I am now a double drop-out

Having introduced myself as a certified high school drop-out for years now, I am now proud to say that I can also boast about being a certified college drop-out.

I started my masters programme this fall, and it took me until now to reach the level where I'm fed up with all the bull. Seriously, post-modernism is the single worst theory in the history of everything. I have learned a ton this fall, don't get me wrong. Unfortunately, everythign I've learned, I have learned at work. During my studies, I have learned a grand total of zero of importance. And no, it's not because I've been a slacker. I've read the curriculum, I have met prepared for every class. The problem is that post-modernism is so detached from actual reality, it's a complete joke. The one thing I've learned is why some people ridicule academics. I fully understand them now. I guess I've only exposed myself to sane academics in the past, and ignored the loonies this programme has been full of.

A particular highlight was the article/book we got explaining the origins and ideas of human rights. One page 5, it concluded that "human rights exist by use of language alone and to serve the bourgeois class". Suffice to say, I didn't bother reading the rest of that book.

One notable thing I have gained is that whenever I encounter the word "discourse" in the future, I can safely stop reading. I know now that what follows will be nothing more than a stream of utter nonsense.



Parents, send me thy kids. I'll teach them the value of sex and alcohol!

Who let you into higher education as a high school dropout?

Horrie I am proud of you, I totally share your disregard of the academic world. Not that am not educated, but they are mostly idiots.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Horrie I am proud of you, I totally share your disregard of the academic world. Not that am not educated, but they are mostly idiots.

---

Don't worry Fragolini, I'm not done with my own education just yet. I plan to add at least natural science to my list of subjects I can teach, and I'll probably attempt another masters degree at some point... But next time, I'll be a bit more careful and study the reading plans beforehand. If I see Bordieou on the reading list, I'll choose another one.

@Husar: With my smashing good looks, of course?

Mincing my words was pure torture. I may be an idiot but I am not stupid, and I simply can't take most academics seriously. If that is arrogant so be it.

"A particular highlight was the article/book we got explaining the origins and ideas of human rights. One page 5, it concluded that "human rights exist by use of language alone and to serve the bourgeois class". Suffice to say, I didn't bother reading the rest of that book."

I can find in nature electromagnetic forces, hormones that make us more connected yet more racist and genes that express our sex.

Human rights on the other hand I cannot find a force, hormone or gene that makes it so.

Human rights are a social creation. Are the rich and powerful bound to the same rules as the middle class? Don't they get better lawyers, deals and access to pardons if they are caught? Aren't those in poverty focusing on survival? We love stories where humans are put in socially abhorrent scenarios and have to fight to survive.

So is human rights real or just a social construct for those who are in control of their own lives but not society ie the middle class?

You only get respect if you finish your PhD thesis and then drop out before presenting/defending it because :daisy: the establishment, man.

How are you supposed to get on a sarcastic independent lecture-track now?

You're a lightweight and we're disappointed in you. :no:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Are the rich and powerful bound to the same rules as the middle class?

---

Human rights are a set of rules for states, not individuals(as opposed to the genocide convention, which is for individuals).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Mincing my words was pure torture. I may be an idiot but I am not stupid, and I simply can't take most academics seriously. If that is arrogant so be it.

---

luckily nobody takes you serious either ;)

According to this wonderful book I am reading, post-modernism has been a joke from the start. Paul de Man was a fraud and a Nazi, Heidegger was a Nazi, Feyerabend was, well, let his words speak for themselves:

"There is not one common sense, there are many...Nor is there one way of knowing, science; there are many such ways, and before they were ruined by Western civilization they were effective in the sense that they kept people alive and made their existence comprehensible."

Post-modernism is believing yourself to be wise by claiming that ignorance is universal and that progress is impossible because....world wars happen.

People who try to talk about "seeing things from the perspective of the minority/oppressed" act as if no one was doing just that before some 20th Century French philosophers told us that people can see things differently therefore absolutely nothing is the same from person to person.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

...as opposed to the genocide convention, which is for individuals.

---

I always thought genocide required more then one... Either actor or victim.

Quote:

---

"'...What little information we have about the old times, the pittance of data which the Butlerians left us, Korba has brought it for you. Start with the Genghis Khan.' 'Ghenghis . . . Khan? Was he of the Sardaukar, m'Lord?' 'Oh, long before that. He killed . . . perhaps four million.' 'He must've had formidable weaponry to kill that many, Sire. Lasbeams, perhaps, or . . .' 'He didn't kill them himself, Stil. He killed the way I kill, by sending out his legions. There's another emperor I want you to note in passing--a Hitler. He killed more than six million. Pretty good for those days.' 'Killed . . . by his legions?' Stilgar asked. 'Yes.' 'Not very impressive statistics, m'Lord.' "

---

It's all relative, as you know. :sneaky:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

"There is not one common sense, there are many...Nor is there one way of knowing, science; there are many such ways, and before they were ruined by Western civilization they were effective in the sense that they kept people alive and made their existence comprehensible."

---

Hah! One of the main reason I quit was because I feared for my sanity if I had to sit through yet another lecture where the professor droned on about how superduperawesome this "indigenous knowledge"(or ignorance, as it's usually called) is.

Jon Elster once noted that the only use of post-modernism is to legitimize quaks in the "alternative medicine" industry. He's got a point.

Still, I've got a worse one than your quote: I don't have the exact wording, but Bruno Latoure noted in a response to a british medical team who had examined some mummy and determined tuberculosis as the cause of death, that it was meaningless to say that he died of tuberculosis, because the term didn't exist until the 18th century... Thus, you couldn't say he died of tuberculosis.

It's like the stupidity leaps from the page.

Why does one study blabla if one does not like blabla?

There are plenty of useful sciences. ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Hah! One of the main reason I quit was because I feared for my sanity if I had to sit through yet another lecture where the professor droned on about how superduperawesome this "indigenous knowledge"(or ignorance, as it's usually called) is.

Jon Elster once noted that the only use of post-modernism is to legitimize quaks in the "alternative medicine" industry. He's got a point.

Still, I've got a worse one than your quote: I don't have the exact wording, but Bruno Latoure noted in a response to a british medical team who had examined some mummy and determined tuberculosis as the cause of death, that it was meaningless to say that he died of tuberculosis, because the term didn't exist until the 18th century... Thus, you couldn't say he died of tuberculosis.

It's like the stupidity leaps from the page.

---

lol You could sum that whole sentence up with, "You don't know man, you weren't there man!"

I think this quote from Bruno Latoure comes from the same piece of :Daisy:

"Since the settlement of a controversy is the Cause of Nature's representation not the consequence, we can never use the outcome to explain how and why a controversy has been settled."

Obviously, nature is just giving us the answers we seek because we are defining the answer based on the question being asked. Thus, none of our answers are valid, and that's also why no scientist in the history of mankind has ever come across an answer that challenges his views or what we previously held to be true!

Quote:

---

"Since the settlement of a controversy is the Cause of Nature's representation not the consequence, we can never use the outcome to explain how and why a controversy has been settled."

---

Is he talking about the a priori? If so, it's very obnoxiously worded.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

Is he talking about the a priori? If so, it's very obnoxiously worded.

---

I don't have the full context available to me. Quote was footmarked as Science In Action​, 1987, page 99. I certainly don't want to spend money on this garbage, so if you find a free pdf, hook me up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Having introduced myself as a certified high school drop-out for years now, I am now proud to say that I can also boast about being a certified college drop-out.

I started my masters programme this fall, and it took me until now to reach the level where I'm fed up with all the bull. Seriously, post-modernism is the single worst theory in the history of everything. I have learned a ton this fall, don't get me wrong. Unfortunately, everythign I've learned, I have learned at work. During my studies, I have learned a grand total of zero of importance. And no, it's not because I've been a slacker. I've read the curriculum, I have met prepared for every class. The problem is that post-modernism is so detached from actual reality, it's a complete joke. The one thing I've learned is why some people ridicule academics. I fully understand them now. I guess I've only exposed myself to sane academics in the past, and ignored the loonies this programme has been full of.

A particular highlight was the article/book we got explaining the origins and ideas of human rights. One page 5, it concluded that "human rights exist by use of language alone and to serve the bourgeois class". Suffice to say, I didn't bother reading the rest of that book.

One notable thing I have gained is that whenever I encounter the word "discourse" in the future, I can safely stop reading. I know now that what follows will be nothing more than a stream of utter nonsense.



Parents, send me thy kids. I'll teach them the value of sex and alcohol!

---

This is my favorite post by you, ever.
I've been noticing an effort in academia to discredit the very idea of human rights as an archaic fantasy, to be moved past
At this point, I think it is simply the interests groups in power that push this idea - no matter the ideological background.
During the Bush admin, the people who pulled the strings assaulted human rights. During this admin, the assault comes from the interest groups which support the new authority.

When and if libertarians ever come to power, they will rationalize why some rights need to be trampled. This is the nature of man, unfortunately. Key is to build a bulwark against it wherever we are sober enough to so.
The inebriation of power is too much for the righteous to bare and the power corrupts the best of us.

Either way, keep pushing on, education is important in life. If it doesn't make us better people, at least learn something about the way of the world.

I do agree that the financial value of the liberal arts degree is largely going the way of the buffalo, but the education itself is more important than ever. Cheap, Online education with workshops for camaraderie is the future.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

There's a good argument to be made that any inquiring mind can get whatever kmowledge they want for free these days. With nurturing from the state and an investment in providing everyone with affordable high speed internet we could make the casual liberal education more or less obsolete.

In the USA right now most degrees aren't worth the paper they are printed on, let alone tens of thousands of dollars in debt. The lengthy and expensive liberal education is pretty much nothing but an intentional wall to block the young from entering into their fields of choice without first entering into massive debt and a position of submission.

I don't know what the future of education looks like, but the present system itself is surely a joke.

---

Information without a guide to train you on how to think is pointless and would only serve to hurt us rather than benefit us. The liberal education fails because there is nothing "liberal" about it when it is widely recognized that some ideas or approaches are "just not in fad" or taken seriously. The hubris of post-modernism is that it knows better than you because it knows nothing and this absolute statement locks down dissenting opinions and it is because post-modernism has become so widely accepted that the issue has compounded to the point where education has now suffered tremendously.

If you think the "modern day" thinkers will be born out of educational Youtube videos while they munch on potato chips and self discipline, you are deluding yourself.

What was the masters' program actually called?
I mean: as far as I know, post-modernism is a general attitude towards previous theories and methods. Wether it's art, philosophy or social science. I tried skimming the wiki article on this but it was tl;dr at this hour.

Also:

Quote:

---

"human rights exist by use of language alone and to serve the bourgeois class"

---

What part did offend you:
1) human rights do not have an independant existence beyond the thoughts and words that are in vogue
2) the marxist bit about it serving the bourgeois class

#1 is actually debatable. I have my own theory on human rights, based on social contract, but I'm also of the opinion that much of which is passed as "human rights" nowadays doesn't really deserve the name.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

I have my own theory on human rights, based on social contract, but I'm also of the opinion that much of which is passed as "human rights" nowadays doesn't really deserve the name.

---

Please, elaborate for our benefit.

We have been combating nihilism for some time, my understanding is that a rejection of rights comes from the heart of the nihilistic problem that we all face.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Train how to think? Guide? The parents should teach kids how to think. If you don't teach your kids to read books and be critical of everything, you are a terrible fucking parent. Beyond that, you absolutely can get every nugget of true knowledge that constitutes traditional liberal education for free. If one is to get a degree saying that they are worth so much money, that degree should be highly technical and specific in nature. I'm pretty sure that's the future. Will it be more egalitarian? Probably not. I think this will actually come about through de-regulation, as the public school system is patently crap. The right will win this one, to a degree.

---

My point is that a liberal education is not actually about knowledge but the application of it in a sophisticated way. Training how to think is not simple kid stuff, like "look both ways before crossing the street". It's what happens when you have been staring at the board for 6 friggen hours wondering why nothing is making sense or working. You need to have tools that enable you to look at things in multiple ways and have exposure to multiple mentalities in order to have the flexibility to develop rational solutions. Parents are not part of the equation at all, because it requires multiple people with years of experience under all of their belts to provide a diversity of thought and challenges for your brain to adapt towards a critical thinking mentality. Hence the point of a traditional university.

Quote:

---

But if you think that people will continue to spend 4-6 years in college for a crappy job (if any) and crippling debt, you're the one deluding yourself.

---

I don't believe that at all. But I also don't believe that abstaining from traditional university in favor of the internet will do jack all towards properly educating them.

Quote:

---

I agree that few if any people can actually self-educate. If the future is distance-learning then it will almost certainly require structure and standards, hence "Nurturing from the state." But the status quo is definitely going to change. Its just capitalism. People won't pay for something that isn't worth it for long, and right now the higher educational institutions of this country are riding a wave of hope rather than actually trying to adapt.

---

What entails "nurturing from the state"? Traditional universities will have their bubble pop, I agree with you completely, but there is no concrete structure for an alternate system of higher education that does not fall back on wishful thinking or vague generalizations about the present and trying to apply it towards the future.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Train how to think? Guide? The parents should teach kids how to think. If you don't teach your kids to read books and be critical of everything, you are a terrible fucking parent. Beyond that, you absolutely can get every nugget of true knowledge that constitutes traditional liberal education for free. If one is to get a degree saying that they are worth so much money, that degree should be highly technical and specific in nature. I'm pretty sure that's the future. Will it be more egalitarian? Probably not. I think this will actually come about through de-regulation, as the public school system is patently crap. The right will win this one, to a degree.

But if you think that people will continue to spend 4-6 years in college for a crappy job (if any) and crippling debt, you're the one deluding yourself.

I agree that few if any people can actually self-educate. If the future is distance-learning then it will almost certainly require structure and standards, hence "Nurturing from the state." But the status quo is definitely going to change. Its just capitalism. People won't pay for something that isn't worth it for long, and right now the higher educational institutions of this country are riding a wave of hope rather than actually trying to adapt.

---

what if nobody ever taught the parents how to think?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

I don't believe that at all. But I also don't believe that abstaining from traditional university in favor of the internet will do jack all towards properly educating them.

What entails "nurturing from the state"? Traditional universities will have their bubble pop, I agree with you completely, but there is no concrete structure for an alternate system of higher education that does not fall back on wishful thinking or vague generalizations about the present and trying to apply it towards the future.

---

I present you the Hole in the wall-project:

http://www.hole-in-the-wall.com

The basic idea is to set up computers with information on them so people can go and educate themselves on subjects. And it seems to work rather well. I heard in an experiment a class that was left alone with such a computer in order to learn about a certain biology subject got comarable test scores to a class taught about the subject by a teacher.

And who invented thinking? Countless teachers have tried to teach me how to think in mathematics and I'm still rather bad at it whereas in other subjects is much less of a problem. Different people have different approaches to different subjects and unstructured information can be taken by everyone in her or his own way while the same information structured by a teacher helps those who are structured like the teacher more than those who do not structure information like a teacher at all. Just look at how in one class some people may say this teacher is great while others say they do not understand her at all.

About ridiculing academics.

I am a Practician in my field but will meet a few so called "academics", that will theorize about solutions rather than look at the mechanics on site and thus solve based on findings.
I can get quite worked up by statements like: In theory, this should work. Yes of course in theory, but you haven't factored in equipment stand-still in a very hostile environment. If an engine is left unused and exposed to the arctic offshore weather for 12 months, don't be surprised if it turns out it is completely ruined.
Worst of them all are the entrenched academic who is rooted in nostalgia and tradition. A tradition based on false notions. "We don't do it that way as we have never done it that way".... well you do it because someone made a bad judgement call eons back. Your equation has a bad element.

I think that it is just a matter of perception.
An example that I remember from this forum is the statement (no intent to ridicule the person): The Antarctic is the driest place on earth. I remember exclaiming: "Thus speaks an academic. A practician would say: You'll never lack for water on Antarctica".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

I present you the Hole in the wall-project:

http://www.hole-in-the-wall.com

The basic idea is to set up computers with information on them so people can go and educate themselves on subjects. And it seems to work rather well. I heard in an experiment a class that was left alone with such a computer in order to learn about a certain biology subject got comarable test scores to a class taught about the subject by a teacher.

---

Ah, the good ol' "Granny ped"... Always top of the list of "things I really want to try out, but never got around to" back in teacher training...

Contrary to what you may think, the teacher is actually crucial in that theory. It requires a person who can give constant positive feedback.

Btw, I start every new topic I teach in a way containing the same principles as granny ped. It does have its merits.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Ah, the good ol' "Granny ped"... Always top of the list of "things I really want to try out, but never got around to" back in teacher training...

Contrary to what you may think, the teacher is actually crucial in that theory. It requires a person who can give constant positive feedback.

Btw, I start every new topic I teach in a way containing the same principles as granny ped. It does have its merits.

---

You're right. I forgot about the constant positive feedback, doesn't have to be a teacher though, it can be someone who has no idea about the subject. One of our professors actually told us about this last week, he also mentioned how he studied very theoretical things himself long ago and used to look down on engineers until he looked into engineering himself and found that it's actually a much more fulfilling and useful field than just thinking about theoretical concepts of the world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

doesn't have to be a teacher though, it can be someone who has no idea about the subject.

---

That's what's called "a teacher" ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

That's what's called "a teacher" ~;)

---

In Norway perhaps, apparently even a double dropout can be a teacher there.

I first ran into Postmodernism in the late 1980s studying, believe it or not, organizational communication. Lyotard, Foucault, Jameson -- all of the "heroes" of '68. I found myself enthralled by the power of that critique -- deconstruction yielding insights into embedded structure/power dynamics, etc. I also found myself appalled that the postmodernists seemed to have nothing to DO with the theory in terms of developing anything -- just some musings about empowering the individual in some kind of "it will all be so freeing" anarcho-socialism. From what Horetore summarizes in the OP, there apparently hasn't been a lot of movement forward. I presume that most of them got tenure writing a deconstruction of things, got comfortable with the coffee-house life and worshipful grad students, and went into lather, rinse, repeat mode. Understandable that Horetore should retreat from educators who have become intellectually moribund.

Intellectually, I think there is a lot more promise in Habermas and his decades long arguments with Derrida. Both accept the idea of a discursive reality and the value of deconstruction in uncovering deep structure/power dynamics, but taken together it is clear that both view the need to enact something better in the public sphere is worthwhile. I also enjoy Habermas' frequent efforts to center the discussion of discourse on the everyday interaction of people living their lives and NOT on an exclusive focus on the hidden power of the bourgeoisie.

As to individual rights, I myself have long been a Lockean -- Life, Liberty, Property -- and (as did Locke) view these as deriving from our spiritual connection to a higher power (still a practicing Catholic me). For those who reject the existence/relevance of such a higher power, however, there really is no other source for these rights than the basic social contract of society itself. Nevertheless, I believe that such rights are so integral to an effective society that I deem any social contract that does not promote them to be, on some level, flawed.

Academe can embody all of the greatness that is the quest for knowledge and all of the self-enacted irrelevance that is its downfall. I am an academic -- sheepskin from the University of Texas to prove it -- but not enamored of the ivory tower for its own sake. I have also mediated in a small claims court and sold life insurance on commission -- and I assure you that those experiences of having to go out and do were vital to making the theory I teach to students relevant (and allowing me to call bull excrement where the call is warranted).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Stranger

luckily nobody takes you serious either ;)

---

Doesn't stop him from endlessly trolling multiple sites for decades.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrossLOPER

Doesn't stop him from endlessly trolling multiple sites for decades.

---

I thought Frags was an .org exclusive, like our own flagship console title... Are you telling me he went cross-platform?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

I thought Frags was an .org exclusive, like our own flagship console title... Are you telling me he went cross-platform?

---

Clearly you haven't been keeping yourself up to date with the latest Fragony developments. Now I will not pretend that I am fully up to date either, but I do recall that at the very least a My Little Pony edition has been tried -- and was swiftly banned.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrossLOPER

Doesn't stop him from endlessly trolling multiple sites for decades.

---

I post here and on the Dutch site Geenstijl, and that's about it, shut up and kiss me, or just shut your eastblock squarhead

I'm a year into an English literature course and i still dont know what post modernism is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

I'm a year into an English literature course and i still dont know what post modernism is.

---

It's a movement of deconstructing modernism, see it as a reversed renaissance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

I first ran into Postmodernism in the late 1980s studying, believe it or not, organizational communication. Lyotard, Foucault, Jameson -- all of the "heroes" of '68. I found myself enthralled by the power of that critique -- deconstruction yielding insights into embedded structure/power dynamics, etc. I also found myself appalled that the postmodernists seemed to have nothing to DO with the theory in terms of developing anything -- just some musings about empowering the individual in some kind of "it will all be so freeing" anarcho-socialism. From what Horetore summarizes in the OP, there apparently hasn't been a lot of movement forward. I presume that most of them got tenure writing a deconstruction of things, got comfortable with the coffee-house life and worshipful grad students, and went into lather, rinse, repeat mode. Understandable that Horetore should retreat from educators who have become intellectually moribund.

Intellectually, I think there is a lot more promise in Habermas and his decades long arguments with Derrida. Both accept the idea of a discursive reality and the value of deconstruction in uncovering deep structure/power dynamics, but taken together it is clear that both view the need to enact something better in the public sphere is worthwhile. I also enjoy Habermas' frequent efforts to center the discussion of discourse on the everyday interaction of people living their lives and NOT on an exclusive focus on the hidden power of the bourgeoisie.

As to individual rights, I myself have long been a Lockean -- Life, Liberty, Property -- and (as did Locke) view these as deriving from our spiritual connection to a higher power (still a practicing Catholic me). For those who reject the existence/relevance of such a higher power, however, there really is no other source for these rights than the basic social contract of society itself. Nevertheless, I believe that such rights are so integral to an effective society that I deem any social contract that does not promote them to be, on some level, flawed.

Academe can embody all of the greatness that is the quest for knowledge and all of the self-enacted irrelevance that is its downfall. I am an academic -- sheepskin from the University of Texas to prove it -- but not enamored of the ivory tower for its own sake. I have also mediated in a small claims court and sold life insurance on commission -- and I assure you that those experiences of having to go out and do were vital to making the theory I teach to students relevant (and allowing me to call bull excrement where the call is warranted).

---

The social contract is an interesting thought experiment, but it can't be a justification for living under the rule of a government.

In fact, imo, there's nothing "contract" about a large group of people living under the rule of a small ruling class.

To illustrate how absurd the idea is that being ruled by a government is the result of some sort of agreement between all parties involved, I'll just quote Proudhon:

Quote:

---

To be governed is to be kept in sight, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right, nor the wisdom, nor the virtue to do so.... To be governed is to be at every operation, at every transaction, noted, registered, enrolled, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished. It is, under the pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be placed under contribution, trained, ransomed, exploited, monopolized, extorted, squeezed, mystified, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, despised, harassed, tracked, abused, clubbed, disarmed, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and, to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, outraged, dishonored. That is government; that is its justice; that is its morality. And to think that there are democrats among us who pretend that there is any good in government; Socialists who support this ignominy, in the name of Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity; proletarians who proclaim their candidacy for the Presidency of the Republic! Hypocrisy! ...

---

I'm not saying that I'm anti-government, I'm just saying that it is absurd that at some set point in time, we all agreed to be ruled by somebody else.

Post-modernism doesn't mean the same thing in literature, post-modernism is a period politically speaking. In literature it's a departure from 'classical' literature that owed it's legitimacy to the it's throwback on classical literature, the sctructure and themes changed. Modernism is a confusing word as it has nothing to do with anything we consider te be modern. Basicly, ancient style in everything, building styles, literatere, poetry, it all grasped back. Post-modernism is a departure from that. There are people that will absolutily disagree with this and link the period to the artstyle (all) and be mean to me. This is just one of the many viewpoints.

@Greyblades. Hope it helps.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

I'm not saying that I'm anti-government, I'm just saying that it is absurd that at some set point in time, we all agreed to be ruled by somebody else.

---

Why? Hierarchies are completely natural for our species(and many others).

Why is it any more absurd for us to have a government, than for the dominant male to lead a pack of wild animals?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Why? Hierarchies are completely natural for our species(and many others).

Why is it any more absurd for us to have a government, than for the dominant male to lead a pack of wild animals?

---

It is not absurd that there exists a ruling class. But it is absurd to state that we all agreed to be ruled. The ruling class just grabbed the power and governs the rest of us. Nobody ever aksed me if I agreed to be ruled and nobody ever asked my ancestors for their agreement neither.

We just happen to be ruled. There is no contract.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

It is not absurd that there exists a ruling class. But it is absurd to state that we all agreed to be ruled. The ruling class just grabbed the power and governs the rest of us. Nobody ever aksed me if I agreed to be ruled and nobody ever asked my ancestors for their agreement neither.

We just happen to be ruled. There is no contract.

---

How is that different to a dominant male in the wild?

Is it absurd that we are forced to eat as well?

The best way to ensure your representation, then, would of course be to seize the reins of power, destroy all traces of democracy, and rule as absolute dictator.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

How is that different to a dominant male in the wild?

---

We humans are a bit more complicated and there are a myriad of levels of powers and people or bodies exercising it, but in the end, there's not much difference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

We humans are a bit more complicated and there are a myriad of levels of powers and people or bodies exercising it, but in the end, there's not much difference.

---

So then, do you find it absurd that the dominant female lion leads the hunt?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

The best way to ensure your representation, then, would of course be to seize the reins of power, destroy all traces of democracy, and rule as absolute dictator.

---

In an ideal world, we would govern ourselves in mutual agreement.

But there will always be people who can't govern themselves and there will always be some who want to play boss. The worst people are those who belong in both those categories simultaneously.

Unfortunately, the majority of us hasn't evolved far enough to be able to live without somebody else telling them how, when, where and what to do, which makes lives sometimes unbearable for those indeed capable of living without government.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

So then, do you find it absurd that the dominant female lion leads the hunt?

---

The dominant one might the most capable, but that doesn't mean she always acts in everybody's best interest.

Given our selfish nature, the dominant one will make sure to have the most comfortable live, at the expense of the other members of the group.

From the perspective of the individual, it is absurd to agree to be ruled by somebody else, since that somebody else will serve his own self-interest, which isn't your self-interest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

The dominant one might the most capable, but that doesn't mean she always acts in everybody's best interest.

Given our selfish nature, the dominant one will make sure to have the most comfortable live, at the expense of the other members of the group.

From the perspective of the individual, it is absurd to agree to be ruled by somebody else, since that somebody else will serve his own self-interest, which isn't your self-interest.

---

So.... You consider nature to be absurd, then?

Can't you then say that it's absurd to be forced to eat?

Quote:

---

for those indeed capable of living without government.

---

If these are living with others "incapable of living without government", then I would argue that the former are indeed themselves incapable of living without government. Or are we talking about some sort of utopian society composed only of such high-class (in the other sense) individuals that they can all coexist in perfect cooperation and harmony? Cuz that sounds like communism. :wink:

Quote:

---

From the perspective of the individual, it is absurd to agree to be ruled by somebody else, since that somebody else will serve his own self-interest, which isn't your self-interest.

---

It's good enough that they work in some proportion toward an interest other than self-interest. Of course, that leads to problems concerning empathy, but more importantly the status of the definition of the 'common interest'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

So.... You consider nature to be absurd, then?

Can't you then say that it's absurd to be forced to eat?

---

That's not what I said HoreTore. You are missing my point. The existence of a ruling class isn't necessarily absurd in itself. But it is absurd to agree to be ruled by somebody else. There is no agreement, we undergo the dominance.

A contract, implies an agreement from all parties involved. To agree, you need to have a free will. If you are dominated, you no longer have a free will and thus, you can not agree.

That's why the idea of a social contract is nothing more than an interesting thought experiment. In reality, it doesn't make sense.

Quote:

---

But it is absurd to agree to be ruled by somebody else. There is no agreement, we undergo the dominance.

---

Then again, there is significant socialization toward an ideal of some overarching sociopolitical authority, at least in Western Europe.

Quote:

---

A contract, implies an agreement from all parties involved. To agree, you need to have a free will. If you are dominated, you no longer have a free will and thus, you can not agree.

---

What happens if neither the dominator nor the dominated have "free will"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

If these are living with others "incapable of living without government", then I would argue that the former are indeed themselves incapable of living without government. Or are we talking about some sort of utopian society composed only of such high-class (in the other sense) individuals that they can all coexist in perfect cooperation and harmony? Cuz that sounds like communism. :wink:

---

I am indeed talking about some sort of utopian society. Humanity is not ready yet for communism. If we apply communism now, the means of production will be controlled by a bureaucracy that will inevitably become corrupt instead of them now being controlled by capitalist pigs.

The people in power are the problem. They are by definition selfish and greedy bastards making the rest of us miserable.

How can one speak of a "social contract"?

Quote:

---

It's good enough that they work in some proportion toward an interest other than self-interest. Of course, that leads to problems concerning empathy, but more importantly the status of the definition of the 'common interest'.

---

So far, the proporition of self-interest has always been way larger than the other proportion. The ruler should be satisfied with his share, not more than that. Since humans aren't capable of being that altruistic, we'll continue to exist in our current miserable state of greedy and selfish bastards ruling us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

Then again, there is significant socialization toward an ideal of some overarching sociopolitical authority, at least in Western Europe.

---

The welfare state is being dismantled under the guise of financial crisis. Europe is not going the route of more socialism, on the contrary.

Quote:

---

What happens if neither the dominator nor the dominated have "free will"?

---

That's what I fear. The dominant members can't deny their own nature. They are like that, so they act like that.

Since the dominators are the dominant members of the species, their genes won't be eliminated. Since the selfish and greedy types are the dominant members of our species, we are doomed.

Quote:

---

How can one speak of a "social contract"?

---

Harking to my previous point on socialization: if some large proportion 'genuinely believes' in a social contract, doesn't it then exist by that virtue? Does it only count if they grow up in a Troglodytic society and then make an informed choice to be ruled, after first having experienced life not being ruled?

Quote:

---

The ruler should be satisfied with his share

---

Harking back to the other point on definition of interest: what constitutes one's share, and who decides? Isn't it "absurd" to posit that if humans were 'perfect' they would just know what a 'fair share' is?

Quote:

---

Since the dominators are the dominant members of the species, their genes won't be eliminated. Since the selfish and greedy types are the dominant members of our species, we are doomed.

---

So would you welcome for governments to invest in cybernetics, genetics, and neuroscience research directly with the goal of producing a successor-race to humanity?

Quote:

---

The welfare state is being dismantled under the guise of financial crisis. Europe is not going the route of more socialism, on the contrary.

---

It's still a very strong sentiment I'm sure, that the government, regardless of its size, has some worth and institutional authority.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

Harking to my previous point on socialization: if some large proportion 'genuinely believes' in a social contract, doesn't it then exist by that virtue? Does it only count if they grow up in a Troglodytic society and then make an informed choice to be ruled, after first having experienced life not being ruled?

---

Is undergoing power aka being ruled necessary to make progress?

Is oppression a necessary tool to make society/humanity move forward and become more advanced?

If the majority believes in it, then they are misguided or don't truly understand what they are believing in. They should urgently read my posts in this thread to see the light ~;)

Also, believing in something doesn't automatically means it exists.

Quote:

---

Harking back to the other point on definition of interest: what constitutes one's share, and who decides? Isn't it "absurd" to posit that if humans were 'perfect' they would just know what a 'fair share' is?

---

One thing's for sure: as long as there is a ruling class, the shares won't be fair.

When you enter the state in which there is no more dominance and thus no greed and selfishness, the shares will become fair, since everybody will only take what they need instead of piling up.

Quote:

---

Also, believing in something doesn't automatically means it exists.

---

As in, a social contract is something that can only exist by the virtue of being believed in.

Quote:

---

Is undergoing power aka being ruled necessary to make progress?

---

Whether misguided or not, there is as I said a popular sense of innate authority. That does mitigate the exercise of power or coercion.

Quote:

---

the shares will become fair, since everybody will only take what they need instead of piling up.

---

But can and could and would people accurately assess what their share should fairly be, assuming that it's possible?

Would everyone else agree with each other's assessment?

Quote:

---

Is undergoing power aka being ruled necessary to make progress?

Is oppression a necessary tool to make society/humanity move forward and become more advanced?

---

Well, I'm not sure about this whole "progress" and "advancement" business, unless it includes the wholesale replacement of humanity.

I do think it's necessary for the maintenance of the current world-system and our current (relatively-high) standards of living - otherwise, we'd all just return to small-scale agricultural communalism, and the cycle would turn all over again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

So would you welcome for governments to invest in cybernetics, genetics, and neuroscience research directly with the goal of producing a successor-race to humanity?

---

Do you trust those who are the problem to create a race that is not like them?

Quote:

---

It's still a very strong sentiment I'm sure, that the government, regardless of its size, has some worth and institutional authority.

---

Authority?

We don't obey because they have authority, we obey because they have power.

Also, the government is just one body holding power. All power is not exclusively in the hands of governments, that would be a gross misconception. There are plently of other players holding several degrees of power. Think of media, banks and other multinationals as the most obvious examples.

Quote:

---

We don't obey because they have authority, we obey because they have power.

---

I disagree that this is the factor behind most behavior with respect to government structures (at least in Western Europe). Most of the people who don't cheat on their taxes don't avoid doing so out of fear of punishment, but out of a conviction that it is wrong; this is so with the other 'bureaucratic' crimes, as well as with major crimes such as rape and murder (though with things like that, it's not really a belief that it's the government that is being wronged...).

Quote:

---

Think of media, banks and other multinationals as the most obvious examples.

---

I think we're using power and authority differently. These don't have coercive power to any great extent, at least not directly.

Quote:

---

Do you trust those who are the problem to create a race that is not like them?

---

Surely not. That's why they'd have to delude themselves into thinking it's to create a military advantage or somesuch.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

As in, a social contract is something that can only exist by the virtue of being believed in.


Whether misguided or not, there is as I said a popular sense of innate authority. That does mitigate the exercise of power or coercion.

---

The word "misguided" is crucial. There is no free will, when you are misguided. There is no agreement, when one of the parties doesn't have free will. And thus, there is no contract.

Quote:

---

But can and could and would people accurately assess what their share should fairly be, assuming that it's possible?

Would everyone else agree with each other's assessment?

---

We're talking about an utopian society in which people will just take what they need and in which the group will make sure there is enough for everbody.

If you exclude the selfish and the greedy, then nobody will take more. In such an ideal society, people would indeed accurately assess what their fare share is.

But as I said above, we will never achieve that state.

Quote:

---

Well, I'm not sure about this whole "progress" and "advancement" business, unless it includes the wholesale replacement of humanity.

I do think it's necessary for the maintenance of the current world-system and our current (relatively-high) standards of living - otherwise, we'd all just return to small-scale agricultural communalism, and the cycle would turn all over again.

---

Ah, Montmorency, but perhaps returning to small-scale agricultural communalism would be, in fact, progress.

I believe it was the grand philosopher @Husar who once said in this very same subforum that humans just aren't fit to organise themselves in large societies. We are still not much more than cavemen. Cavemen with smartphones.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

I disagree that this is the factor behind most behavior with respect to government structures (at least in Western Europe). Most of the people who don't cheat on their taxes don't avoid doing so out of fear of punishment, but out of a conviction that it is wrong; this is so with the other 'bureaucratic' crimes, as well as with major crimes such as rape and murder (though with things like that, it's not really a belief that it's the government that is being wronged...).

---

Cheating on taxes is a national sport in Belgium...

The only reason why most of us don't, is because it's very hard for the little man to cheat on his taxes without getting caught. But most "little men" I know will inform themselves on how to, legally, pay the minimum amount of taxes possible.

I'm not sure if Belgium is representative for the rest of Europe in that regard, but as far as the heart of Europe is concerned, people hate paying taxes and will do everything they can to avoid them without getting caught. Fear of punishment is the main reason why most people don't cheat. The other reason is that most taxes, certainly for employees, are directly taken at the source, so you simply can't avoid them.

Quote:

---

I think we're using power and authority differently. These don't have coercive power to any great extent, at least not directly.

---

Does it matter if their coercive power is direct or indirect? And do you truly believe media and multinationals do not have coercive power? It's not always necessary to have a military type waving with a gun to force you to do or not to do something.

Quote:

---

Surely not. That's why they'd have to delude themselves into thinking it's to create a military advantage or somesuch.

---

You can say a lot about the people who are dominant, but they are not stupid. You won't delude the ruling class. It usually goes the other way around.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

Ah, Montmorency, but perhaps returning to small-scale agricultural communalism would be, in fact, progress.

I believe it was the grand philosopher @Husar who once said in this very same subforum that humans just aren't fit to organise themselves in large societies. We are still not much more than cavemen. Cavemen with smartphones.

---

I have probably said that somewhere between a lot of sarcasm. It was the great googler @Lemur who once linked us to information about the Monkeysphere, an explanation of which can be found here.

Now I have never forgotten about the Monkeysphere because I think the more we are aware of it, the more we can attempt to mitigate its implications and work towards a working OWG. The natural restriction is just something we need to get out of the way just like our natural inability to fly...

Andres:

I view the concept of the Social Contract more as a label rather than as a contract in the sense of known terms, informed consent, etc. The consent of a ruled class for the dominion of a ruling class is almost always tacit and that consent is almost always extended in exchange for security. It is certainly possible for a ruling class to manufacture that consent through security, panem et circum, and the like -- it worked for Republican Rome for more than 4 centuries. The idea of a social contract does NOT require that contract to be of equal benefit -- it merely describes a societal arrangement that all agree, however tacitly and unwillingly, to continue to support. When that support is withdrawn we enter a period of Hobbesian naturalism.

Deconstruction is actually a very useful tool in uncovering the actual components of the social contract governing a society -- and yes, a ruling class does have a vested interest in keeping the details of that "contract" a bit fuzzy in their efforts to manufacture consent -- by questioning the palliative labels and digging into the dynamics of power as practiced. I was arguing that Post-modernists tend to STOP there, rather than actively advancing a new "social contract" assuming that we will all somehow morph into some kind of communard extended village of the future thing. That's just the same old "historical inevitability" crap that Marx peddled -- and it comes up a cropper.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Andres:

I view the concept of the Social Contract more as a label rather than as a contract in the sense of known terms, informed consent, etc. The consent of a ruled class for the dominion of a ruling class is almost always tacit and that consent is almost always extended in exchange for security. It is certainly possible for a ruling class to manufacture that consent through security, panem et circum, and the like -- it worked for Republican Rome for more than 4 centuries. The idea of a social contract does NOT require that contract to be of equal benefit -- it merely describes a societal arrangement that all agree, however tacitly and unwillingly, to continue to support. When that support is withdrawn we enter a period of Hobbesian naturalism.

---

With that part of your post, you highlight one of the problems I have with a lot of philosophers. When confronted with critique, they play word games and attribute meanings to certain words that they do not have in the normal use of language. With a bit of good will, you can see a similarity with the tension "ivory tower academic - real world practician".

You can twist words as much as you want, but the word contract implies agreement. Sure, you can have a valid contract between parties in a different position of power, but the difference between those exercising power and those not is so large, that the powerful is capable of simply imposing his will on the other party so that the other party no longer has a free will and can no longer agree. If the ruled one disagrees, the ruling one will either force him to agree or eliminate him.

The use of the word "social contract" is wrong. Not only is it wrong in the sense that it is not correct, it is also wrong in the sense that it, wrongfully, implies a justification for the existence of a ruling class. It is wrong because it gives the ruling class a legitimacy it does not have. The people being ruled never agreed to be ruled and thus there can be no contract and also no justification for the ruler in the sense that he got his power from the people. He did not.

It's not just wrong, it is also a dangerous lie. You make people believe they have to respect the social contract, because they agreed to it. You make people believe they agreed to slavery. But they never agreed to it, so they don't need to respect it either. Of course, the ruling class defends the idea of the social contract and of course they will insist that it is a true and correct concept. Because it's a theory that gives the impression that they have the right to oppress you. They don't, however.

Quote:

---

Deconstruction is actually a very useful tool in uncovering the actual components of the social contract governing a society -- and yes, a ruling class does have a vested interest in keeping the details of that "contract" a bit fuzzy in their efforts to manufacture consent -- by questioning the palliative labels and digging into the dynamics of power as practiced. I was arguing that Post-modernists tend to STOP there, rather than actively advancing a new "social contract" assuming that we will all somehow morph into some kind of communard extended village of the future thing. That's just the same old "historical inevitability" crap that Marx peddled -- and it comes up a cropper.

---

The only interest the ruling class has, is to rule.

From what I remember of that part of the introductions to various branches of philosophy we got, I'd dare say postmodernists mostly play word games nobody truly gets and therefore, they are the worst kind of philosophers. Most of them would've better quoted Wittgenstein "what we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence" and should've stopped right there.

Luckily, the present day postmodernist no longer has to write his essays himself; it suffices to click this link.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

people would indeed accurately assess what their fare share is.

---

But what does that really mean? I just don't suppose it's possible - or perhaps it doesn't even make conceptual sense in the first place.

Quote:

---

Ah, Montmorency, but perhaps returning to small-scale agricultural communalism would be, in fact, progress.

---

But as I hinted, what's to stop the cycle from swinging back in the direction of centralization. It's not conceivable to me how in a return to such a lifestyle we could retain most of the technological innovation from the past three-or-four hundred years. Coupled with the attendant loss of historical awareness that I think would follow, it would be not too much different than Sisyphus being pushed back a few meters. Also, don't forget that such a transition would entail the deaths of hundreds of millions of moderns. I just can't see a scenario where this process moves along without a nuclear exchange between nations occurring at some point.

Quote:

---

Cheating on taxes is a national sport in Belgium...

---

I'll take the easy way out and say that most people (generally speaking) are socialized toward disapproval of: considering the police as "pigs"; shooting at representatives of the national postal service or census bureau; questioning the basic legitimacy of law in general (while taking their own state as a democracy).

Quote:

---

And do you truly believe media and multinationals do not have coercive power?

---

Well, let's take "coercive power" as the ability to obtain concessions from a group or individual by the explicit or implicit (i.e. the 'victim' perceives a threat and/or knows of the coercer's capacities) resort to threat toward the 'victim's' person or economic status. In that case, yes, the media and large corporations can be included. But the means matter; only governments - corporations in the West are excluded here - have coercive power backed by destructive force toward the implementation of threats. Though on that note, for some countries it is indeed the case that the Mafia are major wielders of coercive power.

Quote:

---

You won't delude the ruling class.

---

They're not actually all that brilliant, if you ask me.

Quote:

---

You make people believe they agreed to slavery.

---

But I'll say it as I have said elsewhere on the board: the bondage we are born into is the bondage we cannot see.

Sounds like the system is working just fine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

The use of the word "social contract" is wrong. Not only is it wrong in the sense that it is not correct, it is also wrong in the sense that it, wrongfully, implies a justification for the existence of a ruling class. It is wrong because it gives the ruling class a legitimacy it does not have. The people being ruled never agreed to be ruled and thus there can be no contract and also no justification for the ruler in the sense that he got his power from the people. He did not.

It's not just wrong, it is also a dangerous lie. You make people believe they have to respect the social contract, because they agreed to it. You make people believe they agreed to slavery. But they never agreed to it, so they don't need to respect it either. Of course, the ruling class defends the idea of the social contract and of course they will insist that it is a true and correct concept. Because it's a theory that gives the impression that they have the right to oppress you. They don't, however.

---

Your idea of the social contract is slightly off.

It has been defined differently by various philosphers, but generally speaking it amounts to: why do people submit themselves to laws? Why should they respect them? (other than that God told them to; that was getting old)

The reason is that an existence without laws is a terrible one, and that people voluntarily agree to be constrained by law because they're generally better off that way. Of course, you'd need to have an authority to enforce said laws, too. Locke viewed the social contract as an agreement between the people and the government. Most other philosophers stressed that it's foremost a contract between the people.

Granted; it's a fiction and the guys who theorized about this were aware of that. But if a bunch of people got stranded on a remote island it's perfectly plausible that it would work out just that way, and it's a valid reason to justify the obligation to respect the law.

Andres:

I get your point. While I was "parsing" things a bit, the intent was not to obfuscate. "We get the government we deserve" through such "contracts." Those in power tend to want to reify that power -- no surprise there.

For me, the most beautiful words regarding government were those that begat my country:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Declaration of Independence

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

---

Everybody always trots out the first of these three sentences, but the second two are as, and arguably more, important.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

I'm a year into an English literature course and i still dont know what post modernism is.

---

The shortest version: It's to challenge your preconceptions. What is art? Does it change on context? (Yes). In literature: Deconstruction, Meta concepts, etc are port-modernism.

Since it's oldish most of the good stuff coming from that has been mined out already.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

The dominant one might the most capable, but that doesn't mean she always acts in everybody's best interest.

Given our selfish nature, the dominant one will make sure to have the most comfortable live, at the expense of the other members of the group.

From the perspective of the individual, it is absurd to agree to be ruled by somebody else, since that somebody else will serve his own self-interest, which isn't your self-interest.

---

Those who find it absurd to agree to be ruled by somebody else is called "my way or the highway" people. Try getting 3-4 of these to cooperate. Even most people who prefer to rule can accept getting ruled depending on the circumstances. It's an essential skill for a cooperative species.

Most of people prefer to be ruled because it's easier. Some never wants to rule, some only takes over a power vacuum or only rules when it interests them. The social contract basically boils down to what those who prefer to be ruled can accept, comparing to either being in power or trying to ursurp the power.

Rule 3 people and they won't accept that you don't do any work outside the planning. Rule 1000 people and most of them will accept that delegation.

Pay your taxes or try to rebel and survive the cutthroat hell if the rebellion is won.

Why is it that those who campaign against the elites and ruling class act so much like those they claim to hate?

Skewing the public as ignorant, deluded individuals who don't realize the wool has been pulled over them and the ruling class as intellectual ubermench is the height of elitist.

It's impossible for someone to rationalize that to live under a democratic government with a fair share of flaws is better than my deconstructed-reconstructed enlightened society, they must all be stupid and don't understand the concept of liberty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Who let you into higher education as a high school dropout?

---

a good friend of mine went to uni with me at the grand age of 27 with nothing but half a dozen average o-levels grades (GCSE equivalent but more valuable), and he left with an mENG in software engineering. now a very talented software engineer.

he came from a (welsh) valleys working class family in the seventies that had never sent a kid to uni, and decided to give it a crack after his girlfriend dumped him, his porsche 928 (the cheesy ones) blew up, and he was laid off from his PVC window factory job. i believe it's called social mobility. ;)

not having four A* a-levels is not necessarily any good reason for a Uni to turn down a good candidate.

on the other hand, sadly as seems the case with the big H, the uni is not always worthy of the talent of its students.

Actually, the reason I got into higher education without completing high school is because I did what you spend three years doing in about a week and a half.

I did the exams of every subject instead of following classes. I did half of them to get away from military service(the part called "mønstring" in Norwegian, not sure what it's called in english; it's when you have to line every item the platoon has for some idiot to count them), the other half I did half-drunk a year later.

you are absolutely brilliant. :bow:

I'm far from an A* student myself, I was just surprised how a dropout could get into higher education given that if you tried that here you'd hit an indestructible beaureaucratic wall that would bar you from entering unless you could show the necessary papers.

And I see that you did indeed get the necessary papers. My world view has been saved.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

... I did half of them to get away from military service(the part called "mønstring" in Norwegian, not sure what it's called in english; it's when you have to line every item the platoon has for some idiot to count them)...

---

Either referred to as an inspection or, somewhat dismissively, as a chickens**t exercise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

... I did half of them to get away from military service(the part called "mønstring" in Norwegian, not sure what it's called in english; it's when you have to line every item the platoon has for some idiot to count them)...

---

Either referred to as an inspection or, somewhat dismissively, as a chickens**t exercise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Either referred to as an inspection or, somewhat dismissively, as a chickens**t exercise.

---

I remember when we found a box of empty magazines. I jokingly asked the sergeant whether we should line all the magazines individually, or just line the boxes. His answer was to "cut silly questions". We should line the boxes.

An hour or so later, we got ordered to line each magazine individually.... That was fun!

The oral exam I had that week actually only took half an hour. Strangely, I was missing the entire day...