ATAR Notes: Forum
Uni Stuff => Universities - Victoria => University of Melbourne => Topic started by: VivaTequila on February 06, 2012, 07:31:40 pm
-
Hey all,
I'm a 'science student' and I eventually want to be a doctor or a researcher, and it is chemistry that truly interests me. However I did poorly in my sciences (36 Chemistry, 36 Physics, 37 Methods) compared to my English (a lazy 48), and that raised the questions for me of whether or not I should be doing an arts degree instead. Some introspection has led me to believe that I only did well in English (as opposed to doing mediocre in Literature with a 38) because I can write to save my life, but I hate all the history/bullshit that comes with Literature. Because English had really simple ideas to grapple with, while Literature was deeper and complex; filled with discussion about feminist literature, gothic criticisms, and romantic analyses which coalesce into what I deem educated glorified shit-talking, I was able to do much better in English based on writing ability alone.
See, the language of expression, if you will, is what really takes my fancy. When I read a book and I find an interesting bit of metaphoric imagery that really makes me stop and ponder I get a kick out of it. Having this affinity for words and expression helped heaps in English because I could write like a pretentious bastard to distract the examiners from the fact that I wasn’t really in tune with all the substance in the Literature text. Well not completely, because I got a mediocre score, but the discussions in my writing would have been horrible if not for their expression.
I’m not really into much history, and I don’t buy any of the crap when people analyse texts through different lenses which take them way out of proportion, which really made Literature inaccessible to me bar the fact that I can write decently.
Everyone has been telling me I should at least do Arts subjects in my breadth, and I'm all for the idea. I was initially planning on using them to learn my native language, Russian, but I can do that in a Diploma of Languages alongside my bachelor’s degree. Now I'm stuck for what to pick for my Arts subjects; they’re going to be English based subjects, but what the hell do I pick?
For reasons above I don’t want to pick any ‘Literature of the 18th century’-esque subjects. I just want a subject that will embrace my affinity for written and verbal expression, with potential use down the track if I need to write reports/obtain grant money for research/etc.
Tl;dr What are English based 1st year subjects that avoid all of the crap that comes with Literature (i.e. no theoretical analyses of a text through Gothic/Romantic lenses, or any kind of Hermeneutics, when really it’s just meant to be a bloody story and the author didn’t intend any of it)? The more contemporary the better!
Cheers for your insight guys, I really appreciate it.
And yes I am picking my subjects very late lol
-
Creative Writing. You're welcome.
-
You could do one of the philosophy of science breadth options. you still get exposed to literature and metaphors etc, but lso simple but powerful ideas.
it's ideas, without the bullshit.
eg,
PHIL20001 Science, reason and reality
https://handbook.unimelb.edu.au/view/current/PHIL20001
PHIL30016 Knowledge and the Nature of Reality
https://handbook.unimelb.edu.au/view/current/PHIL30016
etc, from http://philosophy.unimelb.edu.au/students/breadth/
-
Awesome. Can I take them up in first year, or do I have to do first year breadth subjects first?
-
Do criminology with me Baxter!
-
Doing Arts at uni just because you can write well is a really stupid idea. University Arts faculties value ideas. You could have the flashiest writing style ever, and you probably could get away with not really saying much for a while, but by second or third year you're screwed, legit.
Also, your distaste for theory in literature doesn't bode well for Arts study at uni in general as well. Even disciplines such as Politics and Anthropology rely upon a lot of theoretical positions and (since you mentioned it specifically) ideas concerning hermeneutics. Philosophy even moreso, considering most of these ideas and theories are created by philosophers...
On a related note, just speaking as both a writer and a literature major, statements like "no theoretical analyses of a text through Gothic/Romantic lenses, or any kind of Hermeneutics, when really it’s just meant to be a bloody story and the author didn’t intend any of it" are really just unfair. For one, consider that many well known writers themselves are often strongly based in academic studies of literature - perhaps there are times when readings are made which were not intended (but why should this even matter? refer to Death of the Author), but could somebody really study literature that much and not be conscious of literary criticism whilst composing a piece?
Better yet, consider what the artists themselves have to say about their own work. To use a POPULAR writer as an example, Alan Moore himself sets down the words "Artists use lies to tell the truth" in V for Vendetta. It's not just about storytelling; it's about storytelling as a mode of philosophy, of reaching even higher faculties of understanding.
-
Hi I'm just going to let you know that in Arts, expression doesn't really count anymore. Academic writing is about clarity and being succinct, not bullshitting around with pretentious words. If you really think you're not going to understand much about the substance of the text, then you shouldn't think that you can slide by using big words and pretty phrases alone.
Creative writing is the closest you'll come to that, like Russ said.
-
Why the buggery is anyone even suggesting philosophy when the OP stated history does not interest him/her?
EDIT:
Thought I would actually write a response to the OP. Your post itself is verbose and reeks of hubris, which is not always bad; however, when you are asking for advice and have so adamantly dismissed anything with historical or true literary merit, it makes the task difficult. Your writing style is probably very good, but if you are conveying no ideas or presenting no case, nobody is interested. It is all theatrics and lacking the essential substance or flesh. English is very basic and is not really asking for you to do any higher order thinking; it requires you to extricate some very general ideas and embody them in some contexts or to make a meaningful interpretation of a prompt - basically forcing a text to fit into the parameters of the prompt. Literature is more free and is about the discussion of potentials. You are not encouraged to rejig a work so that it fits your personal views, but it is a personal examination that must be justified within the text and be feasible. Some interpretations just will not float, no matter what wonderful embellished terminology you employ.
Philosophy is a literary discipline for the most part. It requires a love of historical ideas and its context. It is not purely about generally stripping away some principle - although this does occur after you have analyzed the context and background. It is about entertaining the ideas of a philosopher, their associated texts, and applying them to a problem or examining the issues raised. You will not get away with your style of writing if you cannot substantiate it; leading a reader down a path of beautifully strung one-liners devoid of all substantiation, will be eviscerated. No astute reader in philosophy will let you get away with colourful prose, and in fact want you to be more prosaic in your persuasion. There is also a known and active dislike for rhetoric/sophism in such a discipline. As stated before, succint and coherent (admittedly, even I have trouble with this at times).
I just want a subject that will embrace my affinity for written and verbal expression, with potential use down the track if I need to write reports/obtain grant money for research/etc.
Nobody will grant you money if you stand up on a stage and talk anything like you just posted. Well, not in a scientific community setting. I believe that UoM even holds sessions with PhD students where they have competitions to convey their ideas simply for the lay community. Your verbosity will not win you research points or funding. Economical elegance is what I wish to work towards, although I know this post - and many others of mine on here - are not examples of such.
(Really, I wish you just loved history and literary works!)
-
From what was said by the OP, he intends to do a science degree, and use his breadth for arts.
Well i think you could do worse than take some philosophy of science to complement the main science in the course. There's plenty of philosophy out there with 'true literary merit', and many of the greatest ideas in philosophy are quite simple (not that that makes them easy to understand).
And as for needing history to do philosophy, It looks as though the kind of history he's not into is history as a kind of lit crit. Think Theory vs. theory, or realia vs. reception studies.
That seems to be a valid preference, given that only studying in depth what some later writer said about an earlier one might help you understand the former better, but can leave you feeling you're being removed from the source. eg. studying Ransom to examine class relations in the Iliad.
If the OP was going to do a pure arts degree, his attitude would be a worry. but just some arts tracks? I don't think he needs to embrace all the different critical stances you'd need if you were doing an english major. Isn't uni english is more like vce lit anyway? he might not be aware of that. Examining Oedipus Rex through freud or Moby Dick through feminism isn't everyone's cup of tea.
You could even argue that it's a good thing to be skeptical about the received wisdom presented to you at uni. so long as you approach it critically and not with simple hostility.
-
your verbosity will not win you research points or funding.
Well actually...
-
Why not take another language?
-
From what was said by the OP, he intends to do a science degree, and use his breadth for arts.
Well i think you could do worse than take some philosophy of science to complement the main science in the course. There's plenty of philosophy out there with 'true literary merit', and many of the greatest ideas in philosophy are quite simple (not that that makes them easy to understand).
And as for needing history to do philosophy, It looks as though the kind of history he's not into is history as a kind of lit crit. Think Theory vs. theory, or realia vs. reception studies.
That seems to be a valid preference, given that only studying in depth what some later writer said about an earlier one might help you understand the former better, but can leave you feeling you're being removed from the source. eg. studying Ransom to examine class relations in the Iliad.
If the OP was going to do a pure arts degree, his attitude would be a worry. but just some arts tracks? I don't think he needs to embrace all the different critical stances you'd need if you were doing an english major. Isn't uni english is more like vce lit anyway? he might not be aware of that. Examining Oedipus Rex through freud or Moby Dick through feminism isn't everyone's cup of tea.
You could even argue that it's a good thing to be skeptical about the received wisdom presented to you at uni. so long as you approach it critically and not with simple hostility.
The main problem is he's wondering which humanities subjects work well at uni with a VCE approach. You can do the 'bs to get high marks thing' to an extent in 1st year, but even the most narratively-concerned history courses aren't going to give you marks for being able to gush about something well.
Also, is examining Ransom through the scope of class relations REALLY that far from the source? I mean, the story is literally just Book 24 of the Iliad retold with a lower-class character being given focus alongside Priam. :p
-
Why not take another language?
That's so random! :P LOL!
-
Why not take another language?
That's so random! :P LOL!
Why is that random? Given all the OP's reservations about humanities subjects, and considering the usefulness of languages in general, this seems like a pretty good idea even if it wasn't outlined explicitly by the OP...
-
Because he's already doing a language, Russian, so it seems that he wants to do something else that's not a language as his breadth.
And, idk, it seems to me that he was looking at more writing/English-type stuff than a language. But no, I didn't mean that doing a language was random, I was saying that Ninwa's suggestion was completely out of the blue as to the trend of the conversation before :D
-
As a 1st year Arts Breadth option, you can't go past :
EVZE10001 : A compilation of EvangelionZeta's AN posts
-
Because he's already doing a language, Russian, so it seems that he wants to do something else that's not a language as his breadth.
Mmmm on that, Viva, you should probably look more into how DipLangs work. I'm pretty sure that if you're going to do any language, Russian or otherwise, you need to cross-credit your two breadth subjects first year (even if you intend to accelerate) so you wont have any non-language breadths anyway.
-
Well, considering languages are probably the only non-humanities arts subjects that fit his requirements, I don't see why that was such an unreasonable suggestion.
-
Well, considering languages are probably the only non-humanities arts subjects that fit his requirements, I don't see why that was such an unreasonable suggestion.
I never said it was unreasonable! I said it was random =.=
Random doesn't mean bad, it just means that it was...out of the blue
-
your verbosity will not win you research points or funding.
Well actually...
Really? I remember my biochemistry family friend telling me his applications had to be very succinct and bland; maybe it depends on the university or body you are applying to? I know that UoM does a lot about training researches to speak to the lay community, which I assume most corporate people are about specifics of some things.
I could be wrong, but this is based on what my family friend has told me.
If the OP was going to do a pure arts degree, his attitude would be a worry. but just some arts tracks? I don't think he needs to embrace all the different critical stances you'd need if you were doing an english major. Isn't uni english is more like vce lit anyway? he might not be aware of that. Examining Oedipus Rex through freud or Moby Dick through feminism isn't everyone's cup of tea.
You could even argue that it's a good thing to be skeptical about the received wisdom presented to you at uni. so long as you approach it critically and not with simple hostility.
I am agreeing it would be more worrying if the OP wished to do a pure Arts degree. I am sort of just not keen on the idea of sticking someone in a course where they are stuck with readers and texts that will absolutely bore them to tears - and then be told they need to find some principles and apply them, analyzing semantics and what not (depending on the philosopher/s in question). If s/he was very selective about the choice, and found a subject that offered theory with little flesh - historical or literary influences minimal -, it is possible philosophy could be great and work (although s/he may need to be more prosaic as I mentioned earlier; lots of people have that trouble, myself included).
So, I tip my hat to you, Binders, you make valid points. I kept thinking of OP as myself - who is doing an Arts degree with on major in philosophy - and removing the passion for the historical context and literary criticism, which is incorrect of me. Science student wanting a complementary course with minimal aforementioned qualities - if very selective with philosophy units.
I think another language is a good idea though. Or creative writing (I was tempted to pick that up myself). Although, you may have to be aware of literary criticisms and such to excel at it.
-
Also, is examining Ransom through the scope of class relations REALLY that far from the source? I mean, the story is literally just Book 24 of the Iliad retold with a lower-class character being given focus alongside Priam. :p
no, not that far away, if ransom is what you're looking at. but i meant examining class relations in the Iliad by only reading Ransom in depth, without a deep study of the Iliad itself. It's a different text, with hundreds of years of literary baggage more than the Iliad versions in greek or translations closer in time to the context of composition.
Yeah, it's closer to the Iliad than say Dragonball is to Journey to the West, which is why i chose it as an example. It's an interesting but difficult question when you start looking at reception and criticism as part of the 'afterlife' (nachleben?) of a text. But there's still room within Arts to just study the text in context isn't there?
-
Also, is examining Ransom through the scope of class relations REALLY that far from the source? I mean, the story is literally just Book 24 of the Iliad retold with a lower-class character being given focus alongside Priam. :p
no, not that far away, if ransom is what you're looking at. but i meant examining class relations in the Iliad by only reading Ransom in depth, without a deep study of the Iliad itself. It's a different text, with hundreds of years of literary baggage more than the Iliad versions in greek or translations closer in time to the context of composition.
Yeah, it's closer to the Iliad than say Dragonball is to Journey to the West, which is why i chose it as an example. It's an interesting but difficult question when you start looking at reception and criticism as part of the 'afterlife' (nachleben?) of a text. But there's still room within Arts to just study the text in context isn't there?
Whoops, my bad. No, I completely agree then, but that's also something most Lit scholars would probably find rather absurd (or at least I would, and I'm pretty far out there).
And yeah, there's definitely room within Arts to just study the text in context. The thing is though, things like psychoanalytic analyses of Hamlet ARE pretty well contained within the context of the original text, as are feminist readings (hell, the feminist readings of things are applicable to pretty much ANYTHING, by sheer virtue of some form of patriarchy existing in pretty much every written narrative). For that reason, most university literature classes utilise a lot of theoretical positions, but for the most part they're actually reasonably relevant.
-
Why the buggery is anyone even suggesting philosophy when the OP stated history does not interest him/her?
EDIT:
Thought I would actually write a response to the OP. Your post itself is verbose and reeks of hubris, which is not always bad; however, when you are asking for advice and have so adamantly dismissed anything with historical or true literary merit, it makes the task difficult. Your writing style is probably very good, but if you are conveying no ideas or presenting no case, nobody is interested. It is all theatrics and lacking the essential substance or flesh. English is very basic and is not really asking for you to do any higher order thinking; it requires you to extricate some very general ideas and embody them in some contexts or to make a meaningful interpretation of a prompt - basically forcing a text to fit into the parameters of the prompt. Literature is more free and is about the discussion of potentials. You are not encouraged to rejig a work so that it fits your personal views, but it is a personal examination that must be justified within the text and be feasible. Some interpretations just will not float, no matter what wonderful embellished terminology you employ.
Philosophy is a literary discipline for the most part. It requires a love of historical ideas and its context. It is not purely about generally stripping away some principle - although this does occur after you have analyzed the context and background. It is about entertaining the ideas of a philosopher, their associated texts, and applying them to a problem or examining the issues raised. You will not get away with your style of writing if you cannot substantiate it; leading a reader down a path of beautifully strung one-liners devoid of all substantiation, will be eviscerated. No astute reader in philosophy will let you get away with colourful prose, and in fact want you to be more prosaic in your persuasion. There is also a known and active dislike for rhetoric/sophism in such a discipline. As stated before, succint and coherent (admittedly, even I have trouble with this at times).
I just want a subject that will embrace my affinity for written and verbal expression, with potential use down the track if I need to write reports/obtain grant money for research/etc.
Nobody will grant you money if you stand up on a stage and talk anything like you just posted. Well, not in a scientific community setting. I believe that UoM even holds sessions with PhD students where they have competitions to convey their ideas simply for the lay community. Your verbosity will not win you research points or funding. Economical elegance is what I wish to work towards, although I know this post - and many others of mine on here - are not examples of such.
(Really, I wish you just loved history and literary works!)
Yeah the unreasonable detesting of the literary lifeblood was just to make the message clear that I want to really avert essentially everything that has to do with an Art's degree and just be highly selective. Verbosity got me a 48 in English, despite all my mentors arguments that my language was too convoluted.
But that's the thing, I want to learn to write flawlessly like you and EZ do. I'm halfway there by VCE standards and I just want to continue that without delving into the historical/theological elements (and all that jazz) which work in tandem with beautiful English expression to create an Arts degree.
If the OP was going to do a pure arts degree, his attitude would be a worry. but just some arts tracks? I don't think he needs to embrace all the different critical stances you'd need if you were doing an english major. Isn't uni english is more like vce lit anyway? he might not be aware of that. Examining Oedipus Rex through freud or Moby Dick through feminism isn't everyone'sanyone's cup of tea.
You could even argue that it's a good thing to be skeptical about the received wisdom presented to you at uni. so long as you approach it critically and not with simple hostility.
Firstly this this is exactly what I'm wanting to avoid - analysing texts in ways which I think are pointless and don't achieve anything. Analysing texts in general just isn't appealing to me. I don't like history, to put it simply, and it's never taken my fancy. Except for maybe a bit of mild interest in 20th century and postmodernism, but even then it's never been more than a few hours trawling through wikipedia articles that are largely inaccessible to me anyway having not studied anything surrounding it.
And to the second comment, that's very true. I don't necessarily agree with everything I wrote in the OP, but I definitely find such study tedious and boring and at times I'm sceptical of whether an authors intended everything in this way and that. Actually, scratch that - make that all the time. I just don't like analysing texts; and when I couple that with an ignorance of Historical, Romantic, Gothic, and other facets of Arts subjects tend to weasel their way into the mix, the text drowns in farce.... It's all a bit airy and chimerical, and essentially if you repeated 90% of it to someone who wasn't doing an Art's degree, they'd gawp at you and ask why you're bothering to waste your time talking complete shit. But then again, that can be said for a lot of things. I just happen to belong to the other demographic who doesn't see any value in it, and I guess that just means I'm unlucky.
Random NB: the thing that killed lit for me and made my mind up that it was just blowing a simple story with some simple morals way out of proportion was when our teacher shoved the 'Sublime' down our throats as we were reading Frankenstein. this is not some powerful deity that strikes fear into the hearts of man - whoever decided that was a crazy old crackpot, and shame on him for it manifested into the banality of my VCE lit classes, when I realised that lit wasn't for me.
Why not take another language?
I am, read the OP :)
Why not take another language?
That's so random! :P LOL!
Why is that random? Given all the OP's reservations about humanities subjects, and considering the usefulness of languages in general, this seems like a pretty good idea even if it wasn't outlined explicitly by the OP...
:D
Because he's already doing a language, Russian, so it seems that he wants to do something else that's not a language as his breadth.
Mmmm on that, Viva, you should probably look more into how DipLangs work. I'm pretty sure that if you're going to do any language, Russian or otherwise, you need to cross-credit your two breadth subjects first year (even if you intend to accelerate) so you wont have any non-language breadths anyway.
Oh fck me, I will look into that. I was initially planning to cross credit my first two years of russian and then cheat my way into a Diploma of Languages at the start of third year getting cross credited for the whole 50 points initially, but then people reccomended me to continue on with my English studies. If you're right, then that sucks ass for me. I'll find out tomorrow. Thanks for the heads up, man.
-
You sound like me. Calling bullshit on all text analysis, yet did well in VCE English.
I'd probably suggest you don't go and pursue whatever it is you think VCE English will help you in via the arts faculty.
When it comes down to it. these are the two subjects you are looking for, and they're not from the arts :
-Marketing
-Management
If you wan't to do something from the arts faculty, do a language as Nina said, it'll help you.
-
I know you're already planning on taking a language, hence I said *another* language :P
My attitude towards artsy subjects is similar to yours - that's why I dropped my originally planned international studies minor after doing two units and replaced it with double majors in German and French.
I can guarantee that apart from creative writing as Russ suggested and languages, there is nothing else in the arts faculty for you.
-
What's creative writing like? (For people who have done it)
-
OP - I don't think it is a good idea to do arts subjects with the attitude that it is all bullshit. It will only lead to heartache all around. It is a pity because such subjects would develop your writing skills, if only you could find them interesting.
-
Yeah the unreasonable detesting of the literary lifeblood was just to make the message clear that I want to really avert essentially everything that has to do with an Art's degree and just be highly selective. Verbosity got me a 48 in English, despite all my mentors arguments that my language was too convoluted.
But that's the thing, I want to learn to write flawlessly like you and EZ do. I'm halfway there by VCE standards and I just want to continue that without delving into the historical/theological elements (and all that jazz) which work in tandem with beautiful English expression to create an Arts degree.
Well, if you want to be highly selective, look carefully at the philosophy subjects offered at UoM and see if you can find a few that are not as texted focused as most. If not, I would really suggest trying some creative writing because you seem to have knack for such. Although, as I added before, you may need to check that you do not need a large bank of history or have to read a lot of texts for the purpose of analysing style (as that is not what you want). And I know what it feels like to be told your writing is too verbose and convoluted; my teachers did the same when I was in Year 11, and I kind of took control of the reigns in Year 12. I am still very self-indulgent and verbose with my writing (I wish I could find a quotation from Stephen Fry about his love of language and being self-indulgent with it), but I keep in mind clarity nowadays - I can write very simply when necessary. Also, I am far from flawless in my writing! I am flattered you think so. I am myself very fond of EZ's writing from what I have seen. Do not stop having a passion for words - and new words -, but realise academically at university it is different to high school. VCE English is not a good indicator, methinks. You did very well and should be commended, but keep in mind you are competing with kids who are generally not as enthused by language as yourself - they just want to get their quotations, segues and points across and not dance around (some people love to dance with language, which I completely understand). Unfortunately, not many people in university appear to like dancing either. >:(
OP - I don't think it is a good idea to do arts subjects with the attitude that it is all bullshit. It will only lead to heartache all around. It is a pity because such subjects would develop your writing skills, if only you could find them interesting.
This.
-
OP - I don't think it is a good idea to do arts subjects with the attitude that it is all bullshit. It will only lead to heartache all around. It is a pity because such subjects would develop your writing skills, if only you could find them interesting.
This.
Third'd.
I don't blame people for finding Arts subjects totally frustrating and pointless - I can empathise with the antithesis, in that I find most science subjects (except some areas of maths) boring and irrelevant to what I desire in life. I guess the moral is just always keep an open mind.
Also, I'm really sorry to keep nitpicking, but:
Random NB: the thing that killed lit for me and made my mind up that it was just blowing a simple story with some simple morals way out of proportion was when our teacher shoved the 'Sublime' down our throats as we were reading Frankenstein. this is not some powerful deity that strikes fear into the hearts of man - whoever decided that was a crazy old crackpot, and shame on him for it manifested into the banality of my VCE lit classes, when I realised that lit wasn't for me.
Consider that Mary Shelley was married to Percy Shelley and was friends with Lord Byron (and also Keats, I believe?); these people were all amongst the most idealistic writers/poets of the era, and all were fascinated by the depth of human emotion, and by extension, the sublime. Also, given that the context of Shelley's writing was Romanticism, a direct reaction to the scientific rationalism of the enlightenment, it makes sense that Shelley is using a story about scientific destruction as a parable for how technological innovation is the new god (I mean the freaking subtitle of the work is "The Modern Prometheus"!). I know this all refers back to history (which you admitted to detesting), but really, it's not that much of a stretch to believe from all this that Mary Shelley really did mean half of the stuff that is taught in literature classrooms today. Also consider the potency of Shelley's description and imagery; from a Romantic period writer, it's poetry in full force, and not just a simple story.
Again, just take a step back, and keep an open mind before you make too many strong claims about areas which you detest. Arts academics probably live on a different planet from you (and a lot of the general population), but they're smart; they've had to rationalise and justify what they're talking about. It's probably more a shame that some high school literature teachers can't fully express the depth of their discipline - just the way that so many science teachers don't really engage with what science is really about.
-
Really? I remember my biochemistry family friend telling me his applications had to be very succinct and bland; maybe it depends on the university or body you are applying to? I know that UoM does a lot about training researches to speak to the lay community, which I assume most corporate people are about specifics of some things.
I could be wrong, but this is based on what my family friend has told me.
Unnecessary bullshit is one thing, but a well written and articulate etc. grant request is always going to be more favourable than a very simplistic one.
And the PhD in 3 minute speeches aren't about grants, they're about teaching scientists to not confuse the lay community
-
What's creative writing like? (For people who have done it)
It's exactly what you would expect from a subject called Creative Writing...
You look at works of fiction and discuss the techniques they use (eg Chekhov's gun) and then try to write your own works
-
I've done two breadths in History/Philosophy of Science and perhaps someone like you would find it decent because instead of analysing the so-called "lit BS" you would be analysing the philosophy behind the Scientist's approach, which is something someone with desires to pursue science may find at least a little bit relevant. (personally, "From Plato to Einstein" I enjoyed much more as in the lectures you just scratched the surface of everything and then only later chose what you want to study in depth for the essay. In the other one it was more specific case study which didn't tickle my fancy as much as I'm not interested in geology).
Secondly, do you really have to like literature to survive in Arts? I did Science and know hardly any chem or bio (did zero of that) and only like 2 physics subjects, rest all maths/some comp science/ logic(actually logic was an Arts subject lol, again I ask why?).
-
^^re: logic, it's mostly because logic is a philosophy/maths overlap thing. Fairly certain that a lot of philosophers pioneered a lot of stuff with logic as well, hence why it's probably done under Arts.
-
Yes, there were philosophers with a mathematical inclination, or even people that were both mathematicians and philosophers. Frege, Russell etc. But what makes me cringe is when
people trolls and cranks throw around stuff like Godel's theorems in a naive way to make arguments in stuff like philosophy of mind, ethics etc. and I think by placing it in Arts you may be encouraging such an approach.
-
Yes, there were philosophers with a mathematical inclination, or even people that were both mathematicians and philosophers. Frege, Russell etc. But what makes me cringe is when people trolls and cranks throw around stuff like Godel's theorems in a naive way to make arguments in stuff like philosophy of mind, ethics etc. and I think by placing it in Arts you may be encouraging such an approach.
I understand that a few hundred years ago, philosophy meant Natural Philosophy, what we now call 'Science'
Isaac Newton's major work was 'Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica'.
Contemporary philosophy is obviously something completely different
-
Consider that Mary Shelley was married to Percy Shelley and was friends with Lord Byron (and also Keats, I believe?)
I was under the impression Lord Byron was not very fond of Keats; Byron largely dismissed him as being a plebeian, a failed anatomist who wanted to become a poet. Percy Shelly was very fond of Keats and wrote a poem called "Adonais" about him and his death.
Unnecessary bullshit is one thing, but a well written and articulate etc. grant request is always going to be more favourable than a very simplistic one.
And the PhD in 3 minute speeches aren't about grants, they're about teaching scientists to not confuse the lay community
Okay then. I do not think I was saying well-written and articulate would not be preferable, but it would be less flowery and more prosaic.
-
Yes, there were philosophers with a mathematical inclination, or even people that were both mathematicians and philosophers. Frege, Russell etc. But what makes me cringe is when people trolls and cranks throw around stuff like Godel's theorems in a naive way to make arguments in stuff like philosophy of mind, ethics etc. and I think by placing it in Arts you may be encouraging such an approach.
I understand that a few hundred years ago, philosophy meant Natural Philosophy, what we now call 'Science'
Isaac Newton's major work was 'Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica'.
Contemporary philosophy is obviously something completely different
That's right, the good old days :P But then again you can do a Doctor of "Philosophy" without knowing any philosophy. (btw the word 'Philosophy' came from the Greek phrase 'love of wisdom', I don't know why only contemporary philosophers love wisdom these days).
-
Yes, there were philosophers with a mathematical inclination, or even people that were both mathematicians and philosophers. Frege, Russell etc. But what makes me cringe is when people trolls and cranks throw around stuff like Godel's theorems in a naive way to make arguments in stuff like philosophy of mind, ethics etc. and I think by placing it in Arts you may be encouraging such an approach.
True, although the people who try that tend not to do very well in philosophy anyway. :p If you look at the history of a lot of famous philosophy academics nowadays, it's a field that is dominated by people who often have very strong maths/science backgrounds.
-
I'm considering philosophy now :)
But if I do it, I reckon it's more out of interest than any concrete or practical reasons.
-
Yes, there were philosophers with a mathematical inclination, or even people that were both mathematicians and philosophers. Frege, Russell etc. But what makes me cringe is when people trolls and cranks throw around stuff like Godel's theorems in a naive way to make arguments in stuff like philosophy of mind, ethics etc. and I think by placing it in Arts you may be encouraging such an approach.
I think it is always annoying when people overstep the boundaries of their discipline when they are naive about how other disciplines actually work. For instance, the thing I find most annoying is when theoretical physicists/physics students think they're doing philosophy. IMO, they tend to be boring and speculative at best. I also find it condescending because often they won't have studied philosophy (or maybe like, one subject in first year) and think that just writing down random thoughts is a categorical part of the discipline.
(no offence intended to any budding physicists)
I'm considering philosophy now :)
But if I do it, I reckon it's more out of interest than any concrete or practical reasons.
I don't know if there are any directly practical reasons to do philosophy, so I think that's okay :)
-
Yes, there were philosophers with a mathematical inclination, or even people that were both mathematicians and philosophers. Frege, Russell etc. But what makes me cringe is when people trolls and cranks throw around stuff like Godel's theorems in a naive way to make arguments in stuff like philosophy of mind, ethics etc. and I think by placing it in Arts you may be encouraging such an approach.
True, although the people who try that tend not to do very well in philosophy anyway. :p If you look at the history of a lot of famous philosophy academics nowadays, it's a field that is dominated by people who often have very strong maths/science backgrounds.
That's good to hear. I remember when I used to be more interested in philosophy I always preferred those sorts of philosophers, i.e analytical.
-
Yes, there were philosophers with a mathematical inclination, or even people that were both mathematicians and philosophers. Frege, Russell etc. But what makes me cringe is when people trolls and cranks throw around stuff like Godel's theorems in a naive way to make arguments in stuff like philosophy of mind, ethics etc. and I think by placing it in Arts you may be encouraging such an approach.
I understand that a few hundred years ago, philosophy meant Natural Philosophy, what we now call 'Science'
Isaac Newton's major work was 'Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica'.
Contemporary philosophy is obviously something completely different
That's right, the good old days :P But then again you can do a Doctor of "Philosophy" without knowing any philosophy. (btw the word 'Philosophy' came from the Greek phrase 'love of wisdom', I don't know why only contemporary philosophers love wisdom these days).
Yes, the good old days.
Now that all the sciences have branched out of philosophy, I would probably take offence if someone called me a 'philosopher' :)
"You call me philosopher one more time and I'll punch your head in, mate. Do you hear me ? " lol