|
FAO: RJT (In a New Generation of College Students, Many Opt for the Life Examined) (pg. 4)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Meat187 |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
It lets you impress other literary-humanistic folk. ;) |
There might even be some truth to that.
The satirist Ephraim Kishon wrote that the language used in the arts and in philosophy is designed to appear complex and intellectual, thus impressing others, who have not yet mastered it. Given that, Lira is probably right, too. After all, impressing girls = getting laid. :D |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by Meat187
There might even be some truth to that.
The satirist Ephraim Kishon wrote that the language used in the arts and in philosophy is designed to appear complex and intellectual, thus impressing others, who have not yet mastered it. |
Actually, I've got to disagree with that to some extent. Sure, complex words can make a simple thought sound a lot more profound than it really is but often this vocabulary is necessary because of the theoretical background. However, sometimes this theoretical background is so complex and etherial that it may turn out to be meaningless...
... and, if you're Alan Sokal, you can use that to deliver epic lulz. |
|
|
| RJT |
| quote: | Originally posted by Meat187
There might even be some truth to that.
The satirist Ephraim Kishon wrote that the language used in the arts and in philosophy is designed to appear complex and intellectual, thus impressing others, who have not yet mastered it. Given that, Lira is probably right, too. After all, impressing girls = getting laid. :D |
I always love when I see that old chestnut of an argument come up - the "Just because I don't understand what people are talking about means they're just trying to sound smarter than they actually are" line never gets old.
Interestingly enough, it never seems to arise when people fail to understand complex discussions of natural science or politics - only against the philosophy set, which has always amused me because I've never been able to grasp what exactly it is that's so threatening to people about the study of philosophy.
Edit: Except, of course, if it's because of the thought that we killed someones God. Our bad. |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by RJT
I always love when I see that old chestnut of an argument come up - the "Just because I don't understand what people are talking about means they're just trying to sound smarter than they actually are" line never gets old.
Interestingly enough, it never seems to arise when people fail to understand complex discussions of natural science or politics - only against the philosophy set, which has always amused me because I've never been able to grasp what exactly it is that's so threatening to people about the study of philosophy. |
I think it's part of the current pragmatic world-view.
If you're doing science, for example, manipulating variables and whatnot, the results can be clearly seen. For example, if biologists manipulate genes and create new vegetables, they're excused from their jargon because messing with DNA must be difficult. If you study chemistry and come up with a new kind of plastic, you're also supposed to have experimented with some really strange stuff, so the common man wouldn't mind being ignorant about that.
However, almost everything in the humanities is supposed to be "useless". You can't build rockets with literary criticism, and I've even heard scientists saying that no one but philosophers themselves care about philosophy of science, even though it's clearly obvious how important Karl Popper was to scientific thought in the last century.
So, if such "pointless" knowledge becomes difficult for the common man to understand, it's either not worth it or unnecessarily complex. "We can all think", after all.
EDIT: When I say "humanities", I'm excluding "law" and "theology": religion plays an important role in society, and people think it's somehow deeper than the studies of ethics and metaphysics in philosophy; and law is also seen as being "practical"... but I have to admit their jargon really gets on my : No matter how complex the theory behind the law is, the law should be easy to understand! |
|
|
| RJT |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
I think it's part of the current pragmatic world-view.
If you're doing science, for example, manipulating variables and whatnot, the results can be clearly seen. For example, if biologists manipulate genes and create new vegetables, they're excused from their jargon because messing with DNA must be difficult. If you study chemistry and come up with a new kind of plastic, you're also supposed to have experimented with some really strange stuff, so the common man wouldn't mind being ignorant about that.
|
The problem is that the results that are "clearly seen" are rarely, if ever, actually seen clearly. They're dumbed down to the language of "If A, then B. A. Therefore, B." so that the lowest common denominator can digest the information in what they think is a coherent manner - or at the very least, a manner in which there are no more questions begging to be asked. The way in which science is taught in the Western world is oddly compatible with religious dogma in the sense that many are left with the impression that the scientific method is the end all, be all of what counts as "good science" when in fact it's a gross oversimplification meant to account for what we perceive to be causal relationships.
Nelson Goodman wrote a brief essay titled "Words, Works, and Worlds" in which he discusses at length the process of coming to "know" something. A section of it deals strictly with the scientific method, and that through it we only come to know anything in the sense of currently understood relevant variables - which is to say that there is always the possibility of new relevant variables arising, and thus a different result. This seems a pretty clear advocation of skepticism with regard to knowledge, and I like that idea quite a bit. |
|
|
| biznology |
new relevant variables, but still within the current framework.
there will always be new experiences or understandings, but they can only be within the human mind-set. our comprehension is only so much, but it is all we have| |
|
|
| RJT |
| quote: | Originally posted by biznology
new relevant variables, but still within the current framework.
there will always be new experiences or understandings, but they can only be within the human mind-set. our comprehension is only so much, but it is all we have| |
I would agree with all of that, or at least the notion that human understanding is limited.
The area I think we may differ on is that it sounds like you're saying that we could, at some point, document all relevant variables for a given cause-effect relationship and effectively predict such events given an understanding of all relevant variables.
I don't think it's possible for us to grasp that amount of information in any kind of objective sense. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
I'd recommend that they do something more useful. Philosophy is great as a way to learn argument and conceptual organization for other disciplines, but basically inane and pointless when studied in isolation.
- Cynical and Bored Philosophy Major |
haha, took the words right out of my mouth. |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by RJT
The problem is that the results that are "clearly seen" are rarely, if ever, actually seen clearly. They're dumbed down to the language of "If A, then B. A. Therefore, B." so that the lowest common denominator can digest the information in what they think is a coherent manner - or at the very least, a manner in which there are no more questions begging to be asked. The way in which science is taught in the Western world is oddly compatible with religious dogma in the sense that many are left with the impression that the scientific method is the end all, be all of what counts as "good science" when in fact it's a gross oversimplification meant to account for what we perceive to be causal relationships. |
You know, I really don't understand why science is taught that way in schools either. And I like it how your brought up the fact that science is taught in a very dogmatic manner, as I wonder whether that is responsible for the great confusion regarding the relationship between science and religion in modern society, both in groups that feel threatened by science (ID'ers) and groups that awkwardly embrace what they think is science (Quantum mystycists, spiritualists).
| quote: | Originally posted by RJT
Nelson Goodman wrote a brief essay titled "Words, Works, and Worlds" in which he discusses at length the process of coming to "know" something. A section of it deals strictly with the scientific method, and that through it we only come to know anything in the sense of currently understood relevant variables - which is to say that there is always the possibility of new relevant variables arising, and thus a different result. This seems a pretty clear advocation of skepticism with regard to knowledge, and I like that idea quite a bit. |
Is this it?
I haven't had the time to read it yet (I've just found it), but what you said seems to be among the things scientists learned in the previous century. That's why I love Paul Feyerabend's ideas so much: the more diverse science gets, the more different variables scientists can be aware of, as the problems and variables found are an inherent part of the theory. When Chomsky put forth his project in generative linguistics, not only he augmented the number of variables available to linguists in general, he was also responsible for the huge backlash that followed, in which many variables that had not been seen by Chomsky came to be regarded as important in order to have a good understanding of what language is. |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
I reconnected with an ex over a two hour conversation on this article today:
http://fish.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/...rica/index.html
Tell me philosophy doesn't impact your personal life. :p
(it is a fascinating take on deconstructivism btw) |
+1. I made friends at the gym thanks to Bertrand Russell :D |
|
|
| bucke |
| wait you expect me to read all that? |
|
|
|
|
