4 ms·
I feel differently from most people in this thread. Academia is not industry, and is not really driven by a capitalist market. You can debate that philosophy, a
by sktrdie 12y ago
I feel differently from most people in this thread. Academia is not industry, and is not really driven by a capitalist market. You can debate that philosophy, and many other theoretical fields, have very little value in the market, and perhaps they do. But in reality, the richest countries are the ones that have strong research curriculums, with people studying things that are not immediately beneficial or even useful.
I'd want to live in a society where people can work in all kinds of fields that study nature and the human intellect, and not just jobs that are needed because of some economical reason.
- javert 12y agoHaving a lot of professors living on the public dime and not contributing anything back is the effect of a rich (and decadent) society, not the cause.
- eli_gottlieb 12y agoThere's a vast difference between maximizing society's total productivity and maximizing the amount of time people spend working on increasing economic output. Namely, the amount of technology used. Since most of us on Hacker News work in some form of technology, I'd say its in our economic interest not to apply terms of moral condemnation like "decadent" to forms of society that generate more demand for our skills ;-).
- javert 12y agoI'm not saying that philosophy professors don't increase economic output. I'm saying they don't contribute anything at all. In general---I think there are some good ones. And I think a lot of the contribute positively through their teaching, just not their research and publications. But note that the primary focus and goal of professors at top-tier universities is research. Also, I disagree with your dichotomy between "economic output" and "society's total productivity," but that's a separate issue. Also, I'm not going to be dishonest for the sake of narrow economic interest, which is what you are asking me to do.
- eli_gottlieb 12y ago>Also, I'm not going to be dishonest for the sake of narrow economic interest, which is what you are asking me to do. Actually, I was being ironic. I don't believe that "decadent" is really a genuine moral condemnation at all, instead merely meaning, "A society that doesn't suit my survivalist tastes because it is too civilized." Or at least, that's what I observe about common applications of the word "decadent".
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- Drakim 12y ago> But in reality, the richest countries are the ones that have strong research curriculums, with people studying things that are not immediately beneficial or even useful. Is this because studying those creates a rich country, or because people of rich countries have a tendency to study these things?
- DenisM 12y agoIt's a feedback loop.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]