Best universities for majoring in philosophy?

2010-02-10 03:11:40

#176

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6824|'Murka

Uzique wrote:
and the little amount of work i have to do per week? seriously, fuck you. top-level arts degrees are fucking intense. all of our material isnt spoonfed to us either. there are no right or wrong opinions. if you haven't done your 20+ hours of reading and research for even the smallest of essays, then the profs are going to see straight through it and murder you. synthesizing and corrobarating information so that you can evaluate a work is harder than just applying a formula to get to a solution. i have to spend about 40 hours a week reading MINIMUM to just take in all the information i am required to, let alone to digest it and properly understand it. it's not enjoyable having to read a 400-page novel in 5 days, either. not as enjoyable as it is to sit and read a book of choice in your armchair at a pace suiting your delectation. i think you're being incredibly ignorant, but then again it doesn't really surprise me. i have yet to see an intelligent person dismiss an arts subject. just a bunch of science majors talking shit about a subject and discipline that they clearly have only a vague idea about.

Hmmm...irony. Chest-beating irony.

You think hard science work is "just applying a formula to get a solution". Because you have more than a "vague idea" about what it takes to complete an engineering course of study?

40 hours a week would've been nice when I was an undergrad. Probably about half-time, tbh.

How many engineering courses have you taken, Uzique?

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2010-02-10 03:30:26

#177

Varegg: Support fanatic :-); +2,206|7223|Nårvei

You called it backwards the first time, not me ... I think you misunderstand the point ...

I didn't refer to the worker as not valuable but a tad less valuable than the work itself ... the workers are one of the biggest commodities there is, a skilled worker no matter the proffesion is valuable ...

Wait behind the line ..............................................................

2010-02-10 04:14:13

#178

ruisleipa: Member; +149|6635|teh FIN-land

Dilbert_X wrote:
when they graduate they get paid bugger all.

even if true, what's your point? I would've thought you would appreciate anyone who doesn't follow the path less trodden and doesn't consider worship of mammon the be-all and end-all of life..?

2010-02-10 04:29:11

#179

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,822|6519|eXtreme to the maX

ruisleipa wrote:
Dilbert_X wrote:
when they graduate they get paid bugger all.
even if true, what's your point? I would've thought you would appreciate anyone who doesn't follow the path less trodden and doesn't consider worship of mammon the be-all and end-all of life..?

Agreed, but saying a Philosophy degree will lead to a top job is not right.

Fuck Israel

2010-02-10 04:32:21

#180

DrunkFace: Germans did 911; +427|7094|Disaster Free Zone

Uzique wrote:
i have yet to see an intelligent person dismiss an arts subject

You've got to be trolling. No intelligent person would give an arts subjects any time of day. They are just a way to get the hot dumb bimbos into uni to give guys something to fuck. That and nursing.

2010-02-10 04:33:18

#181

Cheez: Herman is a warmaphrodite; +1,027|6852|King Of The Islands

ruisleipa wrote:
Dilbert_X wrote:
when they graduate they get paid bugger all.
even if true, what's your point? I would've thought you would appreciate anyone who doesn't follow the path less trodden and doesn't consider worship of mammon the be-all and end-all of life..?

Who's this Mammon guy and what's so great about him?

My state was founded by Batman. Your opinion is invalid.

2010-02-10 05:19:28

#182

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|7088|Canberra, AUS

40 hours a week would've been nice when I was an undergrad. Probably about half-time, tbh.

he didn't say anything about 'per week'. for all we know he could've had two essays a week, there's 40hrs a week min according to him.

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2010-02-10 06:18:48

#183

ruisleipa: Member; +149|6635|teh FIN-land

Dilbert_X wrote:
ruisleipa wrote:
Dilbert_X wrote:
when they graduate they get paid bugger all.
even if true, what's your point? I would've thought you would appreciate anyone who doesn't follow the path less trodden and doesn't consider worship of mammon the be-all and end-all of life..?
Agreed, but saying a Philosophy degree will lead to a top job is not right.

ah well it might lead to one but it's far from a certainty

who said that anyway?

2010-02-10 07:01:00

#184

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5771|London, England

VicktorVauhn wrote:
androoz wrote:
Macbeth wrote:
Electrical Engineering

Learn to repair toasters
lol ya EE is cool if you're like a math genius or whatever.
lol, you only have to learn calculus. Its not that hard.

As they said, NO company needs a philosopher on payroll. The closest they would come is the field of ethics, but even then most engineering and business students need to take classes on ethics anyways.

Philosophy majors exist almost soley to teach philosophy. Serious.
Varegg wrote:
Only difference between an electrical engineer and the checkout girl is the value of the work and not the value of the worker ...
This is almost completely backwards.

Like you said, we NEED people doing all these jobs, it is just as valuable for someone to grow me food as it is for me to design him a new piece of farm equipment... if not more because people farmed by hand for years.

However the value of the worker varies drastically. Sorry to be realistic but the cashier as a worker is almost worthless because she can be replaced by damn near any person who has hands. Money is nothing more then a value we place on things, and even in your non-American utopia I am sure that your money & job market would speak loudly to the fact that a single unique instance of a check out girl is not anywhere near as valuable as an electrical engineer.

Thank you.

Varegg, he's right, you've got it completely backwards. A persons value to society is reflected in the wages that they earn. The greater the positive societal impact the individual has, the higher their wages generally are. Let's take authors as an example. An author that is not very good will not be able to live off the wages they earn as an author. They aren't very good, so they aren't published, or if they are published they haven't sold many copies. This author has minimal impact on society as a whole and his wages reflect this. To contrast this, we'll take the case of someone such as J.K. Rowling. I've never read her books but there are millions of people around the world that have found joy in reading the words she has put down on paper. Because of this, she's had a much larger societal impact and her pay reflects this.

That checkout girl has no real value within society. Her impact is miniscule and she's easily replaced. Hell, we have self checkout machines here in America that have replaced cashiers in many stores. Who designed that machine? An electrical engineer

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2010-02-10 07:04:37

#185

Varegg: Support fanatic :-); +2,206|7223|Nårvei

So when you automate everything ... what happens then?

You don't see soceity as a whole, not many does so I won't hold it against you ...

Wait behind the line ..............................................................

2010-02-10 07:11:29

#186

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5771|London, England

Varegg wrote:
So when you automate everything ... what happens then?

You don't see soceity as a whole, not many does so I won't hold it against you ...

You're worried that people won't be able to find work I take it? Jobs are always evolving and new industries are springing up all the time. The unskilled labor jobs you're worried about aren't going anywhere for a long time, they're just not as recognizable as they were 50 years ago. Factory jobs are disappearing and being replaced with service jobs for example. Doesn't take much skill to answer a phone in a call center all day.

The people who complain about the lack of jobs in the manufacturing sector are scared people clinging to what they know and entirely afraid of this new technological world that has sprung up. Frankly, they can either evolve or die.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2010-02-10 07:21:09

#187

Varegg: Support fanatic :-); +2,206|7223|Nårvei

JohnG@lt wrote:
Varegg wrote:
So when you automate everything ... what happens then?

You don't see soceity as a whole, not many does so I won't hold it against you ...
You're worried that people won't be able to find work I take it? Jobs are always evolving and new industries are springing up all the time. The unskilled labor jobs you're worried about aren't going anywhere for a long time, they're just not as recognizable as they were 50 years ago. Factory jobs are disappearing and being replaced with service jobs for example. Doesn't take much skill to answer a phone in a call center all day.

The people who complain about the lack of jobs in the manufacturing sector are scared people clinging to what they know and entirely afraid of this new technological world that has sprung up. Frankly, they can either evolve or die.

Nope ... I'm not worried about people not finding work, that's not even close ...

The "unskilled and worthless" checkout girl was just an example ...

My point is that you shouldn't look down at people for having less/other ambitions ... that doesn't make them lesser human beings ...

JohnG@lt wrote:
Frankly, they can either evolve or die.

This kind of mindset is what worries me ...

Wait behind the line ..............................................................

2010-02-10 07:22:42

#188

androoz: Banned; +137|5626|United States

Varegg wrote:
JohnG@lt wrote:
Varegg wrote:
So when you automate everything ... what happens then?

You don't see soceity as a whole, not many does so I won't hold it against you ...
You're worried that people won't be able to find work I take it? Jobs are always evolving and new industries are springing up all the time. The unskilled labor jobs you're worried about aren't going anywhere for a long time, they're just not as recognizable as they were 50 years ago. Factory jobs are disappearing and being replaced with service jobs for example. Doesn't take much skill to answer a phone in a call center all day.

The people who complain about the lack of jobs in the manufacturing sector are scared people clinging to what they know and entirely afraid of this new technological world that has sprung up. Frankly, they can either evolve or die.
Nope ... I'm not worried about people not finding work, that's not even close ...

The "unskilled and worthless" checkout girl was just an example ...

My point is that you shouldn't look down at people for having less/other ambitions ... that doesn't make them lesser human beings ...

this is true. how do you define a greater human being? money? character?

2010-02-10 07:34:36

#189

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5771|London, England

You know, I've always found it amusing that those who subscribe to the socialist mindset actually care less about society as a whole and it's function than those with a capitalist mindset. Treating people as if they are all equal regardless of their output actually harms society as a whole. For a system with 'social' in it's name, it's the most selfish system ever dreamed up. All that matters is the individual within the system, not the system itself.

Within capitalism, a persons positive societal impact is rewarded with a commensurate salary and commensurate power within the society. Those that put in little to no effort receive little salary and have little power. Even the staunchest 'individualists' within a capitalistic society recognize that no man is an island and that we are all interconnected. For all the lip service that socialists pay to caring about society as a whole, they are really the ones that wish to live on their own isolated island.

Does it benefit a society to have it's lowest common denominator have the same political impact as the person at the top?

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2010-02-10 07:42:21

#190

Varegg: Support fanatic :-); +2,206|7223|Nårvei

JohnG@lt wrote:
You know, I've always found it amusing that those who subscribe to the socialist mindset actually care less about society as a whole and it's function than those with a capitalist mindset. Treating people as if they are all equal regardless of their output actually harms society as a whole. For a system with 'social' in it's name, it's the most selfish system ever dreamed up. All that matters is the individual within the system, not the system itself.

Within capitalism, a persons positive societal impact is rewarded with a commensurate salary and commensurate power within the society. Those that put in little to no effort receive little salary and have little power. Even the staunchest 'individualists' within a capitalistic society recognize that no man is an island and that we are all interconnected. For all the lip service that socialists pay to caring about society as a whole, they are really the ones that wish to live on their own isolated island.

Does it benefit a society to have it's lowest common denominator have the same political impact as the person at the top?

Well ... seeing as I am part of the evolved part of capitalism (socialistic capitalism) while your own country dwells with the old version I'm quite sure my view takes precedence ...

Besides your logic trying to decode what I pointed out fails, why is that close to always you draw paralells at each side of the scale when infact the answer lies closer to the middle? ... balance is a key word ...

I thought you had some backround from economics, guess you must have skipped the class called "economic history and lets learn from our past mistakes"

Wait behind the line ..............................................................

2010-02-10 07:43:57

#191

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5771|London, England

Varegg wrote:
JohnG@lt wrote:
You know, I've always found it amusing that those who subscribe to the socialist mindset actually care less about society as a whole and it's function than those with a capitalist mindset. Treating people as if they are all equal regardless of their output actually harms society as a whole. For a system with 'social' in it's name, it's the most selfish system ever dreamed up. All that matters is the individual within the system, not the system itself.

Within capitalism, a persons positive societal impact is rewarded with a commensurate salary and commensurate power within the society. Those that put in little to no effort receive little salary and have little power. Even the staunchest 'individualists' within a capitalistic society recognize that no man is an island and that we are all interconnected. For all the lip service that socialists pay to caring about society as a whole, they are really the ones that wish to live on their own isolated island.

Does it benefit a society to have it's lowest common denominator have the same political impact as the person at the top?
Well ... seeing as I am part of the evolved part of capitalism (socialistic capitalism) while your own country dwells with the old version I'm quite sure my view takes precedence ...

Besides your logic trying to decode what I pointed out fails, why is that close to always you draw paralells at each side of the scale when infact the answer lies closer to the middle?

I thought you had some backround from economics, guess you must have skipped the class called "economic history and lets learn from our past mistakes"

Considering the only reason your socialistic society works, while all others are failing under crushing debt loads and lack of innovation, is oil...

Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-02-10 07:44:38)

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2010-02-10 08:23:04

#192

DrunkFace: Germans did 911; +427|7094|Disaster Free Zone

JohnG@lt wrote:
A persons value to society is reflected in the wages that they earn. The greater the positive societal impact the individual has, the higher their wages generally are.

lol no. Just no.

We've been through this before. The doctors, paramedics, nurses and research scientists finding cures for cancer are much more useful to society than any investment banker or sports person. Teachers, police and fire-fighters do much more for society then any accountant or movie star.

2010-02-10 08:26:20

#193

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5771|London, England

DrunkFace wrote:
JohnG@lt wrote:
A persons value to society is reflected in the wages that they earn. The greater the positive societal impact the individual has, the higher their wages generally are.
lol no. Just no.

We've been through this before. The doctors, paramedics, nurses and research scientists finding cures for cancer are much more useful to society than any investment banker or sports person. Teachers, police and fire-fighters do much more for society then any accountant or movie star.

Who's more easily replaced? Who has a larger impact on society as a whole rather than just locally?

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2010-02-10 08:43:43

#194

DrunkFace: Germans did 911; +427|7094|Disaster Free Zone

JohnG@lt wrote:
DrunkFace wrote:
JohnG@lt wrote:
A persons value to society is reflected in the wages that they earn. The greater the positive societal impact the individual has, the higher their wages generally are.
lol no. Just no.

We've been through this before. The doctors, paramedics, nurses and research scientists finding cures for cancer are much more useful to society than any investment banker or sports person. Teachers, police and fire-fighters do much more for society then any accountant or movie star.
Who's more easily replaced? Who has a larger impact on society as a whole rather than just locally?

Just because a job can be done by more people does not make it any less valuable to society.
I'm going to go with the research scientist.

I also hear you can makes lots of money from dealing drugs. They must be awesome members of society.

2010-02-10 08:46:55

#195

Varegg: Support fanatic :-); +2,206|7223|Nårvei

JohnG@lt wrote:
Varegg wrote:
JohnG@lt wrote:
You know, I've always found it amusing that those who subscribe to the socialist mindset actually care less about society as a whole and it's function than those with a capitalist mindset. Treating people as if they are all equal regardless of their output actually harms society as a whole. For a system with 'social' in it's name, it's the most selfish system ever dreamed up. All that matters is the individual within the system, not the system itself.

Within capitalism, a persons positive societal impact is rewarded with a commensurate salary and commensurate power within the society. Those that put in little to no effort receive little salary and have little power. Even the staunchest 'individualists' within a capitalistic society recognize that no man is an island and that we are all interconnected. For all the lip service that socialists pay to caring about society as a whole, they are really the ones that wish to live on their own isolated island.

Does it benefit a society to have it's lowest common denominator have the same political impact as the person at the top?
Well ... seeing as I am part of the evolved part of capitalism (socialistic capitalism) while your own country dwells with the old version I'm quite sure my view takes precedence ...

Besides your logic trying to decode what I pointed out fails, why is that close to always you draw paralells at each side of the scale when infact the answer lies closer to the middle?

I thought you had some backround from economics, guess you must have skipped the class called "economic history and lets learn from our past mistakes"
Considering the only reason your socialistic society works, while all others are failing under crushing debt loads and lack of innovation, is oil...

Ehr ... nope, wrong asumption .... the oil is a contributing factor but not the real answer to our success ...

Since we are breaking it down on a local level I'll give you a few hints ...

*Each person is either a resource or an expenditure, what persons do you favor and what kind of person is it most people wan't to be?
*How you treat the poorest in society reflects back on the total success ...
*Keeping close to the entire population occupied
*Investing your savings and not money you don't have is sound economics

And a fun fact: From what idea of economic principles did the only two Nobel price winners in Economy come from, the only two to go bancrupt later on and by that also indirectly inventing the term economic bailout?

These two guys made a mathematical formula for economic success that an entire nation follows even today when the system itself proved to be worthless years ago ...

Wait behind the line ..............................................................

2010-02-10 10:01:16

#196

ruisleipa: Member; +149|6635|teh FIN-land

JohnG@lt wrote:
Considering the only reason your socialistic society works, while all others are failing under crushing debt loads and lack of innovation,

lol.

2010-02-10 10:03:48

#197

ruisleipa: Member; +149|6635|teh FIN-land

JohnG@lt wrote:
Who's more easily replaced? Who has a larger impact on society as a whole rather than just locally?

bankers are more easily replaced obviously.

Bankers also have a bigger impact on society - by fucking up the exonomy.

Or didn't you notice how brilliant your economics performed recently?

Except I suppose you have the magical answer to dig us out of this shite your financial friends tipped on us.

Oh btw if all other 'socialist' countries except Norway are failing because they're socialist, what's the excuse of the US?

2010-02-11 03:12:24

#198

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6824|'Murka

Spark wrote:
40 hours a week would've been nice when I was an undergrad. Probably about half-time, tbh.
he didn't say anything about 'per week'. for all we know he could've had two essays a week, there's 40hrs a week min according to him.

Fair enough.

However, from personal experience, it took far more time outside of class (2-3x) to get the A in engineering courses than it ever did for a humanities/liberal arts class of an equivalent level.

Odd that there were liberal arts electives throughout engineering but never engineering electives for liberal arts majors.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2010-02-11 04:30:37

#199

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|7088|Canberra, AUS

FEOS wrote:
Spark wrote:
40 hours a week would've been nice when I was an undergrad. Probably about half-time, tbh.
he didn't say anything about 'per week'. for all we know he could've had two essays a week, there's 40hrs a week min according to him.
Fair enough.

However, from personal experience, it took far more time outside of class (2-3x) to get the A in engineering courses than it ever did for a humanities/liberal arts class of an equivalent level.

Odd that there were liberal arts electives throughout engineering but never engineering electives for liberal arts majors.

yeah i've just noticed that. pretty amusing tbh.

the thing is, doing an adv science degree i could still do an international politics course just for shits/gigs, but i doubt an arts major could exactly do a calculus course.

but i'd point out that i've always noticed that arts subjects always tended to be less about hard work per se - like an ok maths student could turn himself into an excellent one through work but an ok writer would remain an ok writer even if he worked his ass off (from firsthand xp)

Last edited by Spark (2010-02-11 04:33:15)

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

BF2S Forums Best universities for majoring in philosophy?

Uzique wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

ruisleipa wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Uzique wrote:

ruisleipa wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

ruisleipa wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

VicktorVauhn wrote:

androoz wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

Varegg wrote:

Varegg wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Varegg wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Varegg wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Varegg wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Varegg wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

DrunkFace wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

DrunkFace wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Varegg wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Spark wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Spark wrote:

Board footer