/lit/ - Literature

because scientism asserts truth in the absence of truth yet still maintains it is not a religion. it's rife with insecurities.

Because they know they're useless, boring, lazy, aimless faggots who ain't never gonna get a career rolling as well so they need something to keep their head up.

Because those majors attract autists and aspies. And it's easy to impress some people because you pretend to be contributing to society even if you only administer botox or steal investor money.

The more important question is why you even give two fucks

>mfw Finance is superior to both engineering and humanities

humanities major here.

in no other educational field would you find such a concentration of vapid fuckwits regurgitating half-assed ideas with such volume and conviction.

most engineers etc that I know have an active interest in humanities related subject matter in one way or another and they are usually more adept in interacting with their interests

>>2487750
>mfw you're capitalist scum

Where is this happening, exactly? I'm a scientist, and I've dated humanities majors. I had a serious crush on a girl in German cultural studies for awhile too. Is there some interdepartmental Hatfield-Mccoy thing going on that i don't know about?

people seem to care a lot about this stuff.

>>2487750
I really hope that when you're on your deathbed you don't realize "oh shit, I didn't actually do anything with my life". I really hope you die clueless to what you could have actually done. That would be the saddest thing. being a bourgeoisie finance capitalist, but then only realize its parasitical meaninglessness when you're so near death.

>>2487794

As both a counselor of troubled youth and a researcher into human motivational behavior and its evolution, I'm going to float a hypothesis here.

I think we're looking at people practicing beta competitive strategies in a safe environment. It's an intellectual version of arm wrestling and rooting for the team.

At worst it might be bullying or griefing, at best it's a useful way to flex their muscles, work out their mental tensions and get some exercise and practice for real contests.

For the most part the ploys are obvious, so it shouldn't waste anybody's time that doesn't have the time to waste, and I think it's probably healthy.

The earmarks of identifying dichotomous groups, defining them in extreme terms and choosing sides seems to support my position. Any thoughts?

the problem with the humanities is that they take themselves too seriously, they envy the sciences and try to mimic their approach

so now we have all these random fields making "theories"
their theories aren't theories, they are the beginnings of a hypothesis, a "what-if"...a "maybe"

we have modernism, new modernism, and post-modern theory
New Historicism, post historicism
structuralism and post-structuralism
Formalism and post-formalism etc etc

every humanities prof I asked has different definitions and interpretations of these "theories" how they apply and how they came about...

can they make predictions? no
can they analyze a text objectively in some coherent way? no...
were they derived in some logical or empirical manner? no...

I guess the Phds have to write about something and since there isn't much to say about the humanities they just make shit up and argue with each other

who actually cares about Phd level papers in Literature? lol...not even their fellow phds

>>2487808
Sounds about right.

>>2487817

I think humanities may be limiting themselves by adopting the scientific model of explaining and predicting. I think they might be better served by a model of detective work/journalism/archaeology.

Just tell things like they are. Use science as a tool to verify and fact check, but otherwise just observe and report: suggest if it seems appropriate. That's certainly good enough. The literary journals I read are the ones that report, catalog and examine. much more useful than the ones pushing some theory or paradigm.

>>2487817
Theories in literature are not the same, nor are they intended to be the same, as theories as they are known in the sciences.

They are about critical approaches and frames through which one might interpret texts which are inherently subjective and polysemic.

An objective scientific theory could not work in a literary context because it is looking at something intrinsically subjective.

Just because the word is the same does not mean that the humanities are mimicking the scientific method.

>>2487808

Why do you think it is probably healthy?

>>2487830
Are you implying every humanity field ever is an attempt at explaining stuff based on vague and/or multiple word meanings?

>>2487836
I'm saying that humanity subjects are concerned with the subjective, and therefore objective approaches like scientific theories cannot be applied to them.

>>2487830

>They are about critical approaches and frames through which one might interpret texts

That's one reason they are so boring

Instead of the reader being the window he's filtering his perception of the book through some crooked ill-defined filter.

What a shame.

>>2487855
Could you put that in simpler terms ?

You can get paid real money to misinterpret literature to find the hidden maleocentric subtext, and do so for your entire career to no real effect on the world, but remember it's the financiers who are truly wasting their time.

>>2487855
There's nothing stopping the reader from being the 'window'. You can choose to use or not use any number of 'theories' when interpreting a text. They all simply offer alternative perspectives and interesting ways of looking at them.

>>2487831

People need to practice these things in safe environments where their mistakes and awkwardneses won't embarrass them and cause social dread and stigmatization.

They can hone their arguments and also learn if they are in the wrong. And they can do it in such a way that the only other participants are the ones who want to contest with them.
Also, the guy who resists your arguments the most on here may secretly come to agree with you and use them as his own tomorrow.
Weirdly, there seem to be a lot of people on here with warped ideas about race, sex culture and politics, and this may be the only place they encounter people of the other races, political adherence, cultures and (sadly) sexes.
At best they learn the perspective of the other side, at worst they learn that the other side is a worthy opponent and therefore a competitor with them and not an adversary (the beta male lesson).
At the very wort you get trolls trolling trolls trolling trolls,,,,,

>>2487808
it is a sciduck pretending to be a boohooing literature major. your troll spotting skill is lacking

>>2487866
>There's nothing stopping the reader from being the 'window'.

The humanities departments are stopping him; their expectations are stopping him.

>>2487870
No they're not. Humanities departments all encourage multiple readings and interpretations. In fact one of the main expectations are to create a sense of debate, by which I mean you might say something along the lines of (but obviously more developed) 'Looking at this text from a X perspective, one might take a reading that Y. However, it could also be argued that Z implies A.'

>>2487879
*expectations is to
I meant to say.

>>2487871

but that just lends credence to what I said.

Though I do hate to just assume trolling without giving it a few posts. Unless I'm on /b/ of course....

All of them are doing it for money, for their family, and not because of happiness. Although their degrees will get them shit loads of money, most of them will have awful lives because they aren't pursuing what they want to.
>>2487735
I assume you're talking about Literature/English/Philosophy majors.

>>2487786
(not that guy)
>Capitalist Scum
>Better than a lazy socialist pig

on a conscious or unconscious level they find themselves terrified by the coldness and sterility of western empiricism/"rationality" and take refuge in mockery

science is harry harlow's wire monkey; there is no comfort to be found there

>Why do people need to validate themselves by attacking other people?

Everyone attacks anyone different from themselves in any way, because people are shit.

>>2487897

"Science reassures us that we are not surrounded by vast, powerful cosmic forces which drive and use us for their own incomprehensible ends. Instead we are surrounded by vast, powerful cosmic forces to whom our existence, if even noted, is a matter of complete indifference."

We trade Satan for Cthulhu, in other words.

>>2487887
>make bullshit claim
>don't give evidence

Can you even into science? Sure, a lot of people go into science/engineering for the money and such, but there is a big drop out rate in these courses, especially in first year, because retards in it for the money don't realise they don't like it. So if you end up majoring in a science/engineering course, best bets are you like. It's usually not something you stick if you don't like, nor do well in.

http://fie-conference.org/fie2005/papers/1493.pdf

>>2487923

are you German? You write like one of my German students. Second guess Punjabi.

>>2487926
I'm Irish.

>>2487904
People act like shit on 4chan. if you go out sometime you will find a lot of them are quite nice

>>2487933

Happy Saint Patrick's Day then. I'm Jordanian but not muslim, christain or jewish so it's sort of like being a buddhist in Belfast I guess.

>>2487923
This.

>>2487934
>people are quite nice in public

Out of fear, of course.

>>2487938
Or a non-Catholic in any part of Ireland. I'd imagine your situation to be just a bit worse tbf.

>>2487945
I hope you are trolling and are really not that hopelessly cynical

>>2487952
I hope you are young and not really that hopelessly naive.

>mfw retards posting this pic on every board

>>2487905

I agree and disagree with this notion. While, It is true that nature and unknown cosmic forces that we try to unravel into the known are all impersonal to our mundane and trifle existence, we try ever so hard to make it personal to us.

Has modern science truly freed nature and the "cosmic forces" of the unknown from the partiality of men?

Are the "cosmic forces" that we organize under the semiotic designs of reason and logic truly impersonal in terms of our materialist lives?

I don't think so.

The very movement of Progress fostered and celebrated by the Enlightenment constricts the very thing that it wanted to free from partiality. Reason, logic, nature, and the unknown are bound to the material needs and desires of man.

The Kantian mantra of "things in itself" become "things for him" as we are bound to the material plane of existence. Therefore, we ultimately perceive the world us in terms of its utility. Science, reason, logic! No matter how much we try to cleave these conceptions from the body in the manner of an Cartesian split, it'll always be used in terms of the material world; that of which our material necessities are bound to.

Reason takes on the anthropomorphic form as "natural law" and is personalized to serve our needs. The ancient ethos of myth still resonates in the modern conception of reason and logic.

Therefore, reason becomes a tool for us to dominate the unknown into the known and personalizes nature to suit our needs.

>>2487997

I'm not sure how one personalizes a natural law. Unless you mean naming it after yourself (einstein's equation, newtons third law, plancks constant, etc.)
And I'm not sure that the partiality of men has anything to do with it, except very locally and very
recently.
also do you mean materialistic in terms of "made from and bound by materials" or valuing materials in some way above non-material things?

All it's really saying is that the universe is indifferent to men's goals and ideals.

it's just pretty bad thinking to go from "scientific theories of a particular age are contingent on these and these factors that may not obtain if you change the scientists" to "science is a myth"

the anthromorphizing comes in not from the science, but the describer of science in this way.

>>2488004
Materialist in terms of valuing the material over the immaterial.

And yes, I completely agree with you. The universe is completely impersonal to man. But man tries to make it personal to him. At first he tried to do it through myth and religion. Now he does it through science.

>>2488008

Oh no, you misunderstand me. What I'm saying is that science, reason, and logic; all retain a hidden germ of the ancient ethos that is repudiated in modern times. Are science, logic, and reason; myth? No, but they do retain the qualities that they repudiate.

We attempt to understand the world but for who? For man! For us!

And why do we try to understand the world? Because it is unknown.

But why? Because we fear the unknown.

But why? The unknown keeps us on a sporadic trajectory where nothing is certain.
Ex- It hasn't rained in several days. We don't know when it will rain again. Our crops will die if it doesn't rain soon.

Thus, we attempt to make the unknown into the known. On this primal level, I argue that science, reason, and logic can never be impersonal. It will always be personal in terms to that we attempt to make the unknown into the known for US!

This thread is so full of butthurt.
>Implying different bodies of knowledge are incompatible
>Implying I can't have lodsemoney and still read/think about philosophy and shit
Besides, most say so as if they were ascetics themselves.

>Implying we don't actually get shit done

>>2488033

Wow. Did you just read this story from this post?

>>2487987

seems to have a lot of similar themes.

>>2488046

Actually no, but seems interesting.

because science is hard and boring
humanities students are out partying while we are stuck studying in the library or in the lab
there's also a greater density of idiots in the humanities departments

>>2488056

We love the lab, and we love the library, and we get up to way more there than they do in the bars. Science buildings are open all night, like Art buildings, remember and combining what you love in science with recreation is second nature to us.

Anybody who thinks science is hard and boring, or envies humanities students for their leisure time, is not a science major.

http://100rsns.blogspot.com/p/complete-list-to-date.html

100 Reasons NOT to Go to Graduate School

This blog is an attempt to offer those considering graduate school some good reasons to do something else. Its focus is on the humanities and social sciences. The full list of 100 reasons will be posted in time. Your comments and suggestions are welcome.


READ THESE AND WEEP.

>>2488073
>9. It is very, very hard.
Do people like these really exist?

>>2487786
Oh zizek, you make everything that much better, incluing reaction images.

>>2488073

On the other hand, if you are in my field, at my university:
"You will be given access and control to information and equipment that the giants of your field would have wept to be able to have for even a day.
You will learn to create, edit and alter the very fabric of heredity and life itself in the interest of feeding all mankind.

You will be surrounded by others who care as much about your goals as you do yourself.
and you will be paid and encouraged to do the experiments of your own design, and given credit and control of your work while being trained to be one of the best in your field anywhere, better even than those who graduated from the same program ten years before."

>>2488073

Reason to go to graduate school:

If you get a scholarship, it's free to do something you enjoy before heading into a dull life of marriage and mundane work that leads to no fulfilment and only a desire for weekends and occasional holidays.

The 'real world' is pretty shit. I'd rather stay in a real world that is stressful but exciting and interesting.

>>2488115

In what fantasy world do you like in where marriage is guaranteed?

Because sage

For the same reason you speak about them. But you are butthurt about it for some reason.

Vas Victis

>>2488120

I don't understand why heterosexuals can't get married, have sex or in some instances kiss. You have so many options, even if you're the ugliest person possible.

It's just unfathomable to me.

>>2488147
Don't understand this myself. I'm not insanely good looking, but girls have never run from my approach, and I can always get a date, and am never long between girlfriends.

THEY DON'T FEEL THE NEED TO VALIDATE THEMSELVES, IT'S PROBABLY STUDENTS YOU'RE REFERRING TO

BUT YES, HUMANITIES IS A WASTE OF TIME AND RESOURCES. SO, SAGE

STEM majors are just as likely to be interested in music, literature and philosophy.

STEM majors probably chose their major because they want to have some certainty about their lives after school, or they just plain enjoy science! How is that unreasonable? Especially in the current economic climate.

They're not attacking humanities majors to validate themselves. They are probably not in any way concerned about their major. They are training for a job or academia. Maybe they don't feel so personally about something they study.

I think it's more about humanities students being insecure. STEM students don't give many fucks.

You don't need to drop tens of thousands of dollars and four years on an education you can get at a library.

They're more likely to wonder what humanities students were expecting rather than attack them.

I could go on and on but once you've graduated you'll understand.

Also, don't listen to STEM students. Do what you love. If that's literature or philosophy or whatever, go for it. Go at it 100%. Just realise the choice you're making. When you're making less money than the guys who did linear algebra and differential equations 30 - 40 hours a week for 4 years while you wrote lit essays... don't cry foul.

>>2489675

the "you can learn anything at the library" talking point is so goddamn hilariously stupid enjoy being laughed out of any conversation with anyone in the humanities ever and rightly so

you're right, though, if money is the prime motivator in your life by all means pick a stem major

if the thought of being buried under a tombstone reading "rip, he made a lot of money" makes you uncomfortable, study something interesting instead

>>2489675
>I'm not being defensive, YOU'RE being defensive!

Never once have I seen a lib arts major "asking" to be ridiculed or insulted for their choice of education. Every time, the source is some insecure STEM fielder who has nothing to validate their existence with besides their paycheck.

Are all STEM fielders like this? No.
Are all STEM fielders on 4chan like this? Probably.

>>2489682

Why do people think that a career in science makes one ignorant of the humanities?
I read stuff.
and I've been published in literary magazines and won state and regional poetry prizes. And most of the scientists i work with read, though most of the English majors i know suck at math and science, and we all have to politely ignore them when they talk about climate change and toxins in food or some other media-oversimplified idea.
They're mostly nice enough guys though;we don't hate on them. That's for the damn Anthropologists!

I think if you like literature and are a humanities type of guy and yet still want good employment prospects, you should really consider majoring in foreign languages.

>>2489688
Anecdotes are not data. You obviously haven't read enough rhetoric, and God help the next research study you're commissioned for

>>2489684
>>2489682

> the "you can learn anything at the library" talking point is so goddamn hilariously stupid enjoy being laughed out of any conversation with anyone in the humanities ever and rightly so

I did philosophy as an undergrad in a top 5 worldwide school. It was tough, but nothing I couldn't have taught myself.

I did my masters in CS. I enjoy it just as much as philosophy, but it's a different kind of enjoyment.

I'm not trying to get into an argument, I'm just saying- you make your choices.

> nothing to validate their existence with besides their paycheck.

Both your inabilities to conceive that STEM majors might enjoy their study is telling.

>>2489696

>this thing I spent four years in school for? Pfft, yeah I totally could have taught it to myself, no problem.

Sure thing, champ.

>>2489696
>my story is possible, therefore it is representative of others

just get out already

>>2489688

sorry sport you can't say that you can learn everything that humanities studnets learn from a library and not be ignorant

I half want to bring this thread to /sci/; oh, the impending butthurt.

>>2489725
Anticipation is half the pleasure

>>2489694
This is not a study. It's a comment on an image board. Notice how I didn't cite anything? That's a clue.

>>2489708


When did I say that?

I'm a better writer than any of my humanities friends and they'd acknowledge that themselves. And I'm a lot more widely, and deeply, read, because it sort of goes with the territory. And I have thirty books for every one of theirs; benefits of an educational system that required the classics and a lot of the humanities for all fields of study, which probably hasn't existed since the seventies anywhere.

>>2489735
>>2489735

you're just a special genius snowflake

>>2489749

You don't know how right you are.

>>2487720
because you are smashing our country into the ground

>>2489755

You must be a member of the suppressed, intellectual, elite that Ayn Rand advocated.

Gag me.

>>2489764


Fuck Ayn Rand.
Though Atlas Shrugged shows what a really dedicated psychopath can do in the fantasy genre.

And i am a celebrated and admired intellectual, and I'd be happy to gag you.

ENJOY YOUR USELESS DEGREE
ENJOY YOUR USELESS DEGREE
ENJOY YOUR USELESS DEGREE
ENJOY YOUR USELESS DEGREE
ENJOY YOUR USELESS DEGREE
ENJOY YOUR USELESS DEGREE
ENJOY YOUR USELESS DEGREE
ENJOY YOUR USELESS DEGREE
ENJOY YOUR USELESS DEGREE
ENJOY YOUR USELESS DEGREE
ENJOY YOUR USELESS DEGREE
ENJOY YOUR USELESS DEGREE
ENJOY YOUR USELESS DEGREE
ENJOY YOUR USELESS DEGREE
ENJOY YOUR USELESS DEGREE
ENJOY YOUR USELESS DEGREE
ENJOY YOUR USELESS DEGREE
ENJOY YOUR USELESS DEGREE
ENJOY YOUR USELESS DEGREE
ENJOY YOUR USELESS DEGREE
ENJOY YOUR USELESS DEGREE
ENJOY YOUR USELESS DEGREE
ENJOY YOUR USELESS DEGREE
ENJOY YOUR USELESS DEGREE
ENJOY YOUR USELESS DEGREE
ENJOY YOUR USELESS DEGREE
ENJOY YOUR USELESS DEGREE
ENJOY YOUR USELESS DEGREE
ENJOY YOUR USELESS DEGREE
ENJOY YOUR USELESS DEGREE
ENJOY YOUR USELESS DEGREE
ENJOY YOUR USELESS DEGREE

>>2489791

Utility is a worthless metric now that humanity is better off not existing and God is dead.

Enjoy your delusions of purpose.

>>2489800

did you mean to say "humanity" or "the humanities"? I'm trying to figure out which fake side you're on. And god dies all the time; he practically has a trademark on it.

>>2489812

Humanity. The human race.

Are you saying God is coming back? That we'll return to the 1600s and all be God fearing Christians again?

>>2489814

I think god dies every three seconds, then takes three days to rise again. How does he do it? Sacred Mystery. Put your nickel in the plate and pass it on...

I don't think anyone (at least anyone worth listening to) is disputing that some people genuinely enjoy science -I used to be into electricity as a hobby but I've fallen out of it- but unfortunately there's a fuck-ton of people just in it for the money, and that's a frightening concept because then I imagine the next generation of, say, doctors as mostly incompetent. There's always genuinely talented people, yes, but I'm worried that, just as the internet's given us a whole hell of a lot of data but little information, the current financial crisis and the entailing career-choice anxiety might give us a whole hell of a lot of STEM majors.

>>2487791
>Hatfield-McCoy

I think a Scully-Mulder or even Steed-Peel coupling would have been more timely.

Tee-hee, /sci/ and /lit/'s going to the ball together durr

>>2489682
I kind of want a tombstone as succinct as that. I don't even want dates or a name.

>>2489814
the 20th century explosion of evangelical christianity has already nearly revived the beast

>>2489831
Whoops, I meant to say "a whole hell of a lot of sub-par STEM majors."

>>2489814
The modern God is Empiricism.

>>2489838
Atheism and liberalism*

>>2489832

No it hasn't.

>>2489854
Yes it has. Galileo had the Catholics, we have the evangelicals. What has changed?

This whole argument comes out of the marketisation of education and the idea that there is no inherent value in learning unless it is a means to and end.

Fuck that.

If you feel like you have to justify the reason for your existence by the tasks you carry out during it then that's up to you. I teach literature, it gives me endless joy, but the greatest pleasure I have is in the consumption of art and the profundity of feeling it gives me. My epicurean approach to life means that I am always valuing the small pleasures of being alive, and if this offends you, then perhaps you need to take a closer look at what you truly value, and why you feel the need to attack others to maintain a sense of superiority. The two engineers and three doctors that I count amongst my friends would never do this, because they find value both in what they do, and in an appreciation of the pleasure and pain that art makes us experience.

>>2489862
Galileo was a personal friend of 2 popes, what are you talking about?

>>2489862

Well, the entire power structure, for one thing.

>>2489880

This is what bothers me about contemporary culture. Either you're grubbing after money in order to grub after pleasure, or you're just grubbing after pleasure directly.

We've been entirely reduced to hedonism. We're like pigs rolling in our own filth.

>>2489897
And even that didn't save him.

>>2489904
Bah, the power lies in the sheep not the shepherd, should they be moved to stampede away he is left with nothing.

>>2489909
What is there besides gedonism, really? Pleasure is all you go for, whether you find pleasure in learning, getting shitfaced, fucking shitfaced girls or living a nice family life.

>>2489880
sure is pretentious nonsense

>>2489909
What's wrong with doing things that make you happy as your career or with the money you earn from said career? Isn't that the point?

>>2489919

I just find it disgusting that we're just pleasure seeking animals.

I didn't like to think I was a pig.

>>2489909

I'm not sure if you're accusing me of hedonism there, but I clearly wrote that I have an epicurean approach to life.

Also, hedonism is so much better than salacious moralising.

>>2489921

You say tomato, etc.

Call it what you want. You're disgusting.

>>2489923

>>2489927

Oh no! A reaction face! I am slain!

>>2489920
Every animal has to be seeking something, otherwise it's no different than lying down and dying. What people seek can be knowledge, serving others through charity work or just getting by at a paycheck-to-paycheck wage. Whatever they're satisfied with. If we weren't seeking anything we would have died out as a species probably. Maybe it's comparable to a pig sniffing through the dirt for a few truffles but the other option is more sad, I think.

>>2489942

I disagree. I'd rather there be nothing than this rotting mess of an existence.

Why do you think struggling through our own filth looking for yummy edibles in the shit is a worthwhile existence?

>>2489920

Buddy, the pigs ain't crazy about the comparison either.

>>2489943
I dunno, because it's interesting? Maybe I'm pretty unaffected by your argument because I'm eating some cookies right now and they're really good. If I was nothing, could I eat this cookie? Hm, probably not! Enough reason to prefer existence for me, personally.

>>2489949

And that's why I find you disgusting. You care for nothing but your own pleasure.

>>2489947
They looked from pig to man and man to pig and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.

>>2489951
I'm not really against him or against you, but what other alternatives are there?

>>2489951
The pleasure eating cookies gives me is a secondary concern. I definitely have a more primary intellectual interest in trying ALL the kinds at the grocery store, it's what keeps me going, man.

>>2489962

None except oblivion.

Electrical Engineering here. Not in it for the cash.

Look, I love you guys. I read your books, I enjoy talking to you guys about culture, politics, and philosophy.
I always thought it was a friendly ribbing kind of thing. Like, the brass section in band would rag on those wood-sucking reed instrument players, and we'd both rib on the rhythm section (learn to notes guys). Heck, even within the engineering field we do this; we would joke around that if EE's made something, it would be a bundle of circuits and duct tape, while a mech-e would have a giant pile of gears to do the same job. It wasn't till later that I realized some humanities majors would get actually offended when I joked the same way with them. I guess some people had meant it to hurt in the past?

I will say this though, and maybe this is where it stems from for some people.
The humanities classes I took, were literally less effort for me than my EE classes to get the same grade. They took less time and less work.
Also they were graded subjectively, and it was easier to get away with bullshitting. Not that there is a way to objectively grade and essay well (what are you gonna do, 5 points for each metaphor?), but that does call back to High School English/history/whatnot where you were asked to write your feelings about something, and you got an A if you managed to do it with proper grammar and spelling.

I can't speak for all of the science nerds, but I personally don't do it to actually make anyone feel bad. I respect that we do different things in different ways but both contribute to better our culture.
Except for English majors, cause there's no jobs for you guys. I mean, everyone already speaks English why do you need a degree in that? Go write a book already geeze.

>>2489951
>>2489943
>>2489923
>>2489920

This is a very psychologically interesting insight. First, he dehumanises though who disagree with him. Then he insults them. The idea of others' pleasure disgusts him. Also, he demonstrates coprohilic tendencies.

Godwin's Law?

>>2490004

Everything I say about others I also say for myself. I'm as disgusting as the rest of you. That's why I find existence so repulsive.

>>2490012
You're almost begging for the obvious question, then.

>>2490017

Why not suicide?

I'm afraid.

>>2487720

They have a very narrow view of the world. Think about science and mathematics for a moment. There are clearly defined rules and regulations. X works, Y does not. This is the question, this is the answer. There's virtually no room for free thought. That isn't to say that they can't "think outside the box" but their box is still within a larger box.

When they see subjects in the humanities, they laugh them off as useless because they simply can't appreciate them. How can someone who operates in the world of clearly defined rules appreciate the humanities? It's beyond their ability to even imagine.

>>2490001
Awww schucks, take the money. What wisdom de profundis!

>>2490044
>>There are clearly defined rules and regulations. X works, Y does not.

X = STEM
Y = Humanities

Get it? Cause you guys can't get jobs. Man, I am hilarious.

>>2490066

If I give you 1/10, will you stop shitting up the thread with stupidity?

>>2490082
Aww, but I just got here. Well, I guess it's more than I started with.

>>2490090

Actually, it's pretty much all you've got.

>>2490001
I live in south america so I'm not related to what "major" means, but i'd like to express my experience.

I finished highschool last year and the "orientation" (something like the specialization) i followed was "derecho", wich is oriented to prepare you to go to law school or to the university to get a literature degree, anthropology, philosohophy, etc.

But right when I was finishing highschool I realized
what this anon was saying.
The classes were graded subjectively and it took me no effort at all to pass the tests with great grades. And sometimes you'll have a professor that will like an author a lot and the next year another professor that will say that that author sucks and base his/her classes on what he/she likes. It's nonsense.

Fortunately, if you have finished highschool you have the chance to study another orientation in one year and next year I'm going to start studying to become a technological electrical engineer.

>>2490118
Well, that and a job, cause I'm not a /lit major ooooooh.

. . . ok you're right. I'll stop. Sorry.

Because your major is hedonistic and attracts self absorbed fuckwits who present nothing to society and have no actual useful skills on graduation except for stuff suited for low to middle management of morrisons stores.

>>2490163

Prove that you're not a hedonist.

>>2487753
I agree with this and I'm also a humanities major.

>>2487720
>not majoring in both a liberal art and a hard science
plebs these days, you make me sick.

>>2490166
no because i am in all aspects of my life cept for education

>>2490121
I'm from South America too, but I "major" in History. Seriously? I understand the author thing, but usually we read lots and lots of authors and most classes aren't subjective - Either you know what the fuck happened about the Church and private life and the concept of glory in the Renaissance or you don't, either you understand what the fuck Malikowski meant (Not too hard to do actually) or you don't.

Of course things like Foucault always appear, but that's not a majority.

Anyway, I can see where everyone is getting from. I can't see any short-term use for History or Anthropology or etc, it takes a really long time and a great amount of willpower and activity to change something in society (Writing books basically saying Ricoeur should have sex more times doesn't count). It's much easier to see results in engineering or maths or shit, but I'm gonna be a teacher and I hope I can teach something to those pesty kids. Anyway, I'm gonna try civil engineering later, or astronomy. Shit will be fun.

Math major and lit-fiend over here.
I don't feel that need. Although, sometimes my history & English major friends kinda ask for a good whip. (history: they think they are intellectually superior & I speak better English than the bunch of morons who pretend they're learning English -I live in France btw - )

Get over it, little did you know that among "scientists" the same joke goes on. ( biology is being laughed at by chemistry being laughed at by physics being laughed at by maths )
THEN, among mathematicians you'll think it'll stop?
Nope, logicians make fun of blalabla but linear algebra is better than blabla because blablabla....
Wherever you are in the predator's chain, get over it; it's like children making fun of one another, that's what they do.

>>2490235

What profession would be the end of the chain?

>>2490239
Philosophy, then everyone makes fun of the philosopher.

>>2490235

>>2490235
>Get over it, little did you know that among "scientists" the same joke goes on. ( biology is being laughed at by chemistry being laughed at by physics being laughed at by maths )
>it's like children making fun of one another, that's what they do.

Yes, it's exactly like that. In fact, it's not just "like" that, it is that. It's childish and it should be derided as such. People should grow up really stop this pathetic "my dad can beat up your dad" hierarchy game past the age of 18.

Also cut it with that little do you know crap. A bunch of college freshmen and sophomores taking chemistry courses and posting on /sci/ is not some secret group with ways unknown to others.

>>2490239
The question is exquisite because the answer is: none
Knowledge is hardly something you divide into "subjects" in order to not lose yourself. Up until late in history, philosophers were also mathematicians or physicians etc...

In my Uni, the most powerful antagonism is math vs philosophy.
Funny thing is, Logic is equally shared by the two domains. I've got "friends" that make fun of me when I tell them I read Descartes but don't laugh when they use the cartesian coordonate system.

Even in firms they have finance staff vs tech staff and everybody's making fun of the janitors. That would make them laugh less if janitors don't clean toilets for a week...

>>2490271
I remember reader about a scientists, I think it might have been Ewald, but don't hold me to that. He was going to school for a PhD in the early 20th century, and it was a requirement of all doctoral students to do a philosophy minor. Even into the 20th century philosophy was considered a necessary part of a scientists education.

>>2490044

>accuse people of having a narrow view of the world
>generalize a huge amount of people as dumbfucks who don't understand art

>>2490066

>>2490044
god your post is retarded. chemistry major and i love literature, histroy and art. Most of my classmates are relatively the same, we just love knowledge. While all the lit students i met know barely anything of science and care little how the world works