<p>As an outsider looking in, I've always wonder about what it takes to be a Harvard student, or even just a college student.</p>
<p>Consider this:</p>
<p>"Indeed dialectical critical realism may be seen under the aspect of Foucauldian strategic reversal-of the unholy trinity of Parmenidean/Platonic/Aristotelean provenance; of the Cartesian-Lockean-Humean-Kantian paradigm; of foundationalisms in practice, fideistic foundationalisms and irrationalisms in practice, capricious exercises of the will-to-power or some other ideologically and/or psycho-somatically buried source new and old alike; of the primordial failing of western philosophy, ontological monovalence, and its close ally, the epistemic fallacy with its ontic dual; of the analytic problematic laid down by Plato, which Hegel served only to replicate in his actualist monovalent analytic reinstatement in transfigurative reconciling dialectical connection, while in his hubristic claims for absolute idealism he inaugurated the Comtean, Kierkegaardian and Nietzschean eclipses of reason, replicating the fundaments of positivism through its transmutation route to the superidealism of a Baudrillard." </p>
<p>Sorry for putting you through that.
Despite knowing what most of the individual words meant (i.e. dialectical, provenance, fideistic, etc.), I have no idea what the piece is trying to say. I think that this is so because I lack the educational foundation, for I honestly have no clue what the "Parmenidean/Platonic/Aristotelean provenance" is. The "Cartesian-Lockean-Humean-Kantian paradigm" is also Greek to me.</p>
<p>In my experiences and observations, high school students just don't care about statements like those stated above.</p>
<p>Is it different in college? Must one align oneself with the "Cartesian-Lockean-Humean-Kantian paradigm" in order to acquit oneself, or else be slaughtered by others who are more than willing to quote Aristotle at the less esoteric?</p>
<p>I was talking to my sister last night, and she said some words I didn’t understand. Trying to describe the difference between Henotheism and… something else. Like one was the belief in one god and the understanding that there were others but the other one was accepting that there were others. Subtleties I can’t handle. Then there were some words. One of them was synonymous with hegemony and started with an “s.” In response, I just shouted “Paraclete! Go away!”</p>
<p>Let me ask you a question. Do you honestly care about the difference between Henotheism and whatever the other thing was? </p>
<p>Will you bring your intellect “up to grade” so that, as a college student yourself, you would no longer find other college students hard to talk to?</p>
<p>Sometimes I think people argue just for the sake of arguing. Winning or losing an argument over an issue like Henotheism vs w/e has almost no real-world implications.</p>
<p>No disrespect to Henotheists and believers of that whatever else Millancad might’ve been referring to. Pardon my ignorance as well.</p>
<p>That quote is from Roy Bhaksar. He is a proponent and developer of the theory of Critical Realism which seeks to reconcile an understanding of epistemological issues (the limitations of knowledge) with ontological matters (the study of existence). I have entertained myself to a bit of his literature in the past and I must acknowledge that he is very enthusiastic regarding philosophical ideas. However, his prose has been derided as an embodiment of the overly demonstrative and abstruse style of postmodern writing.</p>
<p>I think you’re overestimating and vastly exaggerating the ‘differences’ between college students and us high school kids. College kids often have very specific interests and fields, so it is only natural that they know the nuances of things that we could care less about [for example, Henotheism]. In college, and in life, you can’t possibly know everything. It isn’t high school where the majority of the school’s knowledge of biology stems from AP Biology, it’s an environment where some people will know vast amounts of Shakespearian works, and others the intricacies of particle physics. </p>
<p>So naturally people will be more open to other fields, and when arguing will use their respective fields.</p>
<p>Oh and, your original post is a joke. However, I think the irony is lost on you…</p>
<p>Assuredly, though, there is obviously not a pervasive interest in these convoluted philosophical concepts. The typical college discussion certainly does not regard this gobbledygook or anything of similar magnitude.</p>
<p>Actually, the originally quoted sentence is not random drivel that was purposely designed to induce confusion. It is indeed a genuine academic thought.</p>
<p>Not everyone at Harvard is necessarily interested in critical theory/continental phil, and many don’t know much about it. Honestly, I can imagine most hard science people and esp. engineers not caring for it. It’s all a bunch of useless mumbo jumbo to them. Also, don’t expect much sympathy from the econ department. </p>
<p>I think every field approaches these issues in quite different ways; I don’t think Harvard or not has anything to do with it…it’s more of a general problem with certain fields in academia. </p>
<p>Perhaps if his writing is commonly mistaken for brain teasers, then it might be in his best interests to take a break. But a high school or college student is certainly not in poor cognitive shape if he or she deems that writing to be impenetrable (which it essentially is - even to academicians themselves).</p>
<p>Actually, I do (care about, read, and study) statements like those stated above. So do some of my friends. </p>
<p>And that’s really not so unusual - many high schoolers are well read in some areas, and many are well read in other areas. Many high schoolers are interested in critical theory and philosophy, but many are not. You can say the exact same thing about college students. </p>
<p>An engineer, or a pre-med student for example, might not have the faintest interest in interpreting Foucault, or Hegel, or in investigating obscure post-modern thinking. But an English major, or a History or Comparative Literature student might. </p>
<p>Acquaintance with critical theory is only as necessary as you make it. What are you even trying to ask with your OP? There is no ‘blanket necessity’ that states that a college student isn’t intellectually able if he/she doesn’t understand dense, impenetrable literary theory. Such a thought isn’t even vaguely in the realm of reality.</p>
<p>Because it seems that you’re asking “Is dense critical theory necessary for a college student?” and the obvious answer is NO. Not for ALL college students, and probably not the vast majority. But for those entering into majors or signing up for classes which analyse such theory, then yes. But that’s all by choice anyway. No one is forced to take on that major or to pick that class.</p>
<p>There is no monolith group of people known as “college students” (all of whom will be expected to know the same stuff). There are a lot of individual sub groups, and within that, individual interests and tastes. It’s useless to generalise.</p>
<p>Edit:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well that’s it exactly. Inductive reasoning (ie. from only your personal experiences and observations) can be a bit of a fail. This links to the “please stop generalising” point. </p>
<p>I think, IF this was an area in which you had any interest/studied…you would have been exposed to the terms and would understand it and would care. But…if it’s not your field, of course you don’t understand/care. If someone started talking about ANY subject at an advanced level…and you had not yet studied that level…you would not understand. </p>
<p>I see this in my daughter’s high school studies versus what I studied “back in the day”. You’re exposed to SO much more now, it’s great! It’s not a measure of intellect, but of education. It’s a reason an Ivy might prefer a private school applicant over a public…they’re just better prepared. They cover more material. It’s not that they’re smarter, but they’ve been exposed to more. So, conversely, it’s ALSO why Ivies now want to reach out to kids who don’t have that exposure to higher levels of education. Because there are very bright kids…who just haven’t had anyone “wax poetic” about subjects in an advanced manner…but they have a lot of potential…if exposed in college…to succeed just like someone who has already had a “better” education by the time they graduate high school.</p>
<p>**ck postmodernism. Let’s quote some Carnap, shall we? He’s talking about Heidegger’s work but you can basically apply it to anything related to Continental philosophy (and hence postmodernism):</p>
<p>“What is to be investigated is being only and—nothing else; being alone and further—nothing; solely being, and beyond being-nothing. What about this Nothing? … Does the Nothing exist only because the Not, i.e. the Negation, exists? Or is it the other way around? Does Negation and the Not exist only because the Nothing exists? … We assert: the Nothing is prior to the Not and the Negation…. Where do we seek the Nothing? How do we find the Nothing…. We know the Nothing…. Anxiety reveals the Nothing…. That for which and because of which we were anxious, was ‘really’—nothing. Indeed: the Nothing itself—as such—was present…. What about this Nothing?—The Nothing itself nothings.”</p>
<p>Metaphysical nonsense, my friends. Metaphysical nonsense.</p>
<p>But her life was just now full of hope and action: she was not only thinking of her plans, but getting down learned books from the library and reading many things hastily (that she might be a little less ignorant in talking to Mr Casaubon), all the while being visited with conscientious questionings whether she were not exalting these poor doings above measure and contemplating them with that self-satisfaction which was the last doom of ignorance and folly.</p>
However, his prose has been derided as an embodiment of the overly demonstrative and abstruse style of postmodern writing.</p>
But a high school or college student is certainly not in poor cognitive shape if he or she deems that writing to be impenetrable (which it essentially is - even to academicians themselves).</p>