[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 31 KB, 447x270, main-qimg-0f239326e2bbd9ba3ac14729ef77e30e.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11882633 No.11882633 [Reply] [Original]

I consider doing this. Is this the most god-tier combinations imaginable?

>> No.11882639

>>11882633
No doubt about it. A mathematical inclination is very useful for philosophical studies

>> No.11882642

even if you did it, which you won't, it wouldn't be as impressive as you're thinking because the only thing more retarded than undergrad math is undergrad philosophy

>> No.11882650

That’s game theory basically, right?

>> No.11882672

>>11882650
pleb

>> No.11882685

>>11882672
Is it not? Do you not understand more about underlying sociopsychological behaviors from studying the theory of Games?

Have you even read Von Neumann?

>> No.11882731

>>11882685
You lose the game when you think about the game.

>> No.11882771

>>11882633
No. Math and Classics.
That's the empyrean--

>> No.11882774

>>11882731
This, but the opposite, unironically.
>>11882650
Nigga what? Game theory is more related to behavioral economics and psychology
>>11882633
At least get the Venn right. The body of mathematics is a subset of the body of logic.

>> No.11883163

im new to all this, but im very interested in philosophy

so why and how is math useful to philosophy?

>> No.11883172

>>11882774
>behavioral economics
Which is inherently mathematical

Pro tip: if you are learning Game theory or indifference curves through any method other than mathematics you are a pseud

>> No.11883178

>>11883163
In the philosophical way: read Nicomachus. I know there are certain philosophers like Whitehead or Wittgenstein who use mathematical language in their philosophy

>> No.11883322

>>11882633
Math and logic are fundamentally the same thing.

>> No.11883398

>>11882633
This is literally me

>> No.11883411

>>11883322
i dont know enough about either of these to really argue with you but this seems wrong

>> No.11883581

youll get based logic and rationality to fucking own and destroy everyone in arguments

way to go dude

>> No.11883592

>>11883322
Any cognitive activity is fundamentally logic so thats a redundant observation

>> No.11883601

>>11882633
and theology

>>11882731
damn it, I lost the game. I was probably going for a couple months there

>> No.11883603

>>11883592
no,

all cognitive activity is rhetorical and metaphorical

>> No.11883619

>>11882633
triple major with philosophy, literature, and math
>>11883601
>damn it, I lost the game
fuck you

>> No.11883625

>>11882633
depends on what you end up studying. there is no god-tier combinations, there is no end-all be-all

and to be honest, studying maths and philosophy will not be as much of a good combo as you think. They have nothing to do with each other, in the way that they're handled in academia.

>> No.11883627
File: 49 KB, 1120x503, lEwEX.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11883627

>>11882774
>Game theory is more related to behavioral economics and psychology
not really. its math.

>> No.11883669

>>11883627
depends on how you're studying game theory. not a lot of people study game theory on it's own just to study game theory. In that case, you are correct, it really is just maths.
If you're studying it in philosophy, it will be more formal logic and psychology.
If you're studying it in econ, it'll be more maths and business-y, taking into account psychology and behavioral economics
If you're studying it in ethics, it will be a little logic, and a whole lot of literature, history, and bullshit.

>> No.11883672

fuck it I'm majoring in botany

>> No.11883691

>>11882642
Wise anon. I cannot count how many "math-philosophy" majors had switched out, by their sophomore years. They always seem to wind up in poli sci or econ. Honestly if you want a better combination do theoretical physics, that is if you actually are great at math. Many people who think they are, are anything but

>> No.11883698

>>11883603
how can cognitive activity be metaphorical?

Like... I wanna take a shit and I'm thinking of goin to the bathroom to take a shit. How's that metaphorical or rhetorical?

u just dumb, anon?

>> No.11883861
File: 68 KB, 500x727, demanderrida.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11883861

>>11883698
take the de Man-pill

metaphors are a way of figurative thinking, a succession of images and signs that relate to and influence eachother

whether wanting to go take a shit is figurative or rhetorical depends on whether you summon the image of shitting, the toilet, and follow that figure or if you have an internal mono(dia)logue - "I wanna take a shit. - I'm thinking of going to take a shit"

>> No.11884400

You'd be studying the purest subjects of all human knowledge

>> No.11884416

>>11883411
>this seems wrong
t. unknower

>> No.11884423

>>11883669
The origin of Game Theory was to study economic situations for the participants in an economy. It was meant to replace the systems formed through the Lausanne school’s ‘indifference curve analysis’. To be perfectly honest, I found the foundational text by Von Neumann to be a breeze so far and I’m about 1/4 of the way through it. What you have to understand about these sorts of mathematical texts is that, yes, while it IS mathematical, that doesn’t mean it is t philosophical. Certain ideas and concepts can be explored easier with mathematics, especially when one of your axioms is that utility is a numerical value which can be maximized in a situation.

For instance, Von Neumann/Morgenstern says in the book that pure Communism is an inherently one-player game.

All forms of economic systems can benefit from an application of Game Theory.

>> No.11884437

>>11883627
>>11883172
The extent to which game theory influences us or has power over us is studied in the realm of biology, though... which is usually what people are most interested in.

>> No.11884461

>>11884437
On the other hand, an easy application of Game Theory is Pascal’s wager, which is synonymous with the game of ‘matching pennies’

It’s a no-brainer: it always pays to have faith

>> No.11884463

>>11882633
Do what you will.

>> No.11884483

>>11883581
so this is how TrueRationalAtheist did it...

>> No.11884499

>>11884461
I'm not too big on Pascal's wager.... I've never believed in God and I get plenty of depth out of my life. Maybe I have faith in something, but that 'something' is probably not synonymous with what most people call God.

>> No.11884506

>>11884499
I could tell which is why I posted that.

Love Game Theory. Dislike Evolution, so your little Biologically deterministic and anthropological word games are lost on me

>> No.11884521
File: 260 KB, 1685x1930, EPW.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11884521

>>11884461

>> No.11884530

>>11884506
What's wrong with the theory of natural selection?

>> No.11884554

>>11884499
The way we live life is inherently reflective of core beliefs, and core beliefs concerning meaning always require faith whether you realize you have faith in something or not. Most Christians are ignorant about /why/ exactly they believe what they believe, most atheists are ignorant about /what/ exactly they believe. So it goes with the masses.
>>11884521
cute meme, funnier each time its posted my fellow ledditor

>> No.11884561

>>11884530
Don't engage with bait anon

>> No.11884563

>>11884554
>cute meme, funnier each time its posted my fellow ledditor
Your deflection impresses no one.

>> No.11884596

>>11884530
Not that anon but he didn't say "theory of natural selection", he said evolution. The theory of natural selection is demonstrably true through observable microevolution, but the macroevolutionary model that has been accepted for nearly two centuries is entirely unsatisfactory. Abiogenesis, Cambrian Explosion, rarity of mutations beneficial and sustainable to host organism, etc. It's a blind leap of faith that scientists in a broad range of fields are forced to accept, as inquiring into its flaws somehow is viewed as unscientific.
I implore you to read into this.

>> No.11884600

>>11884596
Based post

Anons taking academia’s stance for granted

>> No.11884624

>>11884596
Abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution and its painful everytime some creationist brings it up as a problem with evolution. Cambrian Explosion is easily verifiable, would you like to actually state any problems with it?

Rarity of mutations being beneficial is also an odd critique, would you like to expand is this the extent of your depth on the issue?

>> No.11884634

>>11884624
>Cambrian Explosion is easily verifiable
Except not only are fossils few and far between, but also the problem is that they were only ‘discovered’ after the theories of evolution started to become apparent.

Kind of ridiculous don’t you think?

Aritificial selection obviously exists, but natural selection? I don’t think so

>> No.11884667

How do i know if i will like math?, i lieke logic but im shit at aritmethic and i still think that my verbal intelligence is higher (and that is actually verifiable)

>> No.11884675

>>11882633
I did this in college. After getting neck deep in abstractions I realized the things I most cared about were directly human-related like social psychology and ethics.

I don't regret it because the math I studied was pretty interesting, but philosophical logic is mind-numbingly tepid.

>> No.11884678

>>11884667
Actual mathematical explanations use very little numbers.

Theoretical arithmetic were all the Pythagoreans like Nicomachus used, I highly suggest you get a number table ad read Introduction to Arithmetic to see how harmonic/geometric/arithmetic ratios synergize together. It’s an esoteric branch of mathematics hardly looked at these days, that needs to be, quite frankly

>> No.11884692

>>11884634
Are you seriously citing the fact that until after evolution was proposed we didn't find as many fossils? You can't think of any other possible explanation?

Did you know like 99% of elementary particles were discovered after WWII? Kind of ridiculous don't you think? Obviously there must be some connection there right? Or maybe the technology wasn't there before some certain point in time and its not some conspiracy?

And there's a shit ton of fossils from the cambrian period, even given how fucking long ago it was

Why don't you think natural selection exists? It works by the exact same logic as artificial selection, its just not being picked by some entity, long headed giraffes just win out, its that similar.

>> No.11884695

>>11884624
What a curious response. You're correct in saying that I shouldn't lump abiogenesis in with evolution itself, but it is a part of the infallible doctrine of scientism where your leap of faith lies. If you truly believe the CE is "easily verifiable" I'm not going to spoonfeed you criticisms so that you can look up and post the accepted (though consistently shortcoming) rebuttal listed on rationalwiki. It is not the rarity of mutations that makes the current model so unsatisfactory, it is how infrequently they provide beneficial and sustainable attributes to their host organisms.
>is this the extent of your depth on the issue?
Not at all. I'm sensing willful ignorance on your part which is why I'll do no more than implore you to disregard your bias, disregard your father's / culture's ideology, etc. etc. and do some critical examining yourself.

>> No.11884716

>>11884692
>Are you seriously
>7 (seven) questions
Yup... r/atheism was a good subreddit...

>> No.11884727

>>11884692
>Why don't you think natural selection exists?
Because it will always be conjecture and you will never be able to prove it.

To be quite honest with you, this major conflict in our Earths timeline seems to be striking at this point. Almost something were hitting on, like black gold. I think there is a problem with why all the major Abrahamic religious texts say we were created, as the Koran so vehemently repeats, and then we have the ideas in academia which say that we ‘evolved’. I’ll ask for evidence, and they use their fossil records or whatever, but let’s take a look at the facts

a. Some fossils are extremely similar to animals living right now (like its them)
B. Most fossils are incomplete (so conjecture)
C. Any further evidence is given through
I. Bacteria resistance to medicine, which is ridiculous
II. Black peppered moth type animals/insects, who became the dominant species after humans destroyed the natural environment

To be completely honest, it looks like you people are the ones out to prove humanity’s ignorance of all subjects and complete disregard for the gift God gave us: Earth. Take your demonstrably true facts : that you are ruining the world by making viruses stronger and deforestation, and stop trying to prove God isn’t real.

It does not take an intelligent person to see that the recent gains in morality and society (including even this boards culture) were because of faith in God. And I’m not throwing my faith away just because I feel like being half-assed about it all because I don’t want to believe in creation.

>> No.11884765

>>11884695
>you're correct in ...
Then why would you try to attack evolution by linking it with abiogenesis if you know they're not related? If you want to attack scientism attack scientism, you don't need to loop in ideas together to do that.

Ahhh no! You've found where I take my leap of faith in science! You have gored me! It appears we are now on the same level of intellectual honesty my theist friend. Except for the mere fact that I have no issue with admitting that i'm not sure if abiogenesis is correct. I'm sure you're much more confident about where we come from than I am.

Its baffling the way you talk about the Cambrian explosion like it really needs to be verified, its just a description given to a period where there was greater diversity in type of organism than before. Do you disagree that organisms before were far more simple? Or do
you disagree that the organisms after were more complex?

Id love for you to actually give me your criticisms but you're gonna give me that "oh you're not even worth my time" defense that smarmy pieces of shit give when they don't actually feel confident in their arguments and would rather give vague "there's just so many shortcomings!" criticisms. If you actually had any defensible reasons you'd be giving them.

>You need to disregard your bias!
Et tu. Difference between you and me is I can actually defend what I say. Et tu?

>> No.11884858

>>11884765
Emotionally written and abundantly projecting. Don't be offended if anons come off as smarmy, we're on 4chan, face-to-face societal norms don't apply--no one has to give you the time of day.
I have no problem admitting that I cannot be entirely sure my (pantheistic) beliefs are correct. Yet agnosticism provides no "intellectual high ground" as you think it does--no one lives as an agnostic, our every decision is reflective of what we believe to be true about reality.
Look back at your posts. You say if I had defensible reasons I'd be giving them? If you had defensible rebuttals counterarguments you'd be giving them, but you have only asked questions. Lots of them.
>Difference between you and me is I can actually defend what I say.
This is where the average /lit/izen would make a reddit comment, but the style and content of your writing reminds me to an uncomfortable degree of my own beliefs just a few years back. We're all reddit at some point I suppose.
I really do wish that every individual might impartially seek the truth, myself included. I have no more that I want to say to you unless you'd like recommendations of reading material from essentially any viewpoint--it's important to engage with all of the major arguments from any side.

>> No.11884864

>>11882633
yes, you'll be the smartest barista in town

>> No.11884869

>>11884727
Thanks for so clearly displaying how dumb you are.

>I'll ask for evidence and they use their fossil records or whatever

Yeah sorry you don't understand the evidence. Sorry that you believe in thousand year old desert fairy tales.

>a
So what? You can radioactively date them extremely reliably to know the age(which should totally dismiss any notion that we were created recently). And this is really just such a stupid argument that i'm sure even christians(or muslims since you do seem to be a muslim) are embarrassed of how stupid you're making your side look.

>B
What does fossils being incomplete have to do with anything? You can show the age and you can show the structure and classify it taxonomically? What more do you think fossils should show?

>bacteria resistance to medicine
Why is that ridiculous? I'd love for you to stumble through another post trying to expand on that.

>Black peppered moth... destroyed the natural environment

And? Humans destroying an environment is a change in the environment, whether its humans doing it or some shift in the ecosystem, its still some change that the organism is adapting too.

As for everything else you wrote, its void of any meaningful content.

>> No.11884949

>>11884869
>so what? You can do <<SCIENCE CONJECTURE>> and you can determine the <<SCIENCE CONJECTURE>> of a <<SCIENCE CONJECTURE>>

Thanks science!

All Muslims are creationists

>> No.11884960

>>11884869
>science dismisses your holy book, which definitely claims to be a science textbook and which has definitely has been interpreted to be fully literal by its every adherent since its inception. rationality wins again!

>> No.11884983
File: 40 KB, 320x320, 1507952444924.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11884983

>>11884869
>that formatting
>atheist
every time

>> No.11884987
File: 114 KB, 1080x793, snap1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11884987

>>11884765
you reek of reddit

>> No.11884996

>>11884869
have you seen these fossil records?
have you poured through the data yourself?
the numbers, the figures?

>> No.11885014

>>11884996
He believes it because it supports his convenient, shamelessly hedonistic worldview and most importantly, it's fucking science™!!!

>> No.11885040

>>11882633
Geometry and Theology is the god-tier combination.

>> No.11885046

>>11885014
these retards don't even know what science is. they think any branch of study or collection of data is automatically science. they're fucking cultist nerds who just accept whatever they're told by "scientists"

>> No.11885050

Logic is reducible to mathematics, but not to philosophy.

>>11882774
Principia Mathematica failed, because of what I just stated.

Please visit /sci/ and talk to mathematicians, folks.
Don't be the caricature of a philosopher that the engineers believe you are.

>> No.11885176

>>11884996
heh.

>> No.11885340

>>11884667
http://4chan-science.wikia.com/wiki/Math_Textbook_Recommendations

>> No.11885357

>>11882633
I studied Mathematics and Literature
It is cool, but surprisingly unapplicable to the job market
I mean, most upper division mathematics is useless (just study engineering or physics), and upper division literature in 2018 is just arguing the problems with our current definition for what is Capital L Literature, and some literary theory.

Now im doing grad school in literature and I like it but Im so fucked once im done.

Do what you want, but talk to college advisers who can help you pick some courses that help you in the job market. For example, Set Theory is less useful than Partial Differential equations if you are looking to work in a scientific field. Both are great fields of mathematics however.

You could even go into Law! Good luck buddy!

>> No.11885906

>>11885357
People always say STEM gets you more jobs. Hardly at all. You’re just hungry millennials who need something on their resume. Just get whatever someone offers you. The intelligence and knowledge will pay off in the end

>> No.11885920

>>11883322
>>11883411
It's logic plus some additional axioms (like ZFC).

>> No.11885924

>>11882633
throw in art history and you have a deal

>> No.11886184

>>11883322
Ask me how I know you've never seriously studied mathematics (or at least analysis).

>> No.11886261

>>11882633
If you want to flip burgers at McDonald's, sure.

>> No.11886266

I was so bad at maths, in high school through college just straight -Fs.

I couldnt understand how numbers are real and then it was all downhill from there.

I fuckinghate my shit for faggot retard brains and wish I had guts to fucking kill myself.

>> No.11886457

Its the dynamic duo of becoming a highschool teacher.

>> No.11886674

>>11882633
I majored in philosophy, minor in math. It was fine while I was in it, I suppose. Couldn't find a job for a while. Eventually did some computer programming, then finance. My degree had nothing to do with that except slow me down for four years.

>> No.11887151

>>11883691
This, one should not pick a subject just because it's sounds good and can be used for boosting one's ego. It's more practical to base these kinda decisions on one's inherent skillset.

>> No.11887424

>>11886674
how did you make the switch into the computer programming/finance industry?

currently looking for a job after graduating with a phil degree and it's kind of rough. doing computer programming to kind of keep myself busy

>> No.11887458

>>11882771
Math and Classics don't have a direct relationship the way that Math and Philosophy do though

>> No.11887464

>>11882633
one of the best things you could do at university if you like math imo

>> No.11887467

>>11886266
study philosophy anon

>> No.11887617

>>11882633
Just do what I did: Major in applied math and minor in philosophy.

>> No.11887835

>>11887424
I started in low level "computer guy" kind of jobs in small companies in the small town where I grew up. Moved into php and javascript for their websites. Then a friend invited me out to visit, they lived in a tech hub city desperate for workers. I found some contracting jobs there and eventually got regular program/analyst jobs. I have a few friends that have done similar. (And another who seems to have jumped the line a bit using a coding bootcamp.)
Just keep moving up. People only care what your last job was. Never take a job with a worse title than you have. Go ahead take a job you know nothing about. If you are smart enough, they will never notice. (And if you are successful at a math major, you are probably smart enough.) Still if you aren't, they'll probably help you get a job at another company just to get rid of you.
The whole system is messed up. Just live cheap, save absolutely as much money as you can (seriously, live poorer than your friends working crap jobs.) Then get the hell out and do something you like, where you like, for people you like.

>> No.11887959

>>11883322
Quite pleb, math is not logic. It is the science of potential logical relationships.

>> No.11888222

>>11883322
>t. Frege
Logicism is a very nice idea, and some of the work done in the pursuit of its goals contributed heavily to the foundations of modern mathematics, but the ultimate attempt to try and describe math with logic failed, with the alternate goal of establishing a complete mathematics (Hilbert's program) being proven downright impossible using first order logic. If you aren't a dirty Platonist, you should look into Formalism instead as a position of Mathematical Philosophy.

>> No.11888264

>>11886266
whole numbers arent real
irrational numbers are real
cut a ruler in half and youll end up with an irrational length
glad to help

>> No.11889109

>>11887458
Neither do numbers and letters (although letters subsume numbers in that all numbers are words) --but they both underlie absolutely everything [we] can either speak or write about.
Western philosophy itself emerges out of classics, i.e. out of a language (Attic Greek ftmp) that orients itself around the verb (ALL Western modern languages are nominally oriented, or center themselves around the noun) and is grammatically more sophisticated than say English, or even German. If one's grammar limits one's understanding or one's ability to express oneself as fluidly as a Greek logician could (yes, I've read Korzybski) 2300 years ago than what good is it? My only point is that philosophy's a kind of by-product of classics, and cannot really be understood without a comprehension of the language out of which all the important general philosophical ideas flew.

>> No.11889166

>>11889109
I think a major problem of serious 21rst c philosophical discourse is that whereas the use of numbers has become more sophisticated (youll note that this is an understatement) the use of language has become less sophisticated. What do?

>> No.11889173

>>11882633
Physics/Classics

>> No.11889177

>>11889173
That would be strong.

>> No.11889216

>>11882633
Isn't philosophy major actually the history of philosophy? I thought you can read that at home or at library
What's the reason to go for it?

>> No.11889538

>>11889216
Maybe if you're in a terrible program.

>> No.11889727

>>11889216
you can study literally any field at home,
don't know why this is exclusively used against philosophy but whatever

>> No.11889767

>>11889727
because philosophy is completly useless meme?

>> No.11889781

>>11889767
define useless

>> No.11889786

>>11889781
Like getting fooled by intersection of Mein Kampf and feminism.
Entire field can go fuck itself.

>> No.11891540

>>11889786
Heehee, so nobody is going to tell him?

>> No.11891711

>>11884727
>Because it will always be conjecture and you will never be able to prove it.
Only if you doubt your own sanity and causality.

Natural selection/Evolution has already created antibiotic resistant strains of viruses

>> No.11891728

>>11885046
>>11885014
Very ironic coming from two lefty retards who doubt fucking causality because some faggot Marxist told them so.

>> No.11891930

>>11882633
It's called Physics

>> No.11892007

>>11882633
I would do this, but I'd like the option of a high paying good job, so instead am going with Math and CS double. I can study philosophy, physics and classics on my own time.

>> No.11893050

doing this atm, but philosophy is probably a bit pointless unless youre at a good school

it's very """renaissance man""" but might be a bit jack-of-fuck-all-trades if your priority is the profits of your future employer

you'll just end up a well-read mathematician desu. btw: the hardest proofs i had last year werent even in the maths section. they were in the phil. dep.'s logic course

>> No.11893066

>>11883625
>They have nothing to do with each other, in the way that they're handled in academia.
anecdotally this is bs. the maths dep and phil dep at my uni put on a joint degree of math-phil, and about 1/4 of it is specifically logic or phil of maths. might depend where youre at. i know americans kinda have to build your own degree or smth

>> No.11893081

>>11883163
MATHS IS NOT USEFUL TO PHILOSOPHY
this is a 1000 year old meme.
basically:
1) the skills that practising maths develops, are useful for doing philosophy
2) maths gives lots of examples to use in philosophical thought-experiments

but it's VERY RARE for a mathematical result to have philosophical implications -- magnitudes rarer than say implications from linguistics, psychology, politics/economics, physics, even biology.

to conclude: big overlap in methodology, not in content

>> No.11893090
File: 90 KB, 876x579, 1528381103083.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11893090

>>11892007
>I can study philosophy, physics and classics on my own time.
Sorry, but you won't be able to do this with erudition outside of a university environment.

But I guess you can skim it for the pseud-cred and pick up some concepts and names you can abuse.

>> No.11893100

>>11893081
Everyone should at least read Euclid’s Elements. The quantity and intensity of Euclid’s Elements discussions on here is so high, quite frankly it’s very impressive.

I like those discussions. They usually dip into other mathematicians or Aristotle or something.

>> No.11893137

>>11893100
No, everyone should definitely not read Euclid's Elements. It's a beautiful book, don't get me wrong, there's something pure and innocent about it, but it's not required reading.

>> No.11893177

>>11893100
>>11893137
if you mean "everyone" non-literally, then yeah. i would say there a better mathematical works i would recommend for "literary worth"

>> No.11893211

>>11882633
It's pretty peanut butter and jelly with those two. Throwing in some physics is like buttering the toast.

I hated math back in the day but wasn't bad at at it, and the more philosophy I learn the more I'm drawn back to it. Especially with how often I draw upon what little math I know in philosophical thinking, and how often I have thoughts along the lines of "I wish I knew the math for this" (for the sake of representing something in mathematical terms or at least comparing something to concepts in math).

I just want to avoid that stupid, tail-chasing math that nerds mistake to be metaphysically informative

>> No.11893228

>>11893211
oh and my basis for saying they go well together obviously doesn't come from my own experience, which involves very little investment in math. Rather, I know people who fuck with the two. Smartest guy I know took on a math major when he finished his philosophy classes, seemed to be making it work. Used to be a history major and I think that benefited him as well.

Ok honestly bro, everything goes well with philosophy.

>> No.11893312

>>11893090
With a slightly high IQ you can study philosophy, physics and classics in your own time and end up having the same amount of knowledge if not more as any NPC with a degree in any of those fields. Sabato studied the classics and philosophy in his spare time and he ended up being one of the greatest writers in Argentine history. I think you're just trying to rationalize the poverty that awaits you.

>> No.11893346

>>11893090
you honestly believe that lmaooo
the main thing holding you back is: if youre working you might not have motivation or time. other than that youre fine

>> No.11893436

>>11893312
Yeah, you "could", in the same sense you can get ripped without a personal trainer.
The statement means very little. You're just far more likely to learn more in a formal academic environment rather than relying on a sudden burst of extraordinary discipline.

>> No.11893470

>>11893312
whatever dilettante

I'm sure you'll be the next Sabato, weaving your stories from your deep insights in philosophy, physics and the classics

>> No.11893561

>>11893436
>>11893470
Ridiculous. Way to fall for the college meme. Actually, how could you even still think that unless, ha! You aren't even in college yet...mods!

>> No.11894506

>>11893561
"fell for the college meme"
I'm not sure what your argument is. I think it's beneficial to learn something from people who know more about it, in the company of people with the same interest. As shocking a claim as that may be.

Seriously though, going to college was a great decision for me. Obviously there's kind of a scam involved in telling everyone to go to some absurdly expensive university because it's the only way they'll be worth anything to society, but I actually go to school specifically for the sake of learning. I'm enjoying myself, and my tuition was covered by financial aid anyways.
Now I'm at a point where I can spot an "autodidact" from a mile away because they know so little of what they're trying to talk about and I have a great time correcting them.

Keep being resentful, I'm sure it'll bring you fulfillment and whatever the fuck else you're trying to do

>> No.11894509

The only way for today is to attend St. John's College for your undergraduate career and then go to Harvard Divinity School to learn theology.

>> No.11894520

>>11885050
Nice b8

>> No.11894719

>>11894506
Apparently, you didn't learn of selection bias or opportunity cost in yer fancy edumication. Son, you've merely learnt to spot stupid people. Many of the rest of us developed the knack before freshmen year. Sure, if learning from reading a book isn't enough for you, and you're idle rich, I won't say college isn't fun. I don't think your fellow students are just there for the learning though.
Nor are the deep insights in philosophy coming out of universities. Academics aren't even trying for such any more, much less producing them.
>I'm enjoying myself
So you're in college now. Close enough. Talk to me when you're out kid.

>> No.11894867

>>11894719
It's funny how you haven't actually got around to making a point, it's just an awkwardly mean spirited rant that I'm just going to assume is channeling some level of personal frustration.

You are right that I can't really know whether I have the ability I claimed to have. As for the integrity of academia... I think your attitude is just you lashing out against the popular narrative exaggerating the value of formal education. It's pretty easy to understand the value of a resource that offers you access to people who've literally made a career out of studying and teaching your topic of interest. Maybe your level of intellect is such that you've never had the privilege of encountering someone who can teach you something you didn't know, so I can't speak for you, but for what it's worth I'm not at all incapable of teaching myself this sort of material. The institution just expedites the process significantly.

Now I wasn't always a philosophy major. Before I was going to school because I wasn't sure what else I wanted to do and didn't yet have the discipline to do anything ambitious with my time. I went through a number of fields and came to feel the same way you did. School left my life plan entirely for a minute. I'll spare you the details, but I haven't looked back since entering the philosophy program. It's fucking great and I'm sorry you can't imagine that it could be so for any reason other than that the student is retarded.

I'm not a freshman - I'm a 25 year old undergrad on the cusp of graduation. I'm not intending to go to grad school, because of the option of teaching myself and the boundless opportunities of life regardless of your level of education, but you know... I may not be able to resist

>> No.11894999

>>11894867
I'm saying 7 years of your life for a bachelors, that isn't done yet, is not an improvement in efficiency.
Look, hopefully it works out for you. But certainly consider carefully before dumping in another few years. You haven't, it would seem, really done anything besides schooling in the whole of your life. You can't compare the value of school to anything else, because you haven't done anything else. Perhaps this even includes trying to learn something on your own as an adult.
An example comes to mind of the anon over in /out/ that just finished 3 months of hitchhiking from NYC to LA with $300 in his pocket. What value will that learning provide in the rest of his life? Not much book learning, but (since he survived...) possibly quite a lot value.
(I'll also note, you didn't deny your, likely analytic, philosophy department isn't really after the most fundamental questions. Maybe that is as it should be, but it is terribly disappointing.)

>> No.11895042

>>11893081
Math completely buttrapes and muttfucks neocommunist neomarxist "philosophers", math > philosophy any day of the fucking week if Plato was here he'd be studying fucking quantum phyics

>> No.11895144

>>11883322
Not true. Not historically and not in practice.

>> No.11895154

>>11884667
There's lots of mathematicians that are shit at arithmetic and even at a lot of what you would consider mathematics proper. iirc there was some woman with a cognitive defect that didn't allow her to be much good at highschool 'mathematics' but she excelled at pure mathematics. To my mind, you could and should train your arithmetic ability, but as far as mathematics is concerned, it's kind of irrelevant.