(no subject)

[sathor]

I dreamt there was a great fire, and all of my worldly possessions were destroyed.

If Duquesne or any of my other choices over the coming months take me...I'll get to have a chance to start over.

It's pretty fucking liberating to know I'm going to be getting out of here for good shortly.

Comments

[sathor.livejournal.com]

Pretty sure I'm sticking with Philosophy.

It's the only really challenging liberal arts material.

[noximist.livejournal.com]

On what are you basing that idea? By all means, pursue philosophy if it's what brings you the most joy and satisfaction; I don't think many people would agree with you about its relative level of challenge, though. History, English, political science, psychology (which is sometimes classed as science, sometimes not) - hell, even diasporic literature and South Asian studies - are all areas that can require excellent analytical skills, memorization, and novel approaches to essay-writing. They can also require essentially nothing other than a pulse, but philosophy's definitely in that boat, too. Liberal arts is too broad to mean much as a category, but for the most part, humanities degrees give you what you put into them. If you pursue anything to a high enough level, it will be challenging.

What is your goal with the degree, though? It has been sounding like you want to pursue it to try and get your life in gear, and to better your position for the future. As I said above, if philosophy makes you happy, then it's worth doing; however, it's pretty much the least useful degree imaginable when it comes to actually getting a job. That doesn't mean you shouldn't do it, mind you, because education can be its own reward! I'd take English all over again if I had the chance (although I'd take comp sci at the same time, to be sure). Just be realistic about what you expect it to do for you.

[noximist.livejournal.com]

Ooh, and how could I have forgotten to mention Classics?! It's a liberal arts programme that combines philosophy, history, and linguistics, plus you have to become fluent in two or three dead languages simultaneously. Depends on your definition of 'challenging,' maybe, but during my time in humanities, I never saw anyone work harder than the Classics students. (They were the haunted-looking ones who wandered down the halls late at night, muttering curses in Latin.)

[sathor.livejournal.com]

-my- mind, as it were. Although it would work if it were talk-like-a-pirate-day.

[sathor.livejournal.com]

Oh, I'd like to add that I wasn't aware Classics as you describe it was available as any kind of "major." It's something I'd be interested in, if only it didn't involve learning dead languages that no longer have a use except for, say, reading a text in its original language (but your understanding will still be limited, as the common plebian at the time would have had a better command of the dead language than any professor currently in existence.)

[noximist.livejournal.com]

There's also something called Classical Studies at most universities, which is like Classics but without the major language component. (You usually have to study some Greek and/or Latin, but not several years' worth.) How is learning a dead language less useful than anything else we learn as part of a humanities degree? It sharpens the mind, challenges you to think differently, and helps open doors to learning that would otherwise be closed. Even in 2009, there are primary texts you can't find in English. There's also the fact that nothing is quite the same in translation as it is in the original - there's a whole subdiscipline devoted to the study of those differences, actually. If you read an English philosophy text, you're not reading the words the philosopher wrote; you're reading someone else's approximation of them. The closer you can get, the more precise an interpretation you can create. It's not necessarily essential, but it's certainly a worthwhile pursuit if that's what you're interested in.

I don't actually agree with your comment about our ability to get proficient in those languages. It's true that no one today can speak Latin the way a Roman would have - they invented the Erasmian pronunciation in modern times - but they can read it just fine. Definitely better than the common plebe, who couldn't have read it at all. Some of the people I know who took Bachelors and Masters degrees that involved Latin or Ancient Greek can read primary texts nearly as well as you can read English. There are more than enough books and essays out there to grant a modern student a wide-ranging vocabulary and a complete understanding of the grammar, and that's all a language is...

Anyhow, to get back to the original point, I think we have a basic difference of opinion about what makes a program challenging, which is fine. Personally, I find in-depth study of specific facts (dates, historical events, brain structures and their functions, etc.), memorization and application of languages, and the creation of detailed interpretations of fiction pleasingly challenging to an extent I never found with philosophy. What it probably comes down to, though, is that studying any subject at a high enough level will challenge you. I never took fourth-year or graduate-level philosophy courses, so I know that I can't comment on them. I have, however, taken English, Classics, history, and now computer science at that level, and can say that they're all plenty challenging. And rewarding. :D

Besides, if a challenge is what you want, why stick with liberal arts at all? ;)

[sathor.livejournal.com]

It mainly becomes at some point (for me), knowing what it is I want to become a master of, and knowing that the more time I spend apart from that, the less masterful I will be come the end of my lifetime.

Hence, I really only spend my time reading philosophy of some kind, and working with music, and writing. These are the three things that I really care about, and they have a great deal of meaning for me. There's not really a single "job" I could get, if I went for a specific major, that would please me - except for teaching. Otherwise, no matter what I do, I'll be - for the most part - unhappy with it. This is unfortunate, but hey - I don't want to be an engineer, I don't want to be a computer programmer, I don't want to be an accountant, I don't want to be any of the myriad types of researchers and scientists. I know what I want to be, and technically, I don't need any education to do it. I can write from now until the day I die, not make a dime from it - but at least I'll have been happy doing it. I can make music from now until the day I die, not make a dime from it - but at least I'll have been happy doing it.

That's really the key, you know. I can read philosophy for the next year, and probably get more texts under my belt than most six-year students have. I already have more than most two-year students. Not to mention other various classical literature, albeit translated. Those are where the real giants are - and modern anything, for the most part, is abhorrent to me. The writing is sick and atrophied comparably. The lifelessness of standardized college textbooks is horrifying.

The question is becoming whether or not I really care to even bother going back. I'd like to, but on the other hand, do I want to put myself that much in debt, do I want to carry that burden while still trying to achieve the same things I do today, and have for years? Is $87.67/mo enough as it is, or do I need to double that, triple that, quadruple that - or maybe go past the point where I can live as a wage slave at all? Ultimately, a liberal arts major is asking for nothing more than wage slavery. Regardless of how incredibly intellectual, they have no materialistic skill that society oh-so-adores. It takes a great deal of luck, timing and networking, talent aside.

Sometimes I think about going to live in a Buddhist monastery. Beg for food. That sort of thing. It certainly would be better than playing any part in the three-ring-circus better known as humanity. They haven't treated me very well so far - if the luck doesn't change, I may have to give up the desire for it to.

One other thought: No matter what job I imagine myself in, there's only one that ultimately leads to any kind of satisfaction. There are others I am probably unaware of, but I doubt I will ever have access to them. The beauty of teaching to me is that it adds many chaotic variables, and that no day will be exactly the same. Most wage slavery can't say the same. There's something calming about that idea. Getting back into the workforce right now, economy side, is difficult for another reason - because I'm not sure how much longer I can take the monotony of repetitive tasks.

[sathor.livejournal.com]

Really?

I haven't read anything that blows me mind away like Hegel and Heidegger.