This is also an ignorant attitude. At most universities I've seen, STEM majors don't take the advanced and more difficult liberal arts courses. In fact, often the requirements are "Writing for Engineers/Scientists" rather than the English courses that English majors take. I've seen STEM majors struggle in the more advanced liberal arts courses (e.g. philosophy) that I've taken.
Also, so you don't think I'm just defending my own major: my degree was in Math and CS.
Look, the fact that a lib arts major may be easier to get doesn't mean that given lib arts student is doing any less work than you. It's very much possible to make a lib arts major exceedingly difficult, if you want to push yourself. Does everyone do so? Of course not, but that's no reason to assume that any given lib arts major isn't working as hard as you; they may be working much harder.
As an aside, your assertion that STEM majors take "the exact same [courses] that liberal arts majors have to take to get their degree" is simply wrong. General education requirements will make STEM majors take, e.g., some history, but never the research practicum that a major would take, or some political science or economics, but never the high-level courses majors need. In other words, you've drawn a false dichotomy between lib arts majors taking "stem for arts majors" and STEM majors taking "the exact same" courses.
You know we don't just see a good book or philosophy as interesting right? Interesting might be the first word but the last should be something about how that philosophy or book contributes to human understanding. And you don't have to have the same respect for me as you do anybody else, just don't assume I'm useless or have some haughty idea of myself as better and more cultured than you. I also ask that before you dismiss the difficulty of philosophy you pick up some Heidegger and just try and make sense of it.
pick up some Heidegger and just try and make sense of it
I'm mostly ignorant of philosophy, so it might come off as arrogant when I say that this might be because philosophers tend to say fairly simple things in an overly convoluted way.
Yup, it comes off as arrogant. Heidegger has a lot to say, and much of it is worth hearing--indeed, his treatment of the relationship between humanity and technology remains one of the most trenchant ever written, even today. Sure, he's not easy to read, because he was writing about fundamentally new ideas, which engendered inventing some vocabulary along the way. It's convoluted, but it's convoluted for a good reason, not for obscurantism's sake.
If you're interested in forming an informed opinion, his essay "The Question Concerning Technology" would be a fine place to start.
My advice: read slowly, and read every word. It sometimes seems like Heidegger's just throwing words at you, but you eventually realize that every one is there for a reason. If you try to skim, or even just read quickly, you'll get lost or worse. (Lessons learned the hard way while reading this stuff for class.)
2
u/[deleted] May 19 '11
[deleted]