<p>I mean, humanities/social sciences are generally taken as easier because we've been learning about the two subjects, essentially, our entire lives. Ever since early years of history lessons etc. So things tend to come together easier. As for the sciences, many students don't even take the maximum science load in high school. Therefore, it is often assumed that the sciences are harder. Some feel the opposite, some engineering majors may say, "well, math/psychics is much easier for me than history or economics." But generally, for me, humanities/social sciences are cake compared to math/physics. I tend to find that a good memory is key to history(i can't stand having to read facts over and over and over). Which is why I like my art teacher, she doesn't make us remember babble that won't make any use in the real world but rather, techniques of identifying different artworks to conversate with people. But for the math/sciences, good technical skills are neccessary(the ability to take something apart and put it back together mentally). And economics fits right in the middle of that(taking apart something and putting it back together and memorizing different events that have happened in time).</p>
<p>let me quote another person or let me try to gather all my memories to reproduce it in the most accurate way:</p>
<p>a philosopher, he that stays out of the rain, this he sees unto not save for when all others sit in the rain. howbeit, he, the man whose lack of folly has ridded him of the discomfort of the rain, will call out to the people in the rain to step out of such discomfort and enjoy the warmth he exprimant. but he will never join them.</p>
<p>who wrote this? Sir Thomas More, kight, sometime member of Royal Council of King Herny VIII and Lord Chancellery.</p>
<p>i apologize for my broken english in my previous quote. i am afraid my recent reading is the culprit. i just read utopia and it was translated in such horrible fashion. middle english mixed in with french words (if i did not know french i would never have had patience to go through it) is most verbose and difficult to go through. also some words are NOT EVEN FOUND IN THE DICIONARY. now, i call that bad english. i guess english before shakespeare was at a transition phase. </p>
<p>anyway, my points, i'm afraid are lost among u because of my habitual mistake of assuming that everyone knows all the information on which i ground my arguments. so, if ur educational level is not high enough to understand my points, don't bother with them because i wrote them in sort of a hurry. i just love going on and on typing without any sort of editing.
in fact, i write essays really quickly (like 15 minutes for 10 page essay) and go through endless amount of editing.
but keep in mind, science majors are all infantile in its importance. the only science field i probably have some respect for is physics because it's the oldest and most challenging in terms of the amount of odd theories. </p>
<p>another thing. it was wise that i did not get into spencer's theories because all of u are already bewildered by the amount i wrote. such theories as by spencer must be reserved for when u are a older and more intelligent. also, i made some theories involving spencer's theories. and i dod not want to reveal them lest some will publish them and take the credit. i believe, i am too young (18) to publish the theories, but they are so horrifically precocious.</p>
<p>another horrible english book: Villette by Charllotte Bronte. french words again incorporated intoe english; excessive use of colons and semicolons; weird setting (does it take place in belgium or a ficitonal country that speaks french).</p>
<p>Again, what?</p>
<p>"but keep in mind, science majors are all infantile in its importance. the only science field i probably have some respect for is physics because it's the oldest and most challenging in terms of the amount of odd theories."</p>
<p>LOL. Yes, everyone on this board is clearly in the habit of assuming that because YOU say something is true, it is. Science majors "is" very important, actually. And AGAIN, that isn't even what's being debated. It's whether humanities majors are easy. Nothing to do with the importance (though I did get into that a little too much, myself). </p>
<p>"another thing. it was wise that i did not get into spencer's theories because all of u are already bewildered by the amount i wrote. such theories as by spencer must be reserved for when u are a older and more intelligent. also, i made some theories involving spencer's theories. and i dod not want to reveal them lest some will publish them and take the credit. i believe, i am too young (18) to publish the theories, but they are so horrifically precocious."</p>
<p>Hahahahaha. I can't wait until I'm "older and more intelligent". I wouldn't worry too much about anybody taking credit for your work.</p>
<p>Sauronvoldemort:
But what do you think about the introduction of the post structuralist alignment of the failures of Enlightenment thought and neoclassical reconceptualization of the removal of the author from one's reading of the text. While the psychoanalyst in the Lacanian tradition might try to recondense the text down to it's most absurd forms, it seems difficult to reconcile that idea with the Foucaltian recapitulation of power/knowledge. But to allege that one reduces this lapse through narration, philosophical discourse, or the order of reasons or deduction, is to misconstrue language, to misconstrue that language is the rupture of totality itself. The fragment is neither a determined style nor a failure, but the form of that which is written. But Hiedegger would certainly disagree, for Dasein neither springs from language nor existence. Butler concludes, "The move from a structuralist account in which capital is understood to structure social relations in relatively homologous ways to a view of hegemony in which power relations are subject to repetition, convergence, and rearticulation brought the question of temporality into the thinking of structure, and marked a shift from a form of Althusserian theory that takes structural totalities as theoretical objects to one in which the insights into the contingent possibility of structure inaugurate a renewed conception of hegemony as bound up with the contingent sites and strategies of the rearticulation of power."</p>
<p>shut the **** up.</p>
<p>"i apologize for my broken english in my previous quote. i am afraid my recent reading is the culprit. i just read utopia and it was translated in such horrible fashion. middle english mixed in with french words (if i did not know french i would never have had patience to go through it) is most verbose and difficult to go through. also some words are NOT EVEN FOUND IN THE DICIONARY. now, i call that bad english. i guess english before shakespeare was at a transition phase."</p>
<p>Why did you choose such an antiquated translation? There are much better editions available.</p>
<p>i don't care i u are a science major or math major, i think ALL must complete the following curriculum to be seriously considered enlightened, or educated:</p>
<p>ancient philosophy (pythogroas to plotinus)
greek tragedies and comedies
rhetoric
physics (including recent theories on quantum)
some latin and greek
a fluency in two foreign languages (one indo-european, one afro-asiatic( arabic) or altaic)
a musical instrument
singing
art survey </p>
<p>this should be all learned in addition to ur major.</p>
<p>Guys seriously they are of equal importance. Without humanities you have no culture, no government, no beaurocracy and no defence. Without science you have people with absolutely wretched lives.</p>
<p>A person off the street cant step into a high level science class because math and science are cumulative, you have to understand one thing in order to get the next, and they biuld on each other, thats why Math finals tend to be easier than other finals. Humanities are not like that, once you learn to read and write ex cetera you for the most part can learn and discuss any of the social sciences and literature that there is to offer, some obviously being more challenging than others.</p>
<p>This thread was never supposed to be about importance William1066. People are just going way off topic. It was supposed to judge which topics are harder to learn, but defining to what extent seems to be the issue as I pointed out earlier. If this debate is to continue please state whether you are talking about simply getting a degree, or going above and beyond in understanding the subject matter.</p>
<p>Sauronvoldemort, if you want to us to understand your post take the time to explain them rather than typing them in a hurry. No one should take the time to take you serious if you are not going to put the time into making a cohernt and concise argument.</p>
<p>Sauron Voldemort,</p>
<p>Do you think your writing 10 page essays in 15 minutes and having to endlessly revise has anything to do with the lack of thought that may go into the writing as evidenced by these posts? </p>
<p>I mean, w-t-f mate?</p>
<p>Wow, according to this standard:</p>
<p>ancient philosophy (pythogroas to plotinus)
greek tragedies and comedies
rhetoric
physics (including recent theories on quantum)
some latin and greek
a fluency in two foreign languages (one indo-european, one afro-asiatic( arabic) or altaic)
a musical instrument
singing
art survey </p>
<p>Socrates is an ignorant prick.</p>
<p>P.S.
Sauron Voldemort, only God is beyond grammar, not you (or u, if u prefer).</p>
<p>Go easy on the kid. He's young...dumb....and absolutely devoid of any self awareness or social skills.</p>
<p>Good thing it's one of those "phase" things...</p>
<p>Is that a...complinsult?</p>
<p>Are you sure it's just a phase? I've met some English and Sociology professors who aren't that much more coherent.</p>
<p>But those professors hold Ph.D. proving that at some point in their lives, they produced something worthwhile, which someone read and understand somewhat to give them a good enough grade to graduate. Beside, they are probably lonely and isolated anyway.</p>
<p>
[quote]
But they are nowhere near as intensive as a chemistry or engineering course of similar level.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>...as I have emphasized many times in this thread: you would be surprised.</p>
<p>Today, in our last class of logic, we discussed Einstein and Gödel. I'm not sure any other humanities discipline can enjoy that level of rigour or relation to mathematics and science.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Today, in our last class of logic, we discussed Einstein and Gödel. I'm not sure any other humanities discipline can enjoy that level of rigour or relation to mathematics and science.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This is why I consider a History and Philosophy of Science PhD to be an interesting prospect, though I admittedly know little about such programs.</p>
<p>arguing on the internet is idiotic. its like being the smartest retard. ur still retarded.</p>
<p>I'm curious...can you further explain your logic? How is arguing on the internet like being the smartest retard that is still retarded?</p>
<p>if i go on it will make me look like a retard. so no! hah! u tried to trick me.....</p>
<p>i think?</p>