Is philosophy the most pathetic field a person can involve themselves in

Software engineering and the like is stem though.

>i couldnt hack playing an instrument a high school kid could play, in college

Must be rough

I agree, there is nothing more pathetic than developing a marketable skill.

females' studies

Why would it be pathetic?

Gender Studies

Gender Studies

You can literally read the wikipedia page on music theory and a few related concepts (other wikipedia pages) then apply yourself to any instrument and you're good. That's what I did, at least. I would like to buy a piano and a violin now (good quality ones), though I am poor so that is not happening. I guess the only other thing you need to do is listen to a lot of music and study it, though even that's not really necessary. People seem to put more weight on discerning style and genre, and fitting their music within certain borders than the actual music itself, on its own merit and freedom. Like they judge its worth in its ability to be simultaneously extremely adherent to the standard whilst being somewhat original, or at least seeming to be. I can see no real reason for this, beyond narrow emulation of what is common practice. I compose and play whatever pleases me, largely based on intuition and mood.

Though I guess this counts for most things, the internet combined with self-discipline is a truly beautiful thing. It's just this is much easier than becoming proficient in Mathematics for example (and no, being able to apply selections of calculus is extremely far away from being proficient in Mathematics). I suppose studying music itself is separate from this, however, with additional sociology and history related to it, I guess it would be an equal task.

As to the worth of pursuing it, or it being pathetic, it is quite worthless in the world sense. You will not make a career with it, it will bring you nothing marketable or insightful. I don't see "pathetic" as being applicable to studying anything though, I don't understand what is meant by this. Being a STEMfag with no friends or family and extremely depressed, anxious and nihilistic individual. Music is a wonderful way to purge myself of emotions and loneliness. So it is definitely worth something to me. I'm not sure if it is pathetic or not.

Art history.

Follow up with a MA with a focus on feminist issues as expressed through neo-classical painters of France or something.

As a field yeah, but the benefits to the individual life are most relevant. You can't just hit this world then walk from the womb to the grave without stopping first to figure out what sort of a world you were in while you were, but we already have the handful of people to tell us what an examined life should look like.

It is the most relevant subject. It is the understanding of truth and reality. It's not so much to sell, however, as everyone is certain that they know a thing for sure, because there are many things to know, and lord help them if they have found the one true religion. No one wants philosophy, and if they do, they want it from old dead guys who were much better at it than you.

>learn philosophy
>do not teach philosophy.

You can literally read the wikipedia page on mathematics and a few related concepts (other wikipedia pages) then apply yourself to any field and you're good. That's what I did, at least. I would like to buy a book on number theory and commutative algebras (good quality ones), though I am poor so that is not happening. I guess the only other thing you need to do is read a lot of books and study them, though even that's not really necessary. People seem to put more weight on discerning a structure and order, and fitting their sets within certain fields than the actual mathematics itself. on its own merit and freedom. Like they judge its worth in its ability to be simultaneously extremely adherent to the standard whilst being somewhat original, or at least seeming to be. I can see no real reason for this, beyond narrow emulation of what is common practice. I solve and prove whatever pleases me, largely based on intuition and mood.

Major in Music is retarded because

Top Musicians can perform Good Quality Music without ever get a Degree.

Top Musicians showed talent in Music since Very Early Childhood as Prodigies then Practiced a Lot.

Mozart for example
Mozart started playing Piano with 5 years old.
Mozart wrote his first symphony with 8 years old.
Mozart composed an opera with 14 years old.
With just 17 years old Mozart performed before European royalty.

The Degree is Useless because It don't boost skills.

Music is like sport, you must have inborn natural talent given by your genes. Plus mindless practice.

Science by other hand is something that actually require study, classes, reading books, realizing experiments, observing data & research.

Music is mindless practice.

This type of close mindedness is inevitably going to be the glorious and tragic downfall of humanity.

Yes

Just go to musictheory.net and do their exercises you pleb.

Literally how?

Go drink some hemlock or something.

No, that's merely your philosophy.

Philosophy is dead, so it's pretty bad in a sense. Sociology, psychology and "studies" seem a lot lamer, though.

No, it's not. It's more like a trade.

Modern Art is one of the Worst
>Art History with concentration in Modern Art
>perhaps the worst of all

Modern Art teach you to "create & appreciate" a bunch of Shit & Trash

Paintings that any kid, retarded, drunk, or even a monkey can do.

youtube.com/watch?v=lNI07egoefc

youtube.com/watch?v=7SVbYSTGtWw

youtube.com/watch?v=SZakTB9uiyU

>ITT:Stem cucks that'll kill themselves at the ripe age of 40 after realizing their lives mean nothing

>humanity will be retarded but at least they will have better iphones

>studying fallacious lines of inquiry as a philosopher
>smart
You can't have both.

Trying to make photorealistic art is utterly pointless now because there's this little invention you might have heard of called the camera. The only way to make painted art that's worth a damn now is to draw weird or abstract things

Engineering is an expressive and creative art. Instead of paintings or sculptures you create useful objects.

I appreciate the beauty of a well designed structure or piece of equipment, but there's a big difference between an object made solely for the appreciation of it's appearance and an object made with functionality in mind first and aesthetics as an afterthought. Trying to pretend a well structured circuit board and a painting serve the same purpose is just asinine, even if they are both artful expressions of a craft

Really makes you think.
Einstein was very well-versed in philosophy, mainly Mach's philosophy of science and Spinoza's ethics. It's perfectly normal for a promising scientist to be concerned with deeper problems involving philosophical insight. Not to mention people like Hume, Kant or Popper who had literally changed the way we thought science functions. I think that while talking about philosophy you refered to the so called continental tradition, which (without few honorable exceptions like, at least in my opinion, Heidegger or Hegel) is a pool full of shit, to be frank. That being said, I think that basic insight into philosophy of mind, knowledge and science are an important tool for a scientist of any kind.

Have you even seen a car? Those things are literally driveable sculptures. Their whole exterior design flies in the face of performance and practicality.

>Trying to make photo realistic art is utterly pointless

Making Shitty Modern Art is pointless.

Design, Line Art Drawing & Manga are impressive, beautiful & useful

Sculptures cannot be made like Photos, you still need an artist to made sculptures.

However Modern Art is Shit.

Design is Useful. History of Art is Shit.

The problem with philosophy is that there's so much shit among the good stuff that I can see why someone ignorant but well intentioned like OP would hate it.

>manga is impressive, beautiful and useful
didn't know Veeky Forums whas this pleb, sad.

Not all manga is kawaii ugu~ shit

don't talk shit about my waifu

Senpai. Manga & Anime are Kawaii desu. (^u^) Modern Art is Baka.

>2011+6
>still being a weeb
I'll enjoy my superior manhau while you wallow in shit.

Comp sci is not even a major so much as a fucking trait required by every modern STEMfag. It's like me defending Calculus as a comparable major to math

Comp sci \subset any STEM field

Majoring in it just seems pointless

Common greeks and romans believed adults arguing about philosophy instead of politics were morons. Take it as you will

Yeah, CS and math both have to be mastered by any STEM fag. Studying either alone is just a waste of time.

>cs and math up to diff eq and lin alg

Ftfy

Math is more than what you learn in engineering user

But the exact same argument can be made for CS.

Any philosophy after WW2 is trash tier, because philosophy has been infested with anti-intellectual marxist bullshit. Philosophy of the 19th century on the other hand was GOAT and a great complement to the natural sciences.

Hm, wrong. Give me an example, I have an open mind

That seems like a shitty statement.

Let me rephrase.

Computer science, taken literally, is its own field, with its own unique caveats and studies, etc.

Computer science, taken practically, is code monkey work. Any amount of skill that 90% of employed comp sci majors apply is enjoyed by anyone who considers themselves STEM.

philosophy master race

>look guys, this image I just made says I'm the best!
>There's no way to argue with that!

>being this triggered
stay mad philosophylet

>lol I trole u XXXDDDD
????

>taking a joke that seriously

>????? XDDDDDD

Philosophy is not something that a person should major in; it's not something that you should make a career in or pursue as your primary area of study.

Philosophy is a hobby, something to invite fellow gentlemen to your parlor for whiskey, cigars, and discussion.

It is interesting and fun to talk about but it is not a career.

"but but but who will teach philosophy in college" Anyone can teach philosophy in college, you don't need a degree in philosophy to teach it.

"but I want to study what I like".
If you don't already have a meaningful degree and career you have no business going to university for a hobby.

Think about it, people, especially dipshit americans, are taking massive loans to spend a couple years studying all sorts of hobbies.

There is no reason why after getting your degree and starting a career you can't go back to university for some weekend or night classes to study a hobby.

My wife and I (both engineers) decided to take some culinary arts courses at the local university because it's something we enjoy. We aren't going to be chefs working at some restaurant but it's fun.

I might take a history course or two down the road, maybe a formal language course.

But again, it is irresponsible to major in philosophy or any of the other "hobby" fields.

Just the "still believes the term field or subject is meaningful" field, telniarb

This.

And to be honest, you don't "learn" philosophy from taking university lectures. Philosophy is something you study on your own. In university you're only gonna be indoctrinated with crappy marxist propaganda.

common greeks and romans, just like common people now, were morons themselves

I disagree. There's a limit to what you can understand about philosophy as a hobbyist, especially with harder authors.
It's not that you cannot learn Hegel as a hobby, but you need a professor who is immersed in philosophy enough to grasp the meaning of his works to teach it.

You also seem to be contradicting yourself, because you are considering cooking as a hobby, yet without chefs not only wouldn't the dishes be nearly as developed and sophisticated as they are, but nobody could teach you properly.

And even with languages, you also seem to take those as a hobby field. But without language professors who are able to optimize the learning curve and write books on the subject, learning a language would take a lot longer.

You honestly seem to have your head so deep inside your anus that you don't take anything that isn't STEM seriously.

>There's a limit to what you can understand about philosophy as a hobbyist, especially with harder authors.
That limit is given by IQ.

>but you need a professor who is immersed in philosophy enough to grasp the meaning of his works to teach it.
Most philosophy professors are brainlets who dogmatically cling to some interpretation they were taught.

>yet without chefs
The difference is that cooking is a practical skill which has to be learned and can be learned easier with advice from someone who has experience. Philosophy on the other hand relies on the ability to think. Either you can think or you can't. It's not something you learn. It's something you're born with.

>The difference is that cooking is a practical skill which has to be learned and can be learned easier with advice from someone who has experience. Philosophy on the other hand relies on the ability to think. Either you can think or you can't. It's not something you learn. It's something you're born with.

cool, let's get rid of mathematics as a field and as a major too then, it's not a practical skill or knowledge you need to memorize, it's something you do by thinking

You're very immature about philosophy. I understand your point of view but it's as dogmatic as what you're criticizing, and in the end flawed even if not completely wrong. The problem with philosophy is that even assuming that you need a certain IQ to understand it, which I agree, there is another limiting factor besides it and that's awareness of philosophers in general.
You may have a high IQ, but if you're not aware of the work of the authors that a book is referencing, you might as well be in the dark just like someone with a lower IQ would be. And there are two ways to deal with that extensive knowledge that's required to understand modern philosophy, either you dedicate a long time to be acquainted with all major works, or you learn from a professor that will explain those things as they come.
If you decide to do the former, the amount of time required to learn that huge body of work is far beyond what is considered a hobby, and you might as well go to school to learn it.

There's a lot of contents to learn in math, just as in philosophy. But I agree, we could get rid of math lectures. Math can easily be learned from a book. Nothing of value is added by seeing someone putting these proofs from a book to a blackboard.

You seem smart but very dogmatic about your beliefs. I suggest reading Peter Drucker's Managing Oneself, it's very short, about 20 pages long I believe. Universities aren't perfect but they allow for different methods of learning, whether in person, watching recorded lectures, at the library or by being in a study group.
You seem to believe everyone is like you, but believe it or not some people cannot learn from books, and it has nothing to do with IQ.

Yeah just let me take photos of all those titans walking around eating gods

That's a good point. However it can be turned into a counter-argument as well. Firstly, the commonly accepted references to earlier works are most often already contained in annotations within modern printed copies of popular philosophical texts, if they aren't even made explicit by the author himself. A professor saying the same thing then adds nothing of value. Secondly, due to the nature of university lectures, there isn't even enough time to learn the very basics. Often you only get to read and discuss short excerpts of historical texts. Indepth study always has to be done independently. Thirdly, the philosophy professor suffers from his own ideological bias. He will only recommend those references he himself deems to be correct, and will omit those he doesn't like, thus leaving you with a skewed perception.

Personal bias is and always will be present no matter how the method for teaching. No philosopher, scientist, mathematician or anything is free of bias.
The annotations are a fair point, but who do you think is writing those annotations, other than professors? Most authors usually don't write those things. You can argue that they have been already written so it's irrelevant to keep doing it, but philosophy is not dead and more content is constantly being produced. Just accept that professors are useful.

You're retarded.

>but philosophy is not dead
It seems fairly dead to me. Everything published today is either trivial or a reformulation of arguments already known 100 years ago.

>Just accept that professors are useful.
appeal to authority

Is math mindless practice?

philosophy is for gayniggers

I don't agree with you but I can see what you mean.