Comment by luckylion | Hacker News Reader

Comment by luckylion | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> Because philosophy heavily emphasizes critical and abstract thinking.

I've taken a few classes in philosophy (it was my major for a while), and I can't tell if this is super different in the US vs Europe or you're just making stuff up, but this is just not what I saw. Yes, logic is part of philosophy, and everybody needs to take that class, but it's not heavily emphasized for the majority of students. Being able to write summaries and essays is, and learning the lingo, and reading (and hopefully understanding, or being able to pretend so well enough) the classics.

> Better yet they might be able to really think about the consequences of the systems they build, whereas the tech industry mostly seems to have no problem and no concerns about building a global surveillance apparatus.

Please don't. Studying in the humanities doesn't make you a better person, and it doesn't make you consider ethics in everything you do either.

> School is the one place where we have an institutionalized system to study and progress the liberal arts as a whole

Except not everybody agrees that is what life is all about, what's best for society, the country, humanity or whatever you choose. Somebody has to do the actual work, you know? Sure, we can all become philosophers and then starve to death, or we can make sure that we have enough people that know how to grow food. When it comes down to it, yeah, with all of my ethics training, I very much prefer people that know how to grow food over people that will explain that the ethical thing to do is to feed them first, because only they can lead progress and advance the liberal arts. But then again, I always had a thing for utilitarianism and was highly suspicious of the bourgeois elitism in intellectual circles.

Oh, and STEM is different? Let me try: math and physics aren't about understanding quantity and the universe; they are about memorizing equations and pretending you know them just in time for the test. Computer science is about more about copying and pasting code and getting away with it. What you're describing - where gaming the system is the norm - is entirely valid, and a problem with education institutions as a whole, but it's completely independent of the subject matter.

I don't understand your last paragraph at all. Not everybody agrees, so therefore liberal arts education is invalid? Or not everybody agrees, so let's give up? These are defeatist attitudes to take in either case. Implicit in your argument, as a response to this whole thread, is that not "somebody has to do the work", which I have never argued against; you're saying "nobody should do anything but the work". Meaning STEM, or whatever BigCo is hiring for right now. We continue to have huge problems globally that either have nothing to do with technology or are directly caused by technology, that need to be solved with entirely different skillsets. People perform better when they are motivated, and money is a poor motivator after a certain point. You make a very poor assumption that someone studies one of these subjects and their skills and experiences just go into this void, and/or that I'm advocating that people major in something and strictly do that for the rest of their lives. If you want to do the hands-on work and major in Hands-On Working, then do it. But don't discourage others from doing what they want and are good at during the narrow window of their lives when society supports them to do it.

> Oh, and STEM is different?

You're making claims about philosophy, I'm not making claims about STEM - I don't know what you're trying to accomplish.

> Not everybody agrees, so therefore liberal arts education is invalid?

No. Not everybody agrees, thereforce "liberal arts advances humanity" isn't agreed upon and shouldn't guide us. Let's agree upon it first.

> you're saying "nobody should do anything but the work"

No. I'm saying "please contribute". And by "contribute" I mean "do something that all/most/many consider to be of value". If we start defining "contributing" to mean something that the individual believes to be valuable, then it's just random. Build houses, grow roses, torture people, whatever, as long as you feel like it's a good idea, you're contributing.

> But don't discourage others from doing what they want

I'd never dream of doing that. I'm just saying: if you want to do what you want, please pay for it yourself. Don't make me give you part of my money to indulge in your personal pleasures.

We’re getting nowhere with this. This entire thread was about STEM vs other majors, and you were singling out philosophy. You can’t just decouple yourself and your arguments from the context of the conversation and claim i’m straw-manning you. And again, you have a severe misconception that none of these “bullshit majors” are useful, and that somehow a lack of consensus on everything invalidates competing ideas. And come on, “torture people” is bringing your argument to absurity. You’re basically arguing that individuality is a bad thing now. I can’t change your perspective, but suffice to say it’s short sighted.

> and you were singling out philosophy

No, I wasn't. You made claims about philosophy and I uttered my doubts because they didn't match my personal experience at all. You then decided to tell me how bad STEM was, which I hadn't even mention.

> you have a severe misconception that none of these “bullshit majors” are useful

That's not what I said. They might very well be useful, my point is that we should let the market decide whether they are. Vague statements about some loss of culture or a descent into dystopian nightmares if we don't finance them just isn't that - it's fear mongering to push something through without giving those a vote that are supposed to pay for it.

> “torture people” is bringing your argument to absurity

You should've taken a few philosophy classes, especially logic. Using extremes and hypothetical situations is what you do to test an argument/claim. If you present a claim and I present to you an example that makes your claim fall short, there's no "well, exceptions prove the rule", that's not how logic works.

> You’re basically arguing that individuality is a bad thing now.

Somewhat, sure. I don't like the kind of individuality that wants all the freedom but puts the responsibility (that is: footing the bill) on other people. Either say "I want to be free, and I will suffer the consequences of my decisions" or enjoy the protection of the collective at the cost of having to also submit to the collective's rules & needs, and limit your freedom. If you want the collective to pay for what you study & work in, choose something that the collective needs and it will gladly pay for it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com