s always a pleasure to read such cogent, perceptive and in depth comment.


----------



## Unkotare

Karl Rand said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Karl Rand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Someone doesn't understand what America is...^^^
> 
> 
> 
> America no longer understands what America is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Pretentious douche baggery
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s always a pleasure to read such cogent, perceptive and in depth comment.
Click to expand...



You’re welcome.


----------



## Karl Rand

denmark said:


> It does not take much logic to answer simple questions.


That is if there is an answer.


----------



## Karl Rand

Unkotare said:


> Karl Rand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Someone doesn't understand what America is...^^^
> 
> 
> 
> America no longer understands what America is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Pretentious douche baggery
Click to expand...

Not from outside America it ain’t.


----------



## Unkotare

Karl Rand said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Karl Rand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Someone doesn't understand what America is...^^^
> 
> 
> 
> America no longer understands what America is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Pretentious douche baggery
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not from outside America it ain’t.
Click to expand...



From anywhere.


----------



## denmark

Karl Rand said:


> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> It does not take much logic to answer simple questions.
> 
> 
> 
> That is if there is an answer.
Click to expand...

Or, how logical the response or “answer” is.


----------



## midcan5

Ah come on guys, be philosophers for a moment and desist from empty repartee. 

Humanity: A Moral History of the Twentieth Century by Jonathan Glover

"What you believe to be true will control you, whether it’s true or not." Jeremy LaBorde


----------



## Wry Catcher

midcan5 said:


> Ah come on guys, be philosophers for a moment and desist from empty repartee.
> 
> Humanity: A Moral History of the Twentieth Century by Jonathan Glover
> 
> "What you believe to be true will control you, whether it’s true or not." Jeremy LaBorde



REACTIONARY:  In political science, a reactionary is a person who holds political views that favor a return to the status quo ante, the previous political state of society, which they believe possessed characteristics that are negatively absent from the contemporary status quo of a society.

Today we are faced with a President who seeks to become a Monarch, as he surrounds himself with family and nobles, the Billionaires of the 21 Century.

The study of philosophy goes hand in hand with the understanding of history; ignorance of one is the ban of democracy and it seems by reading the post's of Trump supporter on the USMB both are at work, and their ignorance is willful and ignoble.


----------



## G.T.

I've always had a pet peeve for undisciplined reasoning. I started studying philosophy, and through that I've learned that there are dozens of "ists" & world-views of philosophers born of poor reasoning and window dressing. 

At the end of the day, common sense and a disciplined approach to knowledge (healthy skepticism) seem to produce the most fruitful paths forward. In philosophy, many of the greats had fatal errors in their approach and created a "woo woo" mockery of rationality. 

Its making a comeback, though. Disciplined philosophy.


----------



## OldLady

G.T. said:


> I've always had a pet peeve for undisciplined reasoning. I started studying philosophy, and through that I've learned that there are dozens of "ists" & world-views of philosophers born of poor reasoning and window dressing.
> 
> At the end of the day, common sense and a disciplined approach to knowledge (healthy skepticism) seem to produce the most fruitful paths forward. In philosophy, many of the greats had fatal errors in their approach and created a "woo woo" mockery of rationality.
> 
> Its making a comeback, though. Disciplined philosophy.


The tricky bit about your argument is that many of the greats would say _you_ are the "woo woo."
I've got nothing against it, unless it's held up as the be all and end all.
If A=B and B=C, then A=C is fine.
Where that leads--as in we're all just pushing that rock up the hill or as in drown all the lawyers and put a philosopher king in place--is still debatable.


----------



## G.T.

OldLady said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've always had a pet peeve for undisciplined reasoning. I started studying philosophy, and through that I've learned that there are dozens of "ists" & world-views of philosophers born of poor reasoning and window dressing.
> 
> At the end of the day, common sense and a disciplined approach to knowledge (healthy skepticism) seem to produce the most fruitful paths forward. In philosophy, many of the greats had fatal errors in their approach and created a "woo woo" mockery of rationality.
> 
> Its making a comeback, though. Disciplined philosophy.
> 
> 
> 
> The tricky bit about your argument is that many of the greats would say _you_ are the "woo woo."
> I've got nothing against it, unless it's held up as the be all and end all.
> If A=B and B=C, then A=C is fine.
> Where that leads--as in we're all just pushing that rock up the hill or as in drown all the lawyers and put a philosopher king in place--is still debatable.
Click to expand...

The good thing about that ^ is that there's laws of logic, and a random guy's opinion over whether or not I'm woo woo is irrelevant. Demonstrations are required for claims to hold water. 

I'm not using personal bias in what Im talking about ~ Im saying that many philosophers were debunked by other philosophers by demonstrating a fatal flaw, not just an opinion that its woo woo...Thats not how its demonstrated, not with a bias but methodically.

Claims require demonstrations, demonstrations require following the laws of logic, the laws of logic weed out fallacies where they exist, and sometimes not until many years later.


----------



## OldLady

G.T. said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've always had a pet peeve for undisciplined reasoning. I started studying philosophy, and through that I've learned that there are dozens of "ists" & world-views of philosophers born of poor reasoning and window dressing.
> 
> At the end of the day, common sense and a disciplined approach to knowledge (healthy skepticism) seem to produce the most fruitful paths forward. In philosophy, many of the greats had fatal errors in their approach and created a "woo woo" mockery of rationality.
> 
> Its making a comeback, though. Disciplined philosophy.
> 
> 
> 
> The tricky bit about your argument is that many of the greats would say _you_ are the "woo woo."
> I've got nothing against it, unless it's held up as the be all and end all.
> If A=B and B=C, then A=C is fine.
> Where that leads--as in we're all just pushing that rock up the hill or as in drown all the lawyers and put a philosopher king in place--is still debatable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The good thing about that ^ is that there's laws of logic, and a random guy's opinion over whether or not I'm woo woo is irrelevant. Demonstrations are required for claims to hold water.
> 
> I'm not using personal bias in what Im talking about ~ Im saying that many philosophers were debunked by other philosophers by demonstrating a fatal flaw, not just an opinion that its woo woo...Thats not how its demonstrated, not with a bias but methodically.
> 
> Claims require demonstrations, demonstrations require following the laws of logic, the laws of logic weed out fallacies where they exist, and sometimes not until many years later.
Click to expand...

Okay.  Not to belabor a point, but some examples of what you are talking about would be helpful, if you are suggesting that philosophy would help us be better thinkers.  I'm always trying to help people be better thinkers, which is why your statement interested me.


----------



## Toro

Pascal's Dilemma is why I'm a Christian.

It's irrefutable logic.


----------



## G.T.

OldLady said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've always had a pet peeve for undisciplined reasoning. I started studying philosophy, and through that I've learned that there are dozens of "ists" & world-views of philosophers born of poor reasoning and window dressing.
> 
> At the end of the day, common sense and a disciplined approach to knowledge (healthy skepticism) seem to produce the most fruitful paths forward. In philosophy, many of the greats had fatal errors in their approach and created a "woo woo" mockery of rationality.
> 
> Its making a comeback, though. Disciplined philosophy.
> 
> 
> 
> The tricky bit about your argument is that many of the greats would say _you_ are the "woo woo."
> I've got nothing against it, unless it's held up as the be all and end all.
> If A=B and B=C, then A=C is fine.
> Where that leads--as in we're all just pushing that rock up the hill or as in drown all the lawyers and put a philosopher king in place--is still debatable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The good thing about that ^ is that there's laws of logic, and a random guy's opinion over whether or not I'm woo woo is irrelevant. Demonstrations are required for claims to hold water.
> 
> I'm not using personal bias in what Im talking about ~ Im saying that many philosophers were debunked by other philosophers by demonstrating a fatal flaw, not just an opinion that its woo woo...Thats not how its demonstrated, not with a bias but methodically.
> 
> Claims require demonstrations, demonstrations require following the laws of logic, the laws of logic weed out fallacies where they exist, and sometimes not until many years later.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay.  Not to belabor a point, but some examples of what you are talking about would be helpful, if you are suggesting that philosophy would help us be better thinkers.  I'm always trying to help people be better thinkers, which is why your statement interested me.
Click to expand...

I think it's the highest goal because it's like the rising tide example - where better reasoning uplifts all other goals somebody might have. 

Pascale's Wager is fatally flawed. Thats the easiest example to grasp.

 Lots of C.S. Lewis' literature is fallacious as he appeals to claims of normativity to make the wider cases he's making, and most of the normativity he's implying is either demonstrably false, or yet to be established.

In other words, in order to prove his overarching claims, he just makes more undemonstrated claims. That's the fatal flaw in most of his literature. Its the type of a lack of discipline I was referencing before.

The good news is that many folks possess the ability to reason properly.


----------



## G.T.

Toro said:


> Pascal's Dilemma is why I'm a Christian.
> 
> It's irrefutable logic.


Pascale was refuted ten times over, I even gave you the most referenced refutations and you didnt care to counter them. At which point does that become trolling, as opposed to a discussion....


----------



## Wry Catcher

G.T. said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've always had a pet peeve for undisciplined reasoning. I started studying philosophy, and through that I've learned that there are dozens of "ists" & world-views of philosophers born of poor reasoning and window dressing.
> 
> At the end of the day, common sense and a disciplined approach to knowledge (healthy skepticism) seem to produce the most fruitful paths forward. In philosophy, many of the greats had fatal errors in their approach and created a "woo woo" mockery of rationality.
> 
> Its making a comeback, though. Disciplined philosophy.
> 
> 
> 
> The tricky bit about your argument is that many of the greats would say _you_ are the "woo woo."
> I've got nothing against it, unless it's held up as the be all and end all.
> If A=B and B=C, then A=C is fine.
> Where that leads--as in we're all just pushing that rock up the hill or as in drown all the lawyers and put a philosopher king in place--is still debatable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The good thing about that ^ is that there's laws of logic, and a random guy's opinion over whether or not I'm woo woo is irrelevant. Demonstrations are required for claims to hold water.
> 
> I'm not using personal bias in what Im talking about ~ Im saying that many philosophers were debunked by other philosophers by demonstrating a fatal flaw, not just an opinion that its woo woo...Thats not how its demonstrated, not with a bias but methodically.
> 
> Claims require demonstrations, demonstrations require following the laws of logic, the laws of logic weed out fallacies where they exist, and sometimes not until many years later.
Click to expand...


True.  Now let's suppose each premise which ends as a conclusion?  We can look at most of the meme's posted by 21st century self proclaimed conservatives, as logical fallacies.  Shall I post the syllogism?


----------



## OldLady

G.T. said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've always had a pet peeve for undisciplined reasoning. I started studying philosophy, and through that I've learned that there are dozens of "ists" & world-views of philosophers born of poor reasoning and window dressing.
> 
> At the end of the day, common sense and a disciplined approach to knowledge (healthy skepticism) seem to produce the most fruitful paths forward. In philosophy, many of the greats had fatal errors in their approach and created a "woo woo" mockery of rationality.
> 
> Its making a comeback, though. Disciplined philosophy.
> 
> 
> 
> The tricky bit about your argument is that many of the greats would say _you_ are the "woo woo."
> I've got nothing against it, unless it's held up as the be all and end all.
> If A=B and B=C, then A=C is fine.
> Where that leads--as in we're all just pushing that rock up the hill or as in drown all the lawyers and put a philosopher king in place--is still debatable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The good thing about that ^ is that there's laws of logic, and a random guy's opinion over whether or not I'm woo woo is irrelevant. Demonstrations are required for claims to hold water.
> 
> I'm not using personal bias in what Im talking about ~ Im saying that many philosophers were debunked by other philosophers by demonstrating a fatal flaw, not just an opinion that its woo woo...Thats not how its demonstrated, not with a bias but methodically.
> 
> Claims require demonstrations, demonstrations require following the laws of logic, the laws of logic weed out fallacies where they exist, and sometimes not until many years later.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay.  Not to belabor a point, but some examples of what you are talking about would be helpful, if you are suggesting that philosophy would help us be better thinkers.  I'm always trying to help people be better thinkers, which is why your statement interested me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think it's the highest goal because it's like the rising tide example - where better reasoning uplifts all other goals somebody might have.
> 
> Pascale's Wager is fatally flawed. Thats the easiest example to grasp.
> 
> Lots of C.S. Lewis' literature is fallacious as he appeals to claims of normativity to make the wider cases he's making, and most of the normativity he's implying is either demonstrably false, or yet to be established.
> 
> In other words, in order to prove his overarching claims, he just makes more undemonstrated claims. That's the fatal flaw in most of his literature. Its the type of a lack of discipline I was referencing before.
> 
> The good news is that many folks possess the ability to reason properly.
Click to expand...

Well, I love Aslan anyway.


----------



## OldLady

G.T. said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've always had a pet peeve for undisciplined reasoning. I started studying philosophy, and through that I've learned that there are dozens of "ists" & world-views of philosophers born of poor reasoning and window dressing.
> 
> At the end of the day, common sense and a disciplined approach to knowledge (healthy skepticism) seem to produce the most fruitful paths forward. In philosophy, many of the greats had fatal errors in their approach and created a "woo woo" mockery of rationality.
> 
> Its making a comeback, though. Disciplined philosophy.
> 
> 
> 
> The tricky bit about your argument is that many of the greats would say _you_ are the "woo woo."
> I've got nothing against it, unless it's held up as the be all and end all.
> If A=B and B=C, then A=C is fine.
> Where that leads--as in we're all just pushing that rock up the hill or as in drown all the lawyers and put a philosopher king in place--is still debatable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The good thing about that ^ is that there's laws of logic, and a random guy's opinion over whether or not I'm woo woo is irrelevant. Demonstrations are required for claims to hold water.
> 
> I'm not using personal bias in what Im talking about ~ Im saying that many philosophers were debunked by other philosophers by demonstrating a fatal flaw, not just an opinion that its woo woo...Thats not how its demonstrated, not with a bias but methodically.
> 
> Claims require demonstrations, demonstrations require following the laws of logic, the laws of logic weed out fallacies where they exist, and sometimes not until many years later.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay.  Not to belabor a point, but some examples of what you are talking about would be helpful, if you are suggesting that philosophy would help us be better thinkers.  I'm always trying to help people be better thinkers, which is why your statement interested me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think it's the highest goal because it's like the rising tide example - where better reasoning uplifts all other goals somebody might have.
> 
> Pascale's Wager is fatally flawed. Thats the easiest example to grasp.
> 
> Lots of C.S. Lewis' literature is fallacious as he appeals to claims of normativity to make the wider cases he's making, and most of the normativity he's implying is either demonstrably false, or yet to be established.
> 
> In other words, in order to prove his overarching claims, he just makes more undemonstrated claims. That's the fatal flaw in most of his literature. Its the type of a lack of discipline I was referencing before.
> 
> The good news is that many folks possess the ability to reason properly.
Click to expand...

You won't want to hear this and I probably can't say it right, but ....
the fact that you think Pascale's Wager is fatally flawed and Toro believes it to be true, is a perfect example of my point, which is that there is too much disagreement about what is right or wrong in philosophy in order for it to be a universal standard upon which to rely.


----------



## G.T.

OldLady said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've always had a pet peeve for undisciplined reasoning. I started studying philosophy, and through that I've learned that there are dozens of "ists" & world-views of philosophers born of poor reasoning and window dressing.
> 
> At the end of the day, common sense and a disciplined approach to knowledge (healthy skepticism) seem to produce the most fruitful paths forward. In philosophy, many of the greats had fatal errors in their approach and created a "woo woo" mockery of rationality.
> 
> Its making a comeback, though. Disciplined philosophy.
> 
> 
> 
> The tricky bit about your argument is that many of the greats would say _you_ are the "woo woo."
> I've got nothing against it, unless it's held up as the be all and end all.
> If A=B and B=C, then A=C is fine.
> Where that leads--as in we're all just pushing that rock up the hill or as in drown all the lawyers and put a philosopher king in place--is still debatable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The good thing about that ^ is that there's laws of logic, and a random guy's opinion over whether or not I'm woo woo is irrelevant. Demonstrations are required for claims to hold water.
> 
> I'm not using personal bias in what Im talking about ~ Im saying that many philosophers were debunked by other philosophers by demonstrating a fatal flaw, not just an opinion that its woo woo...Thats not how its demonstrated, not with a bias but methodically.
> 
> Claims require demonstrations, demonstrations require following the laws of logic, the laws of logic weed out fallacies where they exist, and sometimes not until many years later.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay.  Not to belabor a point, but some examples of what you are talking about would be helpful, if you are suggesting that philosophy would help us be better thinkers.  I'm always trying to help people be better thinkers, which is why your statement interested me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think it's the highest goal because it's like the rising tide example - where better reasoning uplifts all other goals somebody might have.
> 
> Pascale's Wager is fatally flawed. Thats the easiest example to grasp.
> 
> Lots of C.S. Lewis' literature is fallacious as he appeals to claims of normativity to make the wider cases he's making, and most of the normativity he's implying is either demonstrably false, or yet to be established.
> 
> In other words, in order to prove his overarching claims, he just makes more undemonstrated claims. That's the fatal flaw in most of his literature. Its the type of a lack of discipline I was referencing before.
> 
> The good news is that many folks possess the ability to reason properly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You won't want to hear this and I probably can't say it right, but ....
> the fact that you think Pascale's Wager is fatally flawed and Toro believes it to be true, is a perfect example of my point, which is that there is too much disagreement about what is right or wrong in philosophy in order for it to be a universal standard upon which to rely.
Click to expand...


Thats poor reasoning itself, that your standard is merely folks' opinions...and proclaiming that disagreement means theres no fact of the matter.

Thats undisciplined, heres how...

Theres not much disagreement in philosophy on pascales wager, theres just guys like toro that didnt know that its refuted in introductory philosophy courses.

Its not merely opinion, its the laws of logic like I told you.

If you want me to walk you through its refutation, sure. I can dewwwdatt


----------



## OldLady

G.T. said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> The tricky bit about your argument is that many of the greats would say _you_ are the "woo woo."
> I've got nothing against it, unless it's held up as the be all and end all.
> If A=B and B=C, then A=C is fine.
> Where that leads--as in we're all just pushing that rock up the hill or as in drown all the lawyers and put a philosopher king in place--is still debatable.
> 
> 
> 
> The good thing about that ^ is that there's laws of logic, and a random guy's opinion over whether or not I'm woo woo is irrelevant. Demonstrations are required for claims to hold water.
> 
> I'm not using personal bias in what Im talking about ~ Im saying that many philosophers were debunked by other philosophers by demonstrating a fatal flaw, not just an opinion that its woo woo...Thats not how its demonstrated, not with a bias but methodically.
> 
> Claims require demonstrations, demonstrations require following the laws of logic, the laws of logic weed out fallacies where they exist, and sometimes not until many years later.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay.  Not to belabor a point, but some examples of what you are talking about would be helpful, if you are suggesting that philosophy would help us be better thinkers.  I'm always trying to help people be better thinkers, which is why your statement interested me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think it's the highest goal because it's like the rising tide example - where better reasoning uplifts all other goals somebody might have.
> 
> Pascale's Wager is fatally flawed. Thats the easiest example to grasp.
> 
> Lots of C.S. Lewis' literature is fallacious as he appeals to claims of normativity to make the wider cases he's making, and most of the normativity he's implying is either demonstrably false, or yet to be established.
> 
> In other words, in order to prove his overarching claims, he just makes more undemonstrated claims. That's the fatal flaw in most of his literature. Its the type of a lack of discipline I was referencing before.
> 
> The good news is that many folks possess the ability to reason properly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You won't want to hear this and I probably can't say it right, but ....
> the fact that you think Pascale's Wager is fatally flawed and Toro believes it to be true, is a perfect example of my point, which is that there is too much disagreement about what is right or wrong in philosophy in order for it to be a universal standard upon which to rely.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thats poor reasoning itself, that your standard is merely folks' opinions...and proclaiming that disagreement means theres no fact of the matter.
> 
> Thats undisciplined, heres how...
> 
> Theres no disagreement in philosophy on pascales wager, theres just guys like toro that didnt know that its refuted in introductory philosophy courses.
> 
> Its not merely opinion, its the laws of logic like I told you.
> 
> If you want me to walk you through its refutation, sure. I can dewwwdatt
Click to expand...

No need for that, thanks.


----------



## G.T.

OldLady said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> The good thing about that ^ is that there's laws of logic, and a random guy's opinion over whether or not I'm woo woo is irrelevant. Demonstrations are required for claims to hold water.
> 
> I'm not using personal bias in what Im talking about ~ Im saying that many philosophers were debunked by other philosophers by demonstrating a fatal flaw, not just an opinion that its woo woo...Thats not how its demonstrated, not with a bias but methodically.
> 
> Claims require demonstrations, demonstrations require following the laws of logic, the laws of logic weed out fallacies where they exist, and sometimes not until many years later.
> 
> 
> 
> Okay.  Not to belabor a point, but some examples of what you are talking about would be helpful, if you are suggesting that philosophy would help us be better thinkers.  I'm always trying to help people be better thinkers, which is why your statement interested me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think it's the highest goal because it's like the rising tide example - where better reasoning uplifts all other goals somebody might have.
> 
> Pascale's Wager is fatally flawed. Thats the easiest example to grasp.
> 
> Lots of C.S. Lewis' literature is fallacious as he appeals to claims of normativity to make the wider cases he's making, and most of the normativity he's implying is either demonstrably false, or yet to be established.
> 
> In other words, in order to prove his overarching claims, he just makes more undemonstrated claims. That's the fatal flaw in most of his literature. Its the type of a lack of discipline I was referencing before.
> 
> The good news is that many folks possess the ability to reason properly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You won't want to hear this and I probably can't say it right, but ....
> the fact that you think Pascale's Wager is fatally flawed and Toro believes it to be true, is a perfect example of my point, which is that there is too much disagreement about what is right or wrong in philosophy in order for it to be a universal standard upon which to rely.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thats poor reasoning itself, that your standard is merely folks' opinions...and proclaiming that disagreement means theres no fact of the matter.
> 
> Thats undisciplined, heres how...
> 
> Theres no disagreement in philosophy on pascales wager, theres just guys like toro that didnt know that its refuted in introductory philosophy courses.
> 
> Its not merely opinion, its the laws of logic like I told you.
> 
> If you want me to walk you through its refutation, sure. I can dewwwdatt
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No need for that, thanks.
Click to expand...

No problem. Note that I was willing, thats all. There's no ego involved in a critique of ideas, and a lot of the time people get emotional over simple rational disagreements because of emotional baggage thats not necessary, or relevant. Best to just keep opinions to one's self, at that point. It's sort of like anti knowledge.


----------



## OldLady

G.T. said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay.  Not to belabor a point, but some examples of what you are talking about would be helpful, if you are suggesting that philosophy would help us be better thinkers.  I'm always trying to help people be better thinkers, which is why your statement interested me.
> 
> 
> 
> I think it's the highest goal because it's like the rising tide example - where better reasoning uplifts all other goals somebody might have.
> 
> Pascale's Wager is fatally flawed. Thats the easiest example to grasp.
> 
> Lots of C.S. Lewis' literature is fallacious as he appeals to claims of normativity to make the wider cases he's making, and most of the normativity he's implying is either demonstrably false, or yet to be established.
> 
> In other words, in order to prove his overarching claims, he just makes more undemonstrated claims. That's the fatal flaw in most of his literature. Its the type of a lack of discipline I was referencing before.
> 
> The good news is that many folks possess the ability to reason properly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You won't want to hear this and I probably can't say it right, but ....
> the fact that you think Pascale's Wager is fatally flawed and Toro believes it to be true, is a perfect example of my point, which is that there is too much disagreement about what is right or wrong in philosophy in order for it to be a universal standard upon which to rely.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thats poor reasoning itself, that your standard is merely folks' opinions...and proclaiming that disagreement means theres no fact of the matter.
> 
> Thats undisciplined, heres how...
> 
> Theres no disagreement in philosophy on pascales wager, theres just guys like toro that didnt know that its refuted in introductory philosophy courses.
> 
> Its not merely opinion, its the laws of logic like I told you.
> 
> If you want me to walk you through its refutation, sure. I can dewwwdatt
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No need for that, thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No problem. Note that I was willing, thats all. There's no ego involved in a critique of ideas, and a lot of the time people get emotional over simple rational disagreements because of emotional baggage thats not necessary, or relevant. Best to just keep opinions to one's self, at that point. It's sort of like anti knowledge.
Click to expand...

Yessir.


----------



## Ringel05

G.T. said:


> I've always had a pet peeve for undisciplined reasoning. I started studying philosophy, and through that I've learned that there are dozens of "ists" & world-views of philosophers born of poor reasoning and window dressing.
> 
> At the end of the day, common sense and a disciplined approach to knowledge (healthy skepticism) seem to produce the most fruitful paths forward. In philosophy, many of the greats had fatal errors in their approach and created a "woo woo" mockery of rationality.
> 
> Its making a comeback, though. Disciplined philosophy.


Given the representation on this board alone it would appear philosophistry is winning hands down.....


----------



## G.T.

Ringel05 said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've always had a pet peeve for undisciplined reasoning. I started studying philosophy, and through that I've learned that there are dozens of "ists" & world-views of philosophers born of poor reasoning and window dressing.
> 
> At the end of the day, common sense and a disciplined approach to knowledge (healthy skepticism) seem to produce the most fruitful paths forward. In philosophy, many of the greats had fatal errors in their approach and created a "woo woo" mockery of rationality.
> 
> Its making a comeback, though. Disciplined philosophy.
> 
> 
> 
> Given the representation on this board alone it would appear philosophistry is winning hands down.....
Click to expand...

This site is deeeeeeply anti-intellectual. It makes it hard to consider it worth it to deep dive into most topics because in the end, most of these ass holes devolve into some meta hyperbolic insult contest and quit engaging in earnst.

At which point, fuck, I just have to beat them at that, too


----------



## OldLady

I do NOT think that philosophical arguments should be won based on opinion; I am simply pointing out that logical arguments are not immune from error, either.

Logic is a blind set of rules that, if based on a false underlying premise, can lead you to ridiculous or even evil outcomes.  

It is the underlying agreement on A or B or C that is the real trick, isn't it?  My point is that the jury is still out on that.


----------



## G.T.

OldLady said:


> I do NOT think that philosophical arguments should be won based on opinion; I am simply pointing out that logical arguments are not immune from error, either.
> 
> Logic is a blind set of rules that, if based on a false underlying premise, can lead you to ridiculous or even evil outcomes.
> 
> It is the underlying agreement on A or B or C that is the real trick, isn't it?  My point is that the jury is still out on that.


The laws of logic are how the errors are found, and they're also not a blind set of rules but instead they're the most accurate we've got.

If your argument is based on a false premise or set of premises, its using logical deduction that would attest to that.

Im not sure what the big hang up is, there...


----------



## OldLady

G.T. said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do NOT think that philosophical arguments should be won based on opinion; I am simply pointing out that logical arguments are not immune from error, either.
> 
> Logic is a blind set of rules that, if based on a false underlying premise, can lead you to ridiculous or even evil outcomes.
> 
> It is the underlying agreement on A or B or C that is the real trick, isn't it?  My point is that the jury is still out on that.
> 
> 
> 
> The laws of logic are how the errors are found, and they're also not a blind set of rules but instead they're the most accurate we've got.
> 
> If your argument is based on a false premise or set of premises, its using logical deduction that would attest to that.
> 
> Im not sure what the big hang up is, there...
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I'm hung up.  Logical thinking is certainly an improvement over some of what I hear around here.  I agree with you 100%.  I just have a certain wariness about philosophical cleverness.  When I was in college, I only took one philosophy course, but I took my mandatory two semesters of Humanities from a professor in the philosophy department (his take on Wuthering Heights was priceless...lol).  He kept insisting that if I believed good and evil were relativist concepts, that I had to believe that Hitler's final solution was okay.  When we get into arguments over the nature of being, and the existence of good--or God, no one can actually prove it, G.T.  I believe there are different schools of thought on this, and they would be quite put out if you told them they were just being opinionated.


----------



## G.T.

OldLady said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do NOT think that philosophical arguments should be won based on opinion; I am simply pointing out that logical arguments are not immune from error, either.
> 
> Logic is a blind set of rules that, if based on a false underlying premise, can lead you to ridiculous or even evil outcomes.
> 
> It is the underlying agreement on A or B or C that is the real trick, isn't it?  My point is that the jury is still out on that.
> 
> 
> 
> The laws of logic are how the errors are found, and they're also not a blind set of rules but instead they're the most accurate we've got.
> 
> If your argument is based on a false premise or set of premises, its using logical deduction that would attest to that.
> 
> Im not sure what the big hang up is, there...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not sure I'm hung up.  Logical thinking is certainly an improvement over some of what I hear around here.  I agree with you 100%.  I just have a certain wariness about philosophical cleverness.  When I was in college, I only took one philosophy course, but I took my mandatory two semesters of Humanities from a professor in the philosophy department (his take on Wuthering Heights was priceless...lol).  He kept insisting that if I believed good and evil were relativist concepts, that I had to believe that Hitler's final solution was okay.  When we get into arguments over the nature of being, and the existence of good--or God, no one can actually prove it, G.T.  I believe there are different schools of thought on this, and they would be quite put out if you told them they were just being opinionated.
Click to expand...

Good, evil and god have nothing to do with whether or not logic is valid or opinion based...I think you're confusing logic with philosophy.

Logic is the tool-set the brain literally uses to reason. Youd have to USE logic to even argue AGAINST logic.

Im really lost on what youre getting at still.

Philosophies can be right or wrong? That was my opinion in the 1st place.


----------



## OldLady

G.T. said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do NOT think that philosophical arguments should be won based on opinion; I am simply pointing out that logical arguments are not immune from error, either.
> 
> Logic is a blind set of rules that, if based on a false underlying premise, can lead you to ridiculous or even evil outcomes.
> 
> It is the underlying agreement on A or B or C that is the real trick, isn't it?  My point is that the jury is still out on that.
> 
> 
> 
> The laws of logic are how the errors are found, and they're also not a blind set of rules but instead they're the most accurate we've got.
> 
> If your argument is based on a false premise or set of premises, its using logical deduction that would attest to that.
> 
> Im not sure what the big hang up is, there...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not sure I'm hung up.  Logical thinking is certainly an improvement over some of what I hear around here.  I agree with you 100%.  I just have a certain wariness about philosophical cleverness.  When I was in college, I only took one philosophy course, but I took my mandatory two semesters of Humanities from a professor in the philosophy department (his take on Wuthering Heights was priceless...lol).  He kept insisting that if I believed good and evil were relativist concepts, that I had to believe that Hitler's final solution was okay.  When we get into arguments over the nature of being, and the existence of good--or God, no one can actually prove it, G.T.  I believe there are different schools of thought on this, and they would be quite put out if you told them they were just being opinionated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good, evil and god have nothing to do with whether or not logic is valid or opinion based...I think you're confusing logic with philosophy.
> 
> Logic is the tool-set the brain literally uses to reason. Youd have to USE logic to even argue AGAINST logic.
> 
> Im really lost on what youre getting at still.
> 
> Philosophies can be right or wrong? That was my opinion in the 1st place.
Click to expand...

Thanks.  I thought you were advocating teaching philosophy as a way to teach mind discipline.
Not that there is anything wrong with that, either.


----------



## G.T.

OldLady said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do NOT think that philosophical arguments should be won based on opinion; I am simply pointing out that logical arguments are not immune from error, either.
> 
> Logic is a blind set of rules that, if based on a false underlying premise, can lead you to ridiculous or even evil outcomes.
> 
> It is the underlying agreement on A or B or C that is the real trick, isn't it?  My point is that the jury is still out on that.
> 
> 
> 
> The laws of logic are how the errors are found, and they're also not a blind set of rules but instead they're the most accurate we've got.
> 
> If your argument is based on a false premise or set of premises, its using logical deduction that would attest to that.
> 
> Im not sure what the big hang up is, there...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not sure I'm hung up.  Logical thinking is certainly an improvement over some of what I hear around here.  I agree with you 100%.  I just have a certain wariness about philosophical cleverness.  When I was in college, I only took one philosophy course, but I took my mandatory two semesters of Humanities from a professor in the philosophy department (his take on Wuthering Heights was priceless...lol).  He kept insisting that if I believed good and evil were relativist concepts, that I had to believe that Hitler's final solution was okay.  When we get into arguments over the nature of being, and the existence of good--or God, no one can actually prove it, G.T.  I believe there are different schools of thought on this, and they would be quite put out if you told them they were just being opinionated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good, evil and god have nothing to do with whether or not logic is valid or opinion based...I think you're confusing logic with philosophy.
> 
> Logic is the tool-set the brain literally uses to reason. Youd have to USE logic to even argue AGAINST logic.
> 
> Im really lost on what youre getting at still.
> 
> Philosophies can be right or wrong? That was my opinion in the 1st place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks.  I thought you were advocating teaching philosophy as a way to teach mind discipline.
> Not that there is anything wrong with that, either.
Click to expand...

Naw, on the contrary my 1st post in this thread was advocating the exact opposite, lol...

Philosophers, often times, have a LOT of logical errors in the theories they posit.

Im promoting more discipline in reasoning, overall. 

For example, toro called pascale's wager "logically flawless" when that's probably the window-sticker model in bad philosophy. Its got fatally flawed logic, which render it incoherent using the simple fundamentals of human reasoning.

Thats why I offered to walk you through its refutation, because your response to what I said seemed to be something along the lines of......"see, since people disagree whether or not its valid means that its unresolved/ambiguous."  (my words in attempt to paraphrase)

But the wager is defeated absent opinion, bias or other....logic soundly defeats it.


----------



## OldLady

G.T. said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do NOT think that philosophical arguments should be won based on opinion; I am simply pointing out that logical arguments are not immune from error, either.
> 
> Logic is a blind set of rules that, if based on a false underlying premise, can lead you to ridiculous or even evil outcomes.
> 
> It is the underlying agreement on A or B or C that is the real trick, isn't it?  My point is that the jury is still out on that.
> 
> 
> 
> The laws of logic are how the errors are found, and they're also not a blind set of rules but instead they're the most accurate we've got.
> 
> If your argument is based on a false premise or set of premises, its using logical deduction that would attest to that.
> 
> Im not sure what the big hang up is, there...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not sure I'm hung up.  Logical thinking is certainly an improvement over some of what I hear around here.  I agree with you 100%.  I just have a certain wariness about philosophical cleverness.  When I was in college, I only took one philosophy course, but I took my mandatory two semesters of Humanities from a professor in the philosophy department (his take on Wuthering Heights was priceless...lol).  He kept insisting that if I believed good and evil were relativist concepts, that I had to believe that Hitler's final solution was okay.  When we get into arguments over the nature of being, and the existence of good--or God, no one can actually prove it, G.T.  I believe there are different schools of thought on this, and they would be quite put out if you told them they were just being opinionated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good, evil and god have nothing to do with whether or not logic is valid or opinion based...I think you're confusing logic with philosophy.
> 
> Logic is the tool-set the brain literally uses to reason. Youd have to USE logic to even argue AGAINST logic.
> 
> Im really lost on what youre getting at still.
> 
> Philosophies can be right or wrong? That was my opinion in the 1st place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks.  I thought you were advocating teaching philosophy as a way to teach mind discipline.
> Not that there is anything wrong with that, either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Naw, on the contrary my 1st post in this thread was advocating the exact opposite, lol...
> 
> Philosophers, often times, have a LOT of logical errors in the theories they posit.
> 
> Im promoting more discipline in reasoning, overall.
> 
> For example, toro called pascale's wager "logically flawless" when that's probably the window-sticker model in bad philosophy. Its got fatally flawed logic, which render it incoherent using the simple fundamentals of human reasoning.
> 
> Thats why I offered to walk you through its refutation, because your response to what I said seemed to be something along the lines of......"see, since people disagree whether or not its valid means that its unresolved/ambiguous."  (my words in attempt to paraphrase)
> 
> But the wager is defeated absent opinion, bias or other....logic soundly defeats it.
Click to expand...

It seems we've been talking at cross purposes.  I don't need an explanation for why God In The Bible doesn't exist, so I didn't need a blow by blow refutation of Pascale's Wager.  It's dumb, in my opinion, to try and justify faith with logic.  They are like oil and water, cats and dogs, east and west.  But many still choose faith, and I don't think your logical arguments will have any effect on them, G.T.  js


----------



## G.T.

OldLady said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> The laws of logic are how the errors are found, and they're also not a blind set of rules but instead they're the most accurate we've got.
> 
> If your argument is based on a false premise or set of premises, its using logical deduction that would attest to that.
> 
> Im not sure what the big hang up is, there...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure I'm hung up.  Logical thinking is certainly an improvement over some of what I hear around here.  I agree with you 100%.  I just have a certain wariness about philosophical cleverness.  When I was in college, I only took one philosophy course, but I took my mandatory two semesters of Humanities from a professor in the philosophy department (his take on Wuthering Heights was priceless...lol).  He kept insisting that if I believed good and evil were relativist concepts, that I had to believe that Hitler's final solution was okay.  When we get into arguments over the nature of being, and the existence of good--or God, no one can actually prove it, G.T.  I believe there are different schools of thought on this, and they would be quite put out if you told them they were just being opinionated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good, evil and god have nothing to do with whether or not logic is valid or opinion based...I think you're confusing logic with philosophy.
> 
> Logic is the tool-set the brain literally uses to reason. Youd have to USE logic to even argue AGAINST logic.
> 
> Im really lost on what youre getting at still.
> 
> Philosophies can be right or wrong? That was my opinion in the 1st place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks.  I thought you were advocating teaching philosophy as a way to teach mind discipline.
> Not that there is anything wrong with that, either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Naw, on the contrary my 1st post in this thread was advocating the exact opposite, lol...
> 
> Philosophers, often times, have a LOT of logical errors in the theories they posit.
> 
> Im promoting more discipline in reasoning, overall.
> 
> For example, toro called pascale's wager "logically flawless" when that's probably the window-sticker model in bad philosophy. Its got fatally flawed logic, which render it incoherent using the simple fundamentals of human reasoning.
> 
> Thats why I offered to walk you through its refutation, because your response to what I said seemed to be something along the lines of......"see, since people disagree whether or not its valid means that its unresolved/ambiguous."  (my words in attempt to paraphrase)
> 
> But the wager is defeated absent opinion, bias or other....logic soundly defeats it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It seems we've been talking at cross purposes.  I don't need an explanation for why God In The Bible doesn't exist, so I didn't need a blow by blow refutation of Pascale's Wager.  It's dumb, in my opinion, to try and justify faith with logic.  They are like oil and water, cats and dogs, east and west.  But many still choose faith, and I don't think your logical arguments will have any effect on them, G.T.  js
Click to expand...

I'm not trying to change anyones mind. I'm looking for good arguments and assisting to point out bad ones. In the process, I learn. Im a geek like that.


----------



## ding

The wager is defeated by its own logical error and the arguments against the wager are defeated by their own logical errors. 

The correct logic for the wager is that the practical benefits of faith and spirituality are so superior to the lack of benefits of materialism that betting on theism is rational and betting on materialism is irrational. 

It’s not about infinite rewards after death, it is about practical rewards on the journey to death.


----------



## ThirdTerm

> Wealthy young people will get a liberal arts education. Poor and middle class young people will choose a trade."



It's also a gender issue, Female students often choose a liberal arts education. The majority of liberal arts majors are women as they mostly become ordinary housewives. Looking back now, I should have chosen economics to land a job as a financial analyst at a major bank or political science. Philosophy that I majored is of no use in real life unless you will become a university lecturer teaching philosophy.


----------



## G.T.

ThirdTerm said:


> Wealthy young people will get a liberal arts education. Poor and middle class young people will choose a trade."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's also a gender issue, Female students often choose a liberal arts education. The majority of liberal arts majors are women as they mostly become ordinary housewives. Looking back now, I should have chosen economics to land a job as a financial analyst at a major bank or political science. Philosophy that I majored is of no use in real life unless you will become a university lecturer teaching philosophy.
Click to expand...

Dept. of ed circa Nov 17


----------



## midcan5

"Politics is opposed to morality, as philosophy to naïveté."  Emmanuel Levinas

Good to see this thread still active.   A few links for the interested reader below.

'What Is It Like To Be A Philosopher?'  What Is It Like to Be a Philosopher?

'Freedom and Neurobiology by John Searle'  Freedom and Neurobiology by John Searle | Issue 66 | Philosophy Now

"Science asks and answers its big questions, so why is philosophy taking its time? Because it’s only just getting started"
Why philosophy is taking its time to answer the big questions | Aeon Essays

"No real belief, however trifling and fragmentary it may seem, is ever truly insignificant; it prepares us to receive more of its like, confirms those which resembled it before, and weakens others; and so gradually it lays a stealthy train in our inmost thoughts, which may someday explode into overt action, and leave its stamp upon our character."   William Kingdon Clifford

'Being 97'  An ageing philosopher returns to the essential question: ‘What is the point of it all?’ | Aeon Videos


PS  I think our 97 year old had a good life.


----------



## midcan5

Greetings all,  I few items for you puzzlers out there in cyberspace. 

'Our brains predict the outcomes of our actions, shaping reality into what we expect. That’s why we see what we believe'
How our brain sculpts experience in line with our expectations | Aeon Essays

'Probing age-old philosophical questions as well as the politics of the moment, the interview offers a revealing glimpse of the divergent styles, attitudes and outlooks of two enduringly influential thinkers.'

'When Chomsky met Foucault: how the thinkers debated the ‘ideal society’'
When Chomsky met Foucault: how the thinkers debated the ‘ideal society’ | Aeon Videos

'What Do You Do When You're Alone'
What does it mean to be lonely?

http://www.thecritique.com/exclusive/no-exit-from-darkness-the-philosophy-of-true-detective/

http://www.slate.com/bigideas/is-there-life-after-death/essays-and-opinions

"Sometimes we need to change our ways, sometimes we even need to change our dreams, but sometimes we are entitled to say that we are making moral progress."   Ruth Anna Putnam

"A philosopher is a blind man, in a dark cellar, at midnight, looking for a black cat that isn't there. He is distinguished from a theologian in that the theologian finds the cat."  [Various]

'72 Philosophy Books Everyone Should Read'

72 Philosophy Books Everyone Should Read

72?  well some I've read.


----------



## midcan5

A magazine worth your time.

Greetings all,  as I grow more mature, mature, you say, nah old. I know only so much time exists before me. I have been on this site so long I miss a few that are now gone. I admit I will miss life but death is that quiet place where there is no missing only....

"Ancient Greek and Roman philosophers believed that we had no reason to fear death. Socrates viewed it as a dreamless sleep, while Lucretius saw no difference between two stretches of non-existence: the time before we were born and the eternity after we die. He thought we should fear both equally; that is, not at all.

Yet Shakespeare understood the human condition much better: we most certainly do fear death. Most humans are terrified of the prospect of existing no more, of taking that one final breath.

Our fear of death is the ultimate fear of missing out – on all the events, the people, the progress, the battles. When we die, the world will not pause. Life, without us, will go on.

Rather than casting this fear aside, perhaps we should invite it into the room and look it square in the eye. What do we fear we’ll miss out on when we’re gone? What should we do more – or less – of while we’re here?

*All must die. But not all will truly live, making the most of the hand – however unfair it may be – they have been dealt. Will you?"*

New Philosopher | Magazine


----------



## task0778

There are those who believe that we all live many lives rather than just one.  Therefore, we die many times and are reborn at some point into another life and situation, perhaps to satisfy the laws of karma, among whatever other reasons there might be.  Ancient Greeks and Romans believed that too, as did the ancient Egyptians that built the Pyramids.  Some anthropologists believe that pre-historic cavemen buried their dead with tools and weapons to use in the next life.  There are many Eastern Religions practiced today that believe in reincarnation too.

Ergo, there's no reason to fear death if one believes in rebirth, we've done it before and will do it again.  Ain't saying it's true, ain't saying it isn't either.


----------



## ding

OldLady said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> The laws of logic are how the errors are found, and they're also not a blind set of rules but instead they're the most accurate we've got.
> 
> If your argument is based on a false premise or set of premises, its using logical deduction that would attest to that.
> 
> Im not sure what the big hang up is, there...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure I'm hung up.  Logical thinking is certainly an improvement over some of what I hear around here.  I agree with you 100%.  I just have a certain wariness about philosophical cleverness.  When I was in college, I only took one philosophy course, but I took my mandatory two semesters of Humanities from a professor in the philosophy department (his take on Wuthering Heights was priceless...lol).  He kept insisting that if I believed good and evil were relativist concepts, that I had to believe that Hitler's final solution was okay.  When we get into arguments over the nature of being, and the existence of good--or God, no one can actually prove it, G.T.  I believe there are different schools of thought on this, and they would be quite put out if you told them they were just being opinionated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good, evil and god have nothing to do with whether or not logic is valid or opinion based...I think you're confusing logic with philosophy.
> 
> Logic is the tool-set the brain literally uses to reason. Youd have to USE logic to even argue AGAINST logic.
> 
> Im really lost on what youre getting at still.
> 
> Philosophies can be right or wrong? That was my opinion in the 1st place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks.  I thought you were advocating teaching philosophy as a way to teach mind discipline.
> Not that there is anything wrong with that, either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Naw, on the contrary my 1st post in this thread was advocating the exact opposite, lol...
> 
> Philosophers, often times, have a LOT of logical errors in the theories they posit.
> 
> Im promoting more discipline in reasoning, overall.
> 
> For example, toro called pascale's wager "logically flawless" when that's probably the window-sticker model in bad philosophy. Its got fatally flawed logic, which render it incoherent using the simple fundamentals of human reasoning.
> 
> Thats why I offered to walk you through its refutation, because your response to what I said seemed to be something along the lines of......"see, since people disagree whether or not its valid means that its unresolved/ambiguous."  (my words in attempt to paraphrase)
> 
> But the wager is defeated absent opinion, bias or other....logic soundly defeats it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It seems we've been talking at cross purposes.  I don't need an explanation for why God In The Bible doesn't exist, so I didn't need a blow by blow refutation of Pascale's Wager.  It's dumb, in my opinion, to try and justify faith with logic.  They are like oil and water, cats and dogs, east and west.  But many still choose faith, and I don't think your logical arguments will have any effect on them, G.T.  js
Click to expand...

Faith is having complete trust in something or someone. I don’t know anyone who would put complete trust in something or someone without good reason. 

Therefore, there is an element of reason in faith. And since reason is informed through logic and logic is informed with facts, it seems to me that faith and logic are not mutually exclusive.


----------



## midcan5

"The lover of life knows his labour divine, And therein is at peace."  George Meredith

Interesting read and Aeon is an excellent site for those who think. 

"The meaning to life? A Darwinian existentialist has his answers"

The meaning to life? A Darwinian existentialist has his answers | Aeon Ideas


----------



## ding

midcan5 said:


> "The meaning to life?


To pass it down.


----------



## ding

midcan5 said:


> A magazine worth your time.
> 
> Greetings all,  as I grow more mature, mature, you say, nah old. I know only so much time exists before me. I have been on this site so long I miss a few that are now gone. I admit I will miss life but death is that quiet place where there is no missing only....
> 
> "Ancient Greek and Roman philosophers believed that we had no reason to fear death. Socrates viewed it as a dreamless sleep, while Lucretius saw no difference between two stretches of non-existence: the time before we were born and the eternity after we die. He thought we should fear both equally; that is, not at all.
> 
> Yet Shakespeare understood the human condition much better: we most certainly do fear death. Most humans are terrified of the prospect of existing no more, of taking that one final breath.
> 
> Our fear of death is the ultimate fear of missing out – on all the events, the people, the progress, the battles. When we die, the world will not pause. Life, without us, will go on.
> 
> Rather than casting this fear aside, perhaps we should invite it into the room and look it square in the eye. What do we fear we’ll miss out on when we’re gone? What should we do more – or less – of while we’re here?
> 
> *All must die. But not all will truly live, making the most of the hand – however unfair it may be – they have been dealt. Will you?"*
> 
> New Philosopher | Magazine


I agree with the sentiment. The focus should be on living. 

It seems to me that since the urge to survive is programmed into all living things that life must be  a wonderful gift worth living.


----------



## Unkotare

ding said:


> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The meaning to life?
> 
> 
> 
> To pass it down.
Click to expand...


Not down, forward (or maybe in a circle).


----------



## Unkotare

ding said:


> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A magazine worth your time.
> 
> Greetings all,  as I grow more mature, mature, you say, nah old. I know only so much time exists before me. I have been on this site so long I miss a few that are now gone. I admit I will miss life but death is that quiet place where there is no missing only....
> 
> "Ancient Greek and Roman philosophers believed that we had no reason to fear death. Socrates viewed it as a dreamless sleep, while Lucretius saw no difference between two stretches of non-existence: the time before we were born and the eternity after we die. He thought we should fear both equally; that is, not at all.
> 
> Yet Shakespeare understood the human condition much better: we most certainly do fear death. Most humans are terrified of the prospect of existing no more, of taking that one final breath.
> 
> Our fear of death is the ultimate fear of missing out – on all the events, the people, the progress, the battles. When we die, the world will not pause. Life, without us, will go on.
> 
> Rather than casting this fear aside, perhaps we should invite it into the room and look it square in the eye. What do we fear we’ll miss out on when we’re gone? What should we do more – or less – of while we’re here?
> 
> *All must die. But not all will truly live, making the most of the hand – however unfair it may be – they have been dealt. Will you?"*
> 
> New Philosopher | Magazine
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with the sentiment. The focus should be on living.
> 
> It seems to me that since the urge to survive is programmed into all living things that life must be  a wonderful gift worth living.
Click to expand...



And giving.


----------



## ding

Unkotare said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The meaning to life?
> 
> 
> 
> To pass it down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not down, forward (or maybe in a circle).
Click to expand...

I agree. My reference to down was to the next generation.


----------



## Unkotare

ding said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The meaning to life?
> 
> 
> 
> To pass it down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not down, forward (or maybe in a circle).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree. My reference to down was to the next generation.
Click to expand...


I know. I was just playing with words.


----------



## ding

Unkotare said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The meaning to life?
> 
> 
> 
> To pass it down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not down, forward (or maybe in a circle).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree. My reference to down was to the next generation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know. I was just playing with words.
Click to expand...

No worries. It’s all good.


----------



## Unkotare

ding said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The meaning to life?
> 
> 
> 
> To pass it down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not down, forward (or maybe in a circle).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree. My reference to down was to the next generation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know. I was just playing with words.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No worries. It’s all good.
Click to expand...


If we agree that perpetuating life is a primal urge, why do we keep killing each other?


----------



## gtopa1

Assumptions are accepted whether Religion, the Occult or Science. The thing about Science is that assumptions can be challenged using science.

Greg


----------



## ding

Unkotare said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> To pass it down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not down, forward (or maybe in a circle).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree. My reference to down was to the next generation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know. I was just playing with words.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No worries. It’s all good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If we agree that perpetuating life is a primal urge, why do we keep killing each other?
Click to expand...

It’s actually more than perpetuating life. It is passing down knowledge and wisdom. That’s what I meant when I said the meaning to life is to pass it down.

Killing each other is but a tiny fraction of life. Which makes it the exception and not the rule. So I won’t read anything more into it than that. With that said good does come from bad, so even killing can lead to good in a non-linear kind of way.

But to directly answer your question, it is because we are flawed. But here’s the interesting thing, men kill for their own good. They don’t kill for the sake of evil.


----------



## Unkotare

ding said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not down, forward (or maybe in a circle).
> 
> 
> 
> I agree. My reference to down was to the next generation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know. I was just playing with words.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No worries. It’s all good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If we agree that perpetuating life is a primal urge, why do we keep killing each other?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s actually more than perpetuating life. It is passing down knowledge and wisdom. That’s what I meant when I said the meaning to life is to pass it down.
> 
> Killing each other is but a tiny fraction of life. Which makes it the exception and not the rule. So I won’t read anything more into it than that. With that said good does come from bad, so even killing can lead to good in a non-linear kind of way.
> 
> But to directly answer your question, it is because we are flawed. But here’s the interesting thing, men kill for their own good. They don’t kill for the sake of evil.
Click to expand...



If we kill each other, doesn't that necessarily result in less knowledge being passed up/down/sideways?


----------



## ding

Unkotare said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree. My reference to down was to the next generation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know. I was just playing with words.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No worries. It’s all good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If we agree that perpetuating life is a primal urge, why do we keep killing each other?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s actually more than perpetuating life. It is passing down knowledge and wisdom. That’s what I meant when I said the meaning to life is to pass it down.
> 
> Killing each other is but a tiny fraction of life. Which makes it the exception and not the rule. So I won’t read anything more into it than that. With that said good does come from bad, so even killing can lead to good in a non-linear kind of way.
> 
> But to directly answer your question, it is because we are flawed. But here’s the interesting thing, men kill for their own good. They don’t kill for the sake of evil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If we kill each other, doesn't that necessarily result in less knowledge being passed up/down/sideways?
Click to expand...

Sure. If everyone was killed. 

If you are waiting for man to abandon his selfish and prideful nature, you will surely be disappointed. 

But consider this, man has progressed and knowledge was passed down despite man’s selfish and prideful nature. 

So maybe God does know what he is doing after all.


----------



## Unkotare

ding said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know. I was just playing with words.
> 
> 
> 
> No worries. It’s all good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If we agree that perpetuating life is a primal urge, why do we keep killing each other?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s actually more than perpetuating life. It is passing down knowledge and wisdom. That’s what I meant when I said the meaning to life is to pass it down.
> 
> Killing each other is but a tiny fraction of life. Which makes it the exception and not the rule. So I won’t read anything more into it than that. With that said good does come from bad, so even killing can lead to good in a non-linear kind of way.
> 
> But to directly answer your question, it is because we are flawed. But here’s the interesting thing, men kill for their own good. They don’t kill for the sake of evil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If we kill each other, doesn't that necessarily result in less knowledge being passed up/down/sideways?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure. If everyone was killed.....
Click to expand...



Even if one man is killed.


----------



## Unkotare

ding said:


> ...
> 
> So maybe God does know what he is doing after all.




I hope so, 'cause we sure don't.


----------



## ding

Unkotare said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> So maybe God does know what he is doing after all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hope so, 'cause we sure don't.
Click to expand...

If God willed us into existence then our existence is contingent upon God and if God is beyond material such that the closest we can come to describing his nature is spirit, then our material existence in and of itself is not the end but a means to an end.


----------



## Unkotare

ding said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> So maybe God does know what he is doing after all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hope so, 'cause we sure don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If God willed us into existence then our existence is contingent upon God and if God is beyond material such that the closest we can come to describing his nature is spirit, then our material existence in and of itself is not the end but a means to an end.
Click to expand...



What end?


----------



## ding

Unkotare said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> So maybe God does know what he is doing after all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hope so, 'cause we sure don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If God willed us into existence then our existence is contingent upon God and if God is beyond material such that the closest we can come to describing his nature is spirit, then our material existence in and of itself is not the end but a means to an end.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What end?
Click to expand...

The material end.


----------



## Unkotare

ding said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> So maybe God does know what he is doing after all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hope so, 'cause we sure don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If God willed us into existence then our existence is contingent upon God and if God is beyond material such that the closest we can come to describing his nature is spirit, then our material existence in and of itself is not the end but a means to an end.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What end?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The material end.
Click to expand...



Which you believe to be what?


----------



## ding

Unkotare said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> So maybe God does know what he is doing after all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hope so, 'cause we sure don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If God willed us into existence then our existence is contingent upon God and if God is beyond material such that the closest we can come to describing his nature is spirit, then our material existence in and of itself is not the end but a means to an end.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What end?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The material end.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Which you believe to be what?
Click to expand...

Death


----------



## Unkotare

ding said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hope so, 'cause we sure don't.
> 
> 
> 
> If God willed us into existence then our existence is contingent upon God and if God is beyond material such that the closest we can come to describing his nature is spirit, then our material existence in and of itself is not the end but a means to an end.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What end?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The material end.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Which you believe to be what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Death
Click to expand...



So, you propose that the point of life is death?


----------



## ding

Unkotare said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> If God willed us into existence then our existence is contingent upon God and if God is beyond material such that the closest we can come to describing his nature is spirit, then our material existence in and of itself is not the end but a means to an end.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What end?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The material end.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Which you believe to be what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Death
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, you propose that the point of life is death?
Click to expand...

No.


----------



## Unkotare

ding said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> What end?
> 
> 
> 
> The material end.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Which you believe to be what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Death
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, you propose that the point of life is death?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.
Click to expand...





Kinda sounds like that.


----------



## ding

Unkotare said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> The material end.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which you believe to be what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Death
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, you propose that the point of life is death?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kinda sounds like that.
Click to expand...

That’s entirely up to you.


----------



## Unkotare

ding said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which you believe to be what?
> 
> 
> 
> Death
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, you propose that the point of life is death?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kinda sounds like that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s entirely up to you.
Click to expand...



Actually, it’s up to you.


----------



## ding

Unkotare said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Death
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, you propose that the point of life is death?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kinda sounds like that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s entirely up to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it’s up to you.
Click to expand...

I’m not the one who sees it that way.


----------



## Corazon

Why study philosophy? In my opinion, philosophy helps you to better your life.
Some philosophers were really wise. Not all of them but the most ancient are good role models for all of us ( Buddha, Lao-Tse, Socrates, Plato, The Stoics...and many others)


----------



## midcan5

A philosopher picks his favorite Americans of the 20th Century



			http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2018/10/my-five-favorite-americans-of-the-20th-century.htm
		


'My five favorite Americans of the 20th-century'

1.  Eugene Debs.  Stalwart if unsuccessful socialist agitator for an alternative to devotion to the market.

2.  H.L. Mencken.  Merciless critic of religious, patriotic and other bullshit, with his own parochial prejudices to be sure, but a great writer who punched up, down, and sideways without apology.

3.  A. Philip Randolph. The most important labor and civil rights leader of the century, who made MLK possible, and who always championed, from the beginning, the interdependence of racial and economic progress.

4.  Franklin Delano Roosevelt.  He betrayed his class and saved America from fascism and probably saved the world from the Nazis.  The Reagan reaction of the last forty years was against his vision for social democracy.

5.  Bayard Rustin.  He organized the 1963 March on Washington, and worked with A. Philip Randolph on behalf of the same goals:  Randolph and Rustin were a team.  He did all this as a gay African-American, and in the face of enormous bigotry both within and outside the movement.  A person of enormous dignity and courage, whom I had the privilege to interview in the early 1980s.  I will never forget it.  

Your favorites?  Comments may take awhile to appear, so post only once!  But I'm curious to hear from readers and I will require you to post with your full name and valid e-mail address

Usually I would select writers or artists but this time I selected people who actually did good things for all Americans.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt
Lyndon Baines Johnson
Harry S. Truman
Jimmy Carter
Pete Seeger










						History of Philosophy - Summarized & Visualized
					

A summary of the history of philosophy showing the positive/negative connections between ideas




					www.denizcemonduygu.com


----------



## Unkotare

fdr? "For all Americans"? What a crock of shit.


----------



## task0778

Jimmy Carter?  Really?   What a crock of shit.


----------



## denmark

Unkotare said:


> fdr? "For all Americans"? What a crock of shit.


Maybe I missed it in your previous posts, but who is YOUR favorite “philosopher”?


----------



## denmark

task0778 said:


> Jimmy Carter?  Really?   What a crock of shit.


Same question as my previous post.
Who is YOUR favorite philosopher?


----------



## Unkotare

denmark said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> fdr? "For all Americans"? What a crock of shit.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe I missed it in your previous posts, but who is YOUR favorite “philosopher”?
Click to expand...

It's not a flavor of ice cream.


----------



## DrLove

midcan5 said:


> I often read that students should study some field of knowledge that leads to productive work. But consider that my eventual working world did not even exist when I started college. My degree was eventually in Liberal Arts as I was never sure what I wanted to be when I grew up. When you examine the degrees of many of the national leaders in technology or business, their degree is often not related to their work. How is that, some  even dropped out of school. So then maybe we need to ask what makes a person a good citizen and a productive member of society. Could it be a liberal education steeped in philosophy?
> 
> "Is a liberal arts education for everyone? Probably not. Some people would rather do just about anything than major in philosophy, and that is fine. *But a liberal arts education forms students to be a thoughtful and concerned citizens, and that is the subtext here. Educated, concerned citizens arent going to sit back and let the economic elite run the show.* McCrory can critique the educated elite all that he wants, but when you pal around with the likes of Art Pope you really have no business accusing anyone else of elitism.
> 
> McCrory himself studied political science and education. Bennett, who was interviewing him, has a PhD in  you guessed it  philosophy. *The underlying assumption appears to be that if youre part of the upper class, you can enjoy the luxury of a liberal arts education. If youre lower or middle class, the public institutions that are supposed to be part of the mythical American dream, that level playing field, should only offer courses in skilled trades.* Wealthy young people will get a liberal arts education. Poor and middle class young people will choose a trade."
> 
> Femmonite: Notes from an Employed Philosopher



Smart post - WoW, 7 years old? Dang! Yes, I was also one of those kids who when I hit college, had no clue what I wanted to be when I grew up and hence went Liberal Arts. One of the things I became very interested in was both Eastern & Western philosophy. It didn't make me more money (thankfully i was good at sales) but it added substantially to my life and understanding of people. 

Make the subject MANDATORY at the high school level. That and Government/Civics classes - You know, the one's Trump skipped.


----------



## DrLove

denmark said:


> task0778 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jimmy Carter?  Really?   What a crock of shit.
> 
> 
> 
> Same question as my previous post.
> Who is YOUR favorite philosopher?
Click to expand...


Get it that the question isn't for me, but I'll answer it anyway 
To me, Jiddu was one of the great minds of the 20th century. One of John Lennon's favorites also.




__





						J. Krishnamurti Quotes  (Author of Freedom from the Known)
					

1003 quotes from J. Krishnamurti: 'It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.', 'The ability to observe without evaluating is the highest form of intelligence.' und 'You must understand the whole of life, not just one little part of it. That is why you must...



					www.goodreads.com


----------



## Corazon

denmark said:


> task0778 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jimmy Carter?  Really?   What a crock of shit.
> 
> 
> 
> Same question as my previous post.
> Who is YOUR favorite philosopher?
Click to expand...

I know you didn't ask me denmark but I want to answer anyway  
My favorite philosphers are:
1) the Stoics
2) Epicurus
3) (last but not least) Arthur Schopenhauer


----------



## denmark

Currently, my favorite “modern” philosophers are Rousseau and Bertrand Russell.
Favorite Ancient philosophers are Socrates and Epicurus.


----------



## midcan5

A few links for the interested reader.  

*'Is there anything especially expert about being a philosopher?'*









						Is there anything especially expert about being a philosopher? | Aeon Ideas
					

How useful is a career in philosophy? As useful – and hard – as engineering, technology or science, but only if done right




					aeon.co
				





*'Is our universe fine-tuned for the existence of life – or does it just look that way from where we’re sitting?'*









						Why does our Universe appear specially made for us? | Aeon Essays
					

Is our Universe fine-tuned for the existence of life – or does it just look that way from where we’re sitting?




					aeon.co
				





*'Philosopher Tim Maudlin sees advances in free will, morality and the meaning of quantum mechanics'*









						Philosophy Has Made Plenty of Progress
					

Philosopher Tim Maudlin sees advances in free will, morality and the meaning of quantum mechanics




					blogs.scientificamerican.com
				












						The Defeat of Reason - Boston Review
					

Two new books—one on quantum physics, one on Thomas Kuhn—seek to reestablish the authority of reason and evidence.




					bostonreview.net


----------



## Unkotare

How many people who cry "useless degree!" over and over and over could actually complete the work to successfully earn a degree in Philosophy?


----------



## midcan5

"We set ourselves to achieve a society which would be maximally-tolerant. But that resolve not only gives maximum scope to the activities of those who have set themselves to achieve the maximally-intolerant society. It also, and more importantly, paralyzes our powers of resistance to them."  David Stove 

We Americans collect so much stuff, for me it is books,  so instead of collecting dust, I have been donating or giving them away to others.  But as I was going through them I picked up David Stove's book and of course couldn't put it down. Bad habit.  He forces me / us to think a bit harder about some topics and even when you disagree and call him our contemporary pejoratives, your thoughts are modified.  In today's America, our so called conservative thinkers are simply followers, David Frum is an exception,  but Stove will force you to think.  Since labels are only labels check him out.

"To explain something is to explain why things are not otherwise. But there can be no explaining why something is not otherwise, which could not be otherwise." David Stove 









						Against the Idols of the Age
					

Little known outside his native Australia, David Stove was one of the most illuminating and brilliant philo-sophical essayists of the pos...



					www.goodreads.com


----------



## esalla

midcan5 said:


> I often read that students should study some field of knowledge that leads to productive work. But consider that my eventual working world did not even exist when I started college. My degree was eventually in Liberal Arts as I was never sure what I wanted to be when I grew up. When you examine the degrees of many of the national leaders in technology or business, their degree is often not related to their work. How is that, some  even dropped out of school. So then maybe we need to ask what makes a person a good citizen and a productive member of society. Could it be a liberal education steeped in philosophy?
> 
> "Is a liberal arts education for everyone? Probably not. Some people would rather do just about anything than major in philosophy, and that is fine. *But a liberal arts education forms students to be a thoughtful and concerned citizens, and that is the subtext here. Educated, concerned citizens arent going to sit back and let the economic elite run the show.* McCrory can critique the educated elite all that he wants, but when you pal around with the likes of Art Pope you really have no business accusing anyone else of elitism.
> 
> McCrory himself studied political science and education. Bennett, who was interviewing him, has a PhD in  you guessed it  philosophy. *The underlying assumption appears to be that if youre part of the upper class, you can enjoy the luxury of a liberal arts education. If youre lower or middle class, the public institutions that are supposed to be part of the mythical American dream, that level playing field, should only offer courses in skilled trades.* Wealthy young people will get a liberal arts education. Poor and middle class young people will choose a trade."
> 
> Femmonite: Notes from an Employed Philosopher


Philosophy kicks in where science leaves off so dumb shits can have fake answers to the unanswered


----------



## Votto

midcan5 said:


> "We set ourselves to achieve a society which would be maximally-tolerant. But that resolve not only gives maximum scope to the activities of those who have set themselves to achieve the maximally-intolerant society. It also, and more importantly, paralyzes our powers of resistance to them."  David Stove
> 
> We Americans collect so much stuff, for me it is books,  so instead of collecting dust, I have been donating or giving them away to others.  But as I was going through them I picked up David Stove's book and of course couldn't put it down. Bad habit.  He forces me / us to think a bit harder about some topics and even when you disagree and call him our contemporary pejoratives, your thoughts are modified.  In today's America, our so called conservative thinkers are simply followers, David Frum is an exception,  but Stove will force you to think.  Since labels are only labels check him out.
> 
> "To explain something is to explain why things are not otherwise. But there can be no explaining why something is not otherwise, which could not be otherwise." David Stove
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Against the Idols of the Age
> 
> 
> Little known outside his native Australia, David Stove was one of the most illuminating and brilliant philo-sophical essayists of the pos...
> 
> 
> 
> www.goodreads.com


Hilarious!

So Conservatives are the followers as they rub up against the cancel culture and group think.

Ever been shouted down by a Leftist retard at a major university because they felt threatened about your worldview?


----------



## Unkotare

esalla said:


> ...
> Philosophy kicks in where science leaves off ...



Philosophy is the father of all science. Without it, there is no direction or purpose to any other science, and no meaning to any results of the blind groping of scientific inquiry.


----------



## denmark

esalla said:


> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I often read that students should study some field of knowledge that leads to productive work. But consider that my eventual working world did not even exist when I started college. My degree was eventually in Liberal Arts as I was never sure what I wanted to be when I grew up. When you examine the degrees of many of the national leaders in technology or business, their degree is often not related to their work. How is that, some  even dropped out of school. So then maybe we need to ask what makes a person a good citizen and a productive member of society. Could it be a liberal education steeped in philosophy?
> 
> "Is a liberal arts education for everyone? Probably not. Some people would rather do just about anything than major in philosophy, and that is fine. *But a liberal arts education forms students to be a thoughtful and concerned citizens, and that is the subtext here. Educated, concerned citizens arent going to sit back and let the economic elite run the show.* McCrory can critique the educated elite all that he wants, but when you pal around with the likes of Art Pope you really have no business accusing anyone else of elitism.
> 
> McCrory himself studied political science and education. Bennett, who was interviewing him, has a PhD in  you guessed it  philosophy. *The underlying assumption appears to be that if youre part of the upper class, you can enjoy the luxury of a liberal arts education. If youre lower or middle class, the public institutions that are supposed to be part of the mythical American dream, that level playing field, should only offer courses in skilled trades.* Wealthy young people will get a liberal arts education. Poor and middle class young people will choose a trade."
> 
> Femmonite: Notes from an Employed Philosopher
> 
> 
> 
> Philosophy kicks in where science leaves off so dumb shits can have fake answers to the unanswered
Click to expand...

Before “modern science”, philosophy and science were in the same academic boat.
Science used to be called “natural philosophy” a few hundred years ago.
Since they diverged, philosophy is the basis of scientific thought and methodology.
For example, there is Philosophy of Science, and Science itself.


----------



## denmark

midcan5 said:


> "We set ourselves to achieve a society which would be maximally-tolerant. But that resolve not only gives maximum scope to the activities of those who have set themselves to achieve the maximally-intolerant society. It also, and more importantly, paralyzes our powers of resistance to them."  David Stove
> 
> We Americans collect so much stuff, for me it is books,  so instead of collecting dust, I have been donating or giving them away to others.  But as I was going through them I picked up David Stove's book and of course couldn't put it down. Bad habit.  He forces me / us to think a bit harder about some topics and even when you disagree and call him our contemporary pejoratives, your thoughts are modified.  In today's America, our so called conservative thinkers are simply followers, David Frum is an exception,  but Stove will force you to think.  Since labels are only labels check him out.
> 
> "To explain something is to explain why things are not otherwise. But there can be no explaining why something is not otherwise, which could not be otherwise." David Stove
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Against the Idols of the Age
> 
> 
> Little known outside his native Australia, David Stove was one of the most illuminating and brilliant philo-sophical essayists of the pos...
> 
> 
> 
> www.goodreads.com


"_To explain something is to explain why things are not otherwise.“_

The above makes sense.
Below?  Convoluted. 

“_But there can be no explaining why something is not otherwise, which could not be otherwise.”_


----------



## esalla

denmark said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I often read that students should study some field of knowledge that leads to productive work. But consider that my eventual working world did not even exist when I started college. My degree was eventually in Liberal Arts as I was never sure what I wanted to be when I grew up. When you examine the degrees of many of the national leaders in technology or business, their degree is often not related to their work. How is that, some  even dropped out of school. So then maybe we need to ask what makes a person a good citizen and a productive member of society. Could it be a liberal education steeped in philosophy?
> 
> "Is a liberal arts education for everyone? Probably not. Some people would rather do just about anything than major in philosophy, and that is fine. *But a liberal arts education forms students to be a thoughtful and concerned citizens, and that is the subtext here. Educated, concerned citizens arent going to sit back and let the economic elite run the show.* McCrory can critique the educated elite all that he wants, but when you pal around with the likes of Art Pope you really have no business accusing anyone else of elitism.
> 
> McCrory himself studied political science and education. Bennett, who was interviewing him, has a PhD in  you guessed it  philosophy. *The underlying assumption appears to be that if youre part of the upper class, you can enjoy the luxury of a liberal arts education. If youre lower or middle class, the public institutions that are supposed to be part of the mythical American dream, that level playing field, should only offer courses in skilled trades.* Wealthy young people will get a liberal arts education. Poor and middle class young people will choose a trade."
> 
> Femmonite: Notes from an Employed Philosopher
> 
> 
> 
> Philosophy kicks in where science leaves off so dumb shits can have fake answers to the unanswered
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Before “modern science”, philosophy and science were in the same academic boat.
> Science used to be called “natural philosophy” a few hundred years ago.
> Since they diverged, philosophy is the basis of scientific thought and methodology.
> For example, there is Philosophy of Science, and Science itself.
Click to expand...

Philosophy is BS when thinking science.  As I said philosophy is now a way for stupid liberal professors to deny God and teach communist manifestos


----------



## denmark

esalla said:


> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I often read that students should study some field of knowledge that leads to productive work. But consider that my eventual working world did not even exist when I started college. My degree was eventually in Liberal Arts as I was never sure what I wanted to be when I grew up. When you examine the degrees of many of the national leaders in technology or business, their degree is often not related to their work. How is that, some  even dropped out of school. So then maybe we need to ask what makes a person a good citizen and a productive member of society. Could it be a liberal education steeped in philosophy?
> 
> "Is a liberal arts education for everyone? Probably not. Some people would rather do just about anything than major in philosophy, and that is fine. *But a liberal arts education forms students to be a thoughtful and concerned citizens, and that is the subtext here. Educated, concerned citizens arent going to sit back and let the economic elite run the show.* McCrory can critique the educated elite all that he wants, but when you pal around with the likes of Art Pope you really have no business accusing anyone else of elitism.
> 
> McCrory himself studied political science and education. Bennett, who was interviewing him, has a PhD in  you guessed it  philosophy. *The underlying assumption appears to be that if youre part of the upper class, you can enjoy the luxury of a liberal arts education. If youre lower or middle class, the public institutions that are supposed to be part of the mythical American dream, that level playing field, should only offer courses in skilled trades.* Wealthy young people will get a liberal arts education. Poor and middle class young people will choose a trade."
> 
> Femmonite: Notes from an Employed Philosopher
> 
> 
> 
> Philosophy kicks in where science leaves off so dumb shits can have fake answers to the unanswered
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Before “modern science”, philosophy and science were in the same academic boat.
> Science used to be called “natural philosophy” a few hundred years ago.
> Since they diverged, philosophy is the basis of scientific thought and methodology.
> For example, there is Philosophy of Science, and Science itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Philosophy is BS when thinking science.  As I said philosophy is now a way for stupid liberal professors to deny God and teach communist manifestos
Click to expand...

Apparently, you know little about philosophy.
It’s the basis for overall rational thought, including topics in metaphysics and epistemology, which are the basis of religion & science.
Christians can be philosophers too.


----------



## esalla

denmark said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I often read that students should study some field of knowledge that leads to productive work. But consider that my eventual working world did not even exist when I started college. My degree was eventually in Liberal Arts as I was never sure what I wanted to be when I grew up. When you examine the degrees of many of the national leaders in technology or business, their degree is often not related to their work. How is that, some  even dropped out of school. So then maybe we need to ask what makes a person a good citizen and a productive member of society. Could it be a liberal education steeped in philosophy?
> 
> "Is a liberal arts education for everyone? Probably not. Some people would rather do just about anything than major in philosophy, and that is fine. *But a liberal arts education forms students to be a thoughtful and concerned citizens, and that is the subtext here. Educated, concerned citizens arent going to sit back and let the economic elite run the show.* McCrory can critique the educated elite all that he wants, but when you pal around with the likes of Art Pope you really have no business accusing anyone else of elitism.
> 
> McCrory himself studied political science and education. Bennett, who was interviewing him, has a PhD in  you guessed it  philosophy. *The underlying assumption appears to be that if youre part of the upper class, you can enjoy the luxury of a liberal arts education. If youre lower or middle class, the public institutions that are supposed to be part of the mythical American dream, that level playing field, should only offer courses in skilled trades.* Wealthy young people will get a liberal arts education. Poor and middle class young people will choose a trade."
> 
> Femmonite: Notes from an Employed Philosopher
> 
> 
> 
> Philosophy kicks in where science leaves off so dumb shits can have fake answers to the unanswered
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Before “modern science”, philosophy and science were in the same academic boat.
> Science used to be called “natural philosophy” a few hundred years ago.
> Since they diverged, philosophy is the basis of scientific thought and methodology.
> For example, there is Philosophy of Science, and Science itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Philosophy is BS when thinking science.  As I said philosophy is now a way for stupid liberal professors to deny God and teach communist manifestos
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Apparently, you know little about philosophy.
> It’s the basis for overall rational thought, including topics in metaphysics and epistemology, which are the basis of religion & science.
> Christians can be philosophers too.
Click to expand...

Yawn, philosophy is a waste of time, I'll stick with quantum entanglement at the moment.  


We are spirits clad in veils. (Quote by - Christopher P. Cranch)

Philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language. (Quote by - Ludwig Wittgenstein)

Life has the name of life, but in reality it is death. (Quote by - Heraclitus)

The map is not the territory. (Quote by - Alfred Korzybski)

Because they know the name of what I am looking for, they think they know what I am looking for! (Quote by - Antonio Porchia)

If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end in doubts, but if he will content to begin with doubts, he shall end in certainties. (Quote by - Francis Bacon)

The philosopher is Nature's pilot. And there you have our difference: to be in hell is to drift: to be in heaven is to steer. (Quote by - George Bernard Shaw) 

Can quotes really be steered

Wake up Apple was up 5 percent yesterday

What were you?


----------



## denmark

esalla said:


> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I often read that students should study some field of knowledge that leads to productive work. But consider that my eventual working world did not even exist when I started college. My degree was eventually in Liberal Arts as I was never sure what I wanted to be when I grew up. When you examine the degrees of many of the national leaders in technology or business, their degree is often not related to their work. How is that, some  even dropped out of school. So then maybe we need to ask what makes a person a good citizen and a productive member of society. Could it be a liberal education steeped in philosophy?
> 
> "Is a liberal arts education for everyone? Probably not. Some people would rather do just about anything than major in philosophy, and that is fine. *But a liberal arts education forms students to be a thoughtful and concerned citizens, and that is the subtext here. Educated, concerned citizens arent going to sit back and let the economic elite run the show.* McCrory can critique the educated elite all that he wants, but when you pal around with the likes of Art Pope you really have no business accusing anyone else of elitism.
> 
> McCrory himself studied political science and education. Bennett, who was interviewing him, has a PhD in  you guessed it  philosophy. *The underlying assumption appears to be that if youre part of the upper class, you can enjoy the luxury of a liberal arts education. If youre lower or middle class, the public institutions that are supposed to be part of the mythical American dream, that level playing field, should only offer courses in skilled trades.* Wealthy young people will get a liberal arts education. Poor and middle class young people will choose a trade."
> 
> Femmonite: Notes from an Employed Philosopher
> 
> 
> 
> Philosophy kicks in where science leaves off so dumb shits can have fake answers to the unanswered
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Before “modern science”, philosophy and science were in the same academic boat.
> Science used to be called “natural philosophy” a few hundred years ago.
> Since they diverged, philosophy is the basis of scientific thought and methodology.
> For example, there is Philosophy of Science, and Science itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Philosophy is BS when thinking science.  As I said philosophy is now a way for stupid liberal professors to deny God and teach communist manifestos
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Apparently, you know little about philosophy.
> It’s the basis for overall rational thought, including topics in metaphysics and epistemology, which are the basis of religion & science.
> Christians can be philosophers too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yawn, philosophy is a waste of time, I'll stick with quantum entanglement at the moment.
> 
> 
> We are spirits clad in veils. (Quote by - Christopher P. Cranch)
> 
> Philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language. (Quote by - Ludwig Wittgenstein)
> 
> Life has the name of life, but in reality it is death. (Quote by - Heraclitus)
> 
> The map is not the territory. (Quote by - Alfred Korzybski)
> 
> Because they know the name of what I am looking for, they think they know what I am looking for! (Quote by - Antonio Porchia)
> 
> If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end in doubts, but if he will content to begin with doubts, he shall end in certainties. (Quote by - Francis Bacon)
> 
> The philosopher is Nature's pilot. And there you have our difference: to be in hell is to drift: to be in heaven is to steer. (Quote by - George Bernard Shaw)
> 
> Can quotes really be steered
> 
> Wake up Apple was up 5 percent yesterday
> 
> What were you?
Click to expand...

You’re not CURIOUS how things work; how to explain quantum entanglement?  
With more understanding, more progress can be made.


----------



## esalla

denmark said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I often read that students should study some field of knowledge that leads to productive work. But consider that my eventual working world did not even exist when I started college. My degree was eventually in Liberal Arts as I was never sure what I wanted to be when I grew up. When you examine the degrees of many of the national leaders in technology or business, their degree is often not related to their work. How is that, some  even dropped out of school. So then maybe we need to ask what makes a person a good citizen and a productive member of society. Could it be a liberal education steeped in philosophy?
> 
> "Is a liberal arts education for everyone? Probably not. Some people would rather do just about anything than major in philosophy, and that is fine. *But a liberal arts education forms students to be a thoughtful and concerned citizens, and that is the subtext here. Educated, concerned citizens arent going to sit back and let the economic elite run the show.* McCrory can critique the educated elite all that he wants, but when you pal around with the likes of Art Pope you really have no business accusing anyone else of elitism.
> 
> McCrory himself studied political science and education. Bennett, who was interviewing him, has a PhD in  you guessed it  philosophy. *The underlying assumption appears to be that if youre part of the upper class, you can enjoy the luxury of a liberal arts education. If youre lower or middle class, the public institutions that are supposed to be part of the mythical American dream, that level playing field, should only offer courses in skilled trades.* Wealthy young people will get a liberal arts education. Poor and middle class young people will choose a trade."
> 
> Femmonite: Notes from an Employed Philosopher
> 
> 
> 
> Philosophy kicks in where science leaves off so dumb shits can have fake answers to the unanswered
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Before “modern science”, philosophy and science were in the same academic boat.
> Science used to be called “natural philosophy” a few hundred years ago.
> Since they diverged, philosophy is the basis of scientific thought and methodology.
> For example, there is Philosophy of Science, and Science itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Philosophy is BS when thinking science.  As I said philosophy is now a way for stupid liberal professors to deny God and teach communist manifestos
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Apparently, you know little about philosophy.
> It’s the basis for overall rational thought, including topics in metaphysics and epistemology, which are the basis of religion & science.
> Christians can be philosophers too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yawn, philosophy is a waste of time, I'll stick with quantum entanglement at the moment.
> 
> 
> We are spirits clad in veils. (Quote by - Christopher P. Cranch)
> 
> Philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language. (Quote by - Ludwig Wittgenstein)
> 
> Life has the name of life, but in reality it is death. (Quote by - Heraclitus)
> 
> The map is not the territory. (Quote by - Alfred Korzybski)
> 
> Because they know the name of what I am looking for, they think they know what I am looking for! (Quote by - Antonio Porchia)
> 
> If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end in doubts, but if he will content to begin with doubts, he shall end in certainties. (Quote by - Francis Bacon)
> 
> The philosopher is Nature's pilot. And there you have our difference: to be in hell is to drift: to be in heaven is to steer. (Quote by - George Bernard Shaw)
> 
> Can quotes really be steered
> 
> Wake up Apple was up 5 percent yesterday
> 
> What were you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You’re not CURIOUS how things work; how to explain quantum entanglement?
> With more understanding, more progress can be made.
Click to expand...

Sure I am curious but entanglement will not be explained by a philosopher but by teams doing real science


----------



## denmark

esalla said:


> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I often read that students should study some field of knowledge that leads to productive work. But consider that my eventual working world did not even exist when I started college. My degree was eventually in Liberal Arts as I was never sure what I wanted to be when I grew up. When you examine the degrees of many of the national leaders in technology or business, their degree is often not related to their work. How is that, some  even dropped out of school. So then maybe we need to ask what makes a person a good citizen and a productive member of society. Could it be a liberal education steeped in philosophy?
> 
> "Is a liberal arts education for everyone? Probably not. Some people would rather do just about anything than major in philosophy, and that is fine. *But a liberal arts education forms students to be a thoughtful and concerned citizens, and that is the subtext here. Educated, concerned citizens arent going to sit back and let the economic elite run the show.* McCrory can critique the educated elite all that he wants, but when you pal around with the likes of Art Pope you really have no business accusing anyone else of elitism.
> 
> McCrory himself studied political science and education. Bennett, who was interviewing him, has a PhD in  you guessed it  philosophy. *The underlying assumption appears to be that if youre part of the upper class, you can enjoy the luxury of a liberal arts education. If youre lower or middle class, the public institutions that are supposed to be part of the mythical American dream, that level playing field, should only offer courses in skilled trades.* Wealthy young people will get a liberal arts education. Poor and middle class young people will choose a trade."
> 
> Femmonite: Notes from an Employed Philosopher
> 
> 
> 
> Philosophy kicks in where science leaves off so dumb shits can have fake answers to the unanswered
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Before “modern science”, philosophy and science were in the same academic boat.
> Science used to be called “natural philosophy” a few hundred years ago.
> Since they diverged, philosophy is the basis of scientific thought and methodology.
> For example, there is Philosophy of Science, and Science itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Philosophy is BS when thinking science.  As I said philosophy is now a way for stupid liberal professors to deny God and teach communist manifestos
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Apparently, you know little about philosophy.
> It’s the basis for overall rational thought, including topics in metaphysics and epistemology, which are the basis of religion & science.
> Christians can be philosophers too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yawn, philosophy is a waste of time, I'll stick with quantum entanglement at the moment.
> 
> 
> We are spirits clad in veils. (Quote by - Christopher P. Cranch)
> 
> Philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language. (Quote by - Ludwig Wittgenstein)
> 
> Life has the name of life, but in reality it is death. (Quote by - Heraclitus)
> 
> The map is not the territory. (Quote by - Alfred Korzybski)
> 
> Because they know the name of what I am looking for, they think they know what I am looking for! (Quote by - Antonio Porchia)
> 
> If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end in doubts, but if he will content to begin with doubts, he shall end in certainties. (Quote by - Francis Bacon)
> 
> The philosopher is Nature's pilot. And there you have our difference: to be in hell is to drift: to be in heaven is to steer. (Quote by - George Bernard Shaw)
> 
> Can quotes really be steered
> 
> Wake up Apple was up 5 percent yesterday
> 
> What were you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You’re not CURIOUS how things work; how to explain quantum entanglement?
> With more understanding, more progress can be made.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure I am curious but entanglement will not be explained by a philosopher but by teams doing real science
Click to expand...

What’s the difference between “real science” and non-real science?


----------



## esalla

denmark said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I often read that students should study some field of knowledge that leads to productive work. But consider that my eventual working world did not even exist when I started college. My degree was eventually in Liberal Arts as I was never sure what I wanted to be when I grew up. When you examine the degrees of many of the national leaders in technology or business, their degree is often not related to their work. How is that, some  even dropped out of school. So then maybe we need to ask what makes a person a good citizen and a productive member of society. Could it be a liberal education steeped in philosophy?
> 
> "Is a liberal arts education for everyone? Probably not. Some people would rather do just about anything than major in philosophy, and that is fine. *But a liberal arts education forms students to be a thoughtful and concerned citizens, and that is the subtext here. Educated, concerned citizens arent going to sit back and let the economic elite run the show.* McCrory can critique the educated elite all that he wants, but when you pal around with the likes of Art Pope you really have no business accusing anyone else of elitism.
> 
> McCrory himself studied political science and education. Bennett, who was interviewing him, has a PhD in  you guessed it  philosophy. *The underlying assumption appears to be that if youre part of the upper class, you can enjoy the luxury of a liberal arts education. If youre lower or middle class, the public institutions that are supposed to be part of the mythical American dream, that level playing field, should only offer courses in skilled trades.* Wealthy young people will get a liberal arts education. Poor and middle class young people will choose a trade."
> 
> Femmonite: Notes from an Employed Philosopher
> 
> 
> 
> Philosophy kicks in where science leaves off so dumb shits can have fake answers to the unanswered
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Before “modern science”, philosophy and science were in the same academic boat.
> Science used to be called “natural philosophy” a few hundred years ago.
> Since they diverged, philosophy is the basis of scientific thought and methodology.
> For example, there is Philosophy of Science, and Science itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Philosophy is BS when thinking science.  As I said philosophy is now a way for stupid liberal professors to deny God and teach communist manifestos
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Apparently, you know little about philosophy.
> It’s the basis for overall rational thought, including topics in metaphysics and epistemology, which are the basis of religion & science.
> Christians can be philosophers too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yawn, philosophy is a waste of time, I'll stick with quantum entanglement at the moment.
> 
> 
> We are spirits clad in veils. (Quote by - Christopher P. Cranch)
> 
> Philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language. (Quote by - Ludwig Wittgenstein)
> 
> Life has the name of life, but in reality it is death. (Quote by - Heraclitus)
> 
> The map is not the territory. (Quote by - Alfred Korzybski)
> 
> Because they know the name of what I am looking for, they think they know what I am looking for! (Quote by - Antonio Porchia)
> 
> If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end in doubts, but if he will content to begin with doubts, he shall end in certainties. (Quote by - Francis Bacon)
> 
> The philosopher is Nature's pilot. And there you have our difference: to be in hell is to drift: to be in heaven is to steer. (Quote by - George Bernard Shaw)
> 
> Can quotes really be steered
> 
> Wake up Apple was up 5 percent yesterday
> 
> What were you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You’re not CURIOUS how things work; how to explain quantum entanglement?
> With more understanding, more progress can be made.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure I am curious but entanglement will not be explained by a philosopher but by teams doing real science
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What’s the difference between “real science” and non-real science?
Click to expand...

Well perhaps after you graduate kindergarten you might be able to understand.

However the answer is that science relies upon data, philosophy takes over in the absence of data where idiots try to look smart when talking shit about something they have no clue about.  Like you are doing now professor 

Examples of philosophic genius


*1. Why are towels considered dirty when you get out of the shower clean?

2. Who closes the bus door once the bus driver gets off?

3. Why is there a "d" in "fridge" but not in "refrigerator"

4. If you drop soap on the floor is the floor clean or the soap dirty?

5. Is the "S" or the "C" silent in the word "scent?

6. Does expecting the unexpected make the unexpected the expected?

7. Would Lightning McQueen buy car insurance or life insurance?

8. Who put the alphabet in alphabetical order?

9. What color are mirrors?

10. If 2 mind readers read each other's minds whose mind are they really reading?

11. Is there a synonym for "synonym"?

12. If your shirt isn't tucked into your pants, are your pants tucked into your shirt?

13. Why is it called "quick sand" if you sink slowly in it?

14. If I try to fail, but succeed, which one did I do?

15. If Cinderella's shoe fit perfectly, why did it fall off?*


https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sha...cal-questions?xrs=RebelMouse_fb&ts=1571144131


----------



## denmark

esalla said:


> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I often read that students should study some field of knowledge that leads to productive work. But consider that my eventual working world did not even exist when I started college. My degree was eventually in Liberal Arts as I was never sure what I wanted to be when I grew up. When you examine the degrees of many of the national leaders in technology or business, their degree is often not related to their work. How is that, some  even dropped out of school. So then maybe we need to ask what makes a person a good citizen and a productive member of society. Could it be a liberal education steeped in philosophy?
> 
> "Is a liberal arts education for everyone? Probably not. Some people would rather do just about anything than major in philosophy, and that is fine. *But a liberal arts education forms students to be a thoughtful and concerned citizens, and that is the subtext here. Educated, concerned citizens arent going to sit back and let the economic elite run the show.* McCrory can critique the educated elite all that he wants, but when you pal around with the likes of Art Pope you really have no business accusing anyone else of elitism.
> 
> McCrory himself studied political science and education. Bennett, who was interviewing him, has a PhD in  you guessed it  philosophy. *The underlying assumption appears to be that if youre part of the upper class, you can enjoy the luxury of a liberal arts education. If youre lower or middle class, the public institutions that are supposed to be part of the mythical American dream, that level playing field, should only offer courses in skilled trades.* Wealthy young people will get a liberal arts education. Poor and middle class young people will choose a trade."
> 
> Femmonite: Notes from an Employed Philosopher
> 
> 
> 
> Philosophy kicks in where science leaves off so dumb shits can have fake answers to the unanswered
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Before “modern science”, philosophy and science were in the same academic boat.
> Science used to be called “natural philosophy” a few hundred years ago.
> Since they diverged, philosophy is the basis of scientific thought and methodology.
> For example, there is Philosophy of Science, and Science itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Philosophy is BS when thinking science.  As I said philosophy is now a way for stupid liberal professors to deny God and teach communist manifestos
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Apparently, you know little about philosophy.
> It’s the basis for overall rational thought, including topics in metaphysics and epistemology, which are the basis of religion & science.
> Christians can be philosophers too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yawn, philosophy is a waste of time, I'll stick with quantum entanglement at the moment.
> 
> 
> We are spirits clad in veils. (Quote by - Christopher P. Cranch)
> 
> Philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language. (Quote by - Ludwig Wittgenstein)
> 
> Life has the name of life, but in reality it is death. (Quote by - Heraclitus)
> 
> The map is not the territory. (Quote by - Alfred Korzybski)
> 
> Because they know the name of what I am looking for, they think they know what I am looking for! (Quote by - Antonio Porchia)
> 
> If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end in doubts, but if he will content to begin with doubts, he shall end in certainties. (Quote by - Francis Bacon)
> 
> The philosopher is Nature's pilot. And there you have our difference: to be in hell is to drift: to be in heaven is to steer. (Quote by - George Bernard Shaw)
> 
> Can quotes really be steered
> 
> Wake up Apple was up 5 percent yesterday
> 
> What were you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You’re not CURIOUS how things work; how to explain quantum entanglement?
> With more understanding, more progress can be made.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure I am curious but entanglement will not be explained by a philosopher but by teams doing real science
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What’s the difference between “real science” and non-real science?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well perhaps after you graduate kindergarten you might be able to understand.
> 
> However the answer is that science relies upon data, philosophy takes over in the absence of data where idiots try to look smart when talking shit about something they have no clue about.  Like you are doing now professor
> 
> Examples of philosophic genius
> 
> 
> *1. Why are towels considered dirty when you get out of the shower clean?
> 
> 2. Who closes the bus door once the bus driver gets off?
> 
> 3. Why is there a "d" in "fridge" but not in "refrigerator"
> 
> 4. If you drop soap on the floor is the floor clean or the soap dirty?
> 
> 5. Is the "S" or the "C" silent in the word "scent?
> 
> 6. Does expecting the unexpected make the unexpected the expected?
> 
> 7. Would Lightning McQueen buy car insurance or life insurance?
> 
> 8. Who put the alphabet in alphabetical order?
> 
> 9. What color are mirrors?
> 
> 10. If 2 mind readers read each other's minds whose mind are they really reading?
> 
> 11. Is there a synonym for "synonym"?
> 
> 12. If your shirt isn't tucked into your pants, are your pants tucked into your shirt?
> 
> 13. Why is it called "quick sand" if you sink slowly in it?
> 
> 14. If I try to fail, but succeed, which one did I do?
> 
> 15. If Cinderella's shoe fit perfectly, why did it fall off?*
> 
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sha...cal-questions?xrs=RebelMouse_fb&ts=1571144131
Click to expand...

You ignored my question on what you think is “real science”. All sciences use data, but philosophy of science explores & questions the validity of scientific methods & their data.
 For example, quantum mechanics has its measurement problems, and how to interpret them is an ongoing issue in the field.


----------



## esalla

denmark said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I often read that students should study some field of knowledge that leads to productive work. But consider that my eventual working world did not even exist when I started college. My degree was eventually in Liberal Arts as I was never sure what I wanted to be when I grew up. When you examine the degrees of many of the national leaders in technology or business, their degree is often not related to their work. How is that, some  even dropped out of school. So then maybe we need to ask what makes a person a good citizen and a productive member of society. Could it be a liberal education steeped in philosophy?
> 
> "Is a liberal arts education for everyone? Probably not. Some people would rather do just about anything than major in philosophy, and that is fine. *But a liberal arts education forms students to be a thoughtful and concerned citizens, and that is the subtext here. Educated, concerned citizens arent going to sit back and let the economic elite run the show.* McCrory can critique the educated elite all that he wants, but when you pal around with the likes of Art Pope you really have no business accusing anyone else of elitism.
> 
> McCrory himself studied political science and education. Bennett, who was interviewing him, has a PhD in  you guessed it  philosophy. *The underlying assumption appears to be that if youre part of the upper class, you can enjoy the luxury of a liberal arts education. If youre lower or middle class, the public institutions that are supposed to be part of the mythical American dream, that level playing field, should only offer courses in skilled trades.* Wealthy young people will get a liberal arts education. Poor and middle class young people will choose a trade."
> 
> Femmonite: Notes from an Employed Philosopher
> 
> 
> 
> Philosophy kicks in where science leaves off so dumb shits can have fake answers to the unanswered
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Before “modern science”, philosophy and science were in the same academic boat.
> Science used to be called “natural philosophy” a few hundred years ago.
> Since they diverged, philosophy is the basis of scientific thought and methodology.
> For example, there is Philosophy of Science, and Science itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Philosophy is BS when thinking science.  As I said philosophy is now a way for stupid liberal professors to deny God and teach communist manifestos
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Apparently, you know little about philosophy.
> It’s the basis for overall rational thought, including topics in metaphysics and epistemology, which are the basis of religion & science.
> Christians can be philosophers too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yawn, philosophy is a waste of time, I'll stick with quantum entanglement at the moment.
> 
> 
> We are spirits clad in veils. (Quote by - Christopher P. Cranch)
> 
> Philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language. (Quote by - Ludwig Wittgenstein)
> 
> Life has the name of life, but in reality it is death. (Quote by - Heraclitus)
> 
> The map is not the territory. (Quote by - Alfred Korzybski)
> 
> Because they know the name of what I am looking for, they think they know what I am looking for! (Quote by - Antonio Porchia)
> 
> If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end in doubts, but if he will content to begin with doubts, he shall end in certainties. (Quote by - Francis Bacon)
> 
> The philosopher is Nature's pilot. And there you have our difference: to be in hell is to drift: to be in heaven is to steer. (Quote by - George Bernard Shaw)
> 
> Can quotes really be steered
> 
> Wake up Apple was up 5 percent yesterday
> 
> What were you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You’re not CURIOUS how things work; how to explain quantum entanglement?
> With more understanding, more progress can be made.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure I am curious but entanglement will not be explained by a philosopher but by teams doing real science
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What’s the difference between “real science” and non-real science?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well perhaps after you graduate kindergarten you might be able to understand.
> 
> However the answer is that science relies upon data, philosophy takes over in the absence of data where idiots try to look smart when talking shit about something they have no clue about.  Like you are doing now professor
> 
> Examples of philosophic genius
> 
> 
> *1. Why are towels considered dirty when you get out of the shower clean?
> 
> 2. Who closes the bus door once the bus driver gets off?
> 
> 3. Why is there a "d" in "fridge" but not in "refrigerator"
> 
> 4. If you drop soap on the floor is the floor clean or the soap dirty?
> 
> 5. Is the "S" or the "C" silent in the word "scent?
> 
> 6. Does expecting the unexpected make the unexpected the expected?
> 
> 7. Would Lightning McQueen buy car insurance or life insurance?
> 
> 8. Who put the alphabet in alphabetical order?
> 
> 9. What color are mirrors?
> 
> 10. If 2 mind readers read each other's minds whose mind are they really reading?
> 
> 11. Is there a synonym for "synonym"?
> 
> 12. If your shirt isn't tucked into your pants, are your pants tucked into your shirt?
> 
> 13. Why is it called "quick sand" if you sink slowly in it?
> 
> 14. If I try to fail, but succeed, which one did I do?
> 
> 15. If Cinderella's shoe fit perfectly, why did it fall off?*
> 
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sha...cal-questions?xrs=RebelMouse_fb&ts=1571144131
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You ignored my question on what you think is “real science”. All sciences use data, but philosophy of science explores & questions the validity of scientific methods & their data.
> For example, quantum mechanics has its measurement problems, and how to interpret them is an ongoing issue in the field.
Click to expand...

Wrong real science is based on the data.  Philosophy begins where the data leaves off and professors begin masterbating in public.

The big bang is philosophy, it is based upon the CMB radiation.  When you examine the big bang theory it says that all matter started out in one place and exploded into existence.  OK I accepted that but then ask since everything is moving away from that point then the mass in the universe could be traced beck to this point and also the universe should be in the shape of an expanding shell moving away from the center.

NONE OF THIS IS OBSERVED SO THE BIG BANG BECOMES A BIG DUMB IDEA

Seriously I ask about this once and was told that there was no point of origin, that everything just poped into existence at once.

Keep babbling doofy, my stock is splitting shortly


----------



## denmark

esalla said:


> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I often read that students should study some field of knowledge that leads to productive work. But consider that my eventual working world did not even exist when I started college. My degree was eventually in Liberal Arts as I was never sure what I wanted to be when I grew up. When you examine the degrees of many of the national leaders in technology or business, their degree is often not related to their work. How is that, some  even dropped out of school. So then maybe we need to ask what makes a person a good citizen and a productive member of society. Could it be a liberal education steeped in philosophy?
> 
> "Is a liberal arts education for everyone? Probably not. Some people would rather do just about anything than major in philosophy, and that is fine. *But a liberal arts education forms students to be a thoughtful and concerned citizens, and that is the subtext here. Educated, concerned citizens arent going to sit back and let the economic elite run the show.* McCrory can critique the educated elite all that he wants, but when you pal around with the likes of Art Pope you really have no business accusing anyone else of elitism.
> 
> McCrory himself studied political science and education. Bennett, who was interviewing him, has a PhD in  you guessed it  philosophy. *The underlying assumption appears to be that if youre part of the upper class, you can enjoy the luxury of a liberal arts education. If youre lower or middle class, the public institutions that are supposed to be part of the mythical American dream, that level playing field, should only offer courses in skilled trades.* Wealthy young people will get a liberal arts education. Poor and middle class young people will choose a trade."
> 
> Femmonite: Notes from an Employed Philosopher
> 
> 
> 
> Philosophy kicks in where science leaves off so dumb shits can have fake answers to the unanswered
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Before “modern science”, philosophy and science were in the same academic boat.
> Science used to be called “natural philosophy” a few hundred years ago.
> Since they diverged, philosophy is the basis of scientific thought and methodology.
> For example, there is Philosophy of Science, and Science itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Philosophy is BS when thinking science.  As I said philosophy is now a way for stupid liberal professors to deny God and teach communist manifestos
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Apparently, you know little about philosophy.
> It’s the basis for overall rational thought, including topics in metaphysics and epistemology, which are the basis of religion & science.
> Christians can be philosophers too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yawn, philosophy is a waste of time, I'll stick with quantum entanglement at the moment.
> 
> 
> We are spirits clad in veils. (Quote by - Christopher P. Cranch)
> 
> Philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language. (Quote by - Ludwig Wittgenstein)
> 
> Life has the name of life, but in reality it is death. (Quote by - Heraclitus)
> 
> The map is not the territory. (Quote by - Alfred Korzybski)
> 
> Because they know the name of what I am looking for, they think they know what I am looking for! (Quote by - Antonio Porchia)
> 
> If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end in doubts, but if he will content to begin with doubts, he shall end in certainties. (Quote by - Francis Bacon)
> 
> The philosopher is Nature's pilot. And there you have our difference: to be in hell is to drift: to be in heaven is to steer. (Quote by - George Bernard Shaw)
> 
> Can quotes really be steered
> 
> Wake up Apple was up 5 percent yesterday
> 
> What were you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You’re not CURIOUS how things work; how to explain quantum entanglement?
> With more understanding, more progress can be made.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure I am curious but entanglement will not be explained by a philosopher but by teams doing real science
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What’s the difference between “real science” and non-real science?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well perhaps after you graduate kindergarten you might be able to understand.
> 
> However the answer is that science relies upon data, philosophy takes over in the absence of data where idiots try to look smart when talking shit about something they have no clue about.  Like you are doing now professor
> 
> Examples of philosophic genius
> 
> 
> *1. Why are towels considered dirty when you get out of the shower clean?
> 
> 2. Who closes the bus door once the bus driver gets off?
> 
> 3. Why is there a "d" in "fridge" but not in "refrigerator"
> 
> 4. If you drop soap on the floor is the floor clean or the soap dirty?
> 
> 5. Is the "S" or the "C" silent in the word "scent?
> 
> 6. Does expecting the unexpected make the unexpected the expected?
> 
> 7. Would Lightning McQueen buy car insurance or life insurance?
> 
> 8. Who put the alphabet in alphabetical order?
> 
> 9. What color are mirrors?
> 
> 10. If 2 mind readers read each other's minds whose mind are they really reading?
> 
> 11. Is there a synonym for "synonym"?
> 
> 12. If your shirt isn't tucked into your pants, are your pants tucked into your shirt?
> 
> 13. Why is it called "quick sand" if you sink slowly in it?
> 
> 14. If I try to fail, but succeed, which one did I do?
> 
> 15. If Cinderella's shoe fit perfectly, why did it fall off?*
> 
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=https://www.theodysseyonline.com/random-funny-philosophical-questions?xrs=RebelMouse_fb&ts=1571144131
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You ignored my question on what you think is “real science”. All sciences use data, but philosophy of science explores & questions the validity of scientific methods & their data.
> For example, quantum mechanics has its measurement problems, and how to interpret them is an ongoing issue in the field.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong real science is based on the data.  Philosophy begins where the data leaves off and professors begin masterbating in public.
> 
> The big bang is philosophy, it is based upon the CMB radiation.  When you examine the big bang theory it says that all matter started out in one place and exploded into existence.  OK I accepted that but then ask since everything is moving away from that point then the mass in the universe could be traced beck to this point and also the universe should be in the shape of an expanding shell moving away from the center.
> 
> NONE OF THIS IS OBSERVED SO THE BIG BANG BECOMES A BIG DUMB IDEA
> 
> Seriously I ask about this once and was told that there was no point of origin, that everything just poped into existence at once.
> 
> Keep babbling doofy, my stock is splitting shortly
Click to expand...

You continue  to show your ignorance on philosophy AND science.
The Big Bang is a SCIENTIFIC *theory* based on observable cosmological data.
The philosophy that may be used is its branch of logic & epistemology.

Good luck with your stock, but you should invest more into your education.


----------



## esalla

denmark said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I often read that students should study some field of knowledge that leads to productive work. But consider that my eventual working world did not even exist when I started college. My degree was eventually in Liberal Arts as I was never sure what I wanted to be when I grew up. When you examine the degrees of many of the national leaders in technology or business, their degree is often not related to their work. How is that, some  even dropped out of school. So then maybe we need to ask what makes a person a good citizen and a productive member of society. Could it be a liberal education steeped in philosophy?
> 
> "Is a liberal arts education for everyone? Probably not. Some people would rather do just about anything than major in philosophy, and that is fine. *But a liberal arts education forms students to be a thoughtful and concerned citizens, and that is the subtext here. Educated, concerned citizens arent going to sit back and let the economic elite run the show.* McCrory can critique the educated elite all that he wants, but when you pal around with the likes of Art Pope you really have no business accusing anyone else of elitism.
> 
> McCrory himself studied political science and education. Bennett, who was interviewing him, has a PhD in  you guessed it  philosophy. *The underlying assumption appears to be that if youre part of the upper class, you can enjoy the luxury of a liberal arts education. If youre lower or middle class, the public institutions that are supposed to be part of the mythical American dream, that level playing field, should only offer courses in skilled trades.* Wealthy young people will get a liberal arts education. Poor and middle class young people will choose a trade."
> 
> Femmonite: Notes from an Employed Philosopher
> 
> 
> 
> Philosophy kicks in where science leaves off so dumb shits can have fake answers to the unanswered
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Before “modern science”, philosophy and science were in the same academic boat.
> Science used to be called “natural philosophy” a few hundred years ago.
> Since they diverged, philosophy is the basis of scientific thought and methodology.
> For example, there is Philosophy of Science, and Science itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Philosophy is BS when thinking science.  As I said philosophy is now a way for stupid liberal professors to deny God and teach communist manifestos
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Apparently, you know little about philosophy.
> It’s the basis for overall rational thought, including topics in metaphysics and epistemology, which are the basis of religion & science.
> Christians can be philosophers too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yawn, philosophy is a waste of time, I'll stick with quantum entanglement at the moment.
> 
> 
> We are spirits clad in veils. (Quote by - Christopher P. Cranch)
> 
> Philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language. (Quote by - Ludwig Wittgenstein)
> 
> Life has the name of life, but in reality it is death. (Quote by - Heraclitus)
> 
> The map is not the territory. (Quote by - Alfred Korzybski)
> 
> Because they know the name of what I am looking for, they think they know what I am looking for! (Quote by - Antonio Porchia)
> 
> If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end in doubts, but if he will content to begin with doubts, he shall end in certainties. (Quote by - Francis Bacon)
> 
> The philosopher is Nature's pilot. And there you have our difference: to be in hell is to drift: to be in heaven is to steer. (Quote by - George Bernard Shaw)
> 
> Can quotes really be steered
> 
> Wake up Apple was up 5 percent yesterday
> 
> What were you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You’re not CURIOUS how things work; how to explain quantum entanglement?
> With more understanding, more progress can be made.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure I am curious but entanglement will not be explained by a philosopher but by teams doing real science
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What’s the difference between “real science” and non-real science?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well perhaps after you graduate kindergarten you might be able to understand.
> 
> However the answer is that science relies upon data, philosophy takes over in the absence of data where idiots try to look smart when talking shit about something they have no clue about.  Like you are doing now professor
> 
> Examples of philosophic genius
> 
> 
> *1. Why are towels considered dirty when you get out of the shower clean?
> 
> 2. Who closes the bus door once the bus driver gets off?
> 
> 3. Why is there a "d" in "fridge" but not in "refrigerator"
> 
> 4. If you drop soap on the floor is the floor clean or the soap dirty?
> 
> 5. Is the "S" or the "C" silent in the word "scent?
> 
> 6. Does expecting the unexpected make the unexpected the expected?
> 
> 7. Would Lightning McQueen buy car insurance or life insurance?
> 
> 8. Who put the alphabet in alphabetical order?
> 
> 9. What color are mirrors?
> 
> 10. If 2 mind readers read each other's minds whose mind are they really reading?
> 
> 11. Is there a synonym for "synonym"?
> 
> 12. If your shirt isn't tucked into your pants, are your pants tucked into your shirt?
> 
> 13. Why is it called "quick sand" if you sink slowly in it?
> 
> 14. If I try to fail, but succeed, which one did I do?
> 
> 15. If Cinderella's shoe fit perfectly, why did it fall off?*
> 
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=https://www.theodysseyonline.com/random-funny-philosophical-questions?xrs=RebelMouse_fb&ts=1571144131
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You ignored my question on what you think is “real science”. All sciences use data, but philosophy of science explores & questions the validity of scientific methods & their data.
> For example, quantum mechanics has its measurement problems, and how to interpret them is an ongoing issue in the field.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong real science is based on the data.  Philosophy begins where the data leaves off and professors begin masterbating in public.
> 
> The big bang is philosophy, it is based upon the CMB radiation.  When you examine the big bang theory it says that all matter started out in one place and exploded into existence.  OK I accepted that but then ask since everything is moving away from that point then the mass in the universe could be traced beck to this point and also the universe should be in the shape of an expanding shell moving away from the center.
> 
> NONE OF THIS IS OBSERVED SO THE BIG BANG BECOMES A BIG DUMB IDEA
> 
> Seriously I ask about this once and was told that there was no point of origin, that everything just poped into existence at once.
> 
> Keep babbling doofy, my stock is splitting shortly
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You continue  to show your ignorance on philosophy AND science.
> The Big Bang is a SCIENTIFIC *theory* based on observable cosmological data.
> The philosophy that may be used is its branch of logic & epistemology.
> 
> Good luck with your stock, but you should invest more into your education.
Click to expand...

The big bang is no longer fully accepted because there is no void where matter on predictable trajectories can be retraced.

What is happening here is that you are acting the role of the parrot and are not thinking on your own

I got FBI references, dumb ones but references anyways

*Big Bang, Deflated? Universe May Have Had No Beginning ...*


Big Bang, Deflated? Universe May Have Had No Beginning
*Big* *Bang* under fire According to the *Big* *Bang* *theory* , the universe was born about 13.8 billion years ago. All the matter that exists today was once squished into an infinitely dense, infinitely ...

*What If the Big Bang Wasn't the Beginning? New Study ...*


What If the Big Bang Wasn't the Beginning? New Study Proposes Alternative
Most astronomers believe the universe began 13.8 billion years ago in a sudden explosion called the *Big* *Bang*. Other theorists have invented alternatives and extensions to this *theory*.


----------



## Unkotare

esalla said:


> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I often read that students should study some field of knowledge that leads to productive work. But consider that my eventual working world did not even exist when I started college. My degree was eventually in Liberal Arts as I was never sure what I wanted to be when I grew up. When you examine the degrees of many of the national leaders in technology or business, their degree is often not related to their work. How is that, some  even dropped out of school. So then maybe we need to ask what makes a person a good citizen and a productive member of society. Could it be a liberal education steeped in philosophy?
> 
> "Is a liberal arts education for everyone? Probably not. Some people would rather do just about anything than major in philosophy, and that is fine. *But a liberal arts education forms students to be a thoughtful and concerned citizens, and that is the subtext here. Educated, concerned citizens arent going to sit back and let the economic elite run the show.* McCrory can critique the educated elite all that he wants, but when you pal around with the likes of Art Pope you really have no business accusing anyone else of elitism.
> 
> McCrory himself studied political science and education. Bennett, who was interviewing him, has a PhD in  you guessed it  philosophy. *The underlying assumption appears to be that if youre part of the upper class, you can enjoy the luxury of a liberal arts education. If youre lower or middle class, the public institutions that are supposed to be part of the mythical American dream, that level playing field, should only offer courses in skilled trades.* Wealthy young people will get a liberal arts education. Poor and middle class young people will choose a trade."
> 
> Femmonite: Notes from an Employed Philosopher
> 
> 
> 
> Philosophy kicks in where science leaves off so dumb shits can have fake answers to the unanswered
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Before “modern science”, philosophy and science were in the same academic boat.
> Science used to be called “natural philosophy” a few hundred years ago.
> Since they diverged, philosophy is the basis of scientific thought and methodology.
> For example, there is Philosophy of Science, and Science itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Philosophy is BS when thinking science.  As I said philosophy is now a way for stupid liberal professors to deny God and teach communist manifestos
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Apparently, you know little about philosophy.
> It’s the basis for overall rational thought, including topics in metaphysics and epistemology, which are the basis of religion & science.
> Christians can be philosophers too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yawn, philosophy is a waste of time, I'll stick with quantum entanglement at the moment.
> 
> 
> We are spirits clad in veils. (Quote by - Christopher P. Cranch)
> 
> Philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language. (Quote by - Ludwig Wittgenstein)
> 
> Life has the name of life, but in reality it is death. (Quote by - Heraclitus)
> 
> The map is not the territory. (Quote by - Alfred Korzybski)
> 
> Because they know the name of what I am looking for, they think they know what I am looking for! (Quote by - Antonio Porchia)
> 
> If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end in doubts, but if he will content to begin with doubts, he shall end in certainties. (Quote by - Francis Bacon)
> 
> The philosopher is Nature's pilot. And there you have our difference: to be in hell is to drift: to be in heaven is to steer. (Quote by - George Bernard Shaw)
> 
> Can quotes really be steered
> 
> Wake up Apple was up 5 percent yesterday
> 
> What were you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You’re not CURIOUS how things work; how to explain quantum entanglement?
> With more understanding, more progress can be made.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure I am curious but entanglement will not be explained by a philosopher but by teams doing real science
Click to expand...


----------



## midcan5

*A philosopher who changed the way I looked out on the world of whys and why nots.*  This may be my most viewed and commented post of the past twenty years. 

"Derek Parfit had acquired an international reputation by the time he was 35, and after
the publication of his Reasons and Persons (1984) became one of the three or four
most respected moral philosophers of his time."



			https://www.thebritishacademy.ac.uk/documents/890/19-Memoirs-03-Parfit.pdf
		



"It is not enough to ask, ‘Will my act harm other people?’ Even if the answer is No, my act may still be wrong, because of its effects on other people. I should ask, ‘Will my act be one of a set of acts that will together harm other people?’ The answer may be Yes. And the harm to others may be great. If this is so, I may be acting very wrongly..." Derek Parfit

"No question is more sublime than why there is a Universe: why there is anything rather than nothing." Derek Parfit


----------



## midcan5

'Birds and Frogs in Physics'









						Birds and Frogs in Physics - 3 Quarks Daily
					

by Ashutosh Jogalekar I shamelessly borrow the title of this essay from my mentor and friend Freeman Dyson’s marvelous talk on birds and frogs in mathematics. Birds are thinkers who look at the big picture and survey the landscape from a great height. Frogs are thinkers who love playing around...




					3quarksdaily.com
				




'The phenomenology of Maurice Merleau-Ponty entwines us, via our own beating, pulsing, living bodies, in the lives of others'









						The phenomenology of Merleau-Ponty and embodiment in the world | Aeon Essays
					

The phenomenology of Maurice Merleau-Ponty entwines us, via our own beating, pulsing, living bodies, in the lives of others




					aeon.co
				




*'Philosophy cannot resolve the question ‘How should we live?’'*









						Philosophy cannot resolve the question ‘How should we live?’ | Aeon Ideas
					

The meaning of life is not a puzzle that can be solved once and for all. Asking ‘How should we live?’ defines our humanity




					aeon.co
				





*Reading:* New Philosopher | Magazine


----------



## Blues Man

I enjoy philosophy as an area of study.

Philosophy began as an examination of one's own thoughts.  We should all examine our own thought processes.


----------



## Unkotare

Blues Man said:


> Philosophy began as an examination of one's own thoughts.



Not really.


----------



## Blues Man

Unkotare said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Philosophy began as an examination of one's own thoughts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not really.
Click to expand...




It was early and I'm a little hungover


----------



## Unkotare

Blues Man said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Philosophy began as an examination of one's own thoughts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not really.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was early and I'm a little hungover
Click to expand...


Now THAT'S philosophy!


----------



## gtopa1

I wonder at why peeps keep arguing about Philo and stuff. I tend to go with Karl Popper myself on the physical level but with Aquinas/Chesterton/Bible/RC on the "meaning of life" issues. I find most of what I read that says "Philo" is really reducible to some quite simple tenets. 
1. The Scientific Method rules!!

2. Whatever one's definition of God is it is inadequate. Just accept that some things are beyond Human Understanding but NOT beyond Human acceptance. 

Re Marxist "Philo"........no such thing. It's just propaganda: rule of a clique over the weaker.  

Greg


----------



## midcan5

'If everyone has a right to be heard, why are some told to keep quiet?'









						If everyone has a right to be heard, why are some told to keep quiet?
					

We all have the right to heard, and none have the right to be obeyed.




					medium.com
				




Below is a deep dive interesting....

'No one with an interest in philosophy or debates about identity can afford to be ignorant of the work of Saul Kripke'









						How the philosophers’ philosopher, Saul Kripke illuminates identity | Aeon Essays
					

No one with an interest in philosophy or debates about identity can afford to be ignorant of the work of Saul Kripke




					aeon.co
				





"Very few people would ever fall in love if they had never read about it."  Philosophy of Mind professor


----------



## midcan5

Interesting interview on how we think, book links and woke. Good stuff for the thoughtful. 

*'Cultures Think, with Julian Baggini'*






						How Cultures Think, with Julian Baggini — On Opinion — Overcast
					






					overcast.fm
				




'How the World Thinks: A Global History of Philosophy'








						How the World Thinks
					

Julian Baggini's How the World Thinks is there to fill the Sapiens-size hole in your life' Observer's guide to Autumn in culture In this ...



					www.goodreads.com
				




*'Intimacy or Integrity: Philosophy and Cultural Difference'*








						Intimacy or Integrity
					

How can I know something? How can I convince someone of the rightness of my position? How does reality function? What is artistic creativ...



					www.goodreads.com
				




*'The Inductive Argument Against Wokism'*






						The Inductive Argument Against Wokism
					

A dialogue: A: Hey, leftist, can you explain to me how ideology works? L: Well, you see, it's very common for ideologies to be created which...




					200proofliberals.blogspot.com


----------



## Blues Man

esalla said:


> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I often read that students should study some field of knowledge that leads to productive work. But consider that my eventual working world did not even exist when I started college. My degree was eventually in Liberal Arts as I was never sure what I wanted to be when I grew up. When you examine the degrees of many of the national leaders in technology or business, their degree is often not related to their work. How is that, some  even dropped out of school. So then maybe we need to ask what makes a person a good citizen and a productive member of society. Could it be a liberal education steeped in philosophy?
> 
> "Is a liberal arts education for everyone? Probably not. Some people would rather do just about anything than major in philosophy, and that is fine. *But a liberal arts education forms students to be a thoughtful and concerned citizens, and that is the subtext here. Educated, concerned citizens arent going to sit back and let the economic elite run the show.* McCrory can critique the educated elite all that he wants, but when you pal around with the likes of Art Pope you really have no business accusing anyone else of elitism.
> 
> McCrory himself studied political science and education. Bennett, who was interviewing him, has a PhD in  you guessed it  philosophy. *The underlying assumption appears to be that if youre part of the upper class, you can enjoy the luxury of a liberal arts education. If youre lower or middle class, the public institutions that are supposed to be part of the mythical American dream, that level playing field, should only offer courses in skilled trades.* Wealthy young people will get a liberal arts education. Poor and middle class young people will choose a trade."
> 
> Femmonite: Notes from an Employed Philosopher
> 
> 
> 
> Philosophy kicks in where science leaves off so dumb shits can have fake answers to the unanswered
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Before “modern science”, philosophy and science were in the same academic boat.
> Science used to be called “natural philosophy” a few hundred years ago.
> Since they diverged, philosophy is the basis of scientific thought and methodology.
> For example, there is Philosophy of Science, and Science itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Philosophy is BS when thinking science.  As I said philosophy is now a way for stupid liberal professors to deny God and teach communist manifestos
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Apparently, you know little about philosophy.
> It’s the basis for overall rational thought, including topics in metaphysics and epistemology, which are the basis of religion & science.
> Christians can be philosophers too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yawn, philosophy is a waste of time, I'll stick with quantum entanglement at the moment.
> 
> 
> We are spirits clad in veils. (Quote by - Christopher P. Cranch)
> 
> Philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language. (Quote by - Ludwig Wittgenstein)
> 
> Life has the name of life, but in reality it is death. (Quote by - Heraclitus)
> 
> The map is not the territory. (Quote by - Alfred Korzybski)
> 
> Because they know the name of what I am looking for, they think they know what I am looking for! (Quote by - Antonio Porchia)
> 
> If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end in doubts, but if he will content to begin with doubts, he shall end in certainties. (Quote by - Francis Bacon)
> 
> The philosopher is Nature's pilot. And there you have our difference: to be in hell is to drift: to be in heaven is to steer. (Quote by - George Bernard Shaw)
> 
> Can quotes really be steered
> 
> Wake up Apple was up 5 percent yesterday
> 
> What were you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You’re not CURIOUS how things work; how to explain quantum entanglement?
> With more understanding, more progress can be made.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure I am curious but entanglement will not be explained by a philosopher but by teams doing real science
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What’s the difference between “real science” and non-real science?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well perhaps after you graduate kindergarten you might be able to understand.
> 
> However the answer is that science relies upon data, philosophy takes over in the absence of data where idiots try to look smart when talking shit about something they have no clue about.  Like you are doing now professor
> 
> Examples of philosophic genius
> 
> 
> *1. Why are towels considered dirty when you get out of the shower clean?
> 
> 2. Who closes the bus door once the bus driver gets off?
> 
> 3. Why is there a "d" in "fridge" but not in "refrigerator"
> 
> 4. If you drop soap on the floor is the floor clean or the soap dirty?
> 
> 5. Is the "S" or the "C" silent in the word "scent?
> 
> 6. Does expecting the unexpected make the unexpected the expected?
> 
> 7. Would Lightning McQueen buy car insurance or life insurance?
> 
> 8. Who put the alphabet in alphabetical order?
> 
> 9. What color are mirrors?
> 
> 10. If 2 mind readers read each other's minds whose mind are they really reading?
> 
> 11. Is there a synonym for "synonym"?
> 
> 12. If your shirt isn't tucked into your pants, are your pants tucked into your shirt?
> 
> 13. Why is it called "quick sand" if you sink slowly in it?
> 
> 14. If I try to fail, but succeed, which one did I do?
> 
> 15. If Cinderella's shoe fit perfectly, why did it fall off?*
> 
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=https://www.theodysseyonline.com/random-funny-philosophical-questions?xrs=RebelMouse_fb&ts=1571144131
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You ignored my question on what you think is “real science”. All sciences use data, but philosophy of science explores & questions the validity of scientific methods & their data.
> For example, quantum mechanics has its measurement problems, and how to interpret them is an ongoing issue in the field.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong real science is based on the data.  Philosophy begins where the data leaves off and professors begin masterbating in public.
> 
> The big bang is philosophy, it is based upon the CMB radiation.  When you examine the big bang theory it says that all matter started out in one place and exploded into existence.  OK I accepted that but then ask since everything is moving away from that point then the mass in the universe could be traced beck to this point and also the universe should be in the shape of an expanding shell moving away from the center.
> 
> NONE OF THIS IS OBSERVED SO THE BIG BANG BECOMES A BIG DUMB IDEA
> 
> Seriously I ask about this once and was told that there was no point of origin, that everything just poped into existence at once.
> 
> Keep babbling doofy, my stock is splitting shortly
Click to expand...


Atomic theory was first proposed by a philosopher.


----------



## midcan5

Hello all, glad to see this thread still has readers but we seem to have strayed in the 'no, you are' region of discussion.  So anger piece may help. Enjoy. 

'The Philosophy of Anger'

*"There are two problems with anger: it is morally corrupting, and it is completely correct." *









						The Philosophy of Anger - Boston Review
					

There are two problems with anger: it is morally corrupting, and it is completely correct.




					bostonreview.net
				




"We cannot define anything precisely! If we attempt to, we get into that paralysis of thought that comes to philosophers, who sit opposite each other, one saying to the other, 'You don't know what you are talking about!' The second one says 'What do you mean by know? What do you mean by talking? What do you mean by you?', and so on." Richard Feynman


----------



## AFrench2

*'Why Study Philosophy'*

Same reason anyone studies anything...to learn and educate.


----------



## OldLady

midcan5 said:


> We cannot define anything precisely! If we attempt to, we get into that paralysis of thought that comes to philosophers, who sit opposite each other, one saying to the other, 'You don't know what you are talking about!' The second one says 'What do you mean by know? What do you mean by talking? What do you mean by you?', and so on." Richard Feynman


Truer words were never spoken.


----------



## midcan5

What do you think?

'What Do Philosophers Believe About the Rightness/Wrongness, Goodness/Badness of Human Extinction?'









						What Do Philosophers Believe About the Rightness/Wrongness, Goodness/Badness of Human Extinction? | Philosopher Survey  - Web Survey Tools
					

Philosopher Survey  - Web Survey Tools




					philosophersurvey2.questionpro.com
				




"If all mankind were to disappear, the world would regenerate back to the rich state of equilibrium that existed ten thousand years ago. If insects were to vanish, the environment would collapse into chaos." E. O. Wilson


----------



## Oddball

midcan5 said:


> What do you think?
> 
> 'What Do Philosophers Believe About the Rightness/Wrongness, Goodness/Badness of Human Extinction?'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What Do Philosophers Believe About the Rightness/Wrongness, Goodness/Badness of Human Extinction? | Philosopher Survey  - Web Survey Tools
> 
> 
> Philosopher Survey  - Web Survey Tools
> 
> 
> 
> 
> philosophersurvey2.questionpro.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "If all mankind were to disappear, the world would regenerate back to the rich state of equilibrium that existed ten thousand years ago. If insects were to vanish, the environment would collapse into chaos." E. O. Wilson


You've obviously been steeped in the Frankfurt school, tovarich.


----------



## Confederate Soldier

A Buddhist walked up to a hot dog vendor and said, "Make me one with everything".


----------



## midcan5

Honesty.  More food for thought. Hope all are well. 

*'The Neglected Virtue' 'Christian Miller literally wrote the book on honesty. So we talked to him about it.'*

"An honest person has the virtue of honesty that dispossesses them. They think in honest ways, and they believe it’s important to tell the truth. They believe it’s important to not lie, cheat, or steal, and, at least in most cases, to feel certain things."









						The Neglected Virtue | ORBITER
					

Christian Miller literally wrote the book on honesty. So we talked to him about it.




					orbitermag.com
				





"We’re living in an era rife with frequent failure of honesty from cultural leaders. Religious leaders’ scandals are exposed, and politicians are continually caught in deceit. We, as a culture, shrug our shoulders at deceit and operate under an expectation that we will be lied to by our social, political, professional, and sometimes even religious leaders. What are the ramifications of such a culture?"

"We have to go culture by culture, but it does seem that dishonesty is par for the course, especially in the political climate."


----------



## ClaireH

dblack said:


> Heh... yeah, I'm sure his head full of highfalutin ideas will cause him no end of trouble.
> 
> Anyway, he handles himself pretty well amongst the plebs. I'm sure he'll be fine.


I hope he pursues his dream job; he’s done the necessary work at that level and deserves a position of choice. If not his top choice, he can still use his first career land on his resume. If he enjoys the teaching/facilitating discussions aspect as much as discussing philosophy, he’s doubly prepared.


----------



## ClaireH

esalla said:


> Well perhaps after you graduate kindergarten you might be able to understand.
> 
> However the answer is that science relies upon data, philosophy takes over in the absence of data where idiots try to look smart when talking shit about something they have no clue about.  Like you are doing now professor
> 
> Examples of philosophic genius
> 
> 
> *1. Why are towels considered dirty when you get out of the shower clean?
> 
> 2. Who closes the bus door once the bus driver gets off?
> 
> 3. Why is there a "d" in "fridge" but not in "refrigerator"
> 
> 4. If you drop soap on the floor is the floor clean or the soap dirty?
> 
> 5. Is the "S" or the "C" silent in the word "scent?
> 
> 6. Does expecting the unexpected make the unexpected the expected?
> 
> 7. Would Lightning McQueen buy car insurance or life insurance?
> 
> 8. Who put the alphabet in alphabetical order?
> 
> 9. What color are mirrors?
> 
> 10. If 2 mind readers read each other's minds whose mind are they really reading?
> 
> 11. Is there a synonym for "synonym"?
> 
> 12. If your shirt isn't tucked into your pants, are your pants tucked into your shirt?
> 
> 13. Why is it called "quick sand" if you sink slowly in it?
> 
> 14. If I try to fail, but succeed, which one did I do?
> 
> 15. If Cinderella's shoe fit perfectly, why did it fall off?*
> 
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=https://www.theodysseyonline.com/random-funny-philosophical-questions?xrs=RebelMouse_fb&ts=1571144131


1. early conditioning
2. the bus
3. stumped on the "d"
4. clean house would be clean soap (opposite dirty/dirty possibility)
5. neither-muddled blend creates softer 's'
6. for those who see the future in details
7. as a sentient being he'd get life insurance
8. I'm guessing the same guy who discarded submitted books from the Bible-however the person who came up with the alphabet song is likely famous! lol
9. cheated here- soda lime...my thought was silver
10. each other's interpretations of their own mind if they speak the same language (added part about both knowing same language another cheat
11. yes-same
12. no
13. archaic definition of quicksand is life sand. I never knew that-tx! I gave myself 3 cheats considering humans are flawed ha
14. failed- I like that one for some reason. I will start to plan to fail more often but feeling good about the predictive factor I'll strictly focus on being right again about failing!
15. Have you ever tried running in glass slippers? Not easy!


----------



## midcan5

The times call for a return to reality. The internet is full of so much nonsense and hyperbole how does one come to know. 

*'Truth is real'*

'For a century, the idea of truth has been deflated, becoming terrain from which philosophers fled. They must return – urgently'









						Truth is real and philosophers must return their attention to it | Aeon Essays
					

For a century, the idea of truth has been deflated, becoming terrain from which philosophers fled. They must return – urgently




					aeon.co


----------



## Oddball

midcan5 said:


> The times call for a return to reality. The internet is full of so much nonsense and hyperbole how does one come to know.
> 
> *'Truth is real'*
> 
> 'For a century, the idea of truth has been deflated, becoming terrain from which philosophers fled. They must return – urgently'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truth is real and philosophers must return their attention to it | Aeon Essays
> 
> 
> For a century, the idea of truth has been deflated, becoming terrain from which philosophers fled. They must return – urgently
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aeon.co


Self awareness is your friend.


----------



## Blues Man

Oddball said:


> Self awareness is your friend.


As is the awareness that there is no self


----------



## task0778

Truth requires honesty, integrity, and courage.  Which these days are warring with fear and greed.  Too often, truth is losing the battle, and consequently there will be penalties to be paid, in part by future generations.


----------



## Oddball

task0778 said:


> Truth requires honesty, integrity, and courage.


None of which is in the possession of the OP.


----------



## ClaireH

Blues Man said:


> As is the awareness that there is no self


Just to add to that mind-blowing concept, I recently read this: The "I" or ego, as being self-defined as who each of us "is", is merely (I use that word lightly) an outsider reading our own memory scripts. 

A few years ago, a hypothetical experiment on TedTalks was about switching the brains of two people and where would "the individual" wind up being: with the original brain in the new body or with the old physical self? Which would cause pain for the original brain, stepping on the old body or the new one? The brain (along with pain receptors) would be in the new body along with all memories transfered without leaving any behind. So recently I read (and it might have been noted by a sharp USMB poster), that the "I" or "real self" is not really our memory bank full of our history but is the observer (interpreter) of those memories. After reading that post I had an "ah ha!" moment! Now, I have to grasp with the possibility that there really is no self whatsoever? I refuse!! lol Joking;  I love to consider all possibilities so I'll work on it by continuing to question everything. Thought-provoking post to say the least BluesMan Thanks. I get it, but think fine tuning that concept could be most enlightening.


----------



## ClaireH

midcan5 said:


> The times call for a return to reality. The internet is full of so much nonsense and hyperbole how does one come to know.
> 
> *'Truth is real'*
> 
> 'For a century, the idea of truth has been deflated, becoming terrain from which philosophers fled. They must return – urgently'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truth is real and philosophers must return their attention to it | Aeon Essays
> 
> 
> For a century, the idea of truth has been deflated, becoming terrain from which philosophers fled. They must return – urgently
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aeon.co


My intention is not to convert this engaging philosophical thread into a political one, but I'd like to share an opinion of another USMB poster from a previous thread. He stated (quite eloquently I might add) that politics is never about reality, although politics often drives reality. This poster's premise (which I accept fully) defines the process of mass information involving political and non-political realms. To consider that philosophy is limited due to deflated truisms and wise sages fleeing, is a cultural loss without question.

Connecting the statement that: X is never about reality, but often drives reality, truth is tainted in general by imperfect message carriers and receivers of messages. That imperfect status of communicating a specific message includes many a fine scholar and even teachers unfortunately.

The additional layer you've referenced, where unscrupulous types have bulk power to create a believable message or debate in an effective manner, adds a thick coat of deception converting truth into a whole other realm. A triple hoop to jump through, and that's even when people share similar knowledge backgrounds. Discussing oppositional points of view, for instance, the does a rock feel conversation, is a challenging feat to say the least. Rarely any winners if pure truth is deemed the winner, but many possibilities often discussed with emotional vitriol and the human need to be right. The "need to be right" works against us all during many divergent discussions, but someone has to be right


----------



## Vikrant

ClaireH said:


> ...
> Connecting the statement that: X is never about reality, but often drives reality, truth is tainted in general by imperfect message carriers and receivers of messages. That imperfect status of communicating a specific message includes many a fine scholar and even teachers unfortunately.
> 
> ...


Not only that, I have noticed that there are people who allow themselves to be conditioned in a manner that they can only effectively communicate if the mode of communication is imperfect. This I have always found very fascinating because these people do manage to exchange ideas.


----------



## ClaireH

Vikrant said:


> Not only that, I have noticed that there are people who allow themselves to be conditioned in a manner that they can only effectively communicate if the mode of communication is imperfect. This I have always found very fascinating because these people do manage to exchange ideas.


Indeed, and is becoming a popular trend it seems. Shorthand style of communication leading to loss of previous skills and knowledge. Cursive writing no longer considered a requirement for public schools. That in itself is a small tragedy considering the US Declaration of Independence is written in cursive....alas, in comes shorthand everything: messaging, speaking, and thinking. Soon up: cell phones will be replaced with "in the air" tech that has nothing to do with a handheld device. Then, humans (mostly wealthy) with robotic parts will solve problems without the need for human thought. 

AI will be either the "savior" or the destroyer of humankind, although 15 years ago it sounded much more promising for resolving physical handicaps. Now? "Age-refresher machines" are in the works, ready to make old people young again literally from the inside out. Organs will be marketed more than currently. Man playing with nature is like man playing with fire, as humankind still lacks adequate patience for safety considerations to be met. Consider the race to find the next pandemic. Research teams actively pursuing the Amazon for the next big one. Lovely. If it isn't going to happen naturally these hyper-motivated teams will ensure it happens by human error.  

I apologize for focusing on the negative. I value life highly and realize every single minute is a "gift". From whom I don't claim to know, but I'm thankful to be alive every day.


----------



## midcan5

A favorite thinker of mine. 'Reasons and Persons' may make you think a bit. 

"One thing that greatly matters is the failure of we rich people to prevent, as we so easily could, much of the suffering and many of the early deaths of the poorest people in the world. The money that we spend on an evening’s entertainment might instead save some poor person from death, blindness, or chronic and severe pain. If we believe that, in our treatment of these poorest people, we are not acting wrongly, we are like those who believed that they were justified in having slaves."

*'Parfit in Seven Parts'*









						Parfit in Seven Parts
					

Overview and Table of Contents




					rychappell.substack.com
				





"It is not enough to ask, Will my act harm other people? Even if the answer is No, my act may still be wrong, because of its effects on other people. I should ask, Will my act be one of a set of acts that will together harm other people? The answer may be Yes. And the harm to others may be great." Derek Parfit


----------



## Oddball

Then do something yourself to help....Using your guilt as a cudgel to compel others into your idea of "compassion" is the height of hubris and thuggery.


----------



## dblack

Oddball said:


> Then do something yourself to help....Using your guilt as a cudgel to compel others into your idea of "compassion" is the height of hubris and thuggery.


It's bad enough that the think passing laws that force others to help is an act of "compassion". But then they insist that anyone who calls them on their hypocrisy hates the poor or whatever. Fuck 'em. I'll take care of myself, my family, my friends and my community. In that order, and at my discretion. Free shit need not apply.


----------



## thomasmariel

Philosophy, should be studied, because it can encompass the following:

Project the UK's Wolverhampton, to the battle stations, i.e. biology battle station, geography battle station, political election battle station, forum battle station, outer space forum battle station, heel sex battle station, the writing travel to the supermarket battle station, and the pic nic battle station.

From here, allow the universal analyst (Thomas Heath), to see the anti-dependency on morality mythology "Physics-Was-Never-The-Pseudo-Victim" leverage hospital edition, of the Earth reality universe's edition of create the morality from insane physics, and to exert the political neutral-physics battle station database, in his mind, so that the celebrity rope (the theme, behind the celebrity rope, ostensibly headed by Neve Campbell, and perhaps from Wales' Rhyl arcades, from within the building called "Inevitability", being that the bureaucracy reality's bluff allegiance, with capitalism, so that left-wing reality doesn't have to work for its money, the money in question ostensibly being a lens machine society, for people's biology machines, is unable to promote imagination matter as socialism as a collusion with sex aristocracy, i.e. heel sex, mansion sex, money on body sex, etc) is able to be a normal Earth reality universe society biology.

The political conservatisms, and political liberalisms, of the end of the ropes, whether the ropes belong to physics, philosophy, mansion sex, outer space, CNN, the BBC, etc, all being privy to the outer space-Thomas Heath menu screen identity classicism, denotative of the sexy sexy (evil evil), from the 1998 movie Studio 54 being exempt from symmetry's All Deities Oppose Thomas Heath edition of sexy sexy (evil evil) generic, are subject, to the freedom from inside the ropes of the Wolverhampton astral projection to aforementioned battle stations.

To close:
The astral projection, by Wolverhampton, is entitled to its source through the term Wolverhampton being a secret creator of the entity outer space


----------



## dblack

thomasmariel said:


> Philosophy, should be studied, because it can encompass the following:
> 
> Project the UK's Wolverhampton, to the battle stations, i.e. biology battle station, geography battle station, political election battle station, forum battle station, outer space forum battle station, heel sex battle station, the writing travel to the supermarket battle station, and the pic nic battle station.
> 
> From here, allow the universal analyst (Thomas Heath), to see the anti-dependency on morality mythology "Physics-Was-Never-The-Pseudo-Victim" leverage hospital edition, of the Earth reality universe's edition of create the morality from insane physics, and to exert the political neutral-physics battle station database, in his mind, so that the celebrity rope (the theme, behind the celebrity rope, ostensibly headed by Neve Campbell, and perhaps from Wales' Rhyl arcades, from within the building called "Inevitability", being that the bureaucracy reality's bluff allegiance, with capitalism, so that left-wing reality doesn't have to work for its money, the money in question ostensibly being a lens machine society, for people's biology machines, is unable to promote imagination matter as socialism as a collusion with sex aristocracy, i.e. heel sex, mansion sex, money on body sex, etc) is able to be a normal Earth reality universe society biology.
> 
> The political conservatisms, and political liberalisms, of the end of the ropes, whether the ropes belong to physics, philosophy, mansion sex, outer space, CNN, the BBC, etc, all being privy to the outer space-Thomas Heath menu screen identity classicism, denotative of the sexy sexy (evil evil), from the 1998 movie Studio 54 being exempt from symmetry's All Deities Oppose Thomas Heath edition of sexy sexy (evil evil) generic, are subject, to the freedom from inside the ropes of the Wolverhampton astral projection to aforementioned battle stations.
> 
> To close:
> The astral projection, by Wolverhampton, is entitled to its source through the term Wolverhampton being a secret creator of the entity outer space


Time cube!!!


----------



## Unkotare

thomasmariel said:


> Philosophy, should be studied,
> 
> ....


Should be, but few actually do. Those who never do usually end up talking about it most - with a great tone of authority.


----------



## thomasmariel

Unkotare said:


> Should be, but few actually do. Those who never do usually end up talking about it most - with a great tone of authority.




That's precisely my predicament. the deities that govern me, and who copy me day by day, ostensibly so that they can either combat physics, with physics being the non-ironic socialist underdog, or so that they can be the ironic embodiment of the subconsciousness's classic fear (to Dex, the images across from me, of the advertisement of a woman wearing a mickey mouse white short thin t-shirt, over Margot Robbie's Wolf of Wall Street sex appeal, are a truth paranormal intervention, to tell me that my worst/paradoxically most entertaining fears are realised, about the origin of evolution), which is that the real aristocracy needs symmetry to be the ever-unironic victim (in essence, confirming that socialism vs capitalism was never the unreal), are the mythology users, of language, which is why the blueprint is secret. 

This, gets me thinking: the woman, of the 2 individuals who went into the factory, was by the name Blue Print, and who horrifically, was wearing the very clothes commanded by her namesake. 

Day by day, the method for me to retain my sanity, is to be a political socialist, to the outline society. 

It was supposed to be the octopus, called taking the piss, who was the creator of evolution, as a sort of altruism to humanity; however, this simply can't be the case.

The timeline metaphysics, of history, i.e. the singularity identity of Earth, commands that Kyle Reese and Sarah Connor (Dex has just informed me, that Attract was the name of the male of the 2 people), in the factory be a socialist Blue Print. 
The reality, of this identity, is that the universal principle of reaching the distance being overseen by daylight and the machine society of days, means that Blue and Attract's ideological ambition needn't be honoured. 

"needn't be honoured": a shrewd type of language, but is the safety net to ideological ambition.


----------



## Unkotare




----------



## task0778

thomasmariel said:


> That's precisely my predicament. the deities that govern me, and who copy me day by day, ostensibly so that they can either combat physics, with physics being the non-ironic socialist underdog, or so that they can be the ironic embodiment of the subconsciousness's classic fear (to Dex, the images across from me, of the advertisement of a woman wearing a mickey mouse white short thin t-shirt, over Margot Robbie's Wolf of Wall Street sex appeal, are a truth paranormal intervention, to tell me that my worst/paradoxically most entertaining fears are realised, about the origin of evolution), which is that the real aristocracy needs symmetry to be the ever-unironic victim (in essence, confirming that socialism vs capitalism was never the unreal), are the mythology users, of language, which is why the blueprint is secret.
> 
> This, gets me thinking: the woman, of the 2 individuals who went into the factory, was by the name Blue Print, and who horrifically, was wearing the very clothes commanded by her namesake.
> 
> Day by day, the method for me to retain my sanity, is to be a political socialist, to the outline society.
> 
> It was supposed to be the octopus, called taking the piss, who was the creator of evolution, as a sort of altruism to humanity; however, this simply can't be the case.
> 
> The timeline metaphysics, of history, i.e. the singularity identity of Earth, commands that Kyle Reese and Sarah Connor (Dex has just informed me, that Attract was the name of the male of the 2 people), in the factory be a socialist Blue Print.
> The reality, of this identity, is that the universal principle of reaching the distance being overseen by daylight and the machine society of days, means that Blue and Attract's ideological ambition needn't be honoured.
> 
> "needn't be honoured": a shrewd type of language, but is the safety net to ideological ambition.



What the fuck are you talking about?


----------



## badbob85037

midcan5 said:


> I often read that students should study some field of knowledge that leads to productive work. But consider that my eventual working world did not even exist when I started college. My degree was eventually in Liberal Arts as I was never sure what I wanted to be when I grew up. When you examine the degrees of many of the national leaders in technology or business, their degree is often not related to their work. How is that, some  even dropped out of school. So then maybe we need to ask what makes a person a good citizen and a productive member of society. Could it be a liberal education steeped in philosophy?
> 
> "Is a liberal arts education for everyone? Probably not. Some people would rather do just about anything than major in philosophy, and that is fine. *But a liberal arts education forms students to be a thoughtful and concerned citizens, and that is the subtext here. Educated, concerned citizens arent going to sit back and let the economic elite run the show.* McCrory can critique the educated elite all that he wants, but when you pal around with the likes of Art Pope you really have no business accusing anyone else of elitism.
> 
> McCrory himself studied political science and education. Bennett, who was interviewing him, has a PhD in  you guessed it  philosophy. *The underlying assumption appears to be that if youre part of the upper class, you can enjoy the luxury of a liberal arts education. If youre lower or middle class, the public institutions that are supposed to be part of the mythical American dream, that level playing field, should only offer courses in skilled trades.* Wealthy young people will get a liberal arts education. Poor and middle class young people will choose a trade."
> 
> Femmonite: Notes from an Employed Philosopher


What the fuck is liberal art and how the Hell do you make a living with it. I think you would have been better off studying home economics at least you could cook an egg.


----------



## Friends

badbob85037 said:


> What the fuck is liberal art and how the Hell do you make a living with it. I think you would have been better off studying home economics at least you could cook an egg.


A college student should take a few social science and liberal arts courses as electives, but the student must major in a topic that employers desire. Look for a field where there are more openings than people qualified to fill the openings. Look for a field that is not specialized and which does not change rapidly. 

Those who love the social sciences and the liberal arts like I do can study them for free in public libraries. The study will be more enjoyable without the need to earn a good grade.


----------



## thomasmariel

task0778 said:


> What the fuck are you talking about?




Blue and Attract, i.e. the two or representative of a group of gothic/goths people, who wore modern clothing billions of years before the Roman Empire (and who, quite possibly, are in a state of suspension to this day, this very moment, with all Earth history being a machine of their operation), are my freedom from politics of the mind. 

I'll clarify:
I am currently under governance, by theology, in the context of the usual paradigm of psychology as political science, meaning that nobody can help me. The reason, for this governance, is likely to do with the gothic people, gothic young adults (who, to reiterate, are the sex of Elizabeth I's reign, and all other monarchs), and the strong possibility that while in the factory, which would be a normal looking factory, (designed by outer space), they are tormented by my day to day torment, of deities associating themselves with movie individuals so that I am blackmailed into performing citation sex, i.e. celebrity after text. 

For the gothic people, in the factory, who may still be there, there is thus the gothic having to sustain itself against the celebrity monopoly supporting - naturally supporting - the intrinsic solution, that aristocracy can't use self-awareness. 

One of the traits, of theology, is the inevitability paradigm; i.e. having the nerve, to use existence, from ignoring theology's continuity. And do you see the irony here?

It's the expected routine. Intrinsically, God and theology are expected to be users of evil from lack of recognition. 
Perhaps, the celebrity involvement at the factory is a means for theology, to bluff outer space and daylight into not recognising the usual model/routine, having the gothic group stranded at the factory.

When I say celebrity involvement, what do I refer to?
On its own, can theology protect the aristocracy of awareness, of the sex, of modern-dressed (jeans and t-shirts) gothic people from before all medieval/tudor history on Earth being warrior essences without celebrity databases. 

Montage psychology/montage history/montage routine/montage reality/montage style: it is the cusp, of the whole situation. 

Is it Neve Campbell? Is it Michael Douglas? Is it Samuel L Jackson? Is it Richard Gere? Is it Bruce Willis? Is it Elizabeth Taylor? is it Richard Burton? Is it Katie Sarife? Is it Bruce Lee? etc If there was a celebrity interface/celebrity soul mechanism, who acted as an inversion to what's possibly my own paradigm, i.e. safety through concocting the symbolism, meaning that the people at the factory were either instructed or just determined to see the natural symbol (the natural ghost), is the reality Earth version of this celebrity in danger?

A particular essence, of the theory of the factory, is that the gothic people involved (and the reason that I know, that the people there are gothic is because that's what montage psychology commands) were able to be defeated by the powers that be, because they were part of the natural - for them - 2D screen cinema. 
Ironic, of course, since reality itself is a 2D in moral principle.

Take away the 2D cinema, and the result is the theology privilege of enacting celebrity database. 

I want to mention the octopus, named taking the piss, but, my physics won't allow me the ability - a usual problem - to believe in the truth, because I have forgotten the inspiration.

Waiting for the return, of the inspiration: it's my paradigm, which I hope to use to combat theology, and to support the gothic creators of evolution, being able to use my devotion to The Symmetry, to reconcile the mystical police to the jeans and t-shirts of the goths.


----------



## Unkotare




----------



## thomasmariel

Unkotare said:


>


I'll re-examine, my predicament to you (thanks for showing interest) albeit ignoring the creators of evolution theory of the factory:

essentially, I am a submitting ideology entity, who is also a submitting philosophy entity. What's the difference?

I don't know. But, this is okay, as as long as I'm a socialist to physics, the difference is able to be a sane mystery. 

In general, what am I?
There is the private society, within my soul, of creation of personality via physics story, versus the public society within my soul, of creation of physics story. Moreover, on the condition (on the assumption) that I'm a gothic soul, i.e. able to withstand any attack from the right-wing cigarette case, or the right-wing outer space, or the right-wing DVD shelf, without any weakness foundation of physics within me, there is the backdrop within my gothic soul, of forces - when I say forces, I mean the entity of Texas state law, or the entity of skyscrapers of extramarital affairs, or the entity of Christmas festivals in Channel 5 movies - who all can imitate the ability to be free from the anti-soul foundation sustaining attacks from gardens, public playgrounds, churches, grass, trees, computers, schools etc.

In general, the entity, within me, who is about Texas state law: what would be their outer space cigarette case criteria, against/for the garden arena, especially at the British Garden Centre (on the presupposition, of course, that it isn't because they have a cigarette case as part of their outer space body structure)?

More, about myself:
I anticipate manual labour, and the fear that my happy refusal to ignore being downloaded during the work will result in a download conspiracy later on; ironic, of course, that I should associate fear of conspiracy with manual labour, however, the symmetry magic of existence is the consequence of such event.

On the external, there is the crazy inference society within me: ostensibly, a gift from the octopus called taking the piss, with which I am able to shut down theology's computation insanity, perhaps built up over the course of trillions of years, the crazy inference society is not a conflation, with the aforementioned anti-soul foundation within me. 

More, about the external: the theology force, that surrounds me, and that perhaps monitors my reaching for my extramarital affair society, and my reaching for my keyboard society, is ostensibly using where I live as a geography of left-wing transcendence, so that the ideology by the octopus taking the piss, Movie Stills Are Blue and Attract's response, to the theology stills that bullied them in the factory, is able to be non-useful.

The octopus, taking the piss, and Blue and Attract, my safety, from your theory, is still my ability to be The Socialist. 


Day by day, I'll continue to use clicking on daylight, which is a Taking The Piss Fuckway ethos, supported by Alex Cross/Morgan Freeman.


----------



## Unkotare




----------



## midcan5

badbob85037 said:


> What the fuck is liberal art and how the Hell do you make a living with it. I think you would have been better off studying home economics at least you could cook an egg.



LOL  I worked in technology and did very well.  Liberal arts is a basis for being in the world, actual work is dependent on historical time etc etc etc.


----------

