I'm a philosophy major. I got an A in my last philosophy class and I'm taking the next level of philosophy this year...

I imagine they're the type of person who mentions their major 5 times in 4 sentences and brags about getting an A.

Getting an A is honestly so easy in most universities, putting in the bare minimum effort gets you there because 90% of the class isn't even putting in any work

Here's the best outfit for you, it's a McDonalds uniform. You better get used to wearing it because you're going to wear it every day after you graduate with a degree in philosophy.

In all seriousness, consider what you're doing. Getting A's in a joke course like philosophy doesn't mean anything, these courses are designed to feed the Eli'sha Davies then wrote an adorable letter to Americanstudent's ego and then leave them in massive debt when they're done.

Just warning you, you should at least take some math courses or something.

Meant to say, designed to feed the student's ego and leave them in massive debt when they're done.

Got to say, a philosophy student paying to read books is so fucking funny to me

Can you read Greek? If you can't you aren't a real academic.

You should dress like everyone else.

>le worthless degree meme
>thinking that the point of college for employers is skills/knowledge

OP you're a faggot, I'm going to steal your gay thread.

How do I dress to get a Kurisu gf?

Philosophy grad here. The kids in my classes didnt give a shit how they dressed, just wear what you want.

:^)

Unironically this

Skip the irony and move on to post-irony, maybe you could handle post-post-irony in a year.

>not being an elite dark arts student instead

while you're learning how to be a cuck in your philosophy classes, I'm learning how to conjure up demons in chemistry.

Just google "douchebag numale" and whatever comes up should be your next fit, if it isn't already.

>thnking that the point of college for employers is skills/knowledge

Yes, thats exactly what it is.

I used to think like you when I was a 19 year old college freshman, luckily I realized that I was wrong before it was too late.

Humanities degrees (aside from law) only exist to suck money from upper-middle class white kids. They give you A's to stroke your ego and make you think you're smart and special.

On the other hand, degrees that are actually in demand from employers aren't there to stroke your ego, the university wants to produce the best graduates they can from these degrees so they can garner a good repuation.

why would he say that?

Couldn't have said it better myself.

I used to think like you
then I took student loans to the knee.

And now I still think like you, but poorer.

It is a joke course, I wrote got a B+ on my 2nd year ethics final and essay which was 80% of my grade. I didn't attend lectures and put about 20 hours total into the essay and studying for the exam.

Camus-core, you pretentious dick head. I bet you unironically read Simone de Beauvoir

Here you go, essential philosophy major core.

I am disgusted to admit I kekkd

i majored in law besides the philosophy faculty, he is 100% right

and im a composer too so you cant even say im some capitalist drone

That's how I'm gonna walk my dog from now on. His paws will never touch the earth again on our evening outings.

Orange Jumpsuit

bump

Not a bad idea.

Does anyone know what kind of jacket he's wearing in this picture?

>What do you imagine philosophy students looking like?
Hungry and welfare because good luck finding any job with this though interesting, but in the end useless degree.

i'd never study something just to get a good job

Study stuff you are intrested in evening school after your job. We live in a time where even last nigger studies, so it's hard to impossible to get anything that pays more than wagecuck-job without degree. It's sad, but it's a truth and you can only either do this or strave by flipping burgers.

I feel like this was bait. If so, well played. Seem to have had some success with that.

There's been only a couple suggestions and they weren't much to go off of.

I'd never pay to study something that won't better my socioeconomic prospects. There's your free time for that.

Some kind of pea coat.

Kek at these clueless neckbeards who don't get that just being an outgoing Chad who networks will get you anywhere you want to be.

>M-muh STEM

you wasted $150000 on an education you coulda got for $1.50 in late fees at the public library

FUCK i'm crying

>outgoing Chad
>philosophy student
Chads study economics and get rich.
Smart people study stem and get rich.
Creative people paint/compose/direct/write for breakthrough and get rich.

Losers, betas and daughters of rich parents study useless hobby-tier shit like philosophy, gender science or ahrt and get into welfare-line near Tyrone and Miguel if they don't manage to suck enough dicks to get married earlier.

>Pea coat

Every philosophy professor I've ever seen on my campus wore a cowboy hat, so get that or drop your major.

It looks too light coloured to be a pea coat of the period. Could be an ulster coat, and i would recommend to get an ulster coat over a pea coat

Molding your look and personality around a degree isn't effay

unless...

Will Hunting bar scene. You didn’t even use quotation marks. Shameless

That's not really the idea. Having nice fits is just fun.

You North Americans make me laugh. No wonder you live in such a fucked up society, you don’t even care about education and shit on the few ones that dare to think a little outside of the box. Lucky for the rest of us, nobody gives a shit o respect United States opinions anymore, and in the majority of the world, humanity sciences and intelectuals are very respected, so does they work towards the progress of the humanity.

>Assuming he values induvidualism

Dont be too harsh on them. If they dont make enough money their government will literally leave them to die on the streets

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

ITS A BAIT THREAD

...

np

...

people like u ruined humanity

individualism is not specfically capitalist1, read more theory..

1 - see stirner

hes a transphobic charlatan and completely fails to understand what he critiques

not that user but..
it clearly is the idea when youre mentioning the degree retard

Philosophy today is a lot different from philosophy in the early 20th century.

There's absolutely value in the field but it's also gotten a bad name from certain currents in it. IMO Kant makes some great points in the intro to his Prolegomena.

t. Physics major who's taken his fair share of philosophy courses

>i had an easy professor therefore all philosophy is a joke

>Philosophy today
I don't see what you're looking at. If you're talking about pop philosophy, or talking heads, then sure, but it seems to me that when people trash philosophy, they're dismissing that along with everything pre-2000s.

>it's also gotten a bad name from certain currents in it
Such as cultural Marxism?

>Such as cultural Marxism?
What you call cultural marxism is egalitarianism and social progress, which threatens the establishment and people who are used to being in power, because different people who were once subordinate are now fighting for a level playing field. Make no mistake, the human race can be a bunch of selfish, scrooge like people, and that is why we have those among us who call what is happening "cultural marxism", when in fact it is an advancement towards a more fair and egalitarian society.

If you equate capitalism with an inherently unfair system where some get payed exponentially more while not working any more than those they employ, parallel to the way that minorities in the united states get screwed over while a few people get all the advantages, then yes I would say I see a fair deal of inequality in the society we live in similar to the inherent conditions of unregulated capitalism. Socialism and capitalism exist on a spectrum, and this is not a matter of one over the other, but a balance, is what I would say to anyone who is against the economic principles of marxism.

If you truly feel that there should be social inequalities, then you really are no different from a fascist, and no matter what you say, there will always be those who want to shut you the fuck out and help the disadvantaged. Hail ethical society, fuck fascism.

>What you call cultural marxism is egalitarianism and social progress
Calling it "social progress" is your subjective assessment of it. It's correct to say that it values the state andor concept of 'egalitarianism'.
>which threatens the establishment and people who are used to being in power
It threatens a certain sector of the establishment. Wealth redistribution goes against the interest of the wealthy, mostly in the commercial sector, but it requires giving power to the government to carry out this wealth distribution. More power such as this can lead to the entrenchment of an establishment or elite in the government sector.
>Make no mistake, the human race can be a bunch of selfish, scrooge like people, and that is why we have those among us who call what is happening "cultural marxism", when in fact it is an advancement towards a more fair and egalitarian society.
There are at least two kind of conceptualizations of equality: equality of opportunity, and equality of outcome. Equality of opportunity prizes giving everyone a fair chance to succeed in life, while equality of outcome prizes making sure everyone gets the same standard of living, as high as you can give them. Cultural Marxism, or rather contemporary mainstream liberalism, is an equality of outcome philosophy that tries to corral everyone into more or less the same standard of living---but this has some costs that harm "equality" in other senses of the word.
>If you equate capitalism with an inherently unfair system where some get payed exponentially more while not working any more than those they employ... then yes I would say I see a fair deal of inequality in the society we live in similar to the inherent conditions of unregulated capitalism.
You have a misguided image of capitalism. First, you conflate the profit of the business owner and the employee. Who "pays" the business owner is the customer; who "pays" the employee is the business owner.
cont.

cont.
>Who "pays" the business owner is the customer; who "pays" the employee is the business owner.
The business owner has many "customers", or will strive to have as many as possible, whereas the employee will only have the one "customer", their employer, the business owner. As the employer gets more and more customers, their revenue increases; the employee being under contract for a certain amount of pay, regardless of whether the business gets more or less than enough customers, will see no change in their wages outside of raises or bonuses. My point is that it is entirely possible and not at all unfair, from an equality of opportunity standpoint, to end up with the situation you describe as "some get payed exponentially more while not working any more than those they employ". You only judge it as unfair because you are valuing an equality of outcome standpoint that ignores certain critical facts, such as the amount of risk involved in starting a business, the large amount of capital required to start one, the non-guarantee of profit of the businessowner versus the employer, and so on. Equality of outcome demands that the potential harm that the business owner took on in starting their business and operating it is deemed less weighty than the ideal of equal compensation for the employee to their employer. You call that fair; but you should easily see why others would not.

>You have a misguided image of capitalism. First, you conflate the profit of the business owner and the employee. Who "pays" the business owner is the customer; who "pays" the employee is the business owner.
The profits of the united states are set up in a top heavy "trickle down" system, in which the wealth is concentrated on the top and those on the bottom do not receive that wealth. There needs to be regulations on society so that the wealth isn't simply taken by the top wealthiest people in society, and people who work their asses off at lower income jobs can make a living. Countries like the netherlands have higher minimum wage and social programs which are mandated, and they have less working hours, they get payed more, and they are some of the happiest countries on earth. Not accepting marxism is simply a failure to look outside of own's own cultural proximity and find different ways of life.

>the non-guarantee of profit of the businessowner versus the employer
versus the *employee

>Socialism and capitalism exist on a spectrum
That is quite unimaginative thinking. Of course there will be no alternatives to either system if people insist on seeing them as the only two possible options. Be wary of dichotomous thinking.
>this is not a matter of one over the other, but a balance, is what I would say to anyone who is against the economic principles of marxism.
So you would like a cross between socialism and capitalism as the socioeconomic system? As far as I know, this is not what the strain of leftism of which cultural Marxism is a part has in mind.

>If you truly feel that there should be social inequalities, then you really are no different from a fascist
That is not what capitalism compels. The social inequality will be a mere fact of life, and not a desired situation. It is not, "There should be social inequalities", but rather, "There will be social inequalities". It is a consequence of the system that, ideally, will punish the grasshopper who watches the ants prepare for winter.

Saying that there will be social inequalities is just an excuse not to do anything about them.

>The profits of the united states are set up in a top heavy "trickle down" system, in which the wealth is concentrated on the top and those on the bottom do not receive that wealth.
I assume that by "the top", you mean business owners and upper-level management, or more generally whoever is an employer, and by "those on the bottom" you mean workers, employees, and the unemployed.
Leaving aside the unemployed, within a typical business, yes, the higher up the chain you go, the greater share of wealth you net, for the reason that I said before about customers.
>There needs to be regulations on society so that the wealth isn't simply taken by the top wealthiest people in society
Where does this wealth come from? Again, I come back to my explanation about employer, employee, and customers. The business owner decides, with their employee, how much the employee's labor will be compensated. This is a more or less fixed amount, that the employer is obligated to pay whether or not the business does well. So the employee is financially secure, and does not share their employer's risk. However, they consequently do not get more wealth as the business does better like the employer does; but the employee, upon being hired, agreed to these terms.
"Society", the economy, is made up of myriads of these relationships. Therefore, in saying that
>There needs to be regulations on society
you are saying that the government needs to intervene in how these businesses run themselves---implicitly, that it is wrong that successful business owners are rewarded by profit. What, exactly, do you propose?

Long drapey lab coat and black unkept hair ofc.
I.e. Mad Scientist Core

getkempt.com/article/9468 brainlets

To address the specific problem of "trickle down economics", I propose that we raise taxes on the wealthiest .1 of 1%, who own half of the wealth. There is no reason why someone needs to be a multi billionaire while someone who works 2 jobs to feed their family can barely survive on what they have. There needs to be government mandated programs to take the wealth of the wealthy, because they do nothing but hoard their wealth and the poorest of our society do not see any of it - trickle down does not work.

As for the other problems, there is spending which is out of control in the united states which needs to be under control. The foreign interventions, and the fact that we spend more on our military than the top 6 countries combined, as well tax cuts for the wealthy, are among several of the ways that the united states spends irresponsibly, and could use that irresponsibly spent wealth to actually help the citizens of it's country. Social programs are not "free stuff", it is responsible spending in a way which strengthens the nation.

If our nation is filled with poor uneducated people with bad health care, how the hell are we going to compete with other modern nations? The united states is a failing super power, and we will continue to see more failure as we break the knee caps of everyone but the wealthiest people in our nation.

>people who work their asses off at lower income jobs can make a living
These people tend to be living in highly desirable urban areas like New York, Los Angeles, Portland, and Seattle, and at low-skill jobs like customer service. Meanwhile, people with a marketable skill are usually able to get by, because their employer will compensate them for their labor accordingly at a higher pay grade. The people who don't do well also tend to be burdened with families to feed, and are sometimes guilty of spending on non-necessities. There are a variety of factors that come into people not being able to "make a living" besides their not being paid "enough" by their employer. The simple solution is still to move somewhere more affordable.

>Countries like the netherlands have higher minimum wage and social programs which are mandated, and they have less working hours, they get payed more
And as you can see here
expatax.nl/tax-rates-2016
They pay heavily for it in total tax rates up to 2/5 of their income---~40%.
Now, you might be willing to accept a loss of 40% of your income and be happier in exchange for these government mandated programs, but imagine how many fewer things you could afford taking such a pay cut than you do now. It's not a palatable prospect for a lot of people.
>Not accepting marxism is simply a failure to look outside of own's own cultural proximity and find different ways of life.
Cultural Marxism isn't the same thing as Marxism, so we're discussing something different than the original prompt. And Marxism as an analytical method is different from Marxism as an ideology. As an ideology, Marxism assumes that the workers, or the state, or the state and the workers, can be effective business owners like enterprising individuals, which is up for debate.

They may well can be. Who wants to feel sorry for a poor woman as this: a single mother college dropout who spends her welfare food money on junk food and eschews taking time to acquire non-government income, instead spending the time seeking entertainment? Social inequalities are not always the fault solely of the system. Individual responsibility and life choices do often come into play in a big way

>To address the specific problem of "trickle down economics", I propose that we raise taxes on the wealthiest .1 of 1%, who own half of the wealth.
Which taxes? Individual income taxes? Corporate tax rates? Property taxes? All of them?
According to these two articles,
marketwatch.com/story/45-of-americans-pay-no-federal-income-tax-2016-02-24
taxfoundation.org/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-data-0
>The top 1% of taxpayers pay a higher effective income-tax rate than any other group (around 23%, according to a report released by the Tax Policy Center in 2014) — nearly seven times higher than those in the bottom 50%.
>The top 1 percent (1.3 million filers) paid a greater share of income taxes (38.1 percent) than the bottom 90 percent (122.4 million filers) combined (29.8 percent).
Do you believe that this is not enough money being collected? Or are you willing to entertain the possibility that the government is rather handling that tax revenue in an inefficient manner? For rather than seeing
>someone who works 2 jobs to feed their family can barely survive on what they have
and believing that the wealth is being hoarded by the rich, you can instead believe that the government isn't spending the money they do get from the rich well enough to raise the poor's standard of living.
>There needs to be government mandated programs to take the wealth of the wealthy
There already is.

>I got an A
>In philosophy

...

...

...

...

...

...

...