Should the Liberal Arts be abolished?

[holden888]

<p>I actually, no one gives a damn about a art anyways</p>

[Johnson181]

<p>Anyone who thinks engineering should be abolished should spend a month without using electricity (yay smart grids!), road systems, and basically any medical device.</p>

<p>Have fun with that!</p>

<p>For the record, the engineers at my school really aren’t that socially awkward on the whole.
Also, lols at this ■■■■■ thread. Liberal arts has plenty of valued applications to the world.</p>

[MathematicsMajor]

<p>Am I stupid, or something? Why abolish the study of English because you don’t like it? I thought this was a free country.</p>

<p>I do not have any respect for classes where I’m forced to learn and then forget senseless propaganda that no one really knows is true. And it’s pretty silly, in my opinion, to sit around and think about things that are unknowable. And I really don’t understand why the classics are so great: Plato was just another guy, and there’s no reason his views are any better than anyone else’s. But if people want to study it, what the hell?</p>

[reillytheman]

<p>stop!!! this thread is ■■■■■ bait!!!</p>

[ThisCouldBeHeavn]

<p>

Once again, you failed to understand a simple sentence.

</p>

<p>I understood what you meant to say. I was pointing out that you said something different. Thanks.</p>

<p>

YOUR sentence does not make sense.

</p>

<p>Of course it makes sense. It’s just “hard sciences can be applied to everyday life in a way that abstract math or overly complex formulas can” (which obviously makes sense) with a few negations tossed in. Now, those negations obviously change the meaning, but adding negations by no means makes it incoherent. “hard sciences can’t be applied to everyday life in a way that abstract math or overly complex formulas can’t” ==> “There does not exist a way in which abstract math or overly complex formulas can’t be applied in which hard sciences can be applied.”</p>

<p>

I am guessing you made an error

</p>

<p>And I’m fairly certain that you know nothing about formal logic, so I really couldn’t care less about your guesses.</p>

<p>

Neitzsche idea of God, religion and politics is used everyday. Philosophy is used everyday. People considering their relationship with God is a common occurance. His political theory is supported by many people, even if they do not know the origins of their beliefs.

</p>

<p>LOL. People apply Nietzsche’s philosophy everyday, even if they don’t know it.</p>

<p>

Smith’s economic theories are everyday topics. Just read the WSJ or any paper that focuses on the economy. Economic theory is on the news everyday. Smith’s ideas are supported everyday by people in the mass media and common people trying to, say, understand why unemployment is over 9%. Or why their job is being outsourced. Or why their field of work is being phased out. Cal does not explain those things as well as the social sciences do.

</p>

<p>Econ is useful cuz then you can read the newspaper. Calculus obviously isn’t so useful, since economists totally don’t need to know it.</p>

<p>

Sure, you use high level Calc at work, but that does not mean it’s common to use outside of the work place. You don’t go walking down the street talking about the velocity of cars by measuring how long it takes the car to get down the street

</p>

<p>People that don’t know calculus don’t use it or anything like it when they walk down the street or when they need to judge the speed of a nearby car and judge their own acceleration. Cuz obviously this is totally different from people applying Nietzsche without knowing it.</p>

<p>

you do talk about how your Professor is a fascist

</p>

<p>*Even when you’re 50 years old, you’ll still be chatting with colleagues over a beer, telling them how your professor was a ***ing fascist</p>

<p>

Everyday conversation, everday life does not focus on abstract, high level science.

</p>

<p>Even when you use your computer, your life has nothing to do with abstract science</p>

<p>

Maybe in an engineering firm it does, but to the common person, high level math is not needed.

</p>

<p>And by the apparent fact that so many people apply Nietzschian philosophy without knowing it, I’m going to go out on a limb and say philosophy class isn’t so necessary either.</p>

<p>

Unless you are another mediocre, bitter engineer trying to justify their major…

</p>

<p>I’ve already said like a million times in this thread that I’m a liberal arts major.</p>

<p>

Your rant is superfluous.

</p>

<p>I said this too.</p>

[soyeah]

<p>I think I lost brain cells reading this thread.</p>

[noimagination]

<p>

I love how people like saying how with engineers can be engineers and still be educated in history, english, liberal arts, etc and then cite some person who does have those skills</p>

<p>…but then they forget how most engineers really are socially awkward machines that just aren’t capable of higher-thinking. I really feel sorry for them…I wish one could simply teach them to open their minds up, but their arrogance and inability to even comprehend such a level of thinking makes it extremely difficult. Most will never know the freedom from existing only in the world of carbon molecules, vectors, integrals, etc.

1. No cite, and no strong logical analytics either.</p>

<ol>
<li><p>Even if true, that in no way contradicts the idea that more people should become engineers. If the current pool of engineers behaves in a certain fashion, there is probably self-selection involved in who chooses to become an engineer and the actual field has no causative effect on interest in the liberal arts.</p></li>
<li><p>Lots of value judgments… you claim that “higher-thinking” is good but never define it and never provide evidence of its positive impacts.</p></li>
<li><p>This is exactly what I was talking about before. If you hadn’t posted anything, most people reading this thread probably would have just recognized the OP as ridiculous. By posting in an arrogant, insulting, and poorly-warranted manner you have degraded the credibility of your position and actually made others less disposed to respect the liberal arts than they would have been otherwise.</p></li>
<li><p>On the plus side, hilarity did in fact ensue.

Neitzsche idea of God, religion and politics is used everyday. Philosophy is used everyday. People considering their relationship with God is a common occurance. His political theory is supported by many people, even if they do not know the origins of their beliefs. Smith’s economic theories are everyday topics. Just read the WSJ or any paper that focuses on the economy. Economic theory is on the news everyday. Smith’s ideas are supported everyday by people in the mass media and common people trying to, say, understand why unemployment is over 9%. Or why their job is being outsourced. Or why their field of work is being phased out. Cal does not explain those things as well as the social sciences do.

<em>emphasis mine</em></p></li>
</ol>

<p>Computers are used by many people, even if they don’t understand the scientific and engineering origins of the digital computer.</p>

<p>Many people like to talk about basketball outside of school or work. I know I do. Does that mean that I should major in basketball? After all, I would use that knowledge a great deal in the real world…</p>

[buriedalie]

<p>Wow, I hadn’t realized how many arrogant, self-righteous absolute JERKS there were on this site until I opened this thread. Get over yourselves.</p>

[noimagination]

<p>

I am saying the average person does not use high level science. That is not equivlant to saying the average person does not use things that utilize high level, abstract sciences. You think you are exposing contradictions that don’t exist, inflating your ego, when you are misinterpreting the argument.

Still not seeing the story on how the average person uses high-level humanities or social sciences either.</p>

[Emaheevul07]

<p>

as in there is not a huge leap from a history 101 class to a 300 level class.

</p>

<p>SURELY you jest.</p>

[noimagination]

<p>

Once again, and please correct me if I am wrong, I never used the term or concept “high level” in regards to describing the social sciences. Social scienes are devoted to critical analysis of social phenomena, and average people constantly are evaluating the world that they live in in an effort to explain people and society. One example of the average person using “high level” humanities or social scienes is the use of datas and studies to justify opinions. Papers constantly post studies, and I would say that massive studies characterize “high level” social scienes, as grad and PhD work typically involves such studies. Another example would be how people naturally seek to explain the world, which is what high level philosophy explores. Additionally, people naturally use basic schools of political thought to describe their views, even without knowing the origins or definitions of such views. Conversely, very few people are able to apply high level scienes without a formal education, and most people do not receive a formal education beyond high school in the hard sciences. Hopefully that is a more suitable, extended explanation. Do not hesitate to ask a more detailed question if you want a more specific explanation, I would hate for you to assume I am supporting something I am not.

Re green:
Legit point.</p>

<p>Re red:
Are average people seeking to explain the world engaging in discourse remotely comparable to academic philosophy?</p>

<p>Re blue:
Earlier you gave the example of people using beliefs without understanding them. Is that what you’re talking about here?</p>

<p>Re ALL OF THE ABOVE:

1. Why are you saying we should focus our studies on things we discuss outside work/school? Like, what’s the positive impact from doing that?</p>

<ol>
<li>Turn: If people understand the non-science liberal arts well enough to discuss them outside work/school, they don’t need to major in them. But if you can’t apply high-level sciences without a formal education, that’s a reason to major in those areas. You can have your cake and eat it too.</li>
</ol>

[JanofLeiden]

<p>Paul don’t jest he’s super serious</p>

[JanofLeiden]

<p>oh sorry while I made that brief comment noimagination posted a whole wall of text that nobody will read</p>

[noimagination]

<p>

oh sorry while I made that brief comment noimagination posted a whole wall of text that nobody will read

Sorry for trying to have a cordial, legitimate discussion of the issues in your thread. I’m just not very good at ■■■■■■■■, so I have to do this instead.</p>

[manarius]

<p>

Sorry for trying to have a cordial, legitimate discussion of the issues in your thread. I’m just not very good at ■■■■■■■■, so I have to do this instead.

</p>

<p>I find that discussions proceed much more easily when you stop taking Jan seriously</p>

[JanofLeiden]

<p>punk I resent that</p>

[rymd]

<p>i don’t think it should. there’s enough competition out there already.</p>

[ThisCouldBeHeavn]

<p>

You formed an illogical sentence that had no substance or relation to anything I said.

</p>

<p>Duude, I just took your sentence and moved your negations around. Seriously, you’re totally wrong here. What I wrote is exactly what you wrote.</p>

<p>Maybe you should learn something about logic before commenting.</p>

<p>

You have the inability to accurately comprehend what I am attempting to communicate, yet you are so certain in yourself. Economists are not the common person. Common people do not use calculus on a regular or semi regular basis. Unless you manipulate reality or attempt to create ludicrious and inaccurate analogies, you really don’t have even a slightly strong argument.

</p>

<p>The issue here is that you’re counting people unknowingly using Nietzschian ideas as a plus for liberal arts, while you’re completely ignoring analogous uses of calculus (i.e. the underpinning of all of social science). I guess this is irrelevant anyway, as math is another liberal arts discipline. So you’re really just ****ing into the wind…</p>

<p>

Social scienes are devoted to critical analysis of social phenomena, and average people constantly are evaluating the world that they live in in an effort to explain people and society. . . . Conversely, very few people are able to apply high level scienes without a formal education, and most people do not receive a formal education beyond high school in the hard sciences.

</p>

<p>Like I said before, the argument that social sciences are in some way more useful for the average person than hard sciences is really an argument against the Liberal Arts as they both pretty much fail in that regard.</p>

<p>= ****ing into the wind</p>