|
FAO: RJT (In a New Generation of College Students, Many Opt for the Life Examined) (pg. 5)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| nchs09 |
| 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.
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! |
Psychology is in the humanities and it is pretty much all testing with dependent and independent variables... so not "all" humanities.
In a related note, robs answer did seem like a non-reply... but at the same time, i am not questioning why he is studying it. |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by bucke
wait you expect me to read all that? |
No, don't worry. You're certainly not part of the target audience :) |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by nchs09
Psychology is in the humanities |
Not really: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanities
| quote: | | The humanities are academic disciplines which study the human condition, using methods that are largely analytic, critical, or speculative, as distinguished from the mainly empirical approaches of the natural and social sciences. |
Psychology is an empirical science (often considered a social science or a behaviour science). Therefore, not in the humanities :D
But, for historical reasons, it's often in the department of humanities in universities. |
|
|
| nchs09 |
| Social science. humanities... you are splitting hairs :p |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| Psychology used to be humanities, now its science. |
|
|
| RJT |
| quote: | Originally posted by nchs09
In a related note, robs answer did seem like a non-reply... but at the same time, i am not questioning why he is studying it. |
Regarding my so-called "non-answer" - the question "what have you done with philosophy that is useful" doesn't particularly strike me as all that interesting (or objective) a question, but if you're really that interested, I've been able to teach younger students in either adjunct classes, as a teaching assistant, or as a tutor, introductory aspects of philosophy that are directly relevant to their career paths (from English to biology majors), and help them to form better arguments, understand basic symbolic logical principles, and write better papers.
It's also taught me how to write, form an argument, allowed me to pursue graduate research I'm interested in, and understand enough formal logic to confuse internet forum trolls.
I could go on, but I suspect this has all become quite a bore by now. |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
Psychology used to be humanities, now its science. |
Many scientific disciplines sprang from philosophy (which is part of the humanities). Linguistics, psychology... hell, even the natural sciences were known as "natural philosophy" :p
| quote: | Originally posted by RJT
It's also taught me how to write, form an argument, allowed me to pursue graduate research I'm interested in, and understand enough formal logic to confuse internet forum trolls. |
Got any books to recommend on this? I really need to work on my argumentation. Should I study informal logic? |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
Study formal logic.
Most of informal logic is just common sense plus stuff you pick up by reading a lot of philosophy. |
|
|
| nchs09 |
| quote: | Originally posted by RJT
Regarding my so-called "non-answer" - the question "what have you done with philosophy that is useful" doesn't particularly strike me as all that interesting (or objective) a question, but if you're really that interested, I've been able to teach younger students in either adjunct classes, as a teaching assistant, or as a tutor, introductory aspects of philosophy that are directly relevant to their career paths (from English to biology majors), and help them to form better arguments, understand basic symbolic logical principles, and write better papers.
It's also taught me how to write, form an argument, allowed me to pursue graduate research I'm interested in, and understand enough formal logic to confuse internet forum trolls.
I could go on, but I suspect this has all become quite a bore by now. |
I said i was not questioning your decision. Whatever anyone wants to study will be useful in my opinion. |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
Study formal logic.
Most of informal logic is just common sense plus stuff you pick up by reading a lot of philosophy. |
Thanks :)
Got any favourite author/book? |
|
|
| RJT |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
Thanks :)
Got any favourite author/book? |
No. They are all horribly bland and boring. :( |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
Thanks :)
Got any favourite author/book? |
I used this to learn it:
http://www.amazon.com/Language-Proo...e/dp/157586374X
It comes with basic but decent software that lets you construct and then check your own proofs.
Like RJT says, any formal logic textbook will be "dry." |
|
|
|
|
