What should colleges teach? | Hacker News Reader

What should colleges teach?

fish.blogs.nytimes.com

19 pointsyummyfajitas9 comments

There is something seriously wrong with our society. I think it is a much deeper problem than what we are acknowledging with the decline of newspapers, education, politics, and currency.

It is our vision of the future. Our vision of the future is wrong. At one point, we believed if you worked hard and produced something of value that you would be rewarded. This was true in a world where life could be substantially improved.

However, in our world -- the western world, life is sufficiently good. There are no consumer pains to speak of. We are sedated by television. We are fed by grocery stores. We are medicated with little pills, to cure our ills, our wills, and operate our mills.

Our problem is: We have no purpose.

We have no purpose on earth. We have no problems to solve. We have no problems we care about. We have no problems. Life is too good. There is no struggle. There is no ill.

There is only desire left. Desire for power. Desire for monetary gain. Desire for resource control. Those who do not desire this power, this control, this money are being squashed by an increasingly relative few who do.

And there is ever less and less for them to take. Ever less and less for them to control and gain and everyone is just kind of fed up with it.

So, you are saying that because 'life is sufficiently good', we have no problems, and thus, no purpose. I would agree with what you are saying, assuming the absence of one major variable: interaction with the minds and hearts around us.

My belief is that we do not have purpose a priori, and that life is void, but through living - interacting with others, expressing emotions, and seeing a larger scope of the world around us - we can create our own purpose.

We are curious by nature; we tinker, play, and slave away at discovering connections between the entitites around us. As we grow, this fundamental desire does not wane; it grows. It grows as we grow. One day, we will find one such connection that will bring us joy, happiness. This is our true calling. It is because of this true calling that we find our purpose. Our true calling is our purpose.

Of course, not everyone can find it... So, let me try a second argument:

Why are we happy when a spouse gives birth? Why are we worried if a dear friend or companion is ill? Why do we shed tears at a loved one's wake? We feel because we developed a connection with the people around us. That is our purpose. If we cannot find a purpose within ourselves (above argument), we find purpose in preserving the life and happiness of the ones most dear to us (this argument).

If a person does not fall into either category, then that person truly doesn't have a purpose. <sarcasm>That is what depression and absurdism/nihilism is for.</sarcasm>

Also, I agree that people do have a intrinsic avarice. :-)

"My belief is that we do not have purpose a priori, and that life is void,"

You mean intrinsically, maybe before knowledge. A priori doesn't make sense in this context.

"Why are we happy when a spouse gives birth? Why are we worried if a dear friend or companion is ill? Why do we shed tears at a loved one's wake? We feel because we developed a connection with the people around us. That is our purpose. If we cannot find a purpose within ourselves (above argument), we find purpose in preserving the life and happiness of the ones most dear to us (this argument)."

Why are we happy when an enemy is killed? Why are we worried if a dear follows us in the dark? Why do we shed tears at a foe's triumph? We feel because we developed a hatred toward the people around us. That is our purpose. If we cannot find a purpose within ourselves (above argument), we find purpose in hating those whom we most hate (this argument).

Regarding the 'a priori' thing, you're right. Oops. I was trying to sound cool.

Your version of the argument works too, though pessimistic. Some people live their lives to hate other people.

Interesting piece. I am inclined to ask, should we have a core curriculum?

This is anecodotal only, but when I was an undergrad I felt like many of the classes I took where of no benefit, but they were required. Now that I am working on my masters degree, I am tightly focused on my field (and a tiny handful of electives in one other very tightly connected field) and every class is relevant.

There may be a value in maintaining a broad based core curriculum, but then it seems there is also value in a tighter focus and it may at least in some cases make sense to permit students to narrow in on that tigther focus earlier.

Of course, that tight focus should never be too confining. I changed majors twice before finding one I was happy with, and even while working on my masters the idea of switching has come up.

In the UK, you might get to do one or two courses outside your field if you really want to and they're basically relevant, but what you "major" in is all you study. No-one makes engineers take classes in creative writing f'rinstance.

It baffles me that supporting a rigorous traditional curriculum would be associated with a capitalist political and economic outlook. The only thing that I can think of is that the connotations of "traditional" or "rigorous" are unappealing to the left because of their deployments in class struggle, generally on the side of the powerful. Unfortunately, we may have thrown the baby out with the bathwater...

I think curriculum's are too segregated. Let's get brains from mathematical sciences, engineering, biochemistry and biology (etc) together, and have them come up with their own interesting project.

Ye have sown the wind, Mr. Fish...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com