What do you consider as the complete liberal education?
Mine:
1) Math up to calc 2 or 3
2) Philosophy - at least the classic greek texts, philosophy of science, meaning of life, but ideally never stop thinking about philosophical topics
3) Science - basics of chem, bio, physics, environnmental science
4) History - a broad overview of world history and more in-depth knowledge of the country you live in/grew up in
5) Literature - a good amount of classic lit and some contemporary lit
Other urls found in this thread:
Greek, Latin and Shakespeare.
>willingly being a dilletante
why
Ideally, you delve into one area, but it doesn't hurt to have basic knowledge in other subjects. Having that knowledge can only supplement your views.
>Shakespeare
you ruined it
Shakespeare is overrated, only popular because he was the only above mediocre writer that anglo saxon barbarians managed to produce
To put him next to Greek and Latin writers is an insult.
>science
everything but "environmental science"
More like homonities.
Is linguistics one?
•a cross with historical and anthropological studies
•learning other languages, foreign literature and ideas
•biology, particularly focusing on the vocal apparatus
Shakespeare's works should be considered to be just as good as Greek and Latin writers'
...
The English school system. They could put a bit more pressure on the 20th century in KS3 history though.
In science:
>Evolution course, strong understanding of natural selection as it explains most things
>Ecology course
>Basic chem
>In-depth understanding of personality disorders (should be mandatory for all Americans, less important elsewhere, but knowing the personality disorders in America is as important as knowing how to lock a door)
This reminds me of that one Star Trek TNG episode where a 5-year-old kid complains about having to do his calculus homework.
>What do you consider as the complete liberal education?
A dogshit indoctrination.
Liberterian education works far better, though I believe there are some things all should know they should be free to learn those things by their own accord.
I believe the most important thing someone should learn is ecology in some respects. This is at a far deeper level than formal methods for modeling ecosystems. It is necessary for the devolpment of a human to learn the ways life works in the world around them. It is imperative that one knows how life works. This isn't something new that came about from the study of ecology in the natural sciences, this is something humans have been doing since the before we were human. We are all born into the living world, we all develop from reciprocal interactions with other living agents and our environment. We humans have the unique ability to abstract the way life works and symbolize it in order to gain understanding. People living traditional lives accumulate ecological knowledge that makes acedemic researchers cum.
Unfortunately in today's cancerous consumer culture we are alienated from this right of passage, contained in a echo chamber we're humans are alone and they are all alone even amongst their own. Devolpment in this environment creates people with warped, self contained egos. So both the formal study of ecology and the qualitative in situ development of living in life are necessary if we are supposed to keep our evolutionary heritage, both for our own species and life on Earth. Biodiversity loss is the greatest scourge we will ever face. This most basic education is our only hope for a future where we, and the rest of life can live a life full of meaning and interaction.
We are losing ourselves
>A dogshit indoctrination.
>Liberterian education
Problem?
you need to seek knowledge regardless of what field it is in, disciplines are for schmucks
History is the foundation of knowledge
mathematics is important for basic knowledge but not unless you want to advance in sciences
Philosophy is interesting but Plato has everything you need, but learning modern political philosophy like Marxism/Poststructuralism is also helpful
Literature studies are useless
Religious studies are useless
Legal studies are very important
Economic studies are very important
>Literature studies are useless
Why do you say this? Literature is quite often philosophical in nature. And it sometimes puts philosophical perspectives in a way that pure philosophy cannot.
If you value philosophy, you should value literature as well. Pls explain.
Also, you can quite often get a picture of a historical setting from novels that you can't get from purely historical descriptions of events. Pic related.
>Why do you say this? religion is quite often philosophical in nature. And it sometimes puts philosophical perspectives in a way that pure philosophy cannot.
>If you value philosophy, you should value religion as well. Pls explain.
If we go down that line it's a slippery slope for all points of view that are in humanities.
Allow me to be more specific. Literature is unique in its ability to give philosophy a "soul" if you will.
Philosophy in itself is usually ( but not always) dry and calculated, and while awe-inspiring in its musings and conclusions, lacks the romance that puts those musings on a personal level.
Literature lends to philosophy this romance and connects it to us not just through the cold hard facts, but in a way that is inherently beautiful, and thus relatable.
I don't think we really get this kind of result from any other discipline, except maybe music. Humans need this feeling, this soulfulness, to be truly fulfilled, and I think literature fulfills this need.
>Not getting an Agricultural education and deriving your philosophy and understanding from the land you work and the animals you tend
youtube.com
Pic related.
>Non-optional programming
Lel, good other than this for gifted kids at the very least.
>I don't know what liberal arts are
What are you, some kind of dumbass?
He's really not. Shakespeare's mastery of the English language is really bar none. As a poet he's certainly much more expressive in his use of language than Virgil and Ovid who both constrain themselves with wearisome dogmatic adherence to repetitive rhyme schemes and overly-affected accents.
wholesome but a simple way of living
>poultry science
Lmao this nigga gonna spend the rest of his life farming chicken mcnuggets
Actually extremely complex if you apply philosophical principles to the work you're doing.
Seed agriculture, herding, and livestock societies all developed different inherent cultural traits and religions tied to their work.
Exploring the roots of ancient European religion through the lens of a farmer or herder gives you a more complete understanding of what you're reading.
I've always felt that you can't really "get" something unless you've experienced it in one form or another.
It's why I joined the Army and it's why I chose to study Agriculture when I got out.
There's something about standing up to your knees in muck with the wind and rain beating down on you that gives you a better insight into the human condition and psyche.
>math
>science
>history
>liberal education
Usually the men who study those aren't liberal and are quite switched on.
Liberal education is more like arts, cultural studies, woman studies,
That’s not what liberal means in this context you nigger
>Lmao this nigga gonna spend the rest of his life farming chicken mcnuggets
And tendies.
You don't understand the meaning of "liberal education".
It means an education meant to develop a complete and thoughtful human being, what it takes to create someone capable of behaving like a true "man".
In the 1800s this meant Greek, Latin, being able to play multiple instruments, philosophy, etc...
The modern American term "liberal" has nothing to do with it.
Exactly. Maths, science, economics history; these are not liberal arts as you can't study them and become a liberal.
Enjoy your ban brah.
Ah okay i mis understood what OP meant, guess i've been looking at too much politics haha.
I would like to study a lot of those however i don't feel like it's my place in this world.
you sound like a fucking retard
>Religious studies are useless
Maybe if you want society to consist purely of neckbeards
>God? Pfff, religion is so stupid. I'm a rationalist
Nigger, did you really report me for calling you a nigger on a Mongolian carpet weaving image board?
Thank you :)
No. my dads a mod and i just went and told him
I personally think that Religion should be studied through an impersonal and third party lens.
The meaning and reasons behind religious practices from a cultural, historical, and philosophical standpoint are more important for intrapersonal development than believing in the religion itself.
It's a mistake a lot of people in this thread have made.
>Actually extremely complex if you apply philosophical principles to the work you're doing.
Tbqh, this can be applied to any sociological dynamic.
And from a philosophical point of view, sure, it can get deep. The syllabus posted only shows basic phil and history courses with a focus on science and management.
Can you take phil and history courses on par with what you're saying?
I support you. Good luck.
>more important than believing in the religion itself
What the fuck do you think they’re doing in religious study classes, praying?
>And from a philosophical point of view, sure, it can get deep. The syllabus posted only shows basic phil and history courses with a focus on science and management.
>Can you take phil and history courses on par with what you're saying?
5-7 open spots in the system to take any course you'd like.
Most take business classes but they can be filled with anything.
Religion is anti-intellectual and, taking it once step further, idiotic. It had its place once, but is now just ruining society.
nice, get on it
>religion is anti-intellectual
Not inherently, no, especially when presented in an academic context.
Thats wrong.
Whats ruining society is people distancing themselves from religion.
Thats why there is so much promiscuous behaviour from women, why men act more like cowards and don't have as many morals.
As a subject of study it's fine, just like studying history is fine. As a belief system it's singularly horrendous.
>in the era where labor has become more specialized than ever and continues to specialize further where professional success generally hinges on performing one narrow task for your entire life
>we should add linguistics, anthropology, greek, latin, theology, astronomy, astrology, ecology, physiology in primary schools!
I know what the liberal arts are. It's the way they are taught in Universities that results in indoctrination. People should have a liberterian education, I know it is a little ironic to be complaining about liberal education and mention John Dewey as a counter example but I'mma do it anyways. I don't like the Ivory tower attitude in education.
>primary schools
OP is talking about college you literal nigger
Au contraire my friend. It's the anti-intellectual, anti-science, anti-rationale crowd that's ruining society ie religious folk. Logical thought contradicts faith.
add basic statistics to math - a solid understanding of statistics is necessary for so much of modern political science and economics
>astrology
no
OP didn't say anything about college.
No I'm not. Ideally these topics should start earlier than college. However, they can be learned at any point in life, as long as doing so induces an informed citizen.
>math up to calc 2 or 3
He actually did
Never mind, guess i’m The wrong nigger here
I'm OP retard. Implication does not mean action. So no, I did not mention college.
he just responded you saying you're wrong nigger dont reply to me again
good boy
agreed
I'm not the biggest fan of Shakespeare either, but to say he is entirely over rated is a bit much. I would agree with you if you said that a good chunk of his works were over rated.
Science,intelligence and being rational didn't make people this way.
There were people who knew nothing of science who weren't intelligent, but who were christian and didn't destroy society and do any of the things i listed in my previous post.
What's wrong with environmental science? Understanding what you live in and how everything basically works with each other seems like a good thing to know about.
No Economics, OP?
Why do you feel economics is vital?
y u hurt feelins
Agreed
What, you mean ecology? You already learn that in bio.
I'm not that poster, but I would argue that its because economics as a field is good at analyzing the technical problems posed by policy issues. When I look at the "economics" threads on Veeky Forums its interesting to me that what people argue about in those threads is ideological systems and not what economists actually study. Many modern economics programs taught in universities actually include the mathematical aspects of economic planning as well as market economics.
My overall point is that a policy debate that would usually be an ideological slugfest that never goes anywhere usually becomes a less partisan, technical problem when you use mathematics, statistics, and economic theory as tools for analysis
ecology is a subset of environmental science
...
I believe teaching the basics of logic are important from a young age. It might teach children to examine their own words (specifically in regards to constructing arguments in written essays), help them think critically (a better alternative to turning multiple choice tests into essay questions with little to no modification of the question, aka, common core), and examine the words of authority figures (namely politicians and people who speak on politics).
So if the average person were versed in economics, how do you think this would affect the citizenry?
You can lump in logic with philosophy my dear
It would reframe the way the public debates economic policy in an unprecedented way. Public dialouge over things like trade policy, tax policy, and corporate law would become analogous to debate about what type of alternative energy sources our country should adopt. The way our nation talks about economic policy would become less about what system you would rather live under or what you THINK is the best policy, but what types of policies would optimize the long term financial well-being of as many people in this country as possible? How many of us could substantially prosper in the aggregate? How could we leverage the our economic power such that we can arrange trade deals in a way that is beneficial for both parties involved? At what point in the business cycle should the Federal reserve raise interest rates on federal bonds in such a way that it maximizes the long term health of the economy?
These are the types of questions that the public and lawmakers should be debating. And I would hope that these are the types of questions that would be popular topics for discussion if the average person was versed in economics.
Ah but economics only cares about 'profit'. Above all else.
>the branch of biology that deals with the relations of organisms to one another and to their physical surroundings.
It is a subset of biology.
>economics only cares about profit above all else
You’re retarded, you know that?
You've just signaled that you've never actually bothered to study it