/lit/ - Literature

>>13078134
What kind of shit bait is this.

>>12276873
t. regards popsci-man

>>12142403
Time to bust out this classic

>Daily reminder this is the present state of STEM.

>Taking Richard "I don't know what epistemic means" Dawkins seriously.

Obligatory.

>>11652178
>

>>11647426
>>11647459

>>11527634

>>11521317
>and it's why science doesn't take you seriously.

>>11489133

>>11467590
That you're asking this question at all suggests you aren't very familiar with philosophy. You're not the only STEMfag on /lit/. I have a physics degree and I know there are lots of others with STEM degrees too. But when you come in here shitting on philosophy without even knowing what it is you just make us look bad.

Aspire to be like the men on the left of this pic, not the guys on right.

Don't be a twat. Science can inform philosophy but philosophy does not lack worth inherently.

t. bio student

>>10091164
>I disagree. Obviously if you look at the lowest common denominator and compare it with the greatest minds of the past you're gonna get a skewed perspective. Was the average person more cultured 100 years ago? I don't think so.
I'm not comparing the lowest common denominator with the greats of the past. I'm comparing the leaders of today with the leaders of the past. How do you think they compare?

>Again, i disagree. You're looking at the past with rose-tinded glasses if you think it was different before. I've talked to several econ professor and they all had a solid understanding on history and a decent understanding of phil. I've talked to my thermodynamics prof and he had an amazing understanding of phil of science. But profs like these are the exception, not the rule.
I personally think that academia has expanded far too quickly to meet the demands of the late 20th century and early 21st century, and this has come with a steep decline in education standards. I'm glad you've had good professors. I've also had good professors, but they make the bad ones stand out like a sore thumb.

>Maybe i'm wrong, but i think you want this sort of idealized "complete intellectual", who has a good understanding of everything and can bounce from subject to subject.

Thank you for a charitable interpretation of what I'm trying to get across. I think that's too extreme of a characterization, but an understanding of the basics and in-depth detail of subjects that are "within proximity" of a specialization are not too much to ask for.

>>10091165
Removing languages and replacing it with nothing is indeed a drop in standards.

>>9873196