But it is an ideal in America. If you're in America, living contrary to that puts you in the oddball category. There are pros and cons to being an oddball. — Mongrel

A foolish ideal.

It's a bad thing to judge, m'kay? — Question

If that's your judgement, you have poor judgement in your own judgement.

I'm just responding to your statement that judging is a bad thing. It's really not. — Hanover

No, not judging, being judgemental.

Yeah, you're right, I am not really keeping up with the posts and with the hopping in-and-out of the thread, I tend to miss the context of some conversations.

Bums can't lose any more than what they have lost already. They win by default.

they should be re-enslaved for their own good. You're sounding pretty close to what's called the Protestant work ethic. — Mongrel

"Protestant work ethic" is as lazy as the "derogatory black stereotype". From Luther, "all work is holy" and all work is dignified, whether it is the work of a priest or the work of the lowest class of laborer.

"Protestant work ethic" is as lazy as the "derogatory black stereotype". From Luther, "all work is holy" and all work is dignified, whether it is the work of a priest or the work of the lowest class of laborer. — Bitter Crank

The Protestant work ethic is Calvinist. Lutherans just sit around drinking beer.

Drinking beer and dancing schottisches and polkas is decidedly more holy and pleasing to God than sucking lemons and calculating whether one is predestined to salvation or damnation. Lutherans get drunk on Grace Alone but what can lighten the burden of Calvinist predestination?

IMHO.

Drink more beer and dance the schottische.

our first reply, which was the very first reply to the opening post, and the first reply that I read. It wasn't as harsh or strongly worded as Hanover's, and you clearly had good intent, but I still found it objectionable for similar reasons to Question.

Looking down on people who spend time with their mother and eat KFC. What's wrong with that? And if his now ex-wife left him for those sorts of reasons, or because he didn't succumb to the social pressure of other people trying to push him up the 'career ladder', and instead chose a career that he thinks is right for him, then frankly she sounds like a shallow bitch who he'd be better off without. — Sapientia

One thing I would like you to think about is why it is that you found my remarks against Question objectionable and not my remarks against Hanover? I was rude to him, but that seemed to escape your notice, perhaps you laughed and even approved of it. The reason why you found my remarks against Question objectionable was because you identify with the situation and so felt the need to defend the argument - rather prejudicially - rather than seeing the rationale behind it.

The point of that reference - albeit rather jokingly rude, yes - was that you will end up doing the same thing over and over again that you will never really live, remaining dependent, safe, comfortable but having no real taste of freedom. Freedom is where our genuine humanity exists and we need to exercise it in order to live, using instruments both subjectively and objectively including taking risks, challenging yourself, overcoming fears to reach or transcend toward having that capacity to understand - authentically - how to be autonomous. If you meet a girl, for instance, you merely swap that dependence over to her and follow her as long as you are comfortable [the only time this is an exception is when the girl is exceptional enough to help elevate you toward this freedom... good luck finding such a woman]. For many, comfort equates to happiness; you may have it 'all' but really it is nihilistic because you hate life enough to sacrifice it for this comfort, relieving yourself with questionable excuses such as pretending to be defiant to societal pressure when - just like much of society pretending to be individuals when they blindly follow in masses - you are blindly following your fears.

Masculinity itself is a social construct and anyone who idolises muscular, male forms, concepts like a powerful career and other perceptions that somehow epitomise a 'man' is, well, a dipshit. I can only love someone for the principles that they follow because they show me who they are as a person subjectively, not their appearances, because the former is what makes a 'real man'. But someone who is dependent and cowardly enough to not follow his heart, has no passion for life that he cannot make decisions without approval or never challenges himself by taking risks is truly non-existent. He is a slave to fear and comfort eases the tension of this fear; so your shallow bitch leaving him is just another excuse you are making to justify this really terrible attitude to life.

The principles within us - principles like virtue, courage, honour - are real, they are necessary when we seek to become autonomous in character and cognition. You cannot run away from civilisation and expect that somehow that is 'ethical' and will effect change only because you don't hurt anyone. The Ring of Gyges is enough to prove that it is what goes on within a person that is relevant. A truly ethical person would be disgusted with the crimes of humanity and would want to effect change somehow, even locally in their community, and you can't effect change if you are too afraid to get off the couch and take responsibility for your own life.

One thing I would like you to think about is why it is that you found my remarks against Question objectionable and not my remarks against Hanover? I was rude to him, but that seemed to escape your notice, perhaps you laughed and even approved of it. The reason why you found my remarks against Question objectionable was because you identify with the situation and so felt the need to defend the argument - rather prejudicially - rather than seeing the rationale behind it. — TimeLine

It could also be that my alleged offense was being mean and Question's was simply being useless. Being mean to me is therefore considered fair comupance, whereas attacks on Question are considered piling on. It's understandable, but I agree emotionally driven.

Oh please, I'm not made of snow, guys. I never took offence to any of TimeLine's posts.

And no I dont eat at KFC. I like to go to Subway on my lunch breaks.

And no I dont eat at KFC. I like to go to Subway on my lunch breaks. — Question

You eat at Subway because you are know that KFC has put batter-fried rats in their buckets of chicken. Well, let's not get huffy over that! Rat protein is as good as chicken protein. What's a little rat meat for lunch? Though, I suppose a big old rat might be a bit stringy. Young rat much better.

Something to think about the next time you all head for the fast food joint of that southern reprobate, "the colonel".

One thing I would like you to think about is why it is that you found my remarks against Question objectionable and not my remarks against Hanover? I was rude to him, but that seemed to escape your notice, perhaps you laughed and even approved of it. The reason why you found my remarks against Question objectionable was because you identify with the situation and so felt the need to defend the argument - rather prejudicially - rather than seeing the rationale behind it. — TimeLine

It could also be that my alleged offense was being mean and Question's was simply being useless. Being mean to me is therefore considered fair comupance, whereas attacks on Question are considered piling on. It's understandable, but I agree emotionally driven. — Hanover

I missed these replies.

I simply didn't see your remarks against Hanover. They did escape my notice. I haven't read much of this discussion and I didn't read past the first page up to the point where I jumped in. I still don't know what exactly you're referring to.

But yes, my reaction was emotionally driven. You see, unlike Question, I regularly eat batter-fried rats at KFC on my lunch break. (My workplace is very close to a KFC). In fact, there's nothing I enjoy more than sitting on my dear mother's comforting lap whilst she spoonfeeds me lukewarm chunks of batter-fried rat at my local KFC restaurant. So I took it as a personal affront.

So, I've come to terms with the fact that working at a nursery is not something that will bring home the bread with meat and cheese. I guess we need more Hanover's here, or at least should honor his presence (wink).

Anyway I would appreciate if people would not go back and forth on this who did what to whom and what for. I took no offence and had foreknowledge of exposing myself to criticism. Most of it has been constructive apart from the few value judgments, which I think a a sine qua non in evaluating one's life, well at least as long as we don't fall into bigotry and racism, all is fine and well.

So, anyway, with the hope that I've put what has occupied half of this threads length, I been doing some thinking and talking about finishing the econ degree at my local private college (Cal Lutheran University). Based on a short talk with a customer at work, they have a UC cost matching program (which I find amazing given that their institute isn't subsidized by public funds) and possible financial aid and such. It would take me a relative short time to complete my BA in econ. Now, I like to think ahead a lot and have been debating with myself over going after an MBA (as they offer a nice program that shortens the length of that considerably, though I doubt the UC cost matching offer would be valid for the year I'd have to spend with them to attain the MBA) OR, go after the big cheese, a Master of Science in Quantitative Economics, which is some heavy shit. Lot's of programming knowledge and skills required, along with some solid math foundations, and really good statistical knowledge. With a degree like that, I'd be set for life, and would have some really nice job opportunities available with the FBI or DoHS, if you haven't figured it out yet, yes I am crazy....


Relevant links:

https://www.callutheran.edu/academics/majors/economics/
https://www.callutheran.edu/management/4plus1.html
https://tfetimes.com/best-financial-economics-program-rankings/
https://www.callutheran.edu/academics/graduate/ms-quantitative-economics/

I think I gave you a little a bit of insight on academic goings-on a few months ago in a different post, but just noticed this thread. First off - in response to your first question in all this - let me state that if you're looking to be a "great" philosopher or looking for validation of any sort from philosophy then academia isn't for you. In part because (as several folks pointed out) your oeuvre is geared toward keeping your job - not about greatness. I'll get to the validation thing in a sec.

Here's an example of the lack of fame or greatness thing though: I had a paper published last year sometime in the early Spring. The paper took about five to six months to research, draft, edit, get feedback, and finally send into a publisher at which point it sat in review for five more months and was finally published. Guess how many people have cited my article in the past year? Zero. And that's normal! The average paper in philosophy might get professionally cited (by someone other than yourself)1-10 times during the authors life - maybe. That supposes that it's in a reputable journal and has some relevant content to current debates in philosophy.

As for books? Forget it. The days of guys like Wittgenstein are long past. Academia doesn't work in broad strokes and your specialization at the PhD level is likely to result in books that you will use specifically for your own classes or will be read exclusively by your colleagues. It's not to say that you won't have a compelling book read by a few people outside your field, but academia has become so hyper-specialized these days that you essentially have to choose your audience. Do you write pieces accessible to the layman and that are likely to be dismissed by your peers and irrelevant for your CV or do you produce heavily technical pieces which will likely only be read by other academics and will gain absolutely no notoriety outside of the University?

Now I gotta be straight with you about the whole "validate me" comment - it pisses me off. You know how many damn undergrads email me or find little opportunities to hunt me down on campus and ask me what their chances are of going to grad school or if they should go? "Buck up" is my usual response. Because you will receive NO validation at the graduate level. None, zero, ziltch. You will receive editorial and technical support from your advisor and that's about as close as you're going to get to a pat on the back or a "good job". No one gives a shit about you and your brilliance as a grad student except your parents and your friends. You will be wrong way more then you will ever be right and your work will be torn apart more times then you can count. So if you need validation to get you in the mood for grad school (be it in philosophy or the humanities as a whole) you're done - you're the type of person that will drop out before finishing, guaranteed.

Now as to your most recent post: I don't know much about MBA programs, but be cautious with your finances. There is a tendency by many American students to assume that more or higher degrees immediately equates to financial success. Statistically speaking, the reverse if often true as people have a tendency to take on a tremendous amount of debt while pursuing those advanced degrees and end up making just enough after school to live on a shoe-string budget and pay back loans. If you can get into grad school with some type of scholarship - that'd be ideal. If you can't... eh... honestly might not be worth going unless you can find some way to cut costs or have a wealthy family.

I'm not saying you shouldn't go back and get your BA/BS but after that just do some long term financial planning. If you're game planning on completing you undergraduate degree with the intention of going on to grad school then focus up and have a stellar GPA because they makes funding decisions way easier for graduate admissions committees.

I got convinced after reading Thorongils post. You two should have a beer some time and talk over your phil careers. Meanwhile, I have to figure out if I have the talent to even be a moderately good quant. They're kinda considered mostly as geniuses and legends in the economics community.

Hahaha, yeah, me being a quant is a pipe dream.

BA in econ for now.

I got convinced after reading Thorongils post. — Question

You don't need a degree to be a philosopher. Find something tolerable to pay the bills, if possible, and pursue philosophy on your own time. — Thorongil

I agree with that. Even if I was guaranteed to go through all of that successfully, for me, it would simply not be worth the bother. Fuck that. Fuck even the first hurdle. I apply that across the whole of academia beyond basic education.

I'm not materialistic enough to care about putting myself through all of that to make more money, and I don't need to do whatever subject we're talking about in an academic setting or as a career. If other people want to do that, then good for them. But they should definitely think through the situation to the extent of Thorongil's post.

What you're talking about now, stuff like a Master of Science in Quantitative Economics, sounds similarly complex and requiring of a mountain of hard work. Like you yourself say, some heavy shit, and you are crazy. X-)

But if that's what you decide to do, or actually, whatever you decide to do, I wish you all the best.