I think I take a lot of the above for granted. It all sounds like a solid CS education to me, something which many students already have. So I think your point

I think I take a lot of the above for granted. It all sounds like a solid CS education to me, something which many students already have. So I think your point about being open minded is the strongest. Additionally, you bring up some excellent summaries of what each discipline is about. A lot of the time the failure here is lack of comprehensiveness, or coverage; coverage in space (what's out there) and coverage in time (what's been done historically). Current favorite example is APL: http://isomorphism.es/post/146379365169/unlike-many-languages-apl-arrays-are-just-a http://isomorphism.es/post/146379365169/unlike-many-language... But as far as material goes, I suspect pure, bare metaphysics is underrated. Bearing with me, this talk by Hickey quotes a lot of Whitehead: https://www.infoq.com/presentations/Are-We-There-Yet-Rich-Hickey https://www.infoq.com/presentations/Are-We-There-Yet-Rich-Hi... Whitehead spearheaded Process philosophy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_philosophy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_philosophy Most metaphysics is crap, but there are a few gems. Whitehead, Russell, Quentin Meillassoux, Wittgenstein, Northrop, Peirce, Kripke. Dealing with fundamental conceptions of space, material, time, cause, and uncertainty can go a long way when it comes to modeling code and understanding when it will correspond to reality. Programming languages give you enough flexibility to reach your ass and fuck yourself over. That needs to be constrained. tl;dr We're in agreement, I just like hearing myself talk.