[ 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: 49 KB, 740x312, impostor.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4764196 No.4764196[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

Is this comic true?

>> No.4764202

Nope. Just a pretentious waste of time. Like all xkcd comics.

I know someone's talking from their ass the second they drop the word "deconstruction." You should ignore anyone who uses it as well.

>> No.4764210

>>4764202
>You should ignore anyone who uses it as well.
I should forget everything I was taught in my high school and gen-ed college English classes?

>> No.4764219

> xkcd
Stopped reading right there. Reddit, pls go.

>> No.4764238

>>4764196
>>4764202
>Sokal affair

It's so true that a mathematician wrote a totally bunk paper and had it published in a postmodernism journal.

Yes, it wasn't "literary criticism," but the same "standards" apply to that "field."

>> No.4764243

>>4764238
Sorry, he was a physicist.

Not that there's a huge difference.

>> No.4764244

>>4764238
Nope; anyone who takes the Sokal affair seriously is unequivocally an idiot.

>> No.4764252

>>4764238
this is awesome. haha

yeah i agree with the comic. i don't think the humanities are useless but they're a bit more wild west than the STEM stuff.

>> No.4764261

>>4764219
dumbass pls go

>> No.4764262

nope

>>4764238
that journal wasn't exactly a good example of the field, it wasn't even peer-reviewed

not to mention that post-modern philosophy is clearly distinct from lit crit

>> No.4764266

>>4764244
Butthurt liberal arts loser detected.

Upset that you're wasting your life on a totally useless subject?

What about the Sokal affair is questionable? It exposes everything that is wrong with the majority of liberal arts - namely the obfuscation of a lack of actual subject matter.

Of course when you're a "philosopher" or a "literary critic," there is no actual right or wrong answer, so you can make up as many words and invent as many ideologies as you'd like, and however ridiculous they may be, no one will ever be able to prove you wrong.

Liberal Arts is a cop out.

>> No.4764267

>>4764261
>actually liking xkcd
How does it feel being a massive pleb?

>> No.4764268

>>4764219
This.

>> No.4764269

>>4764266
>obfuscation of a lack of actual subject matter.
>obfuscation
kek

>> No.4764272

>>4764266
>STEM loser putting an official ban on coinages

bye Heidegger
bye Shakespeare
bye language

seems like language was meaningless all along
if only there was a field of study devoted to this!

>> No.4764277

>>4764261
Not who you're pouting at, but only dumbasses read xkcd.

Take your trivialized science statistics, family guy style references to computer coding and Newtonian physics, and your desperate want of cultural inclusion and get the fuck out.

>> No.4764279

>>4764262
>post-modern philosophy is clearly distinct from lit crit

The subject matter may differ, but the principles are identical. You deconstruct and analyze texts and arguments written by others in ways that are frequently meaningless below the surface.

Want proof? Reverse any or all philosophical arguments ever made after the establishment of modern science. Notice that not a single aspect of modern life will change.

>> No.4764285

>>4764279
This comment literally gave me cancer.

>> No.4764286

>>4764279
literary criticism has been around since Aristotle you fucking goof

Reverse any or all developments in any field except applied sciences and it won't lead to a huge difference in the life of the average individual
doesn't mean they're any more or less pointless than each other

>> No.4764289

>>4764272
There's a slight difference between creating a word or phrase to decorate a literary passage, and inventing a minced 7 syllable word to artificially inflate your life's academic work.

Then again, you're retarded enough to waste your life on a totally useless subject, I wouldn't expect you to have the capacity to understand such a distinction.

>> No.4764297

>>4764289
I'm not some kind of pro post-modern critic of 10 years standing, I do English Lit for fun and a marginal increase in employability

>totally useless subject
my life's pointless to begin with, might as well enjoy the things I enjoy

>> No.4764298

>>4764286
>Reverse any or all developments in any field except applied sciences and it won't lead to a huge difference in the life of the average individual
doesn't mean they're any more or less pointless than each other

This is exactly the kind of disconnect I expected to see on /lit/.

The point is that if you randomly start reversing the results of scientific progress, the technologies that fundamentally depend on said discoveries and understandings cease to function.

Because, in science, there is a RIGHT answer, and there is a WRONG answer. That's the difference between practicality and futility.

>> No.4764299

>>4764210
This may be a genuine shocker to you, but not everyone who teaches gen-ed classes and high school kids is an expert in their field.

>> No.4764303

xcd is so freakin' epic

<3 Randall

>> No.4764305

>>4764299
Prepare for the storm, maggot

>> No.4764308

>>4764303
0/10
>>>/v/

>> No.4764309

>>4764243
you take that back

>> No.4764315

>Deconstruction is always bad and anyone who even mentions it is an idiot
I agree it's an overused, and wrongly-used term, but it's still a valid thing to write.

>> No.4764329

>>4764298
reading Harold Pinter instead of physics textbooks doesn't make me a child, you can miss me w/ the condescension

what I was saying is that you can scrap History, Geography, English Lit/Lang, and p much every other BA type subject while you're at it, and still have a functional society
wouldn't be much fun though

>RIGHT
>WRONG
can I have an objectively correct code of ethics while you're here pls
these philosophers keep confusing me with abstractions and concepts that can't be physically proven

>> No.4764330

>>4764298
>Because, in science, there is a RIGHT answer, and there is a WRONG answer.
Wrong, there are hypotheses that have acquired the status of theory by being functional explanations so far for some phenomena with some accuracy and then there are hypotheses which don't seemingly work yet, don't seemingly work anymore and hypotheses that might turn out out to be better than our current ones but have not been come up with yet. You can stop posting any time, by the way. Only RIGHT and WRONG claims are those that lack an imaginable counter-example, the rest are contingent and may turn out "wrong" at any second.

>> No.4764364

>>4764329
>>4764330
>idiocy and mental gymnastics

You can't seriously be arguing that any liberal arts field is more pragmatic, or has had more of an influence on our modern lives, than modern STEM fields.

>reading Harold Pinter instead of physics textbooks doesn't make me a child
No, but spending your best years paying to exclusively study literature does make you as responsible as a child.

>can I have an objectively correct code of ethics while you're here pls
Ethics are a philosophical concept.

>these philosophers keep confusing me with abstractions and concepts that can't be physically proven
It's not the fact that they cannot be physically proven, it's the fact that they have NO PHYSICAL CONSEQUENCE. Philosophers have almost zero effect on the lives of anyone but other philosophers. It's a selfish waste of time to study a field which cannot be applied outside of academia.

>>4764330
I test my hypothesis a couple thousand times, I come up with a 99.999% probability that it is correct, the physical system behaves in a manner which overwhelmingly suggests that my conclusion is RIGHT. A philosopher comes up with a hypothesis, and hundreds of philosophers spend the next couple hundred years arguing about it.

Your philosophical characterization of science is laughable, and further proof of the futility of liberal arts.

FYI, you don't even understand the difference between "hypothesis" and "theory." You're ignorant.

>> No.4764372

>>4764364
>libfags get BTFO

utter ownage

>> No.4764377

>>4764364
Sounds like someone is frustrated by the notion that not everything is immediately observable from an objective perspective ;^)

>> No.4764379

>>4764364
>Your philosophical characterization of science is laughable

Let me elaborate:
In philosophy, you come to fanciful conclusions like those of Pyrrhonism and Solipsism - and if humans stopped there, in the field that supposedly is the purest pursuit of knowledge, we would be living in caves. In that sense, the definition of philosophy is essentially a lie.

Philosophy is not exactly a pseudo-science, it's more of a half science. These same conclusions about knowledge and thought exist in STEM - except we recognize the necessity for quantification of these ideas. When you combine philosophy with mathematics, you get STEM. And the result is not time wasted arguing questions with no provable answers, but practical, useful growth of science and technology.

>> No.4764380

>>4764364
word

>> No.4764382

>tfw you will never be able to build a bridge

>> No.4764383

> Philosophers have almost zero effect on the lives of anyone but other philosophers.

lol wait what
You were doing fine this entire argument until you got to this point.

Who is Aristotle? Who is Plato? Socrates? Confucius? Marx?

>> No.4764386

>>4764364
>Philosophers have almost zero effect on the lives of anyone but other philosophers
Huh? Why would you think that? Do you believe that the realm of politics, say, is divorced from philosophy? Does the term 'political philosophy' mean nothing to you?

>> No.4764388

>>4764383

meant to quote

>>4764364

>> No.4764390

>>4764379
Which philosophy of science do you subscribe to, STEMfriend? Kuhn? Popper? Something else?

>> No.4764391

>>4764364
>or has had more of an influence on our modern lives
STEM gives us tools to live with. Lit/art/music/etc. shape how people live.

>> No.4764393

>>4764364
>You can't seriously be arguing that any liberal arts field is more pragmatic, or has had more of an influence on our modern lives, than modern STEM fields.
Of course not (although on an individual level I'm sure plenty of people find literature, music, etc. worth their time), that'd be ridiculous. I just do it for fun, like I said - I'm not a selfless superman who'll become a life-saving doctor or academia-changing physicist, I just do what I like and I like what I do. Putting the happiness of my life on the line for the sake of mankind doesn't really tickle my fancy. As I'm sure you'll agree, it's not right or wrong (or indeed childish) to behave either way, seeing as utilitarianism is a philosophical concept and as such completely irrelevant to the modern world, and I am a purely physical being who enjoys intoxication, orgasms, and art. Why I enjoy this third item doesn't warrant thought - it can't be empirically proven, so it's worthless.

>It's a selfish waste of time to study a field which cannot be applied outside of academia.
philosophy can be applied in everyday life and general discussion
it's great fun

>> No.4764395

>>4764386

Politics and Philosophy? Is this the 18th century again? I'm fairly sure the new double-team is Politics and Economics.

>> No.4764398

>>4764383
neglectible except for their scientific / economic / cultural contributions. philosophy for it's own sake is pretty useless.

for example, if you saw the focoult / chomsky debate that was posted here lately, i feel like chomsky's way of doing stuff makes sense while focoult (sry if i'm misspelling him can't be fucked to google) just made abstract arguments all the time. that's why chomsky also has more of an effect on contemporary culture and politics than focoult (that and the fact that he didn't die of aids some decades ago but oh well)

that's not to say i like chomsky's worldview, just that i think thought without application is somewhat useless, just like potential without realisation.

just for clarification this is my first post ITT i'm not the other guy

>> No.4764402

>>4764395
Nope. PPE is very much still a thing.

>> No.4764404

>>4764390
not him but i find it pretty pompous how these guys (popper and his merry lot) claim to have invented some "philosophy of science" as if they own this shit all the while doing nothing to actually further science.

>> No.4764405

>>4764238
1. He was a published scientist
2. The journal wasn't edited or even read
3. The journal specifically set out to not censor any opinion
4. You don't know if the people who compiled the journal thought it was good or not

The Sokal affair is equivalent to someone posting a dumb thread on 4chan and then declaring that 4chan is dumb

>> No.4764406

>>4764386
>>4764388
I said "almost," however I concede that I may have over-generalized

I concede that a handful of philosophers have had a hand in influencing the behavior of humans after them.

Still, compare the utility of the average modern Liberal Arts major with the average STEM major. Although occasionally a certain philosophy will appear and grab hold of the common psyche, the majority of philosophers have no practical value to society.

>> No.4764407

>>4764398
>philosophy for its own sake is pretty useless
everything is useless when it's not applied to a use
human curiosity is a need that philosophy fills, the same way that quantum physics or religion do

>> No.4764409

>>4764402

Who do you think David Cameron or President Obongo's favourite philosopher is?

>> No.4764413

>>4764409
Cameron's favourite is David Hume, according to the Financial Times
good choice

>> No.4764414

>>4764398
>the impact of these philosophers on people's lives is negligible except for their impact on people's lives
Heh. And how the hell is Foucault purely abstract? Foucault had a very explicit political project and has been massively influential.

>> No.4764415

>>4764398

>philosophy for it's own sake is pretty useless.

Sounds like you're not arguing against philosophy as much as you're arguing against philosophy without grounds in actual events and people as well as an tangible application.

While I don't agree with you (I believe that what you describe as "philosophy for its own sake" is what leads many people to articulate ideas that have applications in the real world) I don't see your opinion at all as an argument against philosophy. That being said, as you have specified, you aren't the other guy, so I'm not quite sure what you're arguing for.

>> No.4764416

>>4764409
Obama's a Reinhold Niebuhr fan
they're pretty open about this stuff

>> No.4764419

>>4764391
>Lit/art/music/
Literature, art, and music are hobbies.

Let's put it this way: can the average scientist/engineer play a musical instrument or write a short story?

Can the average writer/musician/artist even comprehend anything more than basic mathematics?

And now you understand why STEM majors are justifiably arrogant.

>>4764390
None, I have better things to spend my time on, namely on actual science, than picking one philosophy out of dozens which are actually disconnected from science.

I don't need to study philosophy to understand the effects of bias and uncertainty in my results.

I was very excited about philosophy in high school. After a semester of "philosophy club" I realized the truth, that it was all the same totally useless shit.

By the way, am I the only one here who feels that the overwhelming majority of philosophical arguments may be reduced ultimately to questions about semantics?

>> No.4764423

>>4764419
>can the average scientist/engineer play a musical instrument or write a short story?
No.
>Can the average writer/musician/artist even comprehend anything more than basic mathematics?
Yes, that's why they're writers/musicians/artists.

Is this the same troll that has been posting these shitty ass xkcd comics for the past few weeks?

>> No.4764424

>>4764407
sure, it was meant as a response to
> Philosophers have almost zero effect on the lives of anyone but other philosophers.
which i'd say is true. just as renessaince painters dont have an effect on the lives of most people nowadays, no matter how great they were.

>everything is useless when it's not applied to a use
i like that sentence, it's so clear and conscise

>>4764414
>Foucault had a very explicit political project and has been massively influential.
yeah? well fuck. what was that?

>>4764415
>Sounds like you're not arguing against philosophy as much as you're arguing against philosophy without grounds in actual events and people as well as an tangible application.
yep, that's what i mean. i'm not even against philo for the sake of it, i'm just arguing that it's not really much use to anyone other than who's doing it. it's enjoyment rather than something that brings about progress

>> No.4764425

>>4764416
>>4764409

Facetiousness aside, I don't know whether this thread is criticising Academia or Philosophy.

>> No.4764429

>>4764419
>can the average scientist/engineer play a musical instrument or write a short story?
the operative word missing there which would make the two situations equivalent is "well"

sure the average scientist/engineer could play or write a short story, in the same way that I could shakily do some basic arithmetic

there's place for jesters in the court as well as nobles and knights, b

>> No.4764432

>>4764419\
>am I the only one here who feels that the overwhelming majority of philosophical arguments may be reduced ultimately to questions about semantics?
No, of course not. That's an extremely common thought the modern world thanks to the work of philosophers like Wittgenstein.

>> No.4764434

>>4764425
Someone's conflating the two and running Quixotically at them on a mule called Objectivity with a lance called Taking Everything Very Seriously Indeed

>> No.4764435

>>4764424
>yeah? well fuck. what was that?
Criticising the complacent assumptions of liberal democracy, basically. Showing how we're not nearly as free and enlightened as we might think we are.

>> No.4764437

>>4764434
i laughed way too hard at this

>>4764435
and what was the massive effect of that?

>> No.4764443

>>4764437
I don't think it was a massive effect, but it's not like Richard Feynman's work had a massive effect on anyone outside of his field either

>> No.4764450

>>4764196
Nope. Most literary criticism is incredibly rigorous and requires a real depth of knowledge to produce

>> No.4764451

>>4764443
(psychic prediction: v angry reply from STEMbro coming up)

>> No.4764454

>>4764437
>and what was the massive effect of that?
Getting referenced in every field of study from anthropology to zoology (probably). Being read to some degree by almost everyone who studies the humanities, including all the ones who go on to become politicians, journalists, bishops, [insert influential positions here].

>> No.4764455

>>4764424
>it's enjoyment rather than something that brings about progress
Something the liberal arts are good for is questioning the assumptions behind statements like these. Even if we agree that the point of philosophy is only 'enjoyment' for philosophers and that it does not bring about 'progress', why is that a bad thing? Is 'progress' something that ever actually happens, and if it does, then is it always a good thing? You need to set aside your Whig history and think for a bit.

>> No.4764481

>>4764443
>>4764451
but feynman's work legitimizes itself because he's contributing to the ever growing body of scientific knowledge. that's what science is for.

if philosophy is there to answer the question of how a life should be lived and what kind of weltanschauung makes sense, then the measure of it's success should be wether it's applicable imo.

if it's just there for enjoyment, then that's cool too, but it shouldn't be viewed as a useful tool to build a worldview, but rather like art or fiction since it's obviously not particularily grounded in reality.

>>4764450
then why can i understand marcel reich ranitzky (influential german lit crit guy) even though i have absolutely zero background in lit crit

>>4764455
i'm not saying it's a bad thing; my main problem is: either it's a tool for progress, then it's valuable to society as a whole; or it's not, then it's valuable to certain people for recreation but not the general populace
and by progress i mean: progress towards a happy, healthy, enlightened, sane society

>> No.4764496

>>4764481
You seem to imagine your worldview isn't influenced by philosophy. Why do you think that?

>> No.4764505

>>4764443
lol. so clueless

>> No.4764506

>>4764496
no, you're misunderstanding, or maybe it's my shitty english. i'm not saying philo as a whole is impractical, i'm saying some philo is, specifically the philosophy that's just there for it's own sake, without ever connecting to the world around it.

i'm sure my worldview is in some way influenced by philosophy, i mean, having a worldview is pretty much philosophy by itself.

>> No.4764509

>>4764481
science for science's sake?
that justifies p much anything

I'd say that philosophy's in between art/fiction etc. and science, in that it features both v poetic and subjective understandings of reality and logical reasoning

>>4764481
>and by progress i mean: progress towards a happy, healthy, enlightened, sane society
which is good because?
I agree that it's ideal, but it'd be impossible to explain *why* without some form of philosophy, however basic

>> No.4764510

The foundations of science are based in philosophy.

Darwin was a philosopher.

>> No.4764514

>>4764506
But the impact of any learning isn't really defined by what it TRIES to do, anon. It's what people do with it that counts. Of all people, a scientist should understand that. I mean, Newton was trying to understand how God built the universe. I'm pretty sure he wasn't trying to build a rocketship.

>> No.4764518

>>4764514
(his alchemy, on the other hand, was entirely practical in its intentions. And also, AFAIK, completely useless)

>> No.4764526

>>4764505
His greatest achievement that influenced the wider world was his indirect contribution to the murder of tens of thousands of women and children
Thanks, Science™!

A huge amount of science is irrelevant to everyday life and even to pragmatic "scientific progress", and a lot of philosophy influences peoples' lives to some extent
lack of relevance to the layman makes a subject less of a priority to some extent, I'd agree, but astronomy goes in the same bin as theology would if that logic was thought through

>> No.4764530

>>4764526
*the same bin that theology would

>> No.4764533

>muh subjectivistism

>> No.4764544

>>4764509
>I agree that it's ideal, but it'd be impossible to explain *why* without some form of philosophy, however basic
yeah duh as i said, i'm not against philosophy. that was never my point

>>4764514
but philosophy isn't learning, it's creating. it's much more interpretation than observation; you're pushing yourself onto the world. it's fundamentally different from learning / observing.
that's why i think science has value to society even if it's just there for it's own sake: because it's open ended. philosophy is at any point concious of itself and of where it's coming from / where it's going. you're taking ideas and reshaping them. if there can be value to the process, it's gotta be in the change it brings about.

i'm just questioning wether philosophy is really as valuable a tool to understand / shape the world as people think it is. it's always claimed it's the gateway to enlightenment. maybe it is. but i think there's a whole lot of high-level intellectual masturbation going on in HASS:

>> No.4764547

>>4764526
*tips fedora*

>> No.4764616

>>4764395
Somebody said doubles? Check mine.

>> No.4764621

>>4764544
Ah, that does make sense. My point is that when you say
>if there can be value to the process, it's gotta be in the change it brings about
you can't define that change in advance. The most useless-seeming bit of philosophy might end up having a huge impact, just as the most useless-seeming bit of science might.

But I would agree that physical science is generally cumulative in a way that the humanities aren't- each part has an identifiable value within the whole until there's a big paradigm shift, possibly. Lots of philosophy will probably end up doing not much of anything. I wouldn't agree that that means philosophy in general isn't valuable, though.

>> No.4764662

>>4764405
1. Published scientist, not someone who is an expert on post-modernism.
2. The journal is edited, it has editors.
3. How does that matter?
4. They actually did respond to if they thought it was good or not. They said it was poorly written but that they felt it affirmed a link between post-modernism and physics.

>> No.4764666

>>4764616
How on earth can you fail to get doubles on /lit/?

>> No.4764670

>>4764666
You said it, Satan.

>> No.4764718

>>4764238

The Sokal affair proves about as much as winning a game of touch football because you punched someone in the face at the decisive moment.

Social Text was not a peer review journal; they accepted Sokal's paper on good faith and he took this as an opportunity to pull some political stunt. The fact that Sokal was able to get his paper published says nothing at all about "postmodernism" (whatever the fuck that even means), the humanities, or social sciences, but rather shows that when you let your guard down, some asshole is probably going to try and take a cheap shot.

>> No.4764748

>>4764298
>Because, in science, there is a RIGHT answer, and there is a WRONG answer. That's the difference between practicality and futility.
superkek

>> No.4764752

>>4764202
But...that's the point of the comic. Literary criticism is so broad that you can drop any big word in there and look like a smart-ass. Hell, the alt-text actually says "If you think this is too hard on literary criticism, read the Wikipedia article on deconstruction."

Unless, of course, I'm completely wrong.

>> No.4764753

>>4764266
a cop out from what?
being a human calculator?
wow good job you're going to be replaced by a machine in 15 years

>> No.4764759

>>4764196
Yes, unfortunately this is somewhat true.

>> No.4764762

>>4764382
Most modern civil engineers can't even build bridges. Even when they do, they come crashing down a few decades later.

>> No.4764786

>>4764752
I'm 90% sure that xkcd guy doesn't know enough about deconstruction to know whether deconstruction is bullshit.

>> No.4764796

You wouldn't expect someone to understand something like rocket propulsion without first knowing calculus, materials engineering, physics, etc., so why would you assume to be able to understand deconstruction without knowing about ontology, phenomenology, linguistics, structuralism and semiotics?

Note that when I say deconstruction I'm referring to the very specific argument advanced by Derrida in Of Grammatology, and not whatever vague colloquial meaning the term has now acquired.

>> No.4764797

>mfw Speech and Phenomena is actually a really good book

>> No.4764799

>>4764481
>>and by progress i mean: progress towards a happy, healthy, enlightened, sane society
Studying philosophy for philosophy's sake makes me happy, healthy, enlightened, and sane, even when it has no "practical" purpose. Do you think a total utilitarian society would be happy, healthy, enlightened, and sane? Society doesn't run like a machine. A philosophical text which you find meaningless and devoid of practical use may shape how I look at the world.

>> No.4764800

>>4764786
Is it? I don't actually know.

The fact remains that he's saying Liberal Arts is bullshit, which I can agree with.

>> No.4764804

>>4764800
What do you even mean by "liberal arts"?
Is philosophy, economics, physchology, history, LANGUAGES, etc., bullshit?

Come on m8, you need to up your b8

>> No.4764815

>>4764804

There's always a bit of equivocation on the issue. I've almost finished a BA in linguistics and I find it very valuable.

On the other hand, I do agree with most when they say gender studies et al are vacuous and indeed 'bullshit'.

>> No.4764820

>>4764804
Well, strictly speaking there's not much you can do with any of those, save for economics, language or psychology.

In general, liberal arts courses are filled with folks wanting to get a degree so they can teach it to folks that want to teach it. Endless cycle, ya know. Now, not saying they're completely useless, I mean, >>4764799 gets it. It should be a hobby, not something you spend college on.

Then again, I'm going into film, so my opinion's kinda pointless.

>> No.4764824

I wish everyone with a non STEM degree would fucking die.

>> No.4764835

2edgy4me m8

>> No.4764840

>>4764820
lol
there's no way you are actually serious hahaha

>>4764815
true, although gender studies etc. programs are really just interdisciplinary programs that draw from history, literary and critical theory, psychology, sociology, statistics, etc. etc. It's not that they're simply vacuous or bullshit on their own, but the whole is less than the sum of the parts because of insuficient specialization.

>> No.4764844

>>4764196
It is true for 'interpretation' which has sadly become mainstream.

Classical analysis like that of the French commentaire compose is much more rigorous - there is actually a correct answer. What's more only actual literature can really be analyzed in this way.

>> No.4764847

>>4764266

>Sokal affair means literary critics is bullshit

Then I guess the Bogdanov affair makes physics bullshit.

Protip: neither mean anything

>> No.4764850

>>4764824
Enjoy your world without women, Clifton.

>> No.4764852

>>4764840
Hey, like I said, I'm a fuckin' moron. Raised in a conservative family, ya know. I'd love to expand my mind a little.

>> No.4764855

>>4764820
History informs everything we do and works as a guideline on how society should advance.

Philosophy strongly influences the views of anyone who reads them, thus influencing any work they perform. Scientists, economists, and politicians don't exist and work in a vacuum no matter how unbiased they attempt to be. Philosophy influences people and people run society.

>> No.4764856

>>4764815
What internships have you had? What jobs do you have lined up after you graduate? If you are unsatisfied with your answers to these questions, do you still feel like it is valuable, considering how much money you paid for your education?

>> No.4764864

>>4764855
Well, I suppose that makes some sense. Then again, if that's the case, I'm curious as to what more you could do with philosophy.

Also, it sorta seems the two go hand in hand.

>> No.4764869

>>4764856
I'm not him, but I majored in art history and was just advanced to candidate status for my PhD in it. I work part time for a trust fund "art foundation" (basically a public gallery that accrues investments in the form of art that, since they are the foundation's property, aren't subject to the same type of property taxes). My job is to research artists, consult for acquisitions and write catalogue essays, listings, etc. If I don't go into academia then I can definitely get a full time job there--I already make more than I would in a comprable tenure track position, for example.

I'm pretty satisfied.

>> No.4764873

>>4764855
Philosophy 'trickles down'. The work of visionary philosophers becomes commonplace in the public* consciousness a (century) after the philosophers die.

*'Public' meaning here alternatively the aristocratic society or more recently the educated masses.

Eventually all of a society is charged with certain philosophical notions. Inalienable human rights is the most commonplace of ideas in the Western world today, whereas a few centuries ago it was being propounded by 'radical progressives' in contradiction to the theocratic right to rule.

Of course its probably the changing technology and wealth of society that really pushes these ideas, but the philosophers are themselves a necessary part of that process.

>> No.4764912

>>4764869
>I'm not him, but I majored in art history and was just advanced to candidate status for my PhD in it. I work part time for a trust fund "art foundation" (basically a public gallery that accrues investments in the form of art that, since they are the foundation's property, aren't subject to the same type of property taxes). My job is to research artists, consult for acquisitions and write catalogue essays, listings, etc. If I don't go into academia then I can definitely get a full time job there--I already make more than I would in a comprable tenure track position, for example.

You're quite lucky in this regard! Most people who major in art history work at Starbucks.

>> No.4764918

>>4764869
>>4764912
The major is still worthless since it doesn't contribute anything to society.

>> No.4764919

>>4764918
uh huh

>> No.4764927

>>4764918
>become engineer
>spend career designing machines that make plastic containers for scissors
>benefiting society

>> No.4764932

>>4764927
People use scissors everyday idiot.

>> No.4764937

>>4764196
You'd be found out when it became apparent you hadn't actually heard of any literature beyond what was on your high school required reading list. Also, waffling ad lib is surprisingly difficult.

>> No.4764938
File: 204 KB, 683x797, clickthru.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4764938

>>4764912
I'm not lucky, I just actually give a shit about my education/career and try hard to succeed. For a lot of liberal art disciplines, if you want a job in the field you need to be the best of the best. It's not like some easy STEM sector job where they'll let any jerkoff with a degree/qualifications have a job...

>> No.4764940

>>4764932
>not using your knife to cut things
>supporting the production of plastic

>> No.4764942

>>4764927
Thanks for reminding me faggot.

>tfw I thought I was gonna be designing spaceplanes

>> No.4764945

>>4764932
oh yeah well people use philosophical concepts in every instance of their being in the world.

>> No.4764948

>>4764927
>STEM degree
>any job I want at Snipco.
>40k starting

>> No.4764964

>>4764938
>It's not like some easy STEM sector job where they'll let any jerkoff with a degree/qualifications have a job

u wot m8?

>maybe half of those who complete their graduate programme will land a STEM job
>you need to have plenty of relevant work experience to be considered for a spot on a programme, the majority of graduates don't make it even with firsts
>work experience placements themselves require work experience and are highly competitive, often with hundreds of applicants per spot, making it extremely difficult to get into

That while 300k starting thing really is bullshit. Most STEM graduates end up in some dead-end office middle management position.

>> No.4764965

Some of you forget that everyone with a degree in biology can be called biologist but not everyone with a degree in philosophy becomes a philosopher.

>> No.4764970

>>4764965
well no
A biologist is someone who practices the science of biology

>> No.4764975
File: 65 KB, 250x250, 1387668464427.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4764975

>>4764965
>that cringe when studying philosophy and people refer to you as a philosopher

>> No.4764986

>>4764965
>everyone with a degree in biology can be called biologist

If you're not doing research and writing papers which are subsequently published in respected peer-reviewed journals, you're not a biologist.

>> No.4765030

>>4764986
>>4764970

Then I'll formulate my statement. Not everyone with a PhD in biology...

>> No.4765051

>>4765030
you mean philosophy

>> No.4765057

>>4765030
* Everyone with PhD in biology...

My fault, you get the idea.

>> No.4765061

>>4765057
Oh, yeah. That works too.

>> No.4765063

>>4765051
Yep.

>> No.4765068

>>4764964
>Most STEM graduates end up in some dead-end office middle management position
Beats serving coffee.

Unless the humanities student in question has successfully managed to develop a practical, quietist personal philosophy of some kind, in which case they're laughing all the way to a profound sense of contentment.

>> No.4765074

>>4765068
>Beats serving coffee.
Nah bro, the place serving coffee will give me good free coffee and let me ignore everyone else once they are drinking coffee. That is two hells of a dead-end office job off the list.

>> No.4765077

>>4764196
Oh look, all the hard scientific examples use very specific problems (heat dissipation, Klingon) in technical vocabulary and the two examples from soft science and liberal arts are extremely vague (being generous, social hierarchy, and a summary of a large school of critical thought) and in plain language. If you're dealing with 101 shit in plain language, then you can't tell if somebody's an expert straight off. If it was something more like Derrida's relationship to Claude Levi Strauss he'd be weeded out in a remark or two, just like he was in panel 1.


>>4764238
>>4764405

>> No.4765083
File: 5 KB, 258x250, 1397170316221.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4765083

>tfw lib arts grad
>tfw careers attainable up thanks to family contacts
>tfw still scared about future because of stereotypes about my degree
>tfw have no alternative anyway

it's a mixed kind of feel.

>> No.4765084

>>4765077
By the way, if anyone is wondering, Derrida's relationship to Claude Levi Strauss is that they were gay lovers.

>> No.4765093

>>4765077
Are you aware of what xkcd is and who it panders to?

>> No.4765094

>>4765083
sorry for the grammatical errors, I've been drinking, yo.

>> No.4765105

>>4765083
if you have contacts nothing else matters. My best mate's an engineer and his supervisor majored in History - his last name is what mattered in the end.

>> No.4765110

>>4765093
Yes, but the OP's asking if it's true. I'm just pointing out that the examples are purporting to be comparable while they're not.

>>4765084
I'm particularly touched by the 1969 letters reminiscing about the time they had in the Marriott after the "The Language of Criticism and the Sciences of Man" conference.

>> No.4765112

>>4764285
I'm so sorry, anon.

>> No.4765113

>>4765110
>I'm particularly touched by
>changgay.gif

>> No.4765114

>>4765105
Yeah but I still feel like I'm in a precarious position and I'm massively insecure because of the stigma of my degree/the embarrassment if I fail.

Maybe I'm just being weak. The thought of it consumes me totally.

>> No.4765117

>>4764856

I don't have either, because my degree is required for post-grad in speech pathology, which I'll be going into next year. Thanks for the condescension though.

>> No.4765118

>>4765114
Jezus Christ, üntermensch much? Enjoy your privilidge man. Or are you one of those self-loathing types? I.e. a jew.

>> No.4765120

>>4765114
>Maybe I'm just being weak.
there is no maybe about it, man up
run up some hills, do some pullups, lift weights or something
this is ridiculous

>> No.4765126

>>4765120
All true, but wouldn't you find it depressing if your life endeavour and major investment was considered something to be ridiculed and called worthless?

>> No.4765131

>>4765126
Of course I would, any normal person would. It just has to be dealt with, find whatever it is inside you and use it to counter the fear

>> No.4765132

>>4765126
Only by plebeian shits. I'm guessing that, since you have a name that holds weight, your family is pretty patrician. Or are you noveaux rich, in which case I need to go wash my hands.

>> No.4765138

>>4765126
>life endeavour and major investment was considered something to be ridiculed and called worthless?

Which is?

>> No.4765142

>>4765132
All it is is that I have a family member working in the industry relating to my degree (English) who is willing to give me the odd benefit such as contacts/internships.

>> No.4765148

>>4765142

Well if you can get a job who gives a fuck?

>> No.4765149

>>4765142
Pfft, still you're only getting ridiculed by the plebs. You're superior anon, you are.

>> No.4765151

>>4765132
No patrician family would attach a "stigma" to a liberal arts education.

>> No.4765154

>>4765132
>>4765151
Does it really make sense to call families patrician since the fall of aristocracy?
The modern super-rich don't create any culture

>> No.4765156

>>4765151
exactly

>> No.4765160
File: 206 KB, 1218x696, guestpostthom-07-bernard.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4765160

>>4765154
>people
>not creating culture

>> No.4765161

>>4765154

'Nobility belongs to the virtuous alone.'

- Antisthenes

>> No.4765163

>>4764364
>I test my hypothesis a couple thousand times, I come up with a 99.999% probability that it is correct, the physical system behaves in a manner which overwhelmingly suggests that my conclusion is RIGHT. A philosopher comes up with a hypothesis, and hundreds of philosophers spend the next couple hundred years arguing about it.

See, ask yourself on what you test those hypotheses on. You may conclude that they are all based on more hypotheses. Then compare it to philosophy, the outlook can be familiar, every philosopher preceded was argued on by the new one, disapproving or approving their viewpoints. The difference is that philosophy is more open than the conclusions you base your hypothesis. And why do you think it is correct, is it just by the acceptance of the ground system or the quantity of them?

>> No.4765164
File: 80 KB, 270x269, psychologist-lucy-copy.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4765164

>>4765126
If you're secure in something's worth, you should be offended by the stupidity of the accusers and prepared to defend it. You're not. You're insecure, so you have doubts, and thus probably justified, because your education probably was legitimately poor because you have no idea how to defend yourself and you understand this semi-consciously.

>> No.4765169

>>4765163
>A philosopher comes up with a hypothesis

what

>> No.4765173

>>4764364
>using the word hypothesis
>and physical
>and system
>right
>even probable
denying the efficacy of philosophy

>> No.4765174

>>4765164
I haven't even started it yet, it's coming up but too late to change.

>> No.4765189

>>4765169
I was quoting the >>4764364 guy.

>> No.4765191

>>4764267
how does it feel to be a narrow-minded cunt repellent?

>> No.4765192

I'm just going to say it:
philosophy =|= liberal arts
philosophy =|= STEM

>> No.4765197

>>4764847
>compare two totally different events
>thereby wash away all responsibility
8/10

>> No.4765201

>>4765189

Yeah I meant to quote him too sorry.

>> No.4765879
File: 320 KB, 600x1650, xkcd2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4765879

>> No.4765945
File: 96 KB, 674x789, xkcd.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4765945

this comic is true