What are the most patrician things to study in university?

Whatever, user
At least I'll be rich enough to buy my favorite genre-fiction and comics

Applied Maths and Theoretical Physics degree
Chinese and Economics Degress

C L A S S I C S

Philosophy. It's applicable in pretty much any field.

mathematics, physics, mineralogy, botany, physiology, natural history, philosophy, medicine

but you have to do all of them to be a patrician

>Majored in History
>Minored in Religious Studies
>Considering a graduate degree in Philosophy

I'll be smartest homeless person ever

> any field
Doubt you'll be applying much philosophy when you're picking broccoli.

Don't look so sad.

Something usefull
I.e.not philisophy, litterature, genderstudies or anything else that can be learned on the side

As a supplement, nothing else

Econometrics & Quantitative Economics
Econophysics
Finance & Statistics (Double Major)
Mechanical & Electrical Engineering (Double Major)
Medicine
Biology & Ecology (Double Major)
Defense Engineering

Anything that challenges you to learn how complicated systems work in a variety of circumstances is valuable.
Anything that requires you to understand all the constituent parts of systems, their meaning and role, and to be able implement that knowledge into solving a larger problem is valuable.
Critical thinking, Analytical Skills and a knowledge base in a hard science, mathematics or economics, can enable you to be a very competent person.

You'll also probably make some good money

*TIPS!*

Being the only burrista in town that can talk Sartre and Kant and Schopenhauer must be fulfilling

P U R E M A T H E M A T I C S

U

R

E

M

A

T

H

E

M

A

T

I

C

S

My God I just wanna walk into that room, bend over, spread my cheeks and drop a tidy two piece turd right in the middle of it.

Also if they're supposed to be so smart why I have met so many dull medics?

nothing@ can be learned on the side while maintaining a dose of something non academic in your 18 hours of being awake

To get into a good medschool you really need to make the study of medicine your life
This means that most don't have the time to socialize and take up hobbies early in life
Older doctors are some of the most interesting people I know

philos. history. archit. acting. pure math. literature

>tfw economic drop out
wew i guess

Glorious engineering because you are actually building something instead of wanking to a dead faggot and his shitty theories.

Social and Political Science

All those philosofags pretending that formal logic and epistemology even relevant to anything while we read the important bits and look at dem historical facts too

Rhetoric, baby.

>Mechanical engineering & electrical engineering
Literally just physics and CS for retards

>Being the [...] in town that can talk Sartre and Kant and Schopenhauer must be fulfilling
It is

Pure mathematics. Surely.

Question time:

Why is Veeky Forums (and the other autistic parts of the internet) obsessed with the idea that analytical = good?

We see it here, where subjects are essentially just ranked according to the degree with which they are abstract (Mathematics >Physics>Engineering), and also in the feeling of supremacy analytic philosophers have over continentals.

Why? It's not like the humanities aren't obviously important, or like they are ultimately reducible to the same skills.

You answered your own question. Autism. Plus that's all we're good at.

Please do not group philosophy and literature with gender studies.

physics, math or medicine

>historical facts
Facts are confirmed truths. Hypotheses (statements whose truth-value is indeterminate) must be readily and empirically verified to deserve the badge of "fact". There are no historical facts. Was it true that Plato was one of Socrates' followers? The evidence surely points to it, but that doesn't make it so. History, as the sciences, deals with evidence and judges it by means of probability. How many hairs there were on Napoleon's head when he was on his death-bed? 11? 111? 1?! All hypotheses, though some hypotheses are better than others.

Fact: Paris is the capital of France
Fact: 1 + 1 = 2
Fact: You are breathing

Hypothetical non-fact: In his early days, Plato was a follower of Socrates
Hypothetical non-fact: The moon landing wasn't fake
Hypothetical non-fact: Yesterday you were alive

Any how do you 'confirm' a truth? Oh yes, you rely on empirical evidence, which may or may not exist to suggest the existence of Plato.

Total pleb

>Any how do you 'confirm' a truth?

Me: "...must be readily and empirically verified to deserve the badge of "fact"

You: "Oh yes, you rely on empirical evidence"

So we agree. You might want to check your reading comprehension.

STEM. Scientific subjects have not been infected by the disease of cultural marxism. If you are interested in the humanities study them on your own.

Oh sorry, it's just your argument was so vapid that I ended up identifying some substance that wasn't there.

So you're arguing that no historical fact is "readily and empirically verified" - that we have no strong evidence for any historical fact?

Point being: you can't readily and empirically verify that "In his early days, Plato was a follower of Socrates" because for obvious reasons: you can't travel back in time. Which is not to say that history is worthless; far from it. You're just misusing the concept "fact".

But all this argument amounts to is 'history is so distant that the evidence for any particular claim is inadequate', and that is just not true. For example, it is perfectly evident that Hitler existed, and it is perfectly evident that Aristotle existed - even if we know little about them for sure.

>perfectly evident
prove it :^)

STEM is under full talmudic influence, they suppress the true insights of Deutsche Mathematik

>it's just your argument was so vapid
To each his own, I guess. If you love and are used to muddled conceptual thinking (forgivable since you're just a historian) there's not much I can do to change it.

>So you're arguing that
No, I am arguing that you're misusing the concept "fact". In fact, you just misused it again; two times in a row. And it is a fact that you misused it two times in a row, because I, as can others, can readily and empirically verify it.

If you really think that the existence of Hitler is contestable then I think we can end the debate here

nice to see that you conceded

>But all this argument amounts to is 'history is so distant that the evidence for any particular claim is inadequate
Yes, that's exactly what it amounts to. Mind you, I am not saying that historical hypotheses (what they really are) are WORTHLESS or INADEQUATE, I am simply saying that it is conceptually INCORRECT to take them to be on the same level as facts. A fact is just a different kind of animal. Historians collect, assess, and cite historical records. This assessment is nothing more than a probabilistic judgement call. If there is good enough evidence to belief that event E happened, then the historian believes that he is justified in writing "In year X, E happened". But that's way too indirect of an evidence for "In year X, E happened", say, to deserve the label "true". It's probable--probably true, you could say--but not, and NEVER, true.

My point is semantic. Don't think for a second I am doubting Hitler's or Aristotle's existence. I believe the records; but the evidence does not by itself mean they existed. You simply can't readily and empirically verify it.

You need to turn his "logic" against him.

Since nothings is provable, his point about nothing being provable cannot be proven.

>Since nothings is provable, his point about nothing being provable cannot be proven.
that just shows that not even that assertion is provable, along with everything else

Modern academic thought in a nutshell.

That will be $150k please.

He's right though

thanks for admitting you have nothing to say
pro-tip: only make destructive claims

No he's not. There exists absolute truths. For example, two objects cannot exist at the same place at the same time.

>two objects cannot exist at the same place at the same time.
Is this bait?

>No he's not. There exists absolute truths. For example, two objects cannot exist at the same place at the same time.
Can't they? Your statement is rather ambiguous. But on one of its interpretations, consider any two objects on your desk (if you have one): Are they at the same place? Yeah, they're on your desk (you could also say "at the same room, building, city, etc.") and they share the same place. Are they both there at the same time? Of course.

On a second interpretation you probably meant: No two objects can occupy the same space-time coordinates in R^4. Right; but if you had read more attentively you'd see that I would probably be in agreement with this. It's not a historical hypothesis but a fact or an "absolute truth", as you put it, because you CAN readily and empirically verify this. Then again, there's this problem of: "Have you examined ALL the objects in the Universe to go ahead and claim that two objects cannot exist at the same place at the same time?". Surely not. If you want to generate an absolute truth you want to be as local as possible and aim for something structural than content-like.

>Right
Wrong

Is that a funny way of saying that you forgot to include a counterexample?

Take a few physics courses

mathematics

*yawn*
factmyth.com/factoids/two-identical-things-cant-occupy-the-same-space/

>two identical fermions
A fermion and a different type of particle can still occupy the same space at the same time.
Get fucked

>Conclusion
As one might correctly assume, two identical “things” (identical matter particles, or just anything made of matter) can’t occupy the same space at the same time. This seems obvious with the more massive objects we see every day, but it also applies to elementary particles and helps explain the rule-set of our universe.

*yawn*

Any major in which the main focus is the 'search for truth' instead of making money

>two identical “things”
Yes but two non-identical particles can, fuckwit.
Next time pick up a textbook instead of going to clickbait sites.

>or just anything made of matter
w e w
you have yet to provide a counterexample though. suggesting i take physics classes isn't falsification or refutation of the claim.

>>or just anything made of matter
Objects don't need matter, retard.
Again, pick up an actual book instead of using clickbait garbage.

>Again, pick up an actual book instead of using clickbait garbage.
for the umpteenth time, suggesting i take physics classes isn't falsification or refutation of the claim.

construct a specific counterexample, as you would in mathematics, else you're just floundering here in public space, unable to account for your claims. or just go back to Veeky Forums where you came from; after all, nobody ever accounts for one's claims there.

*yawn*

>construct a specific counterexample
Two objects can share the same space at the same time if they are not identical, I've already said this you emoting reddit-tier fagot.

Gender studies is literally applied continental philosophy.

Fermions can't occupy the same quantum state, that's bosons.

>bosons
Still an object.

philosophy of language is the DFW of academic fields

Probably not because where I am we have people with masters in electrical engineering who are homeless

>engineering
>smart
lmfaooooooooooo

Gender studies

Medical school criteria selects for autism

"Patricians" don't work through Uni for their lot in life, they have it handed to them by right of birth.

Math and Physics are the most Patrician major by far, because they are the most complex courses where you end up with more understanding of the fundamentals of the world than any other course, also you can easily study Biology or Chemistry after these two. You can also go full math and become one with the abstract

Engineering is almost the definition of pleb tier, line of production course where everybody's hobby are between these two thing:
>frat party
>video games
A major where people don't learn to sharp their toughts and become one with the patricians, only producing bees and ants, only humans courses are more pathetic than this

Medicine is really cool tho, you can have the prestige by default just by being a doctor, but most doctors I know are real plebs

Law is also shit tier

I've fucked up

I thought I was going to get shit grades so I applied to do a film course and I'm in but I ended up doing well and I could have applied to a decent philosophy course

F U C K

Physiotherapy of course

>wants to be patrician
>goes to college

You are retarded. Just because two things rest on the same planar surface doesn't mean they are in the same place. He obviously meant the same point in space, not the same general area. Damn nigga.

That passage was clearly ambiguous you insufferable mouth-breather, hence there are more than one interpretation.

>Just because two things rest on the same planar surface doesn't mean they are in the same place
That's an oxymoron, unless, of course, you're equivocating here: treating "the same place" to mean "the same point in space". If you weren't in fact mentally challenged you'd see that I considered both interpretations, which is what you should be doing, if you read your interlocutor's word-salad charitably. If something is potentially ambiguous, you point it out.

>He obviously meant the same point in space
Oh? He OBVIOUSLY meant it? You mean you read his mind? Shut the fuck up already.

Should I do Politics & Philosophy at LSE?

sure why not

Economics is patrician desu

"The master-economist must possess a rare combination of gifts .... He must be mathematician, historian, statesman, philosopher—in some degree. He must understand symbols and speak in words. He must contemplate the particular, in terms of the general, and touch abstract and concrete in the same flight of thought. He must study the present in the light of the past for the purposes of the future. No part of man's nature or his institutions must be entirely outside his regard. He must be purposeful and disinterested in a simultaneous mood, as aloof and incorruptible as an artist, yet sometimes as near to earth as a politician."

>Economics is patrician desu
Economics is the new Astrology. Fancy maths but no correspondence to reality.