The problem then becomes that their training via Art Degree methodology leaves them less qualified or even unqualified for a job in the material fields...
Also like, your mileage may vary, but over the course of my life I have found it a much better fit when my pay-the-bills job ISN’T in the arts. That way all that creative energy belongs to me alone instead of being expended on behalf of someone ELSE’S creative vision.
— Claire Willett (@clairewillett) September 1, 2018
10 comments:
If you read mathematics or any natural science at Oxford or Cambridge you're awarded a Bachelor of Arts or a Master of Arts degree. They must all be unqualified, what with their Arts degrees.
Adam Smith read social philosophy at university, and Karl Marx read philosophy at university. Both left with Arts degrees. Clearly they're both unqualified dunces. However, if the name of the abbreviation was changed from Arts to Science they'd instantly become geniuses. Similarly Stephen Hawking was unqualified with his Arts degree. Similarly with all the Nobel winning scientists who happened to be educated at Oxford and Cambridge and awarded Arts degrees.
“read mathematics “
John there are TWO things, you have 1 a discipline and 2 a methodology....
I never “read” mathematics.... this implies a Liberal Arts or didactic methodology which is a different methodology than an active or applied methodology...
You go out and “read golf” for a year and I’ll go out and “play golf” for a year and then we’ll have a match at the end of a year and see who wins...
“Adam Smith read social philosophy at university, and Karl Marx read philosophy at university. Both left with Arts degrees.”
Well a lot of people follow those two dogmatically and things are pretty fucked up so....
I never “read” either of those two art trained idiots...
To "read" means to study and therefore comprehend the subject. You'll find it in a dictionary under "read". You can't do the methodology without studying the subject; indeed, the methodology and the practice of the subject is inherent to studying the subject. You can't engineer a gene without reading/learning genetics and a huge amount of other life sciences. Fine, we'll see how well you do as you bumble your way for decades not knowing what's what. I'll read the subject, learn the theory and do thousands of hours in the lab to apply the difficult theory learned. I'll be able to engineer a gene. Meanwhile, you'll still be trying to figure out how to turn on a bunsen burner, or using it to heat coffee.
I don't know where you got this idea that people who are trained in the arts, humanities and social sciences are ignorant fools, and that STEM people, especially the mighty engineers, are the only ones useful in a society, but it's total gibberish and arrogant nonsense.
Your dismissive tone towards Smith and Marx is the height of silliness. Adam Smith and Karl Marx are idiots? How do you know if you haven't read them, as you so proudly boast? It's no different to dismissing Galileo and Newton, even Einstein, as idiots because they got things wrong, in Newton's case very badly wrong. Yet Newton is the greatest genius the human race has produced. It's called the human endeavour for knowledge. We make incremental steps, sometimes great leaps, and sometimes get nowhere for centuries or millennia. Consciousness, the nature of time, the nature of space are all good examples of how little we know, no matter how many centuries we've investigated these topics. With respect to consciousness, we know little more than the ancient Greeks did. Science is difficult, and some areas may be beyond the human mind. Scientists are human, not gods.
Engineers are useful. That's it. Useful. Their alleged godlike intelligence won't help in organising a legal system, criminal justice system or a financial system that won't implode; their knowledge of avionics or power systems is of no use in thinking about fiscal policy or dealing with drug abuse, obesity and dealing with tax havens. For that you'll need lawyers and health professionals, and even economists. And by economists, I mean those who were right, not those who were wrong.
Every engineer I know knows absolutely nothing about the subjects that are taken seriously on this blog. They work hard in their tiny area of expertise but spout stupidities about hyperinflation. They haven't taken the time to learn anything, or at least very little, outside their own subject area or listen to other points of view. Meanwhile a sociologist, a profession and a subject that probably makes you laugh or vomit or both, I know is extremely knowledgeable at all the things that we take seriously here. Similarly with two art historians I know. They may not be able to engineer a bridge, and neither can almost all of us here at MNE, but you won't find them screaming "hyperinflation" like the engineers I know, and you'll learn the finer points of impressionism.
I have come to possess ZERO material systems/ technical respect for Art trained people sorry... they are dialectic morons when it comes to material systems...
Those people can certainly dispense theories dogmatically and argue them via dialectic methodology they use for sure but that is all they can do and the skill doesn’t translate into something you can use in material systems design, or development or administration .... sorry...
This is how we got to where we are... so if you have any issues with present outcomes then these people have to go and you’re going to have to change the academic methodology from Art over to a Science methodology and start training new young people this way...
Then maybe we have a chance to get out of this...
Adam Smith: “invisible hand!” Nice metaphor!
Marx: “Capitalism!” Then there is no course you can take called “Capitalism 101” there are just science courses and then the Science people don’t care who pays them or what they’re called... they just want to get paid...
We all have this little crystal ball called mind.
Now if you look into this crystal ball and all you see is STEM | ARTS then have you noticed – you are wearing spectacles, with one lens black and one lens white. Take them off and all the beautiful colours of the rainbow will appear. And see how they work together .... To describe everything in black and white is funny! Very hypnotic that crystal ball. Much better to see this world through the lens of the heart. Brings a smile to tired eyes ....
Matt just loves stirring the pot.
"and all you see is STEM | ARTS "
JR, I'm afraid that is how the academe is divided... and btw it's not me doing it...
"stirring the pot."
Hey I'm unapologetic Christian:
"Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division." Luke 12:51
Dialectical/synthesis that the moron Art people are all about is 180 degrees against everything I believe...
And btw "deficit owls" are against this dialectical/synthesis too but they are too stupid to realize it... squirrels getting a nut... they'd have to admit their training methodology was all wrong and have to go back and re-train but pride is in the way...
Being introspective and mildly artistic_scientific (no conflict there for me) – have been thinking about ‘mind as a crystal ball’ and some of the comments upstream about ‘magical and positive thinking’.
People gaze into the crystal ball and plan and scheme; try to find out who they are. The straight thinking part is hard to do because of all the concepts that fly around in there, and billowing clouds of emotion: - the whole storm wheels around this little centre called ‘I’. It’s hard to knit thoughts together that appear as logically true. For most people, the crystal ball is not only real - it is reality; and this reality spills out into the outside world and is created and sustained there. Tada ...! The world. Where the crystal ball is in turmoil the world is in turmoil.
Yin-Yang is a symbol for the crystal ball. It denotes the struggle between the opposites that rage within, and the hope for eventual harmony. The crystal ball is also a bit like Aladdin’s Lamp: - everyone hopes to rub it a little and find some treasure. The problem is, the genie of that lamp will kill you, if you don’t keep it meaningfully engaged. The point I am going to try to tease out here is the difference between this war that rages in the crystal ball, and the real war in man – symbolically, the ‘Kurukshetra’. This war rages between the personality of a human being, and the self. The human being uses the crystal ball in one way; the self uses it in an entirely different way. Most people have this mixed up inside of them as one big battle. Life is hard .... Throughout this war it is the personality that feels the heat of the battle; the self is serene. Wherever the self is, there is Peace!
As an immediate example, Matt’s ‘ARTS | STEM’ war is for me, just waves in the mindstuff, crashing around in the crystal ball. Everyone thinks that when issues like this are resolved (when things go their way) – then there will be harmony. The ‘I’ wants it MY way (or the highway). Unfortunately, the energy driving those waves is endless. Put simply, mind is the problem-maker, and it is quite illogical to employ the problem-maker as problem-solver. Mind is like typhoon Jebi. For academics, it is quite illumining to learn this and discover why there is so much stormy opinion extant, even in the academe. You have to see the funny side of this!
The same factors are at play with the whole business of seeming contradictions in the message of the Christ: - ‘peace on earth and goodwill to all men ..... the brotherhood of man and fatherhood of God’ – simple words for simple people; and yet carrying a flaming sword and muttering about division.
The self has no religion; neither does it have nationality, creed, gender etc. It is a part of Life. It was there long before there were religions on the face of this earth and will be there long after they are all gone. There are two types of people on this planet (if I may use a temporary categorisation of a whole): - those who know the self and those who are in waiting to know the self. This is the division of the goats and sheep (Capricorn and Aries) around the zodiac journey - from knowledge of the personality (the ‘I’) to knowledge of the self, to knowledge of the ‘father of the self’.
So, both magical and positive thinking take place in the crystal ball and sometimes they are hard to tell apart. There is good imagination and there is bad imagination. The self uses the crystal ball as something like a photographic plate on which to develop its vision, and hand it down to the personality. Eventually there is a direct two-way connection between self >> mind >> brain - and consciousness of the self becomes possible in the body. A similar pathway opens up between the self and what we humans call Spirit; as Above reflected in what is below.
Post a Comment