Both of my kids were unplanned. But what I was getting at, was that, living one's lifestyle however you like is much easier when you are only for yourself. It's not just about the money when you have a family. You can't just up and go where you please, especially a job. When I was single, I was all over the place. Not with two kids, i've severely anchored.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
No thanks. Kids are a long ways away. And my mortgage isn't on a rental property - it's on a place my mom and 2 brothers (both currently unemployed) live, so I do support some family already. But my response was directly related to your "its what money allows you to do." I can do virtually anything I want any time, all through working hard and saving.
Anyway I hate putting this information out there because it's personal to me so I'm going to go ahead and delete all my posts.
I just found this searching for Calvin Coolidge's old 'the business of America is business' quote.
The whole thing:
“After all, the chief business of the American people is business. They are profoundly concerned with producing, buying, selling, investing and prospering in the world. I am strongly of the opinion that the great majority of people will always find these the moving impulses of our life.
Of course, the accumulation of wealth cannot be justified as the chief end of existence,” he said. “But we are compelled to recognize it as a means to well-nigh every desirable achievement. So long as wealth is made the means and not the end, we need not greatly fear it...But it calls for additional effort to avoid even the appearance of the evil of selfishness. In every worthy profession, of course, there will always be a minority who will appeal to the baser instinct. There always have been, probably always will be, some who will feel that their own temporary interest may be furthered by betraying the interest of others.”
I think I found a great man.
The whole thing:
“After all, the chief business of the American people is business. They are profoundly concerned with producing, buying, selling, investing and prospering in the world. I am strongly of the opinion that the great majority of people will always find these the moving impulses of our life.
Of course, the accumulation of wealth cannot be justified as the chief end of existence,” he said. “But we are compelled to recognize it as a means to well-nigh every desirable achievement. So long as wealth is made the means and not the end, we need not greatly fear it...But it calls for additional effort to avoid even the appearance of the evil of selfishness. In every worthy profession, of course, there will always be a minority who will appeal to the baser instinct. There always have been, probably always will be, some who will feel that their own temporary interest may be furthered by betraying the interest of others.”
I think I found a great man.
"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
-Frederick Bastiat
congrats, i wish you could have been alive to vote for him. but with your string of winners, you would have voted for Hoover too . . .Jay wrote:
I think I found a great man.
Hoover was an engineer13urnzz wrote:
congrats, i wish you could have been alive to vote for him. but with your string of winners, you would have voted for Hoover too . . .Jay wrote:
I think I found a great man.
(and a terrible president)
"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
-Frederick Bastiat
Why the hell would you quote and respond to a deleted post?Ilocano wrote:
Both of my kids were unplanned. But what I was getting at, was that, living one's lifestyle however you like is much easier when you are only for yourself. It's not just about the money when you have a family. You can't just up and go where you please, especially a job. When I was single, I was all over the place. Not with two kids, i've severely anchored.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
No thanks. Kids are a long ways away. And my mortgage isn't on a rental property - it's on a place my mom and 2 brothers (both currently unemployed) live, so I do support some family already. But my response was directly related to your "its what money allows you to do." I can do virtually anything I want any time, all through working hard and saving.
Anyway I hate putting this information out there because it's personal to me so I'm going to go ahead and delete all my posts.
Posted before it was deleted...
...
...
...
...
...
...
Because its not true, and declining, oh well.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
but still nothing about the majority of fortune 100 CEOs having humanities degrees. I can't find anything that shows this is true.
The days when a stuffed shirt who went to the 'right' school could get a seat on a board thanks to birthright are fading fast.
I keep asking you to point to some example of this, at some academic institution somewhere, and yet you can't.Uzique wrote:
humanities and the rest try to enable us to have better self-understanding and to imbue life with value
Its always backwards looking twaddle of no value to anyone.
The real progress is not being made in humanities academia, sorry.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2012-10-05 06:18:33)
Fuck Israel
how is current research focussed on the contemporary fringes of philosophy and intellectual debate today in 2012 'backwards looking'? you mean looking at books that were published 2 months ago? yes, i guess that is technically 'backwards looking'. would you like humanities to switch from analytical research to speculative fiction, then? guessing what will come in 2050? let's turn every humanities department into a sci-fi school? right. great thinking dilderp.
it's true that humanities is essentially retrospective, in a sense, trying to make sense of all that has happened. papers are about reviewing events and intellectual discourses in the past (recent or distant), and then making some sort of narrative sense or finding a telos amongst all that. the scientific method and production of journals is focussed on producing ever-new results and breakthroughs, yes. both methods have pros and cons. scientific advancement in-itself is not purely good and beneficial. in fact the drive to be published ("publish or perish") and the constant pressure for new results and 'progress' in the sciences crosses over into all sorts of ethically dubious and egotistical behaviour (the dressing up and fixing results being an obvious first example). science's forward looking is just as problematic to the academic skeptic as humanities supposed retrogression. neither are perfect. the point is that they compliment one another's method and add to an overall totality of 'human knowledge' that is rich and varied. you really want human intellectual progress to be confined to empirical scientific discovery only? all noumenon? this is a pretty derisible idea.
as jaekus said in the other thread... you are all massive generalisations and absolutist huffing and puffing. you partake in a 'debate' forum but you have your own fixed views that have never changed, on any matter, ever. you are essentially a prevaricating bigot. elusive and 'trollsome' in your provocative remarks, your guile essentially hides a terrible narrowmindedness. i don't think you've admitted correction or changed your views on any topic of debate since you have been here. you say the same tired shit about humanities and "hipsters" as you said 4 years ago. it's boring. is this really the way you intellectually display yourself? sitting in your mom's basement making head-scratchingly reductive statements on the internet so you can feel better about yourself and your own chosen pursuits. what a headcase.
it's true that humanities is essentially retrospective, in a sense, trying to make sense of all that has happened. papers are about reviewing events and intellectual discourses in the past (recent or distant), and then making some sort of narrative sense or finding a telos amongst all that. the scientific method and production of journals is focussed on producing ever-new results and breakthroughs, yes. both methods have pros and cons. scientific advancement in-itself is not purely good and beneficial. in fact the drive to be published ("publish or perish") and the constant pressure for new results and 'progress' in the sciences crosses over into all sorts of ethically dubious and egotistical behaviour (the dressing up and fixing results being an obvious first example). science's forward looking is just as problematic to the academic skeptic as humanities supposed retrogression. neither are perfect. the point is that they compliment one another's method and add to an overall totality of 'human knowledge' that is rich and varied. you really want human intellectual progress to be confined to empirical scientific discovery only? all noumenon? this is a pretty derisible idea.
as jaekus said in the other thread... you are all massive generalisations and absolutist huffing and puffing. you partake in a 'debate' forum but you have your own fixed views that have never changed, on any matter, ever. you are essentially a prevaricating bigot. elusive and 'trollsome' in your provocative remarks, your guile essentially hides a terrible narrowmindedness. i don't think you've admitted correction or changed your views on any topic of debate since you have been here. you say the same tired shit about humanities and "hipsters" as you said 4 years ago. it's boring. is this really the way you intellectually display yourself? sitting in your mom's basement making head-scratchingly reductive statements on the internet so you can feel better about yourself and your own chosen pursuits. what a headcase.
Last edited by aynrandroolz (2012-10-05 09:58:35)
lol at least in America these "Intellectually mature" people are the same people who graduate with liberal arts degrees and then "protest" on wall street because they can't find jobs. People need to realize having a college degree means nothing unless you can apply it to something. The trick to getting a job and making money isn't being the smartest person in the room. It's about bringing the most value to an employer that in return will allow them to generate more money. You can be Hawking smart but it means nothing if you don't have a skill that will make someone money.aynrandroolz wrote:
my mention of humanities and top roles/jobs was in rebuttal to roc's comment, the "lol humanities, enjoy your job comment". well in top companies here in the UK, humanities have a bigger presence than STEM. so lol away that. in public service and top-professions pertaining to things such as politics and law, humanities have a 60% majority over STEM and other subjects. i'd say that quite comfortably puts to rest the myth that humanities are unemployable and career-braindead. the humanities have just as many options - if not more - than STEM graduates.
and yeah, the constant fixation on earnings and 'how will this degree benefit me materially?' are questions only asked by people with overt material concerns, i.e. first-generation university students, immigrant newcomers, etc. university for the already-comfortable middle classes is seen as a place to learn and expand your mind to new ideas. to mature and come of age, intellectually and philosophically. not to go and train rabidly for the highest possible salary. that's a peasant's conception of education, from the bottom looking up.
to the below post... yeah sure, a humanities career will NEVER be able to afford those things! and yet again, you say "money isn't everything", only to defend a completely materialistic point. incredibly shallow and one-dimensional. you are like a cardboard-cutout caricature of an asian-american. ever heard of being 'rich in spirit'? wise and learned? well-travelled mentally and intellectually, as well as paraded around the world in first-class airliners? what's the point spending money on worldly pleasures when your own intelligence is a wasteland?
great life ambition bro. "make someone else money". what a use of your brain. one life on this earth and your biggest want is to bendover and please a dude with an MBA. can tell you're first-generation college educated. you reek of poor.Roc18 wrote:
lol at least in America these "Intellectually mature" people are the same people who graduate with liberal arts degrees and then "protest" on wall street because they can't find jobs. People need to realize having a college degree means nothing unless you can apply it to something. The trick to getting a job and making money isn't being the smartest person in the room. It's about bringing the most value to an employer that in return will allow them to generate more money. You can be Hawking smart but it means nothing if you don't have a skill that will make someone money.aynrandroolz wrote:
my mention of humanities and top roles/jobs was in rebuttal to roc's comment, the "lol humanities, enjoy your job comment". well in top companies here in the UK, humanities have a bigger presence than STEM. so lol away that. in public service and top-professions pertaining to things such as politics and law, humanities have a 60% majority over STEM and other subjects. i'd say that quite comfortably puts to rest the myth that humanities are unemployable and career-braindead. the humanities have just as many options - if not more - than STEM graduates.
and yeah, the constant fixation on earnings and 'how will this degree benefit me materially?' are questions only asked by people with overt material concerns, i.e. first-generation university students, immigrant newcomers, etc. university for the already-comfortable middle classes is seen as a place to learn and expand your mind to new ideas. to mature and come of age, intellectually and philosophically. not to go and train rabidly for the highest possible salary. that's a peasant's conception of education, from the bottom looking up.
to the below post... yeah sure, a humanities career will NEVER be able to afford those things! and yet again, you say "money isn't everything", only to defend a completely materialistic point. incredibly shallow and one-dimensional. you are like a cardboard-cutout caricature of an asian-american. ever heard of being 'rich in spirit'? wise and learned? well-travelled mentally and intellectually, as well as paraded around the world in first-class airliners? what's the point spending money on worldly pleasures when your own intelligence is a wasteland?
aren't you still in college? Taking job hunting advice from a person still living off of their parents is like taking sex tips from a virgin.
Not everyone is as privileged as you with a main purpose of going to school to inflate their knowledge as much as possible. Most people going to a university actually go because they want a career and salary to live better than they currently are and make something of themselves. Or if they are rich they rather not piggyback on their parents and privileged backgrounds. You'll naturally disagree because you're a liberal arts major, I speak to a girl exactly like you who is an english major and reads a ton and actually admits she thinks she's better than everyone else because she has sooo much knowledge from reading. But they always end up saying they ultimately want to be teachers to make a living when they get out of school. Or go "occupy" some corner on wall street and cry to the suits.aynrandroolz wrote:
great life ambition bro. "make someone else money". what a use of your brain. one life on this earth and your biggest want is to bendover and please a dude with an MBA. can tell you're first-generation college educated. you reek of poor.Roc18 wrote:
lol at least in America these "Intellectually mature" people are the same people who graduate with liberal arts degrees and then "protest" on wall street because they can't find jobs. People need to realize having a college degree means nothing unless you can apply it to something. The trick to getting a job and making money isn't being the smartest person in the room. It's about bringing the most value to an employer that in return will allow them to generate more money. You can be Hawking smart but it means nothing if you don't have a skill that will make someone money.aynrandroolz wrote:
my mention of humanities and top roles/jobs was in rebuttal to roc's comment, the "lol humanities, enjoy your job comment". well in top companies here in the UK, humanities have a bigger presence than STEM. so lol away that. in public service and top-professions pertaining to things such as politics and law, humanities have a 60% majority over STEM and other subjects. i'd say that quite comfortably puts to rest the myth that humanities are unemployable and career-braindead. the humanities have just as many options - if not more - than STEM graduates.
and yeah, the constant fixation on earnings and 'how will this degree benefit me materially?' are questions only asked by people with overt material concerns, i.e. first-generation university students, immigrant newcomers, etc. university for the already-comfortable middle classes is seen as a place to learn and expand your mind to new ideas. to mature and come of age, intellectually and philosophically. not to go and train rabidly for the highest possible salary. that's a peasant's conception of education, from the bottom looking up.
to the below post... yeah sure, a humanities career will NEVER be able to afford those things! and yet again, you say "money isn't everything", only to defend a completely materialistic point. incredibly shallow and one-dimensional. you are like a cardboard-cutout caricature of an asian-american. ever heard of being 'rich in spirit'? wise and learned? well-travelled mentally and intellectually, as well as paraded around the world in first-class airliners? what's the point spending money on worldly pleasures when your own intelligence is a wasteland?
Also I'm not first generation educated. My mother was a college graduate and accountant.
actually university is there historically for the liberal arts and humanities majors. universities are 1000+ years old as an institution. only in the last 100 years have universities been there for the 'common man' to get 'job training'. so stop being so deluded. people going to universities to learn shouldn't exactly be laughed at. THAT'S WHAT UNIVERSITIES ARE FOR. everyone going to college just to get a tidier management salary are technically just new punks in the system. professors regard you as cattle that pay their wages. nothing more, nothing less. the university exists to enrich intellectually and to conduct research and expand human knowledge. not to train office drones. historically you'd just get an apprenticeship and learn a profession with hands-on experience. the only reason a major in 'finance' exists is to improve the finances of the university that offers that course. you are being duped.Roc18 wrote:
Not everyone is as privileged as you with a main purpose of going to school to inflate their knowledge as much as possible. Most people going to a university actually go because they want a career and salary to live better than they currently are and make something of themselves. Or if they are rich they rather not piggyback on their parents and privileged backgrounds. You'll naturally disagree because you're a liberal arts major, I speak to a girl exactly like you who is an english major and reads a ton and actually admits she thinks she's better than everyone else because she has sooo much knowledge from reading. But they always end up saying they ultimately want to be teachers to make a living when they get out of school. Or go "occupy" some corner on wall street and cry to the suits.aynrandroolz wrote:
great life ambition bro. "make someone else money". what a use of your brain. one life on this earth and your biggest want is to bendover and please a dude with an MBA. can tell you're first-generation college educated. you reek of poor.Roc18 wrote:
lol at least in America these "Intellectually mature" people are the same people who graduate with liberal arts degrees and then "protest" on wall street because they can't find jobs. People need to realize having a college degree means nothing unless you can apply it to something. The trick to getting a job and making money isn't being the smartest person in the room. It's about bringing the most value to an employer that in return will allow them to generate more money. You can be Hawking smart but it means nothing if you don't have a skill that will make someone money.
also were you not paying any attention to the last 2 pages of this conversation? statistically just as many humanities/liberal arts grads are in top-business and politics as science/math grads. "teachers or occupying wall street" is absolutely rofl. i graduated just a year ago and none of my friends are unemployed, and none of them are going into teaching, either. one is in korea teaching english, but that has nothing to do with his major-- that's something all college grads do nowdays, irrespective of their course. most of my friends are in professional business-type jobs now, just the sort i bet you'd love to get your hands on. recruitment, advertising/marketing, sales, strategy, consultancy, law. no teachers in my graduating class of 2011. i know maybe 3 peoplel that have gone onto postgraduate certification in teaching, out of a yearly graduating class of 180+. the statistics are all there on the internet if you really want to substantiate your silly stereotype. almost every university publishes pie-chart infomatics about what their graduates go onto do. i think for my department the teaching slice (teaching in the widest umbrella term, at all levels) accounts for about 16%. astounding.
Last edited by aynrandroolz (2012-10-05 16:07:12)
There has been some evolution of the past 1000 years, for example the current charter of Imperial:
to provide the highest specialised instruction and the most advanced training, education, research and scholarship in science, technology and medicine, especially in their application to industry; and in pursuit of these to act in co-operation with other bodies
Still waiting to hear how Literature departments are doing that, each PhD dept I've looked at, including yours, does nothing of the kind.the university exists to enrich intellectually and to conduct research and expand human knowledge
Fuck Israel
imperial is a specifically and only scientific institution. no shit it has evolved a close relationship to industry! other major classical institutions have opened medical schools and scientific research labs for the same reason, too. but they still retain their core academic ethos and their main departments make little concession to 'industry'. yale english school doesn't spend 3 years teaching 'writing for business'. academia should exist as separate to current economic/political trends as possible-- it's independence is a major strength. the fact it isn't particularly concerned with any sort of status quo or current 'market demand' means that the research and intellectual enquiry is free-thinking and genuinely in the spirit of human curiosity and contemplation.
i know you don't like this, but it isn't going to change.
oh and i've explained to you about 5 times now how even research on books that are 2,000 years old can still be 'contemporary'. just because the papers' ostensible period is old, doesn't mean everything is going to be an unoriginal rehash. reviewing history with modern knowledge and notions can lead to just as much improvement in our understanding of the here and the now as talking about salman rushdie, or whatever. though i don't suppose you've ever actually read anything or had an open enough mind to consider this view. nope. you just read a few PhD titles and conclude "all rubbish". you could read abtruse PhD titles from any department in any discipline and conclude - very superficially - that it's all pie-in-the-sky nonsense.
p.s. move out and stop complaining about what everyone else does with their successful little lives.
i know you don't like this, but it isn't going to change.
oh and i've explained to you about 5 times now how even research on books that are 2,000 years old can still be 'contemporary'. just because the papers' ostensible period is old, doesn't mean everything is going to be an unoriginal rehash. reviewing history with modern knowledge and notions can lead to just as much improvement in our understanding of the here and the now as talking about salman rushdie, or whatever. though i don't suppose you've ever actually read anything or had an open enough mind to consider this view. nope. you just read a few PhD titles and conclude "all rubbish". you could read abtruse PhD titles from any department in any discipline and conclude - very superficially - that it's all pie-in-the-sky nonsense.
p.s. move out and stop complaining about what everyone else does with their successful little lives.
Last edited by aynrandroolz (2012-10-06 05:58:25)
It doesn't seem to be concerned with anything of the remotest use or interest to anyone, except to the participants to justify yet more 'research'.the fact it isn't particularly concerned with any sort of status quo or current 'market demand' means that the research and intellectual enquiry is free-thinking and genuinely in the spirit of human curiosity and contemplation
I must have missed it five times then. I don't in any case see any value in 'doing research' on old books. What is the point? It takes us nowhere. The dead sea scrolls I can see the point, Dickens? Its been done to death already.oh and i've explained to you about 5 times now how even research on books that are 2,000 years old can still be 'contemporary'.
'Should' ? I guess thats why all the funding has been cut, so it can continue as separately as possible.academia should exist as separate to current economic/political trends as possible
Nope, I can read PhD titles from many departments across many subjects and can see they might potentially be of use, lead on to something else or even be of interest to someone outside the field and therefore potentially worth funding.you could read abtruse PhD titles from any department in any discipline and conclude - very superficially - that it's all pie-in-the-sky nonsense.
PhD subjects from the various humanities and specifically literature departments I've posted previously meet none of those criteria. 'Because academia' isn't really an argument.
Convince us otherwise, convince us that academic humanities departments are doing anything of remote use or interest to anyone but themselves, because I just don't see it.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2012-10-06 06:50:16)
Fuck Israel
ya sure let me spend my saturday afternoon typing another 5 posts to you when you have boneheadedly roped out this argument about 20 times in the past. okay dilbert, you've said it all before. barristers and lawyers are duplicitous and mendacious. academics are useless self-perpetuating deadbeats. financiers and traders are immoral and corrupt. publishing and journalism are full of nepotistic 'shirt tugging' toffs with useless degrees and great-uncles in high places. you have dismissed every single traditional 'high profession' with these bogus generalisations. except engineering of course. the new kid on the block, the status anxious profession, wanting to join the gentleman's club and the yacht club whilst simultaneously proclaiming to hate all that. the one truth path, divinely ordained. the highest expression of kismet. right. funny how that works.
also pretty funny how not many 40 year old academics, lawyers, traders, publishers, or journalists would still live at home. engineering and being a science geek that ardently hates the humanities seems to lead to a really sweet and enriched lifestyle. i'll take my tenure and wine clubs, thanks. you can keep your mom's wood-panelled basement and your collection of xena: warrior princess vhs tapes.
also pretty funny how not many 40 year old academics, lawyers, traders, publishers, or journalists would still live at home. engineering and being a science geek that ardently hates the humanities seems to lead to a really sweet and enriched lifestyle. i'll take my tenure and wine clubs, thanks. you can keep your mom's wood-panelled basement and your collection of xena: warrior princess vhs tapes.
Last edited by aynrandroolz (2012-10-06 07:05:15)
This totally reminded me it's Saturday. Now I feel sad
http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/06/world/asi … ?hpt=hp_t2A North Korean soldier on guard duty at the border dividing the two Koreas defected, telling authorities who received him in the South that he killed his superiors before fleeing across the Military Demarcation Line.
South Korean soldiers at their guard posts reported hearing gunfire before he crossed into the South shortly after noon local time, according to a news release from South Korea's Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Soldiers in the South took the defector in on their side of the border and brought him to a safe place for questioning then tightened security in the area.
The North Korean said that "while he was on guard duty, he killed his platoon and squad leaders and defected thereafter," the JCS said.
I sure hope he doesn't have any family still in NK
He doesn't now, at any rate.
so he murders a few people and then expects the South Koreans to welcome him with open arms?
Personally, I'd rather spend most of the money on fundamental science research academia (LHC, etc).
Or grant programs for fundamental medical research that the big pharmaceutical companies don't see a profit margin in.
Either of those is more likely to further our understanding of the world we live in, more than the Nth iteration of a post-grad regurgitating another derivative paper on Camus and the socio-political ramifications of post-colonial French policy, post-post-modern economic theory, and the state of my dog's balls.
In other words; a few good dedicated arts academics is a good thing, a bunch of stoned strap-hanger "poets" writing pointlessly derivative bullshit are useless.
If you're within the first or second standard deviation of intelligence, go get a mundane productive & useful degree, and write poetry or fan-fiction in your spare time (if you must).
Be an English teacher, write for newspapers, write corporate training manuals..
Leave real art to the geniuses and polymaths
Or grant programs for fundamental medical research that the big pharmaceutical companies don't see a profit margin in.
Either of those is more likely to further our understanding of the world we live in, more than the Nth iteration of a post-grad regurgitating another derivative paper on Camus and the socio-political ramifications of post-colonial French policy, post-post-modern economic theory, and the state of my dog's balls.
In other words; a few good dedicated arts academics is a good thing, a bunch of stoned strap-hanger "poets" writing pointlessly derivative bullshit are useless.
If you're within the first or second standard deviation of intelligence, go get a mundane productive & useful degree, and write poetry or fan-fiction in your spare time (if you must).
Be an English teacher, write for newspapers, write corporate training manuals..
Leave real art to the geniuses and polymaths
Well, they weren't real people, they were North Best KoreansKEN-JENNINGS wrote:
so he murders a few people and then expects the South Koreans to welcome him with open arms?
but scientists of all intelligences are creating earth-shattering research? i think you have a very fanciful view of science academia. there are just as many hangers-on in science/math departments as there are across the humanities faculties. the difference is that you somehow view abstruse and esoteric scientific research (very little of which has practical, let alone medical application) as being preferable to low-rate schmuck created by second-rate poets. not to mention that there is nothing saying that knowledge of the empirical-fact variety is a priori more 'valuable' to human life than analytico-philosophical stuff. that's just like, your opinion, man.
also "leave real art to the geniuses and polymaths" has nothing to do with academia. humanities departments don't write poetry or fiction. they are not interested in creating art at all. that's a confusing statement to include. and how are the great academics and artists to arise, if you shut all their schools? the intellectual/creative 'genius' is a myth. not many are born as an oxbridge-don level intellect, or as a picasso. if you want your top-philosophers and intellectuals, you need your philosophy schools and universities. even if the price you pay for that is the rest of the average bell-curve. do you really think any of the political, economic, philophical or artistic thinkers that you (may happen to) admire would exist if it wasn't for the schools that educated and influenced them? no idea is sui generis. the academy creates good minds - or minds with a better, analytical approach to thinking, at least.. perhaps only the top 15% are really any good at it, sure. but isn't it the same as with every single profession? you're not telling me every single engineer is redefining the material world with their practice, are you? averageness and mediocrity is something you will face anywhere. academia - esoteric science and past-digging humanities both - costs very little financially. i see no problem with it. rather a better understanding of camus and post-colonialism than a few more cruise missiles to throw at arabs.
also "leave real art to the geniuses and polymaths" has nothing to do with academia. humanities departments don't write poetry or fiction. they are not interested in creating art at all. that's a confusing statement to include. and how are the great academics and artists to arise, if you shut all their schools? the intellectual/creative 'genius' is a myth. not many are born as an oxbridge-don level intellect, or as a picasso. if you want your top-philosophers and intellectuals, you need your philosophy schools and universities. even if the price you pay for that is the rest of the average bell-curve. do you really think any of the political, economic, philophical or artistic thinkers that you (may happen to) admire would exist if it wasn't for the schools that educated and influenced them? no idea is sui generis. the academy creates good minds - or minds with a better, analytical approach to thinking, at least.. perhaps only the top 15% are really any good at it, sure. but isn't it the same as with every single profession? you're not telling me every single engineer is redefining the material world with their practice, are you? averageness and mediocrity is something you will face anywhere. academia - esoteric science and past-digging humanities both - costs very little financially. i see no problem with it. rather a better understanding of camus and post-colonialism than a few more cruise missiles to throw at arabs.
Last edited by aynrandroolz (2012-10-06 10:47:39)