/lit/ - Literature

>eng lit

I giggled. Majoring in electrical engineering minoring in classics

I wasn't permitted to do a double major or major/minor with my degree because it wasn't possible for me to get all credits for both in 4 years. So now I am flying solo on the path to patricianhood

>>6585718
What uni do you go to that has a minor in classics? What kind of classes are there?

>>6585713
engineering is a bait degree unless you have done multiple internships or plan to go to graduate school

who /independent neet scholar like the greeks/ here?

>>6585713
>yet you'll take fun classes in college too.

whatcha trying to imply here opie? Math classes were the most fun ones in undergrad, which is why that was my major. I read books for fun in my free time, but I don't need to take a class on them.

>>6585713
Doubling on classics and either mathematics or languages is master race.

Major in CS
Minor in Math

If I stayed another semester I could have gotten a degree in History

>>6586127

classics + mathematics double major is GOAT

>source: I'm a mod lang student :S

I was Eng major / math minor, do I get to come to the party

Honours philosophy/math minor

ayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy lmao

>>6586017
>I don't need to take a class on them

Depends on the book. You'll almost certainly need a class for philosophy books.

>>6587060
>fucking implying

Most STEM degrees are too demanding to get a totally unrelated minor (i.e chemistry and eng lit)

>>6587064
What?

You think you be able to understand a book on the philosophy of logic without help from intructors? You might, but that will be very difficult. I bet you're one of those STEM grads who think they know everything there is to know about the humanities but look like complete twats when they knowledge is put to test on actual discussions with people who know the stuff.

Getting your mind blown by a gun is really something everyone should experience. The feeling of having your brain all over the floor is just pure beauty. OP... You should try it as soon as possible and then tell us something useful. Something we can really appreciate. I'm not done yet. You get up and you go home. If you're still alive and aware you could try eating out of your skull. Just take the nearest spoon and take a big chunk of whatever you have inside. This step of the process might be hard since there is probably nothing inside. I mean... There was probably nothing there to begin with. I'm done now. Taking a dump on this thread was a great experience. You're welcome.

i need to decide a major
what do you English majors do?

>>6585780
Not him, but my school offera a minor in classics, and it involves just two mandatory classes, then like 18 additional credit hours from any Greek, Latin, or classics class

>>6587085
No, I'm a third year Physics undergrad who likes to read mostly Russian literature (translated) and existentialist works. It takes time to understand, but if you put in the mental effort you can learn it on your own. Same goes for STEM courses, but I enjoy philosophy and literature more, so I have internal drive to learn it

Physics major
I am glad that the humanities exists as academic welfare for the less gifted

Physics and Philosophy double major
I promise we're not all unread scum like >>6587326

Why are you guys so mean?

>>6587290
This has to be bait.
Go back to >>>/sci/

>>6587332
lol we had one them in my cohort, C student. He will be filter out after graduation like the pleb he is

>STEM degree for the well paying slave work
>Humanities minor for the shit that really matters
Shit's cash

>>6587366
OP here, that's what I'm talkin bout

Gunna be a freshman in college next year.....I'm really torn between majoring in english or biology.

I've thought about double majoring, but I have no idea how hard it is or if it's even possible to do with the premed track... Any advice?

>>6587414
Double major in completely conflicting fields is almost impossible, especially on a premed track. My advice is to take Lit classes for your General Requirements that you enjoy, maybe a minor if you feel frisky

>>6587414
>Gunna
>english uncapitalized
>I have no idea how hard it is or if it's even possible

Most of the dummies I went to school with just majored in business. Give that a go.

>>6587414
Biology is shit

>>6587420
That's unfortunately the shitty part. I'd feel more confident in majoring in english if I could make a good living off of that, however that's not the case.

I find a lot of meaning in reading lit and analyzing it as it's one of the few classes in high school I've really been passionate about.

I just wish we were in a society that valued arts and humanities as well as teaching more than it does now.

>>6586166
are you me? I majored in CS and minored in Math, and was able to graduate in 3 years. Considered staying for the full 4 because that is the 'normal thing to do' and get a minor in History or Literature, but decided I can just pursue those interests after graduation anyway.

>/biz/ says majoring in economy is GOAT
>/sci/ says majoring in STEM is GOAT
>/lit/ says majoring in lit is GOAT
>/k/ wants me to go to the army
>/r9k/ would have me be a NEET
>/fa/ and /gd/ would probably want me to work in their respective fields but I don't browse these faggot boards

Wat do?

>>6587882
Everyone thinks they know best anon :^)

>engineering

How does it feel to be on the wageslave express? Choo choooooooooo.

>>6587882
Just b urself :3

>engineering
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BcPO4yhWSUg

>>6587882
here's my opinion:

depends where you live and your means. if you live in america, aren't some wiz who can do premed and college is a quarter of a million its fucking beyond useless, don't even bother you will drown in your debt that actually has interest (LOL). get an apprenticeship or training at technical school in something like welding

if you live outside the us and are worried about money / its important to you, do STEM if you can and some /biz/ shit if you are too dumb. if you are too dumb for either of those good humanities to consider are broad general ones that could land you any paperwork job. if mommy and daddy are paying for it consider doing something you enjoy, and if you are rich do whatever the fuck you want.

honestly work is a fucking bundle of shit, and if you have no aspirations outside employment (ie learning an art or craft to support yourself without an employer) you are basically just fucking dubm and will get what's coming when you regret everything. freelance at all costs

Whenever I discuss literature with a STEM person they seldom can interpret even the most basic metaphors. They often read litterature and can't even analyse it.
Please don't be one of those stems rising high in self-esteem after they get a minor in /lit/ if your knowledge on history of lit, lit theory and common sense is subpar. People who have taken 2 classes on literature can barely understand allussions even when they are written in the annotations.

>>6585713
Doing masters of chem eng after doing freshmen lit. I'm kind of reverse Stoner

>>6587326
>people choose humanities because they're too dumb for STEM
do you honestly believe that

>>6587414
Like >>6587095 and >>6587420 said it's really hard to get a major/minor in a totally unrelated field. Just go for Bio+Chem double major, major minor and do /lit/ on your spare time

>>6585765
What's your major?

>>6588659

Me too OP, major in Psychology, minor in Lit

>>6588694
nigga i cant see that for shit

I'm assuming it's the IQ chart
You shouldn't use that for your argument, as IQ is bullshit

>>6588694
Except Philosophy and Economics is right at the top, lmao.

>>6588705
What this guy said

What does /lit/ think about a law degree with English or history (economics & business are also side options as well)

>>6588708
>>6588705
It is the weighted GRE scores, same pattern appears with incoming SAT scores, LSAT, MCAT, ect. Keep deluding yourself that IQ is bullshit.

Economics is a social science. Philosophy lucks out in the GRE since the quantitative part of GRE is a joke (high school math). Make the quantitative part of the GRE open ended like the analytic essay or include calculus/analysis/abstract algebra and you would see Philosophy drop like a rock.

>>6587426
>implying you need impeccable English to converse on a Siamese sewing and knitting get-together club

>>6588717
>Law
Have fun with a bourgeois subject, also have fun with competing with thousands of other graduates.

>>6588722
Are you saying Philosophy and Philosophers are inferior to STEM? Also I don't see how calculus/analysis/abstract algebra is relevant here (not americuck what is this GRE shit) for Philosophy doesn't deal primarily with pure mathematics.

I double majored in mechanical engineering and philosophy (took 5 years), and then did a masters in aerospace engineering. Philosophy and lit is still more interesting to me but my bourgeois comfort from high paying job makes it easy to dismiss and revel in the ideology of capitalism and the soul crushing participation in corporate america

>>6588755
How does Philosophy fit into your bourgeois career?

>>6588760
"it's just, yknow, so interesting!"

>>6587882
Start by consulting an actual counselor rather than a Tibetan cartoon forum

>>6588766
bourgeois as fuck m8

>>6588760
Since I work in the weapons industry I've been able to come up with much more convoluted justifications for what I do than the typical "america fuck yeah!" mentality of many of my pleb coworkers

>>6588806
Must be nice working for the Imperialist war machine anon. Real nice..

>>6588747
yes I am. Outside of a few books on moral philosophy and couple on logic the entire field has provided nothing of worth in the last 200 years. Arguably it has made the human condition worse in the last 200 years.

GRE is the test you take after getting your degree to place into graduate school. GRE scores are required for the majority of world class university (ones in the anglosphere). The point on the math part is that these test do not have difficult math parts compared to writing portions or even the verbal portions. The math on these tests is high school math, the writing portion is open ended, and the verbal is higher than high school. If all portions were equally difficult philosophy scores would drop.

>>6588814
It's been interesting. Sometimes I do get a little depressed about it

>>6588815
>Outside of a few books on moral philosophy and couple on logic the entire field has provided nothing of worth in the last 200 years. Arguably it has made the human condition worse in the last 200 years.
>philosophy is shit according to my philosophy

There's nothing worse than arrogant stemfags ignorant of their own ideology.

>>6588814
You work just as much for it as he does.

>>6590146
>reality as ideology
Philosotard pls

>>6590743
>the very notion of 'reality'
>not pure ideology

my god

>>6585713
>you'll take fun classes in college too.
>wasting your money on pretentious muh deeper meaning courses
>fun

just go to a fucking library dumbass

>>6591096
>muh brain in a vat
you should put your delusions into practice by jumping off a bridge to pierce the veil of ideology.

Who major in foreign language with minor in English? Thinking about doing this.

>>6588694

>IQ is largely about using patterns

>the most high IQ careers are those who have most of pattern digesting and vomit

nothing new

>>6588701

Psychology is STEM in US? here it is considered humanities and psychiatry considered stem

>>6585713
Majoring in philosophy and math, hopefully...

>>6588815
>Outside of a few books on moral philosophy and couple on logic the entire field has provided nothing of worth in the last 200 years.
>a few books on moral philosophy
>couple on logic

you don't seem read much

>>6591237
you going to list some books? I have respect for the works of Glover, Parfit, Churchland, Singer, portions of Kripke, and a few others others of the analytic bent. I stand by what I said continental philosophy, Marxism, primitivism, deep ecology, traditionalism, phenomenology, and the majority of philosophy that is discussed on this board is garbage

>>6591292
>and the majority of philosophy that is discussed on this board is garbage
Yet thye have been producing plenty of work, not only on the analytical branch and it's easy to list a few: Habermas, Korsgaard, Frankfurt, Jaeggi, none of which can be called part of the anglo tradition of philosophy.

I barely get involved in this kind of arguments because of comments like
>and the majority of philosophy that is discussed on this board is garbage
since you seem to follow pretty much the same innocent thinking with the scarce knowledge as well.
The analytical-continental distinction is hard to hold in philosophy since quite a while now. Now regarding your comments addressing
>Marxism, primitivism, deep ecology, traditionalism, phenomenology
I think you should be aware that such systems no longer are involved as such in any tradition of philosophy.

Seriously, read a book.

>>6588815
>Outside of a few books on moral philosophy and couple on logic the entire field has provided nothing of worth in the last 200 years

Spoken exacty like every other Physics student I talk to at my STEM uni. Get over yourself, and stop bashing fields you don't know or care about.

I entered college (USfag) as a history major, but gave up on that pretty quickly. Flirted with Russian Studies, but then I got into math, and I have been happy with my decision. I love literature, but I got really sick of pursuing it academically, and especially of hearing other people share their retardo ideas and opinions. At this point I would much rather read on my own and discuss books casually with friends.
I don't find mathematics to be a boring or uncreative study whatsoever. The practicality of the stuff is hard to deny (say what you will of a degree in it specifically), but I find it beautiful and philosophically rich as well. Maybe if I didn't, I would fill that void with humanities, but I'm satisfied with where I have ended up.

>>6591342
Habermas is a slightly reformed old man yelling at clouds, Frankfurt (assuming you are talking about Harry) is an analytic philosopher, Jaeggi is obscure and is not established, Korsgaard is just reformulating Kant's drivel.

>I think you should be aware that such systems no longer are involved as such in any tradition of philosophy.
as you mention Habermas and Jaeggi. Deep ecology, phenomenology, and Marxism are still extremely active. All the system I mentioned are active on this board all frequently.

>Seriously, read a book.
Of the philosophers you listed only Frankfurt (again assuming it is Harry) is worth reading.

>>6591459
>Habermas is a slightly reformed old man yelling at clouds
there I stopped reading

>>6591343
the bashing will continue until you provided something of worth

>>6591459
>slightly reformed old man yelling at clouds
>is obscure and is not established
>just reformulating Kant's drivel

great argument
you convinced me

>>6585713
Neuroscience major and Eng Lit minor.


Truly master race.

>>6591471
>>6591485
not going to waste my time giving an essay on why they are trash. Just getting c/lit/s all riled up is enough for me

>>6591554

>>6587343

You heard it here first. Learning from books is now bait on /lit/.

>>6587078
I knew a guy who was physics major and philosophy minor

>>6591791
That... could actually work well.

Did you know what this guy's field in physics was? Was it theoretical physics at least?

>>6588694
So since I'm biochem master race do I win because we transcend this shitty graph? Seriously, it looks like a kid in middle school made it, no p-value or y-axis, and the GRE as a sole metric for IQ? Christ I could go on for days about the flaws with this shit.

>>6591478
Why does life have to be all about providing worth for autistic STEMfags? You'll live and die just like the rest of us, anything of "worth" will just fade into nonexistene like everything else. Why not just enjoy the time you have here, and allow others to enjoy the time they have here? and humanities are quite valuable to a huge number of people, actually a majority of the world if you look at the monetary value placed on works of art. Do you even realize how limited and debilitating your utilitarian philosophy is?

>>6585713

Majoring in Mathematics, minoring in Philosophy. Get on my level.

>>6591146
>kill yourself because I lack the capacity for critical thought

Well STEM'd.

>>6592626
that is my dream/how I would have done things if i could go back in time
:'(

>>6592626
>>6591221
hello

>>6592622
tbh the #1 thing I can't understand is why people would even try to argue with that STEM mindeset instead of just laughing and proceeding to live life.

>>6587290
Kek

>>6592980
>brain in a vat
>critical thought
pls, the only reason this asinine thought experiment is ever brought up is to justify ass backwards epistemologies.

Chemistry major with Literature minor here, I considered doing a philosophy minor. I'm not sure if I want to drop the minor to focus of my real degree

>>6592612
graph is just aggregate, so transcendence is beside the point. Same patterns show up using other metrics.
>>6592622
I am speaking of "worth" in terms of bettering people's lives, not as in something to to be sold. The fact that we all will die makes it more important that the fruits of our labor have worth. Large portions of the humanities are valuable, large portions are cancerous.

>>6593084
>thinking one's conception of reality isn't ideological
>capable of critical thought

>>6593223
>uses meaningless buzzwords
>capable of critical thought
can you explain to me how Maxwell's equations are ideological? How about Newton's formulation of gravity? Was Feynman's formulation of the principal of stationary action from path integrals biased by the capitalist system? All scientific models and knowledge are approximations to reality, that does not make them ideological.

>>6593084
That doesn't fit Aristotle's physics.
And if it were used as an argument, it would be the most retarded thing ever.

>>6593262
Those matters are concerned with the study of phenomena, not with their reality.

Just because you don't understand certain things does not make them meaningless buzzwords. Your very notion of what constitutes reality is ideological. Your notion that science allows direct insight into the real is ideological.

Ideology encompasses more than you think, and every aspect of human thought is influenced by it.

>>6593262
>All scientific models and knowledge are approximations to reality
A superficial point, quite argued back in the 80's. While there are plenty of thing to critisize to postmodernism, the fact that scientific models are approximations to 'reality', which is to say, objective reality, it's falling in a naïve realism since it depends of how it is perceived, and since the sixties we know it can't be universal (Focault's concept of episteme) because cognitive structures are affected by social structures (Hegel's "myth of the given", between the object and the subject there's no relation of immediacy but one with concepts in between).
I'm afraid that if that makes them ideological or not it's controversial too. There's science is Thales (in a quite primitve fashion), and since then there are several examples of thoughts holded for a long time by nothing but ideological causes; consider the medieval period and the scarce scientific production it had, that still was attached to divine premises not because of it being naive, but because such thought is part of their episteme that extends beyonds the church (the concept of existence as perfection persisted after the fall of the church as it was); classical physics until de first part of the twentieth century hold primary because of enlightnement's premises. Political remiges restricted the science that was teached, which once in a while produced interesting results (since the political system determines what can receive the founding for research).
It's possible to argue that the background ideology doesn't change "science", but the claim of an objective science it's hard to hold since Feyerabend. His claim of a lack of unity between science across history doesn't hold so much after Hoyningen-Huene's Systematicity, but the concept of sistematicity lacks of the examples needed to make the thesis strong, and it goes against what a many philosophers of science and scientists still thinks (namely, there's a clear distintion between science and not-science, and science is in general to be restricted to natural science, while Hoyningen-Huene includes social sciences and others (wissenschaft, with no english equivalent is his object of work), which certainly are influenced by ideological constrains).

>>6593399
actually it does, note there are two arrows in the representation of Aristotle's model.

>>6593435
phenomena that people can observe, models and knowledge that can make predictions that conform to phenomena that can be observed. Reality is that which can not be denied, scientific knowledge meets this criterion better than any other source of knowledge we have.

I am calling ideology a meaningless buzzword because you have made it all encompassing. If one was to accept your definition of ideology there could be no such thing as knowledge, only ideology. You have cut off the very branch you are arguing from.

>>6585713
A fine pepe you have there good sir.

>>6593517
>Reality is that which can not be denied, scientific knowledge meets this criterion better than any other source of knowledge we have.
A chimp meets the criterion of being human more than any other animal we have, that does not make it a human. Also, everything can be denied.

>I am calling ideology a meaningless buzzword because you have made it all encompassing. If one was to accept your definition of ideology there could be no such thing as knowledge, only ideology. You have cut off the very branch you are arguing from.
Yes, it would make us very careful towards the notion of knowledge and realise that bias and assumption are always present. If anything, this should make us more critical and thereby more inclined towards some degree of truthfulness.

This is a whole lot more intellectually honest in attitude than just making unwarranted assumptions about what constitutes reality and adhering to an overly simplistic sort of realism, denying that there's more at play just because you find it inconvenient.

>>6593476
the primary argument I making is that the assumption made by modern scientist are formed mainly from an empirical context. Premodern science had assumptions formed from a religious or political context. Yes politics and maybe even religion still infiltrate scientific thought, but to the extent that labeling science as an ideological process is ridiculous. The limitations of modern hard sciences are primarily cognitive and instrumentative. Soft sciences are limited by the complexity of the problems they are trying to tackle.

>>6593539
Yes, but it does not make a chimp an ant either. Everything can not be denied. This is empirically false, that is why I said try jumping off a bridge.

If you want to masturbate about what could exist go ahead, but that is not knowledge. Saying that what is empirically observable constitutes reality is not unwarrented. Saying that one can not create knowledge about reality because something could exist beyond our ability to observe is unwarrented.

>>6593607
What orients you toward valuing the cognitive and instrumentative nature of modern hard sciences but an ideology?

>>6593612
empirical conformation and predictive capability. If that is ideology then so is consuming of water, breathing air, ect. Since ideology defines everything it no longer has any meaning.

>I'll get all the good jobs with my chemistry degree

If you think literature is fun and chemistry is boring why wouldn't you want to do the fun thing for a living?

>>6593607
>Yes, but it does not make a chimp an ant either. Everything can not be denied. This is empirically false, that is why I said try jumping off a bridge.
You realise empiricism is itself an unfalsifiable philosophical stance, right? Your favourite philosophical school is not demonstrably objectively correct. You may think it is, but that's because you accept its claims uncritically.

>If you want to masturbate about what could exist go ahead, but that is not knowledge. Saying that what is empirically observable constitutes reality is not unwarrented. Saying that one can not create knowledge about reality because something could exist beyond our ability to observe is unwarrented.
Saying that what is empirically observable constitutes reality is 'unwarrented' unless you assume an empirical stance, which is itself an epistemological position which is not immune to criticism. Your decree of what constitutes knowledge is itself a philosophical claim.

What you're doing is assuming your philosophical stance is not philosophy but above philosophy because you consider it the superior position. But just proclaiming it to be so does not make it any more so.

>>6593641
Idealists also drink water, as do nihilists, existentialists, solipsists, vedantists, parmenidians et cetera. Just because people engage with sensory experiences does not mean that they automatically share your claims as to what constitutes the being of said experiences.

>>6593612
>What orients you toward valuing the cognitive and instrumentative nature of modern hard sciences but an ideology?
>>6593641
>empirical conformation and predictive capability.

this is the scientism variety of responding "it says so in the bible" in response to the question "why is the bible correct?"

>>6587984

>engineering
is that really your logic?
you're an idiot
>don't go to college if you live in the US
fucking moron

>>6593811
unfalsifiable by philosophy, but not by our current reality. I do not have to proclaim an empirical stance is superior, it is apparent. Keep deluding yourself that just because an empirical outlook is a philosophical stance that it is equivalent in value to other philosophical stance. It has been shown again and again to be superior to all other stances. I do not care if it is my stance can be fitted into philosophy or not, what matters is how it conforms to reality.

>>6593822
spare me the phenomenology, the point is the act of drinking water itself is not ideological.

>>6593846
Nice try at a false equivalence. In the case of the bible we can see much that is in it is false in the context of empirical reality. Unless you have access to that which is beyond empirical reality you can not show that empirical conformation is false. You can speculate that is false, but you can not show it. We can escape the context of the bible, but we can not escape the context of empirical reality. Your argument is useless, until we can.

>>6593935
>unfalsifiable by philosophy, but not by our current reality.
Your notion of reality is a philosophical one.
>I do not have to proclaim an empirical stance is superior, it is apparent. [etc]
This is literally what the ignorant kind of Christfags say about their beliefs as well. Again, merely proclaiming it to be so does not make it any more so.

>spare me the phenomenology, the point is the act of drinking water itself is not ideological.
The act itself may not be, as acts in themselves are not apart from their motivation, yet you equate it to empiricism, which is ideological.

>>6593935
>In the case of the bible we can see much that is in it is false in the context of empirical reality.
what you're doing now is the equivalent of saying ' in the case of empiricism we can see much that is in it is false in the context of biblical reality'.

how do you fail to see that "because my belief says so" is not an argument in favour of your belief?

>I respect no study, and deem no study good, which results in money-making. Such studies are profit-bringing occupations, useful only in so far as they give the mind a preparation and do not engage it permanently. One should linger upon them only so long as the mind can occupy itself with nothing greater; they are our apprenticeship, not our real work. 2. Hence you see why "liberal studies" are so called; it is because they are studies worthy of a free-born gentleman. But there is only one really liberal study, – that which gives a man his liberty. It is the study of wisdom, and that is lofty, brave, and great-souled. All other studies are puny and puerile. You surely do not believe that there is good in any of the subjects whose teachers are, as you see, men of the most ignoble and base stamp? We ought not to be learning such things; we should have done with learning them.
>Now I will transfer my attention to the musician. You, sir, are teaching me how the treble and the bass are in accord with one another, and how, though the strings produce different notes, the result is a harmony; rather bring my soul into harmony with itself, and let not my purposes be out of tune. You are showing me what the doleful keys are; show me rather how, in the midst of adversity, I may keep from uttering a doleful note.
>The mathematician teaches me how to lay out the dimensions of my estates; but I should rather be taught how to lay out what is enough for a man to own. He teaches me to count, and adapts my fingers to avarice; but I should prefer him to teach me that there is no point in such calculations
>O what marvellous skill! You know how to measure the circle; you find the square of any shape which is set before you; you compute the distances between the stars; there is nothing which does not come within the scope of your calculations. But if you are a real master of your profession, measure me the mind of man! Tell me how great it is, or how puny! You know what a straight line is; but how does it benefit you if you do not know what is straight in this life of ours?

>>6593996
Reality exist outside of philosophy, philosophy exists inside reality. If you are putting philosophy above reality then you are a lost cause.

How is not apparent that an empirical stance is not superior to others humans have created. You are communicating using a computer, powered by electricity, via a telecommunication network. This is not the equivalent to what Christfags do.

The act of breathing is required to live, as is drinking water, as are many things. These are ideological acts, they are biological acts. The motivation behind empiricism is to observe reality, this is not an ideological motivation.

>>6594010
Pft, except no one lives in the context of biblical reality, we live in the context empirical reality. Empirical reality supersedes biblical realty or any other reality humans have cooked up. How do you fail to see your disingenuous denial of empirical reality amounts to nothing more than "because my belief says so".

Anyone linguistics here?

>>6592082
We're both undergrads, but he might move to a master's. He told me that he just wanted to understand the universe, and philosophy and physics were the best possible choices.

>>6588694
Nice picture for ants
wheres biochem anyway

>>6594044
Again you're saying "but empiricism is just right because empiricism"

You can't argue your case at all.

>>6594952
Empiricism as the proper means for investigating the natural world is so trivially obvious that it needs no justification.

>>6594952
I am saying empiricism is closest we have to accessing reality, reality does not care about philosophical correctness. Reality does not need to be justified philosophically.

why do stem majors rag on humanities so much?
Does your 60-80k really mean that much to you?

Who was the man that lied to the population and said that 40k is a wage for failures?
I can't even imagine what I'd spend 60-80k on
much less the triple figures STEM majors strive for
Why is it always money?

>>6595008
Because I think philosophers are funny. I'm not going to be wealthy as a physicist.

>>6594991
Conflating reality and the 'natural word' is itself in need of justification.

>>6594998
Reality is a philosophical concept you silly tit.

People have different ideas about what constitutes reality. Saying that reality does not need to be justified philosophically is like saying that goodness does not need to be justified ethically. Without philosophy you would have no concept of reality to speak of.

>>6595045
nope, reality exist independent of philosophy. Reality is not a value or judgement. Does not matter what people think constitutes reality, only what can be tested and observed.

>>6595071
>nope, reality exist independent of philosophy. Reality is not a value or judgement.
Reality is a philosophical concept that people apply in certain ways to refer to certain things. Opinions as to what it applies to differ greatly.

>Does not matter what people think constitutes reality, only what can be tested and observed.
This would be what you think constitutes reality. A fine opinion, but no more than that.

For someone so big on the scientific method you're very fond of disregarding it, making unwarranted claims as to what constitutes reality that have neither been tested nor observed.

>>6595124
an independent reality exists no matter what philosophy one has. The laws of physics do not change based upon one beliefs, measurements do not either

okay the reality available to humans

Do you expect me to use the scientific method over 4chan to convince someone who is disingenuously denying reality.

>>6595198
>an independent reality exists no matter what philosophy one has.
This is your belief, I know. Restating it does not make it more than a belief.

>The laws of physics do not change based upon one beliefs, measurements do not either
Patterns in phenomena have nothing to do with the reality of said phenomena.

>okay the reality available to humans
And there you enter very tricky territory because a lot of humans have very different notions of reality.

>Do you expect me to use the scientific method over 4chan to convince someone who is disingenuously denying reality.
My point is that the scientific method can't be applied to metaphysics and the notion of what constitutes reality is a metaphysical one. Your claims regarding what is real are per definition unscientific. Empirical science is hinged upon a specific philosophical position. It can't be used to defend that position nor to dismiss other positions, in the same way that Christian arguments can't be used outside the context of Christianity, for example.

>>6595624
>This is your belief, I know. Restating it does not make it more than a belief.
again, beliefs do not change the laws of nature

>Patterns in phenomena have nothing to do with the reality of said phenomena.
yes they do, the patterns are found by observing and interacting with said phenomena. These patterns are observed invariants of reality

>And there you enter very tricky territory because a lot of humans have very different notions of reality.
what can be observed and interacted with

my point is that metaphysics is nonsense, there is no need to bother with it to defend the empirical stance. There is no context of reality that is outside of empirical stance, that is why your comparisons to Christianity is nonsensical.

>>6595735
>again, beliefs do not change the laws of nature
The statement "independent reality exists" is neither a law of nature nor a scientifically sound statement.

>yes they do, the patterns are found by observing and interacting with said phenomena. These patterns are observed invariants of reality
Non sequitur. Consistency does not imply reality.

>what can be observed and interacted with
A lot of people will tell you they have observed and interacted with Jesus himself, to name an example. Again, this is not as clear cut as you think.

>my point is that metaphysics is nonsense, there is no need to bother with it to defend the empirical stance.
>There is no context of reality that is outside of empirical stance, that is why your comparisons to Christianity is nonsensical.
How can you call metaphysics nonsense in one sentence and then make a metaphysical statement in the next one? That is nonsensical.

>>6595802
>The statement "independent reality exists" is neither a law of nature nor a scientifically sound statement.
do not care if you are not happy with the statement, it is trivially true

>Non sequitur. Consistency does not imply reality.
said patterns are found from reality. Try jumping off a bridge while denying the empirical reality and then get back to me

>A lot of people will tell you they have observed and interacted with Jesus himself, to name an example. Again, this is not as clear cut as you think.
empirical observations can be repeated as many times as needed and will appear consistent to all observers

>How can you call metaphysics nonsense in one sentence and then make a metaphysical statement in the next one? That is nonsensical.
because any statement about anything outside of the observable can not be evaluated. The only access we have to reality is through observation.

>>6585713
I'm in medschool.

Everything is boring and stupid, I just want to skip to the part I start my speciality in psychiatry.

>tfw whatever I do I will still have loadsof money
Feels good man.

>>6595900
300K STARTING BRO EKSDI

>>6595855
>do not care if you are not happy with the statement, it is trivially true
You're literally saying that your metaphysics are true while dismissing metaphysics.

>said patterns are found from reality. Try jumping off a bridge while denying the empirical reality and then get back to me
Said patterns are found in sensory experience. The notion that sensory experience necessarily equates 'reality' is a leap of faith.

>empirical observations can be repeated as many times as needed and will appear consistent to all observers
You're moving your goalposts, but you're getting a bit closer to what actual empiricists are about. This still has nothing to do with notions of reality though, as explained above.

>because any statement about anything outside of the observable can not be evaluated. The only access we have to reality is through observation.
Holy shit, you're doing it again.

Let me make it very clear for you.

You say:

>any statement about anything outside of the observable can not be evaluated.

And then you proceed to say:

>The only access we have to reality is through observation.

This statement is trying to do the very thing the statement before it declares impossible. You did not observe that 'observation is the only access to reality'. This is not an observable thing, it is a philosophical statement, not an empirical finding. You can't observe the absence of non-observatory modes of access. By your own standards you are talking nonsense.

>>6595920
>You're literally saying that your metaphysics are true while dismissing metaphysics.
reality is reality, no need to submit to metaphysics.

>Said patterns are found in sensory experience. The notion that sensory experience necessarily equates 'reality' is a leap of faith.
again, only reality available to us. Not equating sensory experience to reality, saying that is the only portion of reality that can be talked about that is not nonsense

>This statement is trying to do the very thing the statement before it declares impossible. You did not observe that 'observation is the only access to reality'. This is not an observable thing, it is a philosophical statement, not an empirical finding. You can't observe the absence of non-observatory modes of access. By your own standards you are talking nonsense.
no it is an empirical finding, all claims of reality outside of the observable are nonsense

>>6595968
>reality is reality, no need to submit to metaphysics.
You're submitting to metaphysics with that very claim.

>again, only reality available to us. Not equating sensory experience to reality, saying that is the only portion of reality that can be talked about that is not nonsense
Are your thoughts not available to you? Are your thoughts not real? You're talking about your thoughts right now.

>no it is an empirical finding, all claims of reality outside of the observable are nonsense
And you're repeating again.

You should learn more about philosophy if you want to criticise it, you simply don't have the context the understand the points I'm making it seems and mistaking your own ignorance regarding the subject matter for clarity and obviousness.

>>6596091
>you're submitting to metaphysics with that very claim.
nope

>Are your thoughts not available to you? Are your thoughts not real? You're talking about your thoughts right now.
thoughts are worthless unless they can be put to the test empirically, if they can be collaborated via other forms of empirical evidence, or if the foundational assumptions of said thoughts are trivially true or accepted as true based upon paste experience.

>And you're repeating again.
that makes two of us

>You should learn more about philosophy if you want to criticise it, you simply don't have the context the understand the points I'm making it seems and mistaking your own ignorance regarding the subject matter for clarity and obviousness.
pft, Here is one hand. And here is another.....

I majored in Philosophy, come at me fags

>implying I care about money or debt
>implying I'm not getting my parents to pay for most of my college career

>>6585984
H-hi anon... I thought there'd be more of us

>>6596267
do you just use wiki+blog posts+ news articles+amazon previews or do you get books also?

>>6596280
Yeah, I read a lot of secondary critique rather than prime material in the interest of time, but I do try to find prime source books if something really interests me. 99% Digital copies and downloads for cheapness and portability, naturally.

I do a lot of university library browsing for books too(I can't check out the books because not student but no one bothers a guy reading books in a library), both to get myself off this internet hellpit and in the hopes of maybe meeting an absolutely patrician library hobo, or perhaps BECOMING the absolutely patrician library hobo

>>6596349
moving to books is something I am trying to do. When I am on the internet I can waste entire days reading various articles and posts. With books I tend to splice my time up better.

>>6596378
Well, I wouldn't call reading various articles a 'waste' necessarily... I've read books that I feel like were stillborn into my brain because I read them in a vacuum, away from any discussion or literary critique of them, so the ideas didn't have an opportunity to bounce off of anything outside of my own head, and they just didn't find anything to stick to.

Still though, I think I know what you mean. It's easy to find some shallow online discussion of something that appeals to my personal taste and just wallow in it without really advancing my thoughts at all... and it's much more IMMEDIATELY satisfying than puzzling through some tome

>>6594172
aye

18 year old highschoolfag here

is CS/Phil double major possible to complete in 4 years at most unis? My department has a clear analytic bias, so I imagine there should be a lot of common ground in terms of logic and math classes.

>>6594291
those seems like the words of a very ignorant person "he wanted to understand the universe"

they don't realize that every field ends in a haze of mystery with only hedged bets

>>6599576
quality post

lol, you're doing it wrong. if you want to take a minor just for fun it should be sociology, which is a laugh riot start to finish

>>6588717

This is what I did, they offered a dual program: MA in Philosophy and JD

>>6588717
why would you study law as an undergrad? you don't even need it for the (oversaturated job market after) law school anyway

Major in Computer Engineering
Minor in Computer Science

Gonna get my masters in CpE so I can teach robots how to play DOOM.

>>6585713