Doug, et al -
I am far from a philosopher myself, but am eternally grateful that my
first philosophy class (which I was prepared to sleep through or drop if
needs be) was taught be a very insightful and engaged person. My first
(and only) Anthropology class was just the opposite, and it probably
took me a decade to get past that bad experience far enough to become
deeply curious (again) about human nature in that context.
I went to college on my own nickel (no parents, no GI Bill, no Pell
Grants, no Student Loans) and was there out of pure curiosity. I didn't
waste much time on classes that didn't work for me. I came from schools
deeply steeped in rural poverty and ignorance. My best teachers were
over their heads but tried hard, my worst were just pathetic. The
average University prof looked pretty good to me, maybe because I'd
already learned to take the good and ignore the rest with teachers. I
had a few "return from industry" professors who were, contrary to
expectation, almost completely worthless, they spent most of their time
pontificating about "the real world" rather than teaching the topic at
hand. The rare ones who actually used their real world experience to
add to my learning experience were treasured.
I grew up amongst (and have a deep respect for) those who are "doers"
rather than "thinkers", but I also saw first hand the deep hazard of
acting without thinking, and without any context for the often righteous
(but always limited) understanding involved. To make the point close to
home, think "Pete Nanos". The questions were all simple and the answers
were simpler. Most of the kids I grew up with still live in various
forms of poverty and/or ignorance (with their children and
grandchildren) maintained by a marked preference for *doing* over
*thinking*. I still have a lot of respect for (some of) these people...
for the reasons you cite... they aren't afraid to get their hands
dirty... and learn mostly be *doing*. Those who escaped to a bigger
world were more prepared by this down and dirty background than their
relatively privileged urban/suburban peers, but it was the exposure to
ever-widening circles of context that made the difference for them...
they had *doing* down, it was *thinking* they needed to learn. This
would be my bias I suppose.
What I learned in the myriad humanities courses I was "required" to take
was _perspective_. As a student in the Arts and Sciences(Math/Physics)
rather than Engineering I had (yet) more humanities requirements and
fewer "underwater basketweaving" options to sneak past with. Also my
math and physics professors actively encouraged me to understand the
context of what I was learning about. They were happy that I refused
to learn a formula until I understood it's intuitive basis and it's
derivation.
I was also curious to understand the historical context in which it
was first encountered and the broader philosophical implications of
topics like quantum entanglement, tachyons, and time dilation at
relativistic speeds. WTF *did* we believe before *that* and *why*?
What are the implications? Perhaps studying counter-intuitive and
abstract topics like Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Statistical Physics
and Group Theory made me more hungry for context than my Engineering
colleagues who just wanted to make sure their toothpick bridge was the
last to collapse or their egg survived a 10 meter drop. Mathematics and
Physics were at best a convenient tool to support direct solutions to
practical problems.
There is a lot of chatter here about the latest observations around the
Higgs Boson, but mostly it is just reporting and repeating, possibly
just fetishising the LHC gear? Who CARES about the Higgs Boson and
WHY? There is a lot of "philosophical context" around the Standard
Model and it's many variants and alternatives...
So the question of whether and why 1 is/not a prime is of broader
interest to me perhaps than to some... and I don't believe I actually
know anyone who self-identifies as a philospher? hmmm...
- Steve
------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, that said: some of my best friends are philosophers... :-/
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 10:43 AM, Douglas Roberts <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
I'm afraid I became permanently biased against the "philosophy of
philosophysing" during one particular infinite-duration 45-minute
philosophy undergrad class that I once had ill-advisedly enrolled in to
satisfy a humanities undergrad requirement.
During that 45 minutes in Hell, a self-satisfied, pompous,
self-important twit of a a philosophy professor beat the "If a tree
falls in the forest yada yada" chestnut into a bloody, distasteful pulp.
Repeatedly.
Further, my repeated cycling in and out of the university environment
and into the actual work force as a student engineer over the 8 year
period that I took to get my bachelor's degree only had the effect of
reinforcing my already somewhat strong distaste for "talkers", versus
"doers".
Those who can, do, those who can't, teach: there are very good reasons
that this nugget of observation has become a part of our lexicon.
--Doug
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
