I fell for the Trivium meme, and I want to take it seriously. While I got pic related, and it seems nice, I feel like it's way too condensed, and I want a more systematic treatment of each of the subjects. I'm thinking that it's better to just get a few books to replace this one.
What are some good books for introductions to grammar, logic, and rhetoric? I would especially like some sort of workbook for grammar that would not only improve my knowledge of English but would also give me linguistic abilities, like the kind many people brag about when they take Latin.
OP here, I came across A Student's Introduction to English Grammar - Rodney Huddleston, which seems like a good starting point. Unfortunately, a lot of people complain that the answers to the exercises are found in a separate online package, which seems like a giant hassle.
I'm doing it for the challenge and because I'm on a mission to make my own liberal arts education. But yeah I think that the book "Trivium" by SMJ, while a great idea, just falls flat because it's too condensed. They're like lecture notes or an enhanced syllabus at best.
Props for getting through it though. It's a challenging book.
Gavin Cox
Why the hell was that guy's post deleted? There was nothing wrong with it. He just talked about how was an ESL student who read the Trivium, didn't remember much of it, and didn't find it useful.
Ian Watson
>systematic You are fucking cancer, kys.
Caleb Wilson
Better than saying "problematic" all the time, which means you have no idea how to express how problems come about. "Systematic" sounds ugly but it talks about a real concept, which is covering a subject in breadth and depth.
Don't worry, I'll tackle vocabulary after I tackle grammar.
Henry Baker
I deleted it because I read your post after and saw that you were asking for recommendations and not opinions on that one. I was just too late removing it. On with the thread.
Colton Myers
This bad boy
Jordan Bennett
You can delete your own posts now? Wow, that's a pretty cool feature! Anyway, thanks for your input.
I found some other books that might be useful:
English Grammar: A University Course - Angela Downing, Philip Locke. English: An Essential Grammar - Gerald Nelson Understanding English Grammar: A Linguistic Introduction by Thomas E. Payne - Thomas E. Payne
Why do people say that learning Latin improved their grammar in English and other languages, anyway?
Camden Reyes
don't tell me they're still teaching term logic
Connor Morris
>real concept A real cancerous one, worse than problematic.
Jaxson Baker
>Why do people say that learning Latin improved their grammar in English and other languages, anyway? Learning another language in general forces you to understand the different parts of grammar that you take for granted in your native language. It's particularly helpful if the language is more synthetic, which Latin is.
Isaac Torres
...
Samuel Cox
Learn Medieval Scholasticism
Levi Evans
Ah... AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THE GREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEKS!...!!?1??
Thomas Bennett
That makes sense. Thank you for phrasing it so well. My goal for a good grammar book is something that can inculcate that level of understanding without too much reliance on rules. I have a lot of hope for Understanding English Grammar: A Linguistic Introduction - Thomas E. Payne and the other book, but those are just some random books I found with good (but scarce) reviews.
Adrian Miller
FYI, I didn't miss your post. I think Corbett is perfect for rhetoric. Can't go wrong there, no use debating other options.
Rhetoric down, Grammar & Logic to go.
Connor Miller
Gwynne's Grammar is good This for rhetoric Re: Logic, does any educated person in the modern world really need to read a book on logic?
Brandon Adams
Most educated people don't need to read any of these books. But I think we can agree that the standards for being educated have plummeted drastically, and this has resulted in a deluge of vague ideas, incoherent thinking, and academic provincialism. I want to learn for my own sake, in the hopes that I can build a better foundation for learning, connecting ideas together, and communicating them to others.
An introduction to logic would help develop the kind of precision and rigor needed to understand and express difficult ideas. In other words, probably useless for direct applications, but with indirect benefits elsewhere.
Hunter Nguyen
No, standards have risen. Just because nobody takes 'muh GREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEKS' seriously anymore, doesn't mean standards are lower. Kys your self
Kevin Kelly
>does any educated person in the modern world really need to read a book on logic?
Half the country thinks that blacks having a high arrest rate is proof of systematic racism.
Jacob Sanders
>No, standards have risen.
No, they haven't.
Andrew Wood
Yes they have. >WTF WHY ARENT THEY TEACHING ABOUT MUH GREEEEEEEEEEEEEEKS
Jonathan Stewart
The greek gods are taught in primary school :)
Christopher Williams
Rightfully so, along with all other gr*Ek garbage. Its only value is entertainment.
Wyatt Parker
Roman orators used to be able to sway whole audiences into doing their bidding. Our presidents used to be able to read Greek and Latin. President Garfield was even able to write both languages at the same time and was patrician enough to discover a unique proof of the Pythagorean theorem. Now our leaders can hardly speak English without teleprompters, like our last few presidents. Forget about the clarity of ideas and persuasive ability--they've been long gone from politics. Standards have declined precipitously throughout society, especially since specialization removed the requirements for general ability at the cost of the educated's grasp on reality. I want to rescue myself from the fallout so at least I can begin to make some sense out of modern chaos.
Not even advocating a return to the Greeks, though nobody was ever harmed by reading the Iliad. Don't even know how the Greeks came into the picture. I'm just saying that having a solid foundation in logic, grammar, and rhetoric sounds like a great way to structure thinking in general. Greek has nothing to do with it.
Ayden Cox
MUUUUUUUUUUUUUUH GREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1 Nobody cares. >Greek has nothing to do with it. Yes it does, it's their awful ideas that you're pushing. >grasp on reality My fucking ass, you are uppity. Find a fucking hole and fall. >unique proof of the Pythagorean theorem Oh fucking wow he found a proof to babby mathematics HE MUST BE SO FUKIN SMART LMAO Mate, mate, mate, kids are doing more complex proofs by the time they're in the 11th grade. So basically, you're upset nobody is learning two fucking dead languages for the sake of reading bad philosophy and poetry. >Roman orators used to be able to sway whole audiences into doing their bidding Fucking Trump can do that too, I don't see your point. Terrible musicians do it on a daily basis during tours.
Again, your argument is >MUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUH GREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEKS WHY ARENT THEY LEARNING MUH FUGGIN LATIN AND MUH FUGGIN GREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEK
Gavin Richardson
Update: I found some good logic books that could serve my purposes:
An Introduction to Logic - Irving Copi The Art of Reasoning - David Kelley Logic Primer - Paul Teller
They both have their advantages and disadvantages. Copi has more breadth, less depth (categorical, probabilistic, etc.), generally well-acclaimed, but also is expensive (the older versions are still good yet cheap though). Paul Teller is exceptionally great for learning formal logic on your own, but he doesn't cover categorical logic (Trivium without Aristotle? lol) or probability, and it is a more rigorous type of work that might be difficult at first. David Kelley feels like a budget Copi, but also covers just about the same amount of things.
Finding a unique proof of the Pythagorean theorem isn't easy, given that people have been finding hundreds of different ways to skin a cat for thousands of years. I don't understand why you have to be so aggressive. I hope you have a better day and that whatever is bothering you goes away.
Brayden Reyes
Yes, it is easy, because it's babby mathematics. End yourself, you ridiculous child.
Benjamin Roberts
>Standards have declined precipitously throughout society, especially since specialization removed the requirements for general ability at the cost of the educated's grasp on reality. I want to rescue myself from the fallout so at least I can begin to make some sense out of modern chaos. So basically you're projecting your own intellectual impotency on your intellectual class? Nice. Standards have risen. Don't say that scientific subjects don't count because they do count. Also, as someone who had a classical education (liceo classico in italy, i learned both greek and latin) i can tell you that it's vastly overrated. Greek and latin are nice and everything but they are vastly useless when it comes to the real world.
Nicholas Lee
...
Colton Scott
I don't think you know what you're talking about. Maybe the introduction to the Pythagorean theorem is basic algebra, but coming up with a unique proof for it definitely requires creativity and intelligence. There are over 367 unique proofs for the Pythagorean theorem. Garfield came up with one of them with a creative approach. It's not Fermat's Last Theorem or anything, but it's worth noting.
I think standards have drastically risen in science and medicine, and that's a no-brainer. I'm talking about a general understanding of discourse and ideas. Politics is scorched earth. So is social science, humanities, and philosophy in many ways. I think this goes without saying. Echo chamber barely even captures the atmosphere. There's no structure or chronology to anything anymore, and ideas come and go with the tides, preventing real progress.
I'm not projecting any sort of intellectual "impotency". Even if you attend a top Ivy League university, you'd be appalled by the amount of ignorance each student has. History, science, math, literature, application of ideas, etc.? Nonexistent, and it's a goddamn shame. The professors are often not much better outside of their specializations, which is a shame because it only encourages more provincialism.
By the way, I never said that we all need to learn Latin and Greek. I just think the Trivium is a good idea, that's all.
Owen Ward
>greek and latin are overrated B-B-B-B-BB-UT HOW ELSE WILL YOU READ TERRIBLE PHILOSOPHY AND POETRY?!!!/!#?1/1?1? WE SHOULD ALL BE READING PHILOSOPHY AND POETRY FROM 1500+ YEARS AGO ANY LATER AND ITS FUCKING STUPID FUCKING PLEB SHIT WTF WHERES THE ANIMAL RAPE
Noah Smith
I really want to know where I said everybody should be learning Latin and Greek. It's like you people want dumbasses like the Bush family ruling you, herding you people like cattle.
Sebastian Myers
I do know what I'm talking about, you stupid little child. Oh look, 367 proofs to a very simple geometric/algebraic proof. THIS ONE PERSON WITH A LOT OF TIME ON HIS HANDS DID A 'UNIQUE' (it fucking isn't unique, or creative) PROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOF When I was 16 I did an inductive/geometric proof for the area of a circle. Garfield's proof isn't any more complex. If anything, it is much more simple because it doesn't involve calculus. >MUUUUUUUUUUUUUUH STRUCTUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUURE >MUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUH FUGGGGGGGGGGGIN PROGRESSSSSSSSSSSSSS Find a fucking hole and bury yourself. Read your own fucking posts you stupid faggot. >Our presidents used to be able to read Greek and Latin. President Garfield was even able to write both languages at the same time Among many others. WTFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF STOP LEARNING FUKIN FRENCH AND GERMAN OR SPANISH OR OTHER FUKIN DEGENERATE BARBARIAN LANGUAGES!!!!!!!!! MUH FUGGIN GREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEKS
Caleb Gutierrez
Schizo-posting is being taken to new heights in this thread and it ain't comfy woooo
Thomas Parker
Where in that post did I say that everybody should be learning Greek and Latin? I'm just saying that the standards of education for leaders have dropped. They barely learn anything. We're churning out journalists who don't understand how anything works. The Obama administration flat-out admitted that, when newspapers started closing foreign offices due to the lack of funds, they enjoying constructing narratives for journalists to eat up because they wouldn't know any better.
You're trying very hard to argue against an argument that wasn't made. You don't like the Greeks? Fair enough. Never said that you should. Calm down.
Andrew Nelson
>I'm talking about a general understanding of discourse and ideas. Politics is scorched earth. So is social science, humanities, and philosophy in many ways. I think this goes without saying. Echo chamber barely even captures the atmosphere. There's no structure or chronology to anything anymore, and ideas come and go with the tides, preventing real progress. I disagree. Obviously if you look at the lowest common denominator and compare it with the greatest minds of the past you're gonna get a skewed perspective. Was the average person more cultured 100 years ago? I don't think so. >The professors are often not much better outside of their specializations Again, i disagree. You're looking at the past with rose-tinded glasses if you think it was different before. I've talked to several econ professor and they all had a solid understanding on history and a decent understanding of phil. I've talked to my thermodynamics prof and he had an amazing understanding of phil of science. But profs like these are the exception, not the rule. Maybe i'm wrong, but i think you want this sort of idealized "complete intellectual", who has a good understanding of everything and can bounce from subject to subject. This is kinda impossible considering how much study that would require. >By the way, I never said that we all need to learn Latin and Greek. I just think the Trivium is a good idea, that's all. Oh ok, sorry. I can agree on Logic and Grammar (isn't grammar already taught in american schools? it's taught from elementary school here) but Rhetoric seems kinda useless.
Justin Davis
>standards NOT LEARNING TWO USELESS LANGUAGES IS NOT A DROP IN STANDARDS >they barely learn anything Sure, if you define 'learn' as in 'muh fuggin greeeeeeeeeeeeeeeks'! >how anything works Presupposing anything works.
William Campbell
Stop answering the schizo-boi, you dumbfuck, I've been monitoring his posts through the last few days and I'm about to pinpoint his exact position in the northern hemisphere using only my brain, nihilism and entry-level calculus to do so; his constant posting in this thread is driving my braingorythm CRAZY!
James Myers
>I disagree. Obviously if you look at the lowest common denominator and compare it with the greatest minds of the past you're gonna get a skewed perspective. Was the average person more cultured 100 years ago? I don't think so. I'm not comparing the lowest common denominator with the greats of the past. I'm comparing the leaders of today with the leaders of the past. How do you think they compare?
>Again, i disagree. You're looking at the past with rose-tinded glasses if you think it was different before. I've talked to several econ professor and they all had a solid understanding on history and a decent understanding of phil. I've talked to my thermodynamics prof and he had an amazing understanding of phil of science. But profs like these are the exception, not the rule. I personally think that academia has expanded far too quickly to meet the demands of the late 20th century and early 21st century, and this has come with a steep decline in education standards. I'm glad you've had good professors. I've also had good professors, but they make the bad ones stand out like a sore thumb.
>Maybe i'm wrong, but i think you want this sort of idealized "complete intellectual", who has a good understanding of everything and can bounce from subject to subject.
Thank you for a charitable interpretation of what I'm trying to get across. I think that's too extreme of a characterization, but an understanding of the basics and in-depth detail of subjects that are "within proximity" of a specialization are not too much to ask for.
Removing languages and replacing it with nothing is indeed a drop in standards.
Dominic Ross
>Removing languages and replacing it with nothing is indeed a drop in standards. It's replaced with focus on proper studies, you stupid little charlatan.
James Evans
Like what? Political science majors are graduating from Brown University believing that there's a mythical bridge over Israel connecting Gaza and the West Bank. Was that worth $60,000 per year?
Jaxson Johnson
Are you capable of talking to somebody without greentext?
Isaac Gray
American universities are garbage because they are factory schools. 'political studies' is pure garbage. Go back to plebbit
John Hall
>I'm comparing the leaders of today with the leaders of the past. How do you think they compare? Eh, it depends on what you mean with "past". Macron is certainly better than Louis XIV. >I personally think that academia has expanded far too quickly to meet the demands of the late 20th century and early 21st century What do you mean? >but an understanding of the basics and in-depth detail of subjects that are "within proximity" of a specialization are not too much to ask for So, for example, a physics student (like me) should be obliged to take a course on epistemology? >that pic Now you're just cherrypicking, scientism was just as big back then (think of the neopositivists).
Logan Russell
>Political science majors are graduating from Brown University believing that there's a mythical bridge over Israel connecting Gaza and the West Bank.
Lost. Nobody really believes this, do they?
Thomas Gutierrez
Schizo-levels in this thread have declined, I see... Someone must be afraid... Someone whose life I'm about to enter must be into hiding... I'm coming for you, it's no use masking your very own schizo-style... punk
Landon Robinson
So we're in agreement then?
>What do you mean? The demand for university-level education surged during the late 20th century, and this has been met with a general decline in standards in order to keep up with demand, leading to the devaluation of undergraduate and sometimes even graduate level education.
>So, for example, a physics student (like me) should be obliged to take a course on epistemology? I don't like legislating standards because they always fall short of their goals and it encourages people to game the system. You should want to explore epistemology a bit thanks to the nature of your work. But there's going to be no grand system that can force you to truly appreciate it unless it's what everybody demands from each other.
>Now you're just cherrypicking, scientism was just as big back then (think of the neopositivists). Neopositivism was a fresh idea at the time until it fell out of style, and there are legitimate philosophical arguments for it. The problem is naive, uncritical positivism that allows people like Lawrence Krauss to write total gibberish and believe it's "science" while criticizing the philosophically (and honestly, scientifically) literate people for pointing out his bullshit.
Science both historically and currently accomodates Greek verb-centric terms because modern languages (odd that the 'living' languages are in fact the dead ones) where 'things' are central (hard nominals) haven't the helps to aid 'modern' understanding. BTFO, philistine.
Brayden Anderson
Could you unpack this? This is interesting and I want to learn more.
Parker Russell
>The demand for university-level education surged during the late 20th century, and this has been met with a general decline in standards in order to keep up with demand, leading to the devaluation of undergraduate and sometimes even graduate level education. I'm not american so i don't know about this, but aren't american universities considered the best in the world? Uni is indeed pretty bad in my country, but it is because of other problems: nepotism, general promotion of mediocrity and no meritocracy, things that don't exist in american universities as far as i know. >You should want to explore epistemology a bit thanks to the nature of your work I did. >But there's going to be no grand system that can force you to truly appreciate it unless it's what everybody demands from each other. But how can knowledge of epistemology be "what everybody demands from each other" if epistemology is not necessary to do science? >Lawrence Krauss to write total gibberish and believe it's "science" while criticizing the philosophically (and honestly, scientifically) literate people for pointing out his bullshit. I agree, but scientists being critical of philosophy isn't a new thing. For example youtube.com/watch?v=X8aWBcPVPMo. Maybe neopositivism wasn't the correct example.
Robert Cooper
>I'm not american so i don't know about this, but aren't american universities considered the best in the world? By what rankings and using what criteria? For research, they're amazing, especially the top schools. For education? Grade inflation runs rampant throughout even the top schools, and there is competitive pressure to keep it that way for graduate school admissions.
>Uni is indeed pretty bad in my country, but it is because of other problems: nepotism, general promotion of mediocrity and no meritocracy, things that don't exist in american universities as far as i know. Bloated administrations that consume vast amounts of resources are certainly a growing problem at American universities.
>But how can knowledge of epistemology be "what everybody demands from each other" if epistemology is not necessary to do science?
The scientific "method" is a product of epistemology. Unless you consider science to be a technical skill that you're supposed to do, you ought to know some basic epistemology so you understand how experimentation brings (or doesn't bring) knowledge. Are you verifying? Or are you falsifying? What is the significance? etc.
>I agree, but scientists being critical of philosophy isn't a new thing.
It actually is. Feynman originated from a different era of science than Einstein, Heisenberg, etc. That's when things really started to go downhill IMO in terms of general education.
Liam Hernandez
>The scientific "method" is a product of epistemology. Unless you consider science to be a technical skill that you're supposed to do, you ought to know some basic epistemology so you understand how experimentation brings (or doesn't bring) knowledge. Are you verifying? Or are you falsifying? What is the significance? etc. Yes, but "how to do good science" is something you learn in lab and with statistics courses. You don't read Popper, Kuhn, Lacatos etc etc to learn this kind of thing. That's what I meant.
Aiden Jenkins
>Yes, but "how to do good science" is something you learn in lab and with statistics courses. You don't read Popper, Kuhn, Lacatos etc etc to learn this kind of thing. That's what I meant. Sure, but you're learning the product of their philosophical influence on the scientific method among the various techniques involved in experimental setup, data collection, and analysis. Why is it that you aim to falsify rather than confirm? What does the esoteric nature of organic chemistry mechanisms tell you about experimental design and what kind of knowledge we can glean from experiments? And again, we can point towards Lawrence Krauss as an example where somebody mistakes a philosophical question for a scientific question and ends up answering something totally irrelevant without any irony. Do you think that science should be carried out by glorified technicians following a cookbook or something?
Oliver Anderson
just study Aristotle. Everything you read on those three subjects will be derived from Aristotle's teaching. However, if you insist on having a book on each subject I'd suggest the following:
Grammar - English Composition and Grammar, Complete Course by John Warriner
Logic - Socratic Logic by Peter Kreeft (again the logic in the trivium refers to Aristotelian logic. There's a very expensive logic textbook which I have which goes beyond it by teaching mathematical/symbolic logic, but it's not really necessary if you only want to improve making arguments in ordinary language)
Rhetoric - Classical Rhetoric for the Modern Student 4th edition by Corbett. I'd also suggest getting Readings from Classical Rhetoric by Matsen.
Gabriel Fisher
>Sure, but you're learning the product of their philosophical influence on the scientific method among the various techniques involved in experimental setup, data collection, and analysis. Well, that's what i'm saying. You learn this things by experimenting such problems yourself, and not by reading epistemology. >Do you think that science should be carried out by glorified technicians following a cookbook or something? No? Where did i say this? Do you think that modern science degrees create "glorified technicians"?
Nolan Martinez
>these
Grayson Perez
Shit taste, mate. They're lowbrow pop-metal for rednecks and white trash. If you're gonna listen to loud/heavy/fast music, then you should opt for either black metal (e.g. MAYHEM, BURZUM, BATHORY, ULVER, DRUDKH, WYNDIR), grindcore (e.g. DISCORDANCE AXIS, INSECT WARFARE, ANAAL NATHRAKH, CATTLE DECAPITATION), or hardcore/emo (e.g. BLACK FLAG, MINOR THREAT, CONVERGE, SAETIA, ORCHID, CIRCLE TAKES THE SQUARE, MOSS ICON, HOOVER, MAXIMILLIAN COLBY, HELEN OF TROY, IN/HUMANITY, SWANS etc.).
Of course there are good genres and artists, none of it is redneck-metalcore or Nu-Metal.
Also, to OP your time would be much better spent learning modern linguistics, logic, and literary theory: e.g. Generative Grammar, Montague Semantics, predicate logic and basic recursion theory (e.g. computability, decideability, completeness, incompleteness, compactness, etc.), philosophy of language (a la Wittgenstein, Putnam, Fodor, Brandom, etc.), and hermeneutics/phenomenology (e.g. Ricoeur, Heidegger, Merleau-Ponty and probably Derrida and Gadamer, although I havent studied either of them yet myself).
Ryan Campbell
*. . . are other good genres . . .
Jayden Gray
Anyway, thanks everyone for the conversations and suggestions. I've decided to look for these books for Grammar, Logic, & Rhetoric:
Understanding English Grammar: A Linguistic Introduction - Thomas E. Payne An Introduction to Logic - Irving Copi Classical Rhetoric for the Modern Student - Edward P. J. Corbett
I still have The Trivium by Sister Miriam Joseph, which I will keep as a reference. That's all I'm going to do for right now, since this will keep me busy for a while. has great suggestions for what I might do next, though that's a long distance in the future.
Matthew James
Brown and LSE are terrible.
Nathan Bell
No, it's because philhelenes are autistic.
Camden Evans
>I'm not american so i don't know about this, but aren't american universities considered the best in the world? No, they're considered good for research, but really only STEMsperg research. Further, there is no real connection between research and education. We are speaking of undergraduate education, by the way. American schools are good for graduate and post-grad education because they have lots of money and generally very good libraries. But, they're fucking abysmal for actual foundational education, in addition to costing way too much.
Owen Brooks
Wow good find! This is a perfect time to update my autodidact core curriculum.
>Reading, Thinking, & Learning: How to Read a Book - Mortimer Adler Mind for Numbers - Barbara Oakley Creative & Critical Thinking - W. Edgar Moore
>The Trivium: Understanding English Grammar: A Linguistic Introduction - Thomas E. Payne An Introduction to Logic - Irving Copi Classical Rhetoric for the Modern Student - Edward P. J. Corbett The Trivium: The Liberal Arts of Logic, Grammar, and Rhetoric - Sister Miriam Joseph The Oxford Essential Guide to Writing - Thomas S. Kane
>Core Liberal Arts: Atlas of World History - Patrick O'Brien A New History of Western Philosophy - Anthony Kenny Western Philosophy: An Anthology - John Cottingham Precalculus - Sheldon Axler The Art of Fiction - David Lodge The Story of Art - E. H. Gombrich Music In Theory And Practice - Bruce Benward Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain - Betty Edwards
Matthew Baker
>But how can knowledge of epistemology be "what everybody demands from each other" if epistemology is not necessary to do science? Epistemology, metaphysics, and so on, are inherently required to do anything. Any STEM student who hasn't taken the above in addition to philosophy of science and philosophy of technology is a failure on the caliber of an English literature student graduating without taking courses on grammar, development of language, specific periods especially in Middle English (and Anglo-Saxon for those daring enough to learn it) You aren't doing good science in a lab and with statistics courses, you are doing popular science. Good science is self-aware. Bad science, what you are doing, is merely existent. Wrong actually >Do you think that modern science degrees create "glorified technicians"? All STEMspergeries create glorified technicians. This is why so few of you ever amount to anything but irrelevant datawork.
Landon Myers
Oh look, a load of garbage.
Jayden Bennett
why?
Carter Gray
>im le renaissance man!!1!!: the post
Logan Hall
You don't belong here
Easton Hall
No, you don't. Go back to plebbit.
Joseph Brown
t. liberal arts major w/ $60k debt and no knowledge to show for it
Chase Bennett
What you posted is liberal arts trash you fucking child >60k debt I'm not American. Students here can expect about 40k debt at the very most, assuming absolutely no financial aid besides loans.
>no knowledge Knowledge isn't acquired, you stupid child.
Asher Hall
>tfw he thinks I'm criticizing liberal arts as a concept and not its aberrant status today Keep justifying spending 40k on a garbage degree certified by Judeo-Marxists who want to see your brains turned into mush instead of learning the trivium like the great men of antiquity
Dominic Cook
For real, please don't devote that much time to this shit. Studying something like the Trivium is to gain an understanding of the history of intellectual culture, and even to improve one's own thinking abilities, but in that case, it's better to get it straight from the horses mouth - reading primary historical works rather than modern secondary literature that survey's' the field.
Moreover, if your intent goes beyond just gaining a historical understanding or, so to speak, getting some mental exercise, then you'd be much better off devoting more time studying to modern subjects and disciplines, since pound-for-pound, they're much higher in mental calories.
>All STEMspergeries create glorified technicians. This is why so few of you ever amount to anything but irrelevant datawork.
IDK, people who study pure mathematics and/or theoretical computer science tend to be pretty smart, pretty chill, and pretty well rounded -especially the ones with an interest and understanding of philosophy, linguistics, or cognitive science. . . and certainly they aren't glorified technicians.
Also, even though I have comparatively less knowledge of such disciplines, I have a great deal of respect for the people that study the more arcane, classificatory (and generally less systematic and abstract), and - for lack of a better word - autistic natural sciences, including such fields as botany, ichthyology, ornithology, etc. These fields appeal to me because I think they have much in common with the natural philosophy and natural history of the ancients (e.g. both Aristotelian philosophers Encyclopediaists) and they seem to be more directly emergent from the character and everydayness of Dasein's being-in-the-world, whereas many more abstract and seemingly intricate, systematic, and explanatory sciences seem to have departed from Dasein's facticity and the nature of care as a mode of being-in-the-world-through-time. . . . E.g. chemistry, highly speculative physics (e.g string theory), epidemiology, highly-statistical schools of sociology, psychology, and economics (as opposed to methodologies based on discrete math, game theory, or social choice theory). Similarly problematics is dogmatic/ideologically based scholarship in the humanities and social sciences, including heterodox economics, post-modernist anthropology, sociology, political science, and economics. (On the other hand, biology and empirical physics are great, including quantum mechanics, relativity, cosmology, and especially Newtonian mechanics).
Basically: Pure Math > Theoretical Computer Science >= Linguistics > Cognitive Science >= Newtonian Mechanics > Biology >= Physics >= Taxonomical Natural Science (e.g. ichthyology) >=Phenomenological Social Sciences and Humanities >= Social Choice Theory and SCT-theoretic Social Sciences > Chemistry > Speculative Physics > > > . . . DeeZ NutZ . . . > > > Ideological social sciences > > > Shitty statistical (social)sciences.
Carson Wood
Please go back to plebbit >antiquity MUH GREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEKS Stop jerking yourself off, rapist. You are all glorified technicians.
Isaiah Garcia
Logic, grammar, and rhetoric are the forgotten arts that serve as the foundation of nearly all complex thought, in addition to history, math, and philosophy. Maybe you'd recognize that if you weren't so busy awkwardly inserting Heideggerian terminology into your shitposts. It was fucking Heidegger himself who said you should read Aristotle for 10 years before reading his work so maybe you should take his advice instead of hamfisting Being and Time references into everything like a pseud.
Justin Fisher
>forgotten arts WE
Aaron Long
WUZ
Anthony Harris
I'm not 'hamfisting Being and Time references into everything like a pseud.' I'm using the terminology to make a point - which in my case, is largely inspired by Heideggerian phenomenology - without necessarily utilizing his terminology in a completely accurate manner that reflects his own usage. My point is mainly about the relationship between such sciences and one's concrete and everyday experience of the world.
Actually the truly non-pseud thing to do would be to recognize the unimportance of correctly using Heideggerian terminology when I'm not even attempting to report or interpret Heidegger's own views, but rather attempting to make my own point about the existential character of various sciences. If I was attempting a discussion of Heidegger's own work or it's relationship to the philosophy or sociology off science, that would be a completely different matter, but since I'm more so employing these stylistic techniques in a loose an metaphorical manner so as to assist in conveying a peripherally related point, you objection is largely empty.
Furthermore, to go full autist, I'm pretty sure I know more about logic and grammar than you do. I'm literally studying undergrad linguistics at one of the top departments in the US and philosophy in a top 50 department in the US and just authored two essays over the past 7 months, one (solo authored) and accepted in an undergrad academic journal, and the second one (coauthored with an assistance professor) awaiting a response, but will pretty certainly be printed in actual (non-undergrad) academic journal. . . The first being a fairly unique essay that applies methods of theoretical computer science to a very particular issue in formal semantics (basically grammar and logic), and the second one a work that implements group theory in the analysis of logic and which emerged from some comments of mine on one of my professors books, which he expanded upon, and clarified.
Joshua Martinez
EMPRAHS
Henry Torres
Dude, you are unbearably pretentious and pseudointellectual. How did you manage to type three paragraphs of meandering bullshit without making a single coherent point? Listen, nobody cares about your top 50 university or the fact that some sorry professor took pity on you and helped you write a paper. You can't think, you can't write, there's no discernible intelligence.
Angel Gonzalez
Autism: the saga continues
Adrian Sanchez
Why has this thread attracted so much stupid?
Carson Flores
Imma find you, little prickl, Ill get you down, Ill knockj you to the fucking ground...
SCHIZO POSTER
Michael James
Such Judaism, much wow!
So shitty of an attempt at meta-ironic meme-LARPing could only be the result of the complete and utter dissemination of post-modernist (semitic-hamitic)-cuckold ideology throughout Western Culture, including even the deepest, darkest, and most intellectual corners of Veeky Forums.
Noah Ward
you are unbearably pretentious and pseudointellectual
Your 50 layer, 100% intentional, meta-ironic, misusage of the word 'psudeointellectual' as an adjective, exemplifies, in my mind, comedic genius. Keep up the dank werck. :)
Samuel Jenkins
Exsqueez muh - it seems that my post is in desperate need of som meme arrowsdddddddddd. . .
>you are unbearably pretentious and pseudointellectual
Ryder Campbell
> adjective >3. >of, relating to, or characterized by fraudulent intellectuality; unscholarly:
Liam Carter
Cool list and interesting concept friend. Too bad you never presented it in chart form and that this thread attracted retards.
