IMB706 wrote:Of course, picking up the actual books themselves and reading them is a good place to start, school or no school. The danger in that though is that you lose a lot of valuable context that a classroom environment can give to a work; example: If you just read Nietzsche without at least understanding/nominally-familiar-with Kant, Hegel, the British empiricists aka Hume, and perhaps the Greek epics, you are not going to see him in the same way, and some meaning is lost.
Actually, you make the false assumption that the education in the US understands "Nietzsche, Kant, Hegel, the British empiricist etc" and that getting degrees in history and philosophy gives the vast majority of those with it a meaningful employment. I wouldn't bother talking about such things with someone who thinks they know about it because they have some history or philosophy degree, because from my experience they oftentimes don't know dick about it. And also from my own experience, philosophy and liberal arts majors end up as construction workers, burger flippers and straight to the unemployment line. All they get is a false sense of higher intelligence and end up being that annoying guy who thinks he's smarter than everyone when he's working a crappy job with no real direction in life.
Read my post again, pl0x. You missed key points, ie, everything.
If you subscribe to that you, you are truly underestimating the scholars and professors of America. Perhaps in a community college the rigors are different, but you might find different examples, as you so trumpet, in major liberal arts colleges.
Hell, the university I go to, as well as shitloads of universities I know, the class sizes are on average 40 people or less. The classes with 400 students are precisely the paths you are trumpeting as "the different path" ie: medicine, science/biology, and engineering. So to say "there's too much research, not enough teaching" is a gross overstatement on your part, that honestly warrants NO consideration.
Also, you fallaciously assume that just by NOT getting a liberal arts degree, you are guaranteed employment. This is also FALSE. The market is inundated with Business majors, along with Engineers (who can't even erect dispensers at opportune locations) and Pre-Meds. More and more I have heard of people in those professions hiring OUTSIDE of the 'standard set' of majors, because nothing differentiates a thousand Business majors other than different names (in fact, having liberal arts majors or minors is now becoming a more common way of hiring someone in a field not necessarily connected with liberal arts). Why you keep on assuming that there are no opportunities for people with liberal arts degrees is frankly infuriating, considering of all the fucking examples to the contrary; sorry your backwater part o' town has a bunch of LA-folks in shitty jobs, but I know plenty of practical major people in shit jobs, too. So please, rethink your arguments before you just hide behind the shield of "examples", because anyone with a brain will soon figure out example after example will just be ad hoc argument with no real substance. But you'll say "But you used examples!" Yeah, I did, but your logic is not sound no matter how you look at it.
Also angering me is your assumption that jobs beneath the oh-so-vaulted ideals of 'jobs in medicine and engineering' are clearly, since they are not practical, are not worth even having. Because again, this is also false.
Books have no practical purpose? Well, I think I know where you're going with that, but the vast majority of liberal arts majors don't write books, they end up bagging groceries. You don't gain any insight or skills in the fields of economics by bagging someone elses groceries, that's for sure.
Please read my post again, because, as becoming your stands on education and meaning in education, you totally did not get anything I said. And I mean anything.
You may think that is condescending, but I am seeing nothing but condescension from a guy who thinks he has everything figured out because he wants to get into engineering, because of course a job with money is obviously the right path.
Your utilitarian approach to education may help people become the assistant lower-manager at some shitty clothing store chain, but not much else. Also, your assumptions that everyone you know (again, a shitty argument) ends up 'bagging groceries' are also not worth warranting as a serious argument.
Your idea of what makes a 'meaningful' education is also repugnant and disgusting. If 'meaningful' just means "getting money" (while ignoring at the same time everyone else WHO ACTUALLY MAKES MONEY TOO), then the human race has landed itself in one shit-fuck of an asshole.
Also: read Nietzsche's "On the Genealogy of Morals" (Kaufmann translation) to see why modern atheists and atheistic scientists have become a dogmatic religion in their own right. Suffice to say: they believe in 'truth', without ever questioning what 'truth' even means. Thus, faith in an undefinable concept.