Think its a good idea to get involved with a 20 year old?

[cocksure]

i studied historical linguistics for two years and there is absolutely no way around saussure, at least here. i do see problems with his views, but much like chomsky, his approach is so attractive that people embrace him simply for scientific productivity. also i don't believe they're entirely incompatible

[28if]

@eric blair

i had to take a literary theory class to complete my undergraduate english major and the emphasis that grad school places on it is the primary reason that i'm not considering attending. as you said, a lot of it is just plain bullshit that twists the words of the actual text to fit unfounded theories on "feminism" or "culture" or whatever based in the incomprehensible writings of lacan or foucoult or whoever. if a layman can't read your essay three times and understand it, i don't see much value there.

however, here i disagree with you pretty strongly:

Originally Posted by Eric Blair

English theory is basically philosophy for idiots who can't be bothered questioning the validity of whatever theory is being used.

early on in college i was a philosophy/english double major but i switched to english because i found western philosophy way too limiting and abstract. an example: in philosophy you try to resolve paradoxes, but guess what! life is full of contradictions and paradox. literature admits this and explores and celebrates them. i at least get a lot more out of seeing how different authors create and treat philosophical topics inherent within their stories. i just think that philosophy can be a lot more nuanced and valuable when studied through narrative, which is basically the form that all of our thoughts, history, mythology, etc. takes. it's fundamentally how we communicate and record everything.

i don't think there are any absolute truths, i suppose, and philosophy's aim of finding them i think is just a limited way of looking at things. however, my brain just processes all this stuff better through literature, others get more out of philosophy, so don't think i'm trying to impose my views on you or anything.

it is pretty disheartening to hear a supposed "philosophy teacher" make such dismissive generalizations of all of literature though.

[Eulogy]

Originally Posted by 28if

it is pretty disheartening to hear a supposed "philosophy teacher" make such dismissive generalizations of all of literature though.

I don't think that's what he was doing.

[cocksure]

Originally Posted by 28if

if a layman can't read your essay three times and understand it, i don't see much value there.

what. why? scientific endeavours are specialised for a good reason, don't you think? maybe this has to do with the literary form of the "essay" which has always seemed strange to me

Originally Posted by 28if

i don't think there are any absolute truths, i suppose, and philosophy's aim of finding them i think is just a limited way of looking at things.

name one modern philosopher who aims at "absolute truth"

[28if]

those guys aren't writing scientific papers, they're writing about "cultural theory." it's one thing if the math or science is inaccessible to someone without a phd but quite another when you're writing about culture, something we all experience every second of our lives. you have to admit that those guys are super convoluted, to the point even that it feels more like they're just wanking off on their own vocabularies/"intellectualism."

and i'm pretty shite at modern philosophy. you get where i'm going though.

[28if]

Originally Posted by Eulogy

I don't think that's what he was doing.

*the usefulness of studying all literature

[Eulogy]

Originally Posted by 28if

*the usefulness of studying all literature

also don't think that's really what he was meaning. i think he was shitting on his university's english department and made a weak attempt at expanding that criticism to cover the study of literature in general and then sort of backed off.

or maybe i'm reading too much into it

[Trotskilicious]

Originally Posted by 28if

i just think that philosophy can be a lot more nuanced and valuable when studied through narrative, which is basically the form that all of our thoughts, history, mythology, etc. takes. it's fundamentally how we communicate and record everything.

Good work.

[Trotskilicious]

Originally Posted by Eric Blair

There is a reason why Foucault is only taught in English departments, despite being more or less ignored by historians.

Discipline and Punish was taught in one of my political theory classes. But there was a very interesting mix for those classes, the professor is probably going to be teaching at some fancy university eventually. He was really very good, especially for being in his early 30s.

That class had like, foucault, marx, hayek, friedman, marcuse, chomsky/herman media theory, the corporate takeover right now, we read detoqueville and man lots and lots...I took three of his classes and they were like one huge survey of political theory so the books blend together. I think that should be the goal of education, not the particular agenda you want to push.

[yo soy el mejor]

i have a crush on a 23 year old *gag* he ain't shit, though.

[cocksure]

Originally Posted by 28if

those guys aren't writing scientific papers, they're writing about "cultural theory." it's one thing if the math or science is inaccessible to someone without a phd but quite another when you're writing about culture, something we all experience every second of our lives.

i'm using the word science the way it's used in german, or the way people like quine use it. culture is just as complex as physics when treated in a scientific manner, and obviously we experience both every second of our lives.

i don't like when people act as if the social sciences were just art forms where strict methodological rules don't apply. if you find foucault's style needlessly complicated, so be it, but don't expect a random paper on let's say history to be more immediately accessible

[28if]

i don't think you can apply "strict methodological rules" to the social sciences; one of the main issues i take with them is that they try to impose the scientific method on issues that are not material, issues that have their basis in the collective conscious of our society which is not something that can be measured... too many people thinking that studying the tangible/statistical effects of much more complex and dynamic systems is good enough just 'cause it's easier/possible to measure.

i don't expect it to be immediately accessible, but i do find the writing of all the cultural critics/literary theorists i've read to be unnecessarily convoluted... what is the point of elucidating your ideas if only the academic elite can decipher them? these guys are nearly incomprehensible to grad students let alone undergrads, which is by car the level of (higher) education most common to people in the developed world. it's just frustrating i guess, because i think that what they have to say is really interesting when parts of it are explained to me, but i don't want to spend two years of my life studying this stuff to be able to get a moderate grasp on it.

[Trotskilicious]

Originally Posted by 28if

i don't think you can apply "strict methodological rules" to the social sciences; one of the main issues i take with them is that they try to impose the scientific method on issues that are not material, issues that have their basis in the collective conscious of our society which is not something that can be measured... too many people thinking that studying the tangible/statistical effects of much more complex and dynamic systems is good enough just 'cause it's easier/possible to measure.

i agree.

[yo soy el mejor]

he's super sweet but i'm spoken for.

[vanilla]

Tobes, did you stick it in yet?

[cocksure]

Originally Posted by 28if

i don't think you can apply "strict methodological rules" to the social sciences; one of the main issues i take with them is that they try to impose the scientific method on issues that are not material, issues that have their basis in the collective conscious of our society which is not something that can be measured... too many people thinking that studying the tangible/statistical effects of much more complex and dynamic systems is good enough just 'cause it's easier/possible to measure.

the kind of rules i'm talking about are not the rules of any "scientific method" (whatever those really are) in the sense of the methods used in the natural sciences. i am not strictly speaking a positivist, i don't believe things like "culture" can be treated in the same way gravitation can, but if we want to think of what happens in social science circles around the world as structured in some way, then it makes sense to speak of rules, even if they are implicit. the actual practice of conversation in a field like linguistics is very detailed, very technical, very incomprehensible to the common man. and that for a good reason: the concepts discussed are extremely sophisticated and always require the consumption of certain literature beforehand. it's a practice shared by thousands of people, naturally rules evolve out of this: how a text is to be structured, how to prove points using footnotes, where a text is to be published etc. and none of this is trivial. in fact, at least the basic rules of argumentation (and again, these can be implicit) are exactly what you're suposed to learn in college classes. if you don't follow these, people will consider your argument implausible.

so these were the kind of strict methodological rules i was talking about. it doesn't matter whether measurable quantities play a role or not. we can talk about culture, even if it is "everywhere" (well, so is gravity, duh) and even if we can't express it in numbers. but this does not mean that anything anyone ever publishes on the topic can be considered scientific in the way i outlined here.

Originally Posted by 28if

i don't expect it to be immediately accessible, but i do find the writing of all the cultural critics/literary theorists i've read to be unnecessarily convoluted... what is the point of elucidating your ideas if only the academic elite can decipher them? these guys are nearly incomprehensible to grad students let alone undergrads, which is by car the level of (higher) education most common to people in the developed world. it's just frustrating i guess, because i think that what they have to say is really interesting when parts of it are explained to me, but i don't want to spend two years of my life studying this stuff to be able to get a moderate grasp on it.

just like i don't expect myself to understand the details of a discussion on nuclear physics, i wouldn't expect anyone who isn't part of the field to understand the historical papers i write, even if they look more obvious at first glance.

now, with people like foucault, it has been said again and again that they're "obscurantist" etc. and this is true to some extent i think. but what's also true is that you can't really understand foucault without at least knowing the basics of levi-strauss and of saussure.

effort is required in order to understand anything.

[Future Boy]

do it Tobes, if only to shut these guys up

[Mooney]

although i'd love to discuss how the fact that i think my mom is a handsome lady affects my sex life, we need to get this thread back on track!

tobes, i say definitely go for it as long as you aren't leading her on in the process.

i slept with an eighteen year-old last year when i was twenty-six. but, she essentially picked me up at a bar, and goes to university so i don't think it's that creepy.

although, when i was twenty and she was sixteen this girl touched me where i pee.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v8...download-1.jpg

[Sepiae]

I hooked up with a 30 year old guy when I was 20. He ended up actually being 40 and an absolutely horrible human being. Don't be that guy, and you're golden.

[Eulogy]

so you hooked up with a 40-year-old guy?

[28if]

Originally Posted by Sepiae

He ended up actually being 40

[Sepiae]

Originally Posted by Eulogy

so you hooked up with a 40-year-old guy?

Uh huh. And this is why I never go out without anyone now without googling them first.

[sppunk]

Originally Posted by Sepiae

I hooked up with a 30 year old guy when I was 20. He ended up actually being 40 and an absolutely horrible human being. Don't be that guy, and you're golden.

Is it weird I remember that asshole?

Toby, go for it as long as you are honest.

[Sepiae]

Originally Posted by sppunk

Is it weird I remember that asshole?

Toby, go for it as long as you are honest.

No, you were dealing with me a lot then, and the chain of events really fucked me up.

[sppunk]

Yes, but under the circumstances you handled it exceptionally well. To this day I'm impressed by the strength you showed.

[Irridescent Fairysex]

Go for it as long as the sky is bright and the air is pure.

[FoolofaTook]

Originally Posted by Eulogy

I don't think that's what he was doing.

"The only people who think Freud was right about anything are English professors and people like Lacan who were even worse. Honestly, English departments are where bad theories go to die."

-Philosophy teacher Eric Blair

[redbreegull]

Originally Posted by FoolofaTook

Your generalizations and oversimplifications attest to a vibrant, healthy mind. I am overjoyed to remember that you teach philosophy. You must have so much to teach and share.

Eric Blair you are doing something seriously wrong to get called out by this guy for poor intellectualism

[Eulogy]

Originally Posted by FoolofaTook

"The only people who think Freud was right about anything are English professors and people like Lacan who were even worse. Honestly, English departments are where bad theories go to die."

-Philosophy teacher Eric Blair

i don't see how that equates to "the study of literature is always worthless"

[FoolofaTook]

yeah, you're right.

i was just concerned with his generalizations pertaining to English professors and departments.