/lit/ - Literature

"...that *barely more than* a mere fifty years..."

People only go into the humanities to cope with being too dumb for STEM.

Prove me wrong.

>>13280218
Go have a five minute conversation with literally any comsci major.

>>13278794
20% is a significant increment, if it had been 55 years he might get a pass

>>13280218
What's your major?

>>13280792
English Literature

>>13280218
most of STEMcucks are brainlets riddled with autism
t. STEMfag

>>13280249
you're splitting hairs.

what probably happened was he looked at the two numbers and went, "okay, 70, eh, 30, eh whatever, barely more, yeah, that's fine" and then he kept writing because he has a whole fucking book to write and math is gross.

>>13280244
he was mistaken. People go into humanities and TE because they are too dumb for SM. Tech and engineering are just as bad as studying humanities.

Newflash: you can read Ulysses and Nietzsche on the beach during holidays. You will never learn topology or quantum mechanics unless you partake in rigorous study with professors/mentors or at the very least dense textbooks.

>>13283034
Why would I bother learning topology or quantum mechanics when I have very little interest in professions that demand knowledge of those subjects and I don’t enjoy studying science or math as much as I enjoy studying history or philosophy? Should I study STEM anyway?

>>13283081
>professions that demand knowledge
Sorry, I didn't realize we were talking of study through the lens of professionalization and becoming an economic servant. In any case, no job requires topology or (for the most part) quantum mechanics. They are rigorous studies into the very essence of what is. They aren't practical.

>I don’t enjoy studying science or math as much as I enjoy studying history or philosophy?

This was the entire point. We all enjoy history/philosophy more. That's why I said you can read Ulysses and Nietzsche in your own time on the beach or in your den. You will only learn math and science if you are forced into a rigorous, disciplined environment, hence why science and math are what you should study at a university. Join a book club for the lit.

>>13283092
>You will only learn math and science if you are forced into a rigorous, disciplined environment
So that's what I should spend my life doing, right? Doing stuff which is neither pleasurable nor interesting to me, for what?

>>13283099
No one's forcing you. It's just a sign of an incurious mind, to only gravitate toward that which provides novice enjoyment.

A physics student doesn't *like* doing difficult practice problems and reading textbooks. He learns to find, however, that the knowledge gained is powerful and pleasurable.

>>13278776
You're just being pedantic.

>>13283092
>>13283034
Most people in STEM just become office drones and never utilize their 'advanced' knowledge. Most knowledge in science and math is worthless until applied. Not all science majors do physics, retard.

>>13283034
>Newflash: you can read Ulysses and Nietzsche on the beach during holidays. You will never learn topology or quantum mechanics unless you partake in rigorous study with professors/mentors or at the very least dense textbooks.
one of these is authors
the other is a field of study

>>13283126
>Most people in STEM just become office drones and never utilize their 'advanced' knowledge. Most knowledge in science and math is worthless until applied. Not all science majors do physics, retard.
Let me know about the what cool industries are employing you for your Kant or Gravity's Rainbow.

>Most knowledge in science and math is worthless until applied.
You could level this exact same critique on philosophy. Knowledge without application is worthless to the incurious mind.

>Not all science majors do physics, retard.
Whatever, chemistry and biology are also great and rich fields.

>>13283034
>People go into humanities and TE because they are too dumb for SM
People study what they find interesting, are motivated to do and want to have a chance of making a living doing. Many disciplines have overlap, but they often don't overlap enough to warrant majoring in them. Life is too fleeting for the mythos you are attributing to the study of these subjects when the reality is that it's just gay dry models of phenomena and abstract waxing.

>>13283034
lol its not that hard to understand quantum mechanics either, the hard part is coming up with solutions and new theories for it, exactly the same as philosophy.

>>13280244
Depends on the program and university.

>>13283135
>Kant or Gravity's Rainbow
I haven't read Gravity's Rainbow, but I must tell you, most of what I read I can apply to improve my life. Science only tells you the way things work. In the modern world I don't see how you can apply those for the better. Knowledge is power because it has applications. That's why Lebensphilosophie is far better than Science for your life.
What the other anon said about STEMcucks being drones is so fucking true. It's like they lack a soul, and they only follow commands. It's plain sad.
t. STEMfag

>>13283152
lol its not that hard to understand quantum mechanics either, the hard part is coming up with solutions and new theories for it, exactly the same as philosophy.
Then we're in agreement. Most quantum mechanics is little more than basic linear algebra and probability. In fact it only takes basic undergraduate courses these days to learn entire fields of study that illuminate some of the deepest aspects of existence and the universe. Even more reason why you should.

>>13283135
You're the one who brought up being an 'economic' unit, faggot.

>>13283167
>Science only tells you the way things work. In the modern world I don't see how you can apply those for the better. Knowledge is power because it has applications.
So knowing the way things work does not have applications... what a curious conclusion you've drawn.

>That's why Lebensphilosophie is far better than Science for your life.
Why one over the other? Why this cancerous idea that one may only travel down one path? Was Goethe just a poet, or was he also a scientist?

>>13283135
>cool industries
Most people do not do 'cool' work even with their STEMcuck degree.

>>13283194
>Most people do not do 'cool' work even with their STEMcuck degree.
This is the whole point; ironic that reading comprehension is not your strength. I never said study math for your career, and in fact said:

>In any case, no job requires topology or (for the most part) quantum mechanics. They are rigorous studies into the very essence of what is. They aren't practical.

If you have an incurious mind, that's fine, but it's amusing to be proud of rash ignorance. It is such a cancerous idea of contemporary culture that art, science, philosophy, math, biology, history etc are treated as walled off fields with boundaries few attempt to cross.

>>13283192
I've spent 5000 hours learning how humans work and how to interact with humans. It has been rather helpful for my overall life and relationships.

From my POV putting that 5000 hours into something else would've been far less useful.

>>13283206
Are you retarded?
>Let me know about the what cool industries are employing you for your Kant or Gravity's Rainbow.
Nice cherry picking, you idiot.

>>13283206
>If you have an incurious mind, that's fine...

>>13283222
>I've spent 5000 hours learning how humans work and how to interact with humans. It has been rather helpful for my overall life and relationships.
>From my POV putting that 5000 hours into something else would've been far less useful.
Perhaps. You might have enjoyed physiology and biochemistry as complementary knowledge.

In any case, being good at interacting with humans isn't very indicative of /lit/ as a board, however, and certainly not some feature inherent in only studying certain narrow humanities disciplines.

>>13283246

>>13283243
>Nice cherry picking, you idiot.
What am I cherry-picking? My point is that you don't have to read good literature because you get a cool job, and you don't study physics to get cool jobs that utilize their knowledge either. It's not an insult to Kant or GR or topology that our atomized office economy doesn't care about any of it.

>>13283255
Nice cope. You truly are an enlightened sage.

>>13283255
If I were to go into STEM, while I could still read in my free time, I would never be able read as much/gain as much from books as I would if I read them all the time and while it might be alright for you have literature as nothing but a leisure-activity, I for one wouldn't want to trade that in for what I would gain by going into STEM. (which btw is essentially nothing but a highly complex trade and knowledge in maters which I could just as well aquire by reading.)

>>13283281
>I would never be able read as much/gain as much from books as I would if I read them all the time and while it might be alright for you have literature as nothing but a leisure-activity
This only makes sense if you think you'll read lit only in college. Replace "STEM" with "job" or "kids" and you can just call this the rest of life. In reality, you will never choose just literature unless you have a trust fund, and more to the point whether you read at 8PM or 1PM in the day, a page is a page. Life is long and learning doesn't stop at age 22. But if you don't learn the foundations of mathematics in your formative years you will almost certainly *never* learn it.