English, philosophy, art history, and film studies are interesting to me but I'm also weeaboo trash into East Asian cultural studies.
What the fuck do I choose, /lit/. Any essential texts in any of these subjects that'd give a better picture of the field?
(Doing STEMfag double major ftr.)
Also what are your major(s) and what are you doing now?
>>8091864
English here. But I have enough room in my schedule to take classes in creative writing, film, East Asian studies, and anthropology as well.
smbc is even worse than xkcd
>>8091864
>>8091906
This is correct. Funny how stemfags never understand this.
It's a bit embarassing to say but I want to become as close to a well-balanced renaissance man as it's possible for a single person to be nowadays.
So, looking at all the stuff I needed to learn, I decided that STEM would be the most difficult to learn independently. Literature, art, and fitness I'm attempting to self-teach, but with science where it is today you pretty much can't do that.
I wanted my degree to be as wide-reaching and difficult as I could get without going as abstract as math, so I picked physics. And, honestly, because most engineers and cs majors are unbearable. So far I love it.
I don't know much about getting a degree in humanities, so I can't help there. If I get a PhD and get enough money to settle down, I might be one of those old guys who goes back to get another bachelors in english or something like that.
>>8091906
>>8091917
>le stem is just as subjective as humanities meme
>>8091962
It's more subjective, actually.
Starting as a sophomore so i'm able to double major and still graduate in four years.
Honestly, i would like to find a way to make a living from creative writing, but I'm probably not at that skill level yet, and (if i ever reach that level)it will take a while.
Right now I'm telling the school i'm majoring in Linguistics, but i'm debating on what to add onto that.
Physics will be interesting and challenging as well as financially viable.
Neuroscience will be very interesting, but probably not financially securing.
Philosophy will probably teach me the most i can use towards my writing, but a philosophy is a philosophy degree.
What do i do /lit/? :,(
>>8091992
fucking materialists
>>8091864
>What's your major
Music theory
>how'd you choose it, /lit/?
Kind of by accident.
>>8091962
3/10
>>8092017
how well can you tell if an instrument is on key (flat or sharp)?
Will be a senior in the fall double-majoring in English & History, and then I take phil courses for all my history electives.
I started with History and eventually figured out sophomore year that I really enjoyed reading and thinking abt lit, so I picked up English.
Now English is sort of my main thing, but History keeps me fairly honest on the hard research side.
I'll be applying to graduate programs in the fall.
English major with education option here. I chose it because I want to teach young people how to love reading. I doubt it will get through to them but i'll try anyway.
>>8091991
I really don't understand this
What's an established scientific concept you'd like to do argue is wrong, anon? Electromagnetism? Relativity? The Krebs cycle?
Unless you're one of those "everything is a lie dude r we even real tho" guys there's no room for debate.
>>8092028
Depends. If what I'm listening to is tonal, and the instrument isn't washed out by a large ensemble, and there isn't a lot of space registerally, then I'm pretty good at being able to spot out of tune instruments within a few cents.
>>8092039
all of them, they're based upon presumptions and thereby pseudo-science (they require an un-confirmable grab at an exterior)
Aerospace Engineering. I like planes and rockets and Tommy Pynch.
>>8092049
>typed the technologically illiterate anon from his computer onto the fucking internet
>>8092057
Empiricism doesn't confirm empiricism; i.e. my observation of machine A does not confirm the realness of all other empirical phenomena or any empirical phenomena (or realness in general)
Try again boy, I've worked in STEM longer than you've been pubescent and I'm not even that old; I know all these crap arguments and basically just ignore them if I wanted to, because I'd first have to accept the premise (logical grounds in general) that they are built on to even begin any kind of argument (rather than just a one-sided perpetration)
>>8092069
er, I meant one-sided projection.
>>8092069
I do not understand how someone lives their life when they don't believe that anything their senses perceive is real. Where's the line between solipsism and mental illness?
>>8092039
The problem, anon, is that you cannot, no matter how hard you try, conclusively prove something, because every proof requires another proof proving that that proof is valid, and every proof proving another proof is valid requires a proof proving it is valid, and so on and so on, until you have an infinite regression. Now, you could go around this by suggesting that the proof itself is its own proof, but this is circular reasoning, which is, like an infinite regression, logically unsound. No matter how you crack at it, nothing can be definitively proven, meaning every scientific concept and theory you can think of is an assumption.
Advertising
I don't know.
>>8092084
>if u dnt accept my ideology ur mentally ill
the existence of 'senses' is also empirical, anon
empiricism does not confirm empiricism
Marketing.
I like business stuff and as far as literature goes I can read on my own time
>>8092057
>>8092069
just gonna make this fight a little shorter
empiricism is what we like to call a "circular argument"
scientists generally refuse to accept any such as proof or evidence of a given state, except for when it supports their own preconceived notion(s)
e.g.
invalid:
>everything I say is true
>it's true because everything I say is true
"valid" (to scientists):
>everything I say is true
>it's true because everything I say is exactly what Person 2 says
>everything person 2 says is true
>therefore everything I say is true
Then it becomes recursive as they cite earlier and earlier "Person 2"s in a desperate attempt to justify empiricism.
Environmental science. My ultimate plan is move the fuck out of US, and live in Latin America among my people, reading Borges, and chewing coca leaves.
>>8091864
Industrial Engineering and Data Analytics
I want to make money after I graduate.
>>8092088
Ok. So in your view, nothing can be proven. Why debate anything? Why search for truth? Do you just live a life of hedonism?
I have absolutely no point of reference for how someone can live when they doubt the existence of their own self. Everyone has their "what if we live in the matrix dude weed lmao" moment when they're 16, but to pretend you exist on some plane beyond the material world and that nothing you see is real is a completely useless idea.
>>8092092
>>8092104
This honestly seems like philosophy attempting to keep relevance by sticking its tongue out and saying "prove it lol" to science as a whole.
>>8092123
>prove it lol
Burden of proof is on ___ ________?
Let's play hangman; figure out what I wrote. Or, you know, use your head to figure out what I meant.
>>8092123
>This honestly seems like philosophy attempting to keep relevance by sticking its tongue out and saying "prove it lol" to science as a whole.
you'd be wrong.
>Do you just live a life of hedonism?
autism; you live a life of hedonism though.
>but to pretend you exist on some plane beyond the material world and that nothing you see is real is a completely useless idea.
your presuming acceptance of this rhetoric, presuming existence, and arguing on a singular stance of mindless pragmaticism.
>>8092123
>This honestly seems like philosophy attempting to keep relevance
This is a stem undergrad in a nutshell. What a post.
I majored in English and Cinema Studies (Film).
For English start with the Greeks ;) But actually just read some classic lit, because that's what you'll read in any intro class.
For film, most intro. classes will just run through basic film terms while showing examples in class. Maybe you'll get into some basic theory. Read Peter Lehman's introduction to film theory to get a taste of what that's all about.
Being into anime isn't necessarily a negative thing. I'm going for my masters and part of what I'll be researching is anime.
>>8092111
>money
literally the worst reason to get a degree. if you go to college to get a job, then you're a fucking lost cause.
>>8092140
>presuming
>existence
Jesus fucking christ
Yes, I presumed existence. Seemed like a safe thing to assume. Here I am, anon.
>>8092147
>I'm going for my masters and part of what I'll be researching is anime.
atleast you are aware that you're producing worthless stuff that will influence nothing on the field. knowing your mediocrity is sometimes good
>>8092141
Philosophy stopped mattering when philosophers ceased contributing to other fields.
Absolutely nothing is gained from the masturbatory shitshow of modern philosophy.
But yknow, I can't empirically prove that can I :^)
>>8092155
Where did you get that from my post?
>>8092149
>Seemed like a safe thing to assume
Wrong. I'm fairly sure they teach this shit in high school now, don't they? I mean, really.
>>8092123
>>8092104
Wait a goddamn second.
I don't know all the math behind those principles, but I know that even when they don't have phenomena explained 100%, its been tested enough WITHOUT EVIDENCE AGAINST IT that they feel safe in saying that they can assume the principle is true. That doesn't mean that the proof proves that the principle is unshakably true, but that since the chances that the proof against it failed to appear after all of the tests that were done means that until it is recorded that there is clear evidence against said principle, the principle is, in effect, true.
Also, even though it could be that our senses are sensing things that aren't real since they are imperfect and whatnot, does it matter if we have no way to tell the difference? With the matrix as an example, maybe we do live in a simulated universe, and all that would entail. But if we have no reason to believe otherwise, why should we act any differently than if it were real? Unless we are presented with clear evidence that we're in a simulation, it is, in effect, the same exact thing as being in the "real" world.
Do I have this all wrong somehow? Am I missing something?
>>8092160
>Philosophy stopped mattering when philosophers ceased contributing to other fields.
Yikes.
>>8092123
>Why debate anything?
>Why search for truth?
Because a pointless existence doesn't have to be a bad one.
>Do you just live a life of hedonism?
I don't know how you would draw this conclusion. I wake up; I eat breakfast; I go to classes; I talk to people; I read; I go to bed--I do everything a normal human being would do, but the difference is: I don't need to play pretend to keep on going.
>but to pretend you exist on some plane beyond the material world and that nothing you see is real is a completely useless idea.
I don't. I believe we all live in an objective reality, and that we just can't accurately perceive it.
>philosophy attempting to keep relevance
I don't understand why people think this. Science--more accurately, empiricism--is based on fundamental philosophical assumptions, so, without philosophy, science can't exist.
>>8092148
>literally the worst reason to get a degree
said the person who isn't going to earn any money
>>8092165
from this part: "part of what I'll be researching is anime"
I went to college on an athletics scholarship. After two years I quit sports and became a philosophy major. Had to give up my full scholarship and get a catering job (I eventually got a job as a writing tutor though). Now I read books and browse /lit/. No regrets.
>>8092149
hurr its safe cuz i sed thing i talk so i r reel
are you even trying now you stupid cunt.
>>8092160
>gained
>contributed
wow you're projecting pragmatism (philosophy) onto the whole of philosophy
>>8092169
>its been tested enough WITHOUT EVIDENCE AGAINST IT that they feel safe in saying that they can assume the principle is true
This presumes that evidence (observation) is correct.
>>8092183
>this presumes that evidence is correct
Yes, because not presuming that prevents any statement from being made on anything.
You're no different from a child constantly asking 'why' until your babysitter gets tired of answering.
>Chemical Engineering
In short - I enjoy it, and it pays the bills. My main way to explain it to other people is my passion vs. my dedication - I enjoy being passionate about literature, philosophy, history, higher level math and physics, yet I employ my skills as an engineer to pay the bills and as a form of creativity in my everyday life that I enjoy.
I've now been up 48 hours, so that might sound kind of bad, but just bear with me.
>>8092199
So you admit that there is no sound basis upon which even logic, the father of science, can stand.
>>8092199
>statements are good
lol
you see the problem of the positivist, or even the rationalist in science,:
doubt is permitted only when the doubt is judged acceptable by the scientist [what is acceptable is what makes you have faith in what the scientist claims]:
-if you doubt too little from the statements of people talking to you, the scientist will call you a religious, a sheep, a guy spending his time on metaphysical theses which are disconnected form the reality [the reality that the scientist posits]
-if you doubt too much from the statements of the scientist, the scientist will wave then the card of nominalism, anti-realism, relativism/nihilism/solipsism and terrorize you, since the scientists have no other means, than terrorism, to validate their position
the fact that you have faith in mathematical models to tell you about ''the world'' (which is an inductive concept, like all concepts) is already a philosophical stance. but scientists cannot justify this stance and they become very upset as soon as they are recalled that they fail at justifying their claims that their inductions and deductions are more than conventions inside some formal language.
So they even say explicitly that they are not paid to justify their faith and that this justification does not matter anyway (because they choose to claim that ''science works, look it gives us computers and cars :DDDD'' which is nothing but feeding our hedonism and the statement itself remains very dubious)
>>8092212
No, but is that the conclusion you're trying to reach? That all science is bullshit?
How far down does the criticism go, then? Are you saying that mankind cannot know for sure if 1+2=3?
My idea of science is that it is the system where we find the best possible explanation for the world around us by observing it. Claiming that it's impossible to know anything about the world because every single human's senses might be lying is just willingly putting on blinders and retreating into fantasy.
>>8092172
>Science--more accurately, empiricism--is based on fundamental philosophical assumptions
Lel no. what you call empiricism
what you call empiricism is empiricism done by rationalists, aka people who love to speculate, know more or less that their speculations are sterile, are always disappointing, more so once they compare them to their fantasy of the ''empirical world'' through their other fantasy of ''empirical proof'' and ''thought experiment'', but still choose to cling to their speculations in claiming that they are not able to stop speculating, therefore that ''not speculating is impossible, it is mandatory to speculate'' (plus we are paid for this now) so let's continue.
What they say is that their rationalism remains bounded by their hedonism, even though they love to claim otherwise, and yet always fail to justify that their speculation goes beyond hedonism. The more they work on their speculations, the more they show that Rationalist-scientists choose to dwell in the past to have a better future. Nothing more nihilistic than this.
what you call empiricism is empiricism done by rationalists, aka people who love to speculate, know more or less that their speculations are sterile, are always disappointing, more so once they compare them to their fantasy of the ''empirical world'' through their other fantasy of ''empirical proof'' and ''thought experiment'', but still choose to cling to their speculations in claiming that they are not able to stop speculating, therefore that ''not speculating is impossible, it is mandatory to speculate'' (plus we are paid for this now) so let's continue.
What they say is that their rationalism remains bounded by their hedonism, even though they love to claim otherwise, and yet always fail to justify that their speculation goes beyond hedonism. The more they work on their speculations, the more they show that Rationalist-scientists choose to dwell in the past to have a better future. Nothing more nihilistic than this.
It is fairly easy: logic and any rationalism is a disease embraced by people who despise enough empiricism to choose to dwell into their mental proliferation, then trying to claim that their speculations are less speculative and nihilistic than what they are, typically in fantasizing about speculations which give access to truth, reality or even back to their fantasy of empirical world, but this time with a better hedonism for everybody (because pains must be hated and pleasure be loved).
>>8092217
Right on the ball. Basically end of conversation.
>>8092183
Well, theres the issue I have.
Are you trying to say that the observation isn't necessarily correct because
A) the things that people observe aren't necessarily what is actually happening- because the human senses can be tricked and might be perceiving an entirely unreal situation?
Or B)someone didn't record their data correctly, for whatever reason? I assume this isn't what you mean, but I wanted to put it out there, to make sure I understand what's being said
Alternatively, C) something else I'm not getting?
I think its obvious you mean A. If you do, and you're saying that the perceived universe is likely (or absolutely, I don't know the details there) flawed in some/every way, then I need a better explanation of this mindset, because the way I see it that view defeats itself.
If you can't accept the things you perceive as "real", then you have no sure way of knowing what is or isn't actually happening- you can't even be sure that the world you perceive ISN'T real. If you can't be sure of any of it, then what do you do? Why do you do it? You can't just sit in one place and do nothing.
The way I see it, your only choice is to act upon the world around you as if it IS real, because whether its real or not makes no difference. If it isnt real, it makes no difference whether you act or not- and if it is real, and you do nothing, then its just a stupid waste of life.
Therefore, it would make sense to accept the world you see as real. Including your observations and the observations of others.
Did i fuck up somewhere?
math and philosophy.
it's interesting. i also like poetry and fiction that makes me feel like i'm reading poetry.
>>8092217
>psychology and sociology are more "complex" than physics and math
>>8092246
Stop before you make yourself look like a fool.
>>8092229
>No, but is that the conclusion you're trying to reach? That all science is bullshit?
Who said I'm trying to reach a conclusion?
>How far down does the criticism go, then? Are you saying that mankind cannot know for sure if 1+2=3?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_regress
>Claiming that it's impossible to know anything about the world because every single human's senses might be lying is just willingly putting on blinders and retreating into fantasy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance#Argument_from_incredulity.2FLack_of_imagination
I'm dead serious, I learned this shit in 9th grade. Where the hell did you go to school?
>>8092217
The difference lies in the real-world consequences of your viewpoints.
Doubt it all you want, science achieves results that are tangible in the world as we perceive it. Your phone's gps works because of a giant network of satellites objectively proving that special and general relativity and innumerable other scientific concepts are valid. The only way around that is the "but we can't trust our senses" argument, in which case debating anything at all is completely pointless.
>>8092268
>tangible
>results
why is this good
>>8092271
I didn't say it was good, I said it was evidence that the scientific framework is not invalid.
>>8092260
I'm imagining a very frustrated freshman math teacher trying to teach a class while you shout about how he can't prove that algebra is valid
>>8091864
I have a b.a. in music composition and 2/3rds of an MFA in fiction..
i'm not really good at a lot of stuff and i was pretty lazy and stupid out of high school. so now i'm just, you know, trying to make it work.
>>8092273
"willingly putting on blinders and retreating into fantasy" also provides tangible results. It's almost as if... wait? Could it be? MASAKA?
>empiricism is what we like to call a "circular argument"
>scientists generally refuse to accept any such as proof or evidence of a given state, except for when it supports their own preconceived notion(s)
The first thing I said in this thread is still very much valid to your current argument. Huh, but that would mean... that also...
>Then it becomes recursive as they cite earlier and earlier "Person 2"s in a desperate attempt to justify empiricism.
Come back tomorrow, I kinda wanna see another troll thread like this.
>>8092282
You missed the point entirely.
I didn't say it was bad or good, the idea is that if it were INVALID, the internet wouldn't allow us to talk right now.
>>8092276
My 40 year old freshman math teacher watched anime on his laptop whenever he wasn't teaching. He got caught trying to perv on some 15 year old girl or something, and was fired. One year later, he married an 18 year old Japanese girl.
Even if I *had* shouted about the validity of algebra or reality, I doubt I could have made things worse.
>>8092292
>>8092282
>>8092284
>>8092246
>using established algorithms and following procedure to solve math problem is more difficult than analyzing, recording, deconstructing personalities, etc
HAR HAR
>>8092284
>"willingly putting on blinders and retreating into fantasy" also provides tangible results. It's almost as if... wait? Could it be? MASAKA?
But those tangible results do not depend on the validity of the ideas you espouse. Closing your eyes has consequences that don't depend on the daydream you have when they're closed.
>The first thing I said in this thread is still very much valid to your current argument.
Claiming that all possible arguments are undefendable does nothing but kill all possible discourse. There was literally nothing anyone could say without you declaring yourself right because "u cant proov it."
>>8092306
they think difficult means complex
>>8092309
>discourse is good
>>8092306
Confirmed for mever seeing any math after calculus.
You remind me of my grandmother, who thought a mathematician was somebody who could add a bunch of twenty-digit numbers in their head.
>>8092313
>putting words in my mouth
tbqh I just hate the one anon's "make another troll thread so i can btfo einstein by asking him to prove it lmao" smugness
>>8092323
proof is an empiricist fallacy as well
>>8092309
>There was literally nothing anyone could say without you declaring yourself right because "u cant proov it."
So... you get it? Because that's the argument. It's primordial.
>>8092335
It's a valid argument, but one with
>no consequences
>no conclusions
>no further steps
>no effects on any other argument
So a completely useless one.
>>8092346
Why do you keep projecting your ideology onto this?
>no effects on any other argument
It renders them useless and essentially destroys secularism
>>8092346
>useless
Just when you were so close
>>8092346
i win
first victory on /lit/ I've had in a while
feels good, friends
Cringing at this STEM vs Humanities debate tbhonest
STEM autist is clearly right
>>8092361
In an argument, there shouldn't be a winner or a loser- ideally, there should be an exchange of ideas and information where one is concluded to be more valid than the other and everyone learns something. Now if you could stop being such a shitposting faggot, could you please respond to my fucking post (>>8092240) with a real, fully explained argument? Otherwise ill have to believe you're just here to stir the shitpot, and are nothing but a namefagging prick
>>8092415
Shit boils down to representation. The problem is that we only have access to a limited spectrum of inputs, what is observable to our five senses. Representation is the only way we have access to things in our world, but a representation is not the real thing. Representations are subjected to errors. So you must be aware that the possibility exists that the things you observe may be wrong i.e. when you are dreaming or taking drugs.
What 90% of lit don't get is that you don't "prove" something exists. You show how accurate a given representation is in matching with reality. i.e. you use a representation to make predictions about things to look for in reality. Humanitiesfags don't seem to understand that "proving" something in logic means to show how a statement can or cannot be derived from strictly the manipulations of a given set of axioms.
>>8092246
it's true
that's why those fields are so shit
they have nobody smart enough to master them
>>8092468
>What's your major
law
>how'd you choose it
I'm good at reading and it takes a shit ton of reading so I've got talent for it. Also it's like practical ethics. Except when it's used to create tax havens in Panama. Or actually that is very much ethics as well. Also I'll make enough money that on holidays I can go to Italy or something and drink wine in a cafe and be elegantly depressed instead of just depressed.
>>8091962
>>8091991
>bad subjectivity vs. good objectivity
Shut the fuck up
>>8092452
>a given set of axioms
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnchhausen_trilemma
>axioms
>why are axioms
>because axioms
>circular argument
>>8092452
>Representation is the only way we have access to things in our world, but a representation is not the real thing. Representations are subjected to errors. So you must be aware that the possibility exists that the things you observe may be wrong i.e. when you are dreaming or taking drugs.
I'm aware of that. Was I wrong before, when I said that such a view is self-defeating and pointless?
Example: I say statement A is true because of a 'proven' theory, X. I accept that there is the possibility that my sense's representation of the universe around me is bullshit, but because the end result of that possibility could possibly render literally everything redundant and unreal, I ignore it. Am I wrong to ignore it?
Now that you mention "'proving' something in logic," I realize I have mainly been talking about scientific proofs, although I'm not sure the difference there matters.
>>8092486
Using your link as a source,
>The failure of proving exactly any truth as expressed by the Münchhausen trilemma does not have to lead to dismissal of objectivity, as with relativism. One example of an alternative is the fallibilism of Karl Popper and Hans Albert, accepting that certainty is impossible, but that it is best to get as close as we can to truth, while remembering our uncertainty.
In Albert's view, the impossibility to prove any certain truth is not in itself a certain truth. After all, one needs to assume some basic rules of logical inference to derive his result, and in doing so must either abandon the pursuit of "certain" justification, as above, or attempt to justify these rules, etc. He suggests that it has to be taken as true as long as nobody has come forward with a truth which is scrupulously justified as a certain truth.
What he said. Please argue against this, so I can understand what all of you mean.
>>8092511
>Please argue against this, so I can understand what all of you mean.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrrhonism
>"Nothing can be known, not even this", Pyrrhonian skeptics withhold any assent with regard to non-evident propositions and remain in a state of perpetual inquiry.
>They disputed the possibility of attaining truth by sensory apprehension, reason, or the two combined, and thence inferred the need for total suspension of judgment (epoché) on things.[4]
>A Pyrrhonist tries to make the arguments of both sides as strong as possible. Then he asks himself if there is any reason to prefer one side to the other. And if not, he suspends belief in either side.
>According to them, even the statement that nothing can be known is dogmatic. They thus attempted to make their skepticism universal, and to escape the reproach of basing it upon a fresh dogmatism.[5]
>>8092517
So does that mean that at this point, it boils down to opinion, or personal preference on a train of thought?
>>8092528
>train of thought
Er, school of thought.
>>8091864
Computer Science. I chose it not because I would some day like to be able to buy my own books rather than with the NEETbux I should be eating from.
>>8092767
I chose it because*
I graduated in classic studies, and I am now working in the investment fund industry. My deepest wish is to teach either Latin or French literature in East Asia but I like my job, too, so I'm somehow stuck. I'm considering going back to college.
>>8091962
>tfw can't trust my intuition because Cartesian demons whispering falsehoods in my ear
>>8092486
Exactly, you retard. The point is to derive something further down the line without constantly pulling shit out of your ass that may match reality and be of use. i.e. Assume the existence of atoms as a axiom and you can derive the gas laws.
>>8092511
Yes and no. You have to be aware that there can be multiple representations that may all be equally accurate and that a theory, no matter how good, can still be wrong. To be a good scientist you have to be able to create multiple representations and find faults with all.
Of course in the end its about results. You have to do something with the representation and adjust according. But then that becomes engineering.
>its a STEM and humanities undergrads constantly and pointlessly bickering episode
History
I picked it because it seemed like the likeliest "mater studiorum" that would let me study whatever I wanted. My biggest interests were always philosophy and history to begin with, and the former in a vague enough sense that I eventually just became interested in every discipline of the humanities. Only History was diffuse and eclectic enough that I could read sociology and anthropology, Chinese political philosophy, medieval and early modern economic history, epistemology, hermeneutics, Heidegger, cybernetics, and learn Greek within the same month, and still somehow be doing my job.
Also, once you learn how to do do (moderate) historicist readings of philosophy and literature, it's really fucking hard to imagine going back to perennialist or decontextualised readings. Yesterday I was reading Bodin, purely as a political philosophy thing, and so many aspects (and pitfalls) were clear because I spent a semester diving into Early Modern French history.
I chose English after initially going into philosophy, mostly because the English department at my school offers more and I happened to make friends who were also English majors.
Didn't go into STEM because I find literature and the humanities to be more personally rewarding andI didn't feel like working hard lmao
So I guess my advice would be to find out which department at your school can do the most for you. A liberal arts education is a liberal arts education regardless of program, so just find the best balance between personal interest and opportunity.
Good luck!
>>8092361
>tripfag celebrating his "victory"
Most reddit thing on this fucking board
>>8092318
Most people in this board are allergic to math, therefore why they pretend to be well-read on the humanities rather than on hard science. It's easier to pretend and lends itself better to circlejerking.
>>8093482
May I ask you where do you get this bold assertion from?
>>8093498
You can't pretend to understand math if you don't and are discussing with someone who knows what he's talking about. With philosophy, a wikipedia page and skimming a few books will most likely do, which is what I suspect a lot of this board does when they are not using downright memes.
>>8093600
How does it led you to think that most people here are hostile to mathematics and have no knowledge? Moreover, I doubt one can withstand a genuine exchange on literature or philosophy with a well-read person, the same way a fresh STEM student can't trick a confirmed mathematician about his skills. The main difference is that people here can rely on dishonest devices to shut down a conversation where the lies are brought to light. You can't pretend to be another user, use green text or sarcastic pictures in a physical debate.
Just finished my Bachelors in Physics and I will now do a Bachelors in Philosophy.
I didn't enjoy focussing on only one specific field, Physics, and I think Philosophy will give me the chance to study a wider variety of things on an academic scale.
>>8093664
I was thinking about doing this, but I wasn't sure whether to do another entire bachelors or just go for a Philosophy masters. I'm not sure I'd have the money to do another Bachelors but I don't know how many philosophy masters programmes would accept a physics-fag either.
>>8093732
Well I am from Germanistan so money is not much of an issue. Here at my Uni you can theoretically enter a Philosophy masters with a Bachelors in something else if you just take a few extra courses, but I'd honestly like to get a wider scope of the different philosophical disciplines before I chose a more specific field in a potential masters.
>>8091906
Embrace your lord and saviour: Mathematics.
>>8091864
computer science because programming was the only thing I was good enough at in school to imagine turning it into a career
>>8091864
are you me
>>8092452
Logic is incorrect.
>So you must be aware that the possibility exists that the things you observe may be wrong i.e. when you are dreaming or taking drugs.
Why are these 'realities' wrong?
>>8092867
>be of use
why is use good?
why are results good
>>8093498
His anus, of course.
>>8093774
Mathematics suffers from the same issues as science, you know this right?
If something is presumed to be true, then the rest may follow.
>>8094396
>If something is presumed to be true, then the rest may follow.
Explain to me why this cannot be applied to your argument as well.
In disagreeing with him you imply that his logic is wrong and that some alternate form of logic is true. The alternative is that you either admit that your argument is not based off of any kind of logic or that everything is meaningless. If everything is meaningless then everything becomes equally valid and the very act of arguing becomes pointless.
>>8094592
I'm not making any kind of personal argument but am instead making one in the confines of your ideology.
>>8091864
Your weeb phase will pass by the time university ends, hopefully.
>>8091864
English.
I don't like anything. It was the closest to something I like.
>>8094592
>your ideology
That was my first post in the thread, I never claimed to have any kind of ideology.
I just don't understand what the crux of your argument is or how you can say that math suffers from having axioms while at the same time making an argument which must have axioms of its own.
>>8094697
I'm fucking stupid. You know who I was trying to respond to.
>>8094690
logicism is an ideology
>>8094715
As is any alternative to logicism. Every argument requires you to take some position of belief in something, unless you're now admitting to nihilism.
What are you getting at?
>>8094764
Arguments are based in logicism, Anon.
>>8094764
>nihilism is absence of logic
lol
>>8091864
Computer Science major, Math minor here. I took a lot of composition courses my first two years but have avoided them since because the SJW professors at my school tend to be incredibly biased.
Its a shame, I would have really liked to take more creative writing or even philosophy courses.
>what am I doing now
Taking off the summer to play vidya and relax, maybe do a bit of C/C++ coding with either Graph Theory or assembler/interpreter-centric stuff.
>>8094396
Wrong as in inaccurate. We may dream about eating food but it won't do us any good when we are hungry. Unfortunately everything exists in the same physical universe and so is subjected to the decay of time and random destruction. Simply maintaining existence is a hell of a task in itself but doable. And so in the most general terms, something is "useful" if it is able help maintain existence. For example all the behavior and abilities produced by evolution.
In terms of representation, be of use means accuracy in predictions. For example you can perform logic in a mapping system such as google maps to make predictions about the time and directions to get to a destination. If the google maps is accurate, then using google maps would save you time and energy compared to some other methodology.
>>8094790
I never said that. Someone pointed out that logicism is an ideology, which is true, but said nothing else. I claimed that any alternative is also an ideology so their statement doesn't really tell me anything.
Any accusation of nihilism was just the idea that maybe some people in the thread don't care either way and are just baiting one side or another for fun.
>>8094797
>inaccurate
According to?
>unfortunately everything exists in the same physical universe and so is subjected to the decay of time and random destruction
According toÉ
>>8091864
Hospitality and Hotel Management. My old lady plans to build a boutique hotel, my husband has a background in hotel management and I'm versatile enough to work at anything and everything.
>>8094805
>unfortunately everything exists in the same physical universe and so is subjected to the decay of time and random destruction
>According to?
According to Buddha and impermanence.
According to mount Everest that was once at the bottom of an ocean. According to volcanoes, earthquakes, droughts, and meteors. According to old people and their fear of death. According to the Mongolian invasions and the burning of books and empires. According to every fucking poet and their whining about the shortness of youth and life.
According to every fucking living organism.
Right now I have half a Chem BA and half an English BA.
tfw all your STEM friends complain about how petty and non-objective humanities majors are
tfw humanities friends are constantly bitching about how goddamn smug all STEM majors are.
tfw they're all complaining about (YOU)
I'm trying to decide which one to take a minor in. What do you think, /lit/?
>>8094862
>according to empirical claims
>>8094800
>any alternative is also an ideology so their statement doesn't really tell me anything
That's the point
there is no 'ground' of logic, hence nothing can be proven, not even this - a return to the Pyrrhonic.
Who /accounting/ here hmu
Picked it after liking the intro class and switching from econ
>>8094931
Does it require logic to conclude that there is no ground to logic, or am I working on a bad definition of logic?
Also, without logic nothing can be objectively proved right or wrong so things can only be judged on faith or opinion, no? Meaning that the issue is not with people pursuing science but rather with scientists trying to claim ownership over the concept of 'truth'.
>>8094970
>nothing can be objectively proved right or wrong (without logic)
lol
you think logic proves anything or has any basis in objectivity
>>8094989
What alternate method is there for proving anything or claiming objectivity?
Also why assume I have any investment in these ideas are aren't just trying to better understand what other people are saying?
>>8094931
>>8094970
I feel like we are not using the same definition of "to prove" or confusing different activities. In mathematics and in logic to prove means to show how a statement can be derived from a set of premises. The statement is true if it can be done and false otherwise (there's also undetermined but that's another story with consistent, complete, and Godel). This foundation for the definition of "to prove" is solid and machines and computers can be made to perform proofs rather well.
Then there is philosophy and their myriad of definitions for "to prove."
![c4jt321[1].png](https://i.imgur.com/rbJCww4.png "c4jt321[1].png")
Marketing. I have no passion whatsoever for it but my parents forced me to go to college.
College life itself is pretty fun though.
>>8094970
>the issue is not with people pursuing science but rather with scientists trying to claim ownership over the concept of 'truth'
Truth is a word which, by virtue of its being, is misleading to the case of logic
Imagine a 0-dimensional space which does not exist. Imagine there is a point in this zero dimensional space. This can be, according to *a* logic. Consider how much information can be derived purely from the statements "There is a 0-dimensional space", "There is a 0-dimensional space which does not exist", and "There is a point" using our conventional, worldly logic. But in the logic I am choosing to use here, there is no information that can be derived. Not even the states of existence, inexistence or transcendence can be "found" or "determined" without a logic.
This is but a centimeter deep in an endless chasm as to how far the argument(s) can descend.
>>8095048
Yes, the argument can descend into terrible depths due to the myriad of ways any conceivable example or point can be phrased and interpreted but the larger argument in the thread started as a criticism of science as a pursuit.
So far everything that has been said against science can be applied to many things beyond science, making the criticism very selective and reminiscent of people trying to justify their dislike of something (thought this applies equally to those criticising philosophy). Everything else put momentarily to the side, I wonder whether anyone is claiming that science as an activity is inherently inferior and if so why?
>>8095100
science is gay because it's for nerds
>>8095048
I used to think butterfly was the worst trip we'd ever have. But here you are and boy was I fucking wrong.
>>8095104
I wish I had the picture of a dude labelled 'You' looking at a screen with the words 'Even gayer porn' written on it but smug anime girls will have to do.
![568656c14cf67[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/oOg39fE.jpg "568656c14cf67[1].jpg")
>>8095123
>>8091864
I am majoring in classical literature because I don't like money
>>8094947
Originally did accounting
Switched to public policy and commercial law, because I enjoyed the influences from economics, philosophy, politics etc. I feel I can read literary criticism and enjoy reading without having a degree in English
>>8095130
That's the one.
I hope you have a nice life anon.
>>8095123
joke's on you, i love k-on
>>8095112
lol, I bet you don't even know who original butterfly was
go back in the archives a few years, you know, to before you were here; learn what /lit/ is supposed to be
>>8095100
>the larger argument in the thread started as a criticism of science as a pursuit
The point was that 'science' is just as valid or invalid as philosophy as a pursuit because neither can substantiate a bedrock. I think there's maybe one person in this thread who's actually saying scientific study is a bad thing.
>>8095158
>'science' is just as valid or invalid as philosophy
If only out of curiosity before I go to bed, what in your opinion are the good points of those two pursuits?
>>8095176
That's a rather vague question. Do you mean ends, or current values, or..? Re: ends, I suppose the pursuit of Epicurean ataraxia within a functioning society.
>>8095189
I was thinking more current values or the personal fulfillment one would getting from pursuing it, though admittedly that would vary from person to person.
>>8095208
I don't feel like I have any authority to speak on it; neither is my profession.
>>8095158
>go check the archives u newfag lol i was here before u were evn born
Daily reminder that tripfags are, without exception, cancerous reddit bullshit.
>>8095379
>continues to fail to contribute to the thread
daily reminder that anonymousfags are, without exception, cancerous reddit bullshit.
>>8095158
>The point was that 'science' is just as valid or invalid as philosophy as a pursuit because neither can substantiate a bedrock.
One has real world consequences and improves the quality of life of every human being on the planet.
One has devolved from relative importance into bullshit wordgames irrelevant to anyone outside of academia.
Can you guess which one is which?
"Validity" is an unapproachable subject when you claim that not even your own senses can be believed. When that's the environment in which we are debating, every field is made equally invalid.
I hate internet-fame-seeking tripfags so goddamn much.
>>8095400
You forgot to turn it back on here
Now i cant help but suspect that half of the posts in this thread are you supporting yourself or false-flag arguing with yourself
>>8095426
are you accusing me of posting something without a trip?
lawsy me
>>8095410
>
"Validity" is an unapproachable subject when you claim that not even your own senses can be believed.
>When that's the environment in which we are debating, every field is made equally invalid.
You just repeated what I said.
>>8095410
>One has real world consequences and improves the quality of life of every human being on the planet.
>real-world
why is it real/why is helping the 'real world' good/why do human lives matter
Defend yourself or kys
>>8095443
What I was attempting to get at was that you're equating science and philosophy under conditions where every single conceivable thing is equal by default. You might as well argue that both are equal in validity to shit-flinging.
My point is that in real-world validity, in which we go on the assumption that the world our senses perceive is more or less the one in which our bodies reside, science is testable and verifiable, while philosophy for the most part is not. Therefore, the statement that started this debate (science is just as subjective as the humanities) is wrong.
>>8095466
"I don't care" is not a debatable topic anon
Major in something that makes you money
Teach yourself shit that makes you happy
Major: Comsci
Teaching myself:Writing
Before you ask, I enjoy comsci too.
>>8095495
why is debate good
>>8095482
>science is testable and verifiable, while philosophy for the most part is not
Because it isn't science you stupid fucking empiricist, it does not try to be empirical.
and holy shit do you not realize that IF YOU DENY THAT THERE IS EXISTENCE OR SENSES OR ANY OF THE AXIOMS THAT EMPIRICISM IS BUILT UPON, IT BECOMES SUBJECTIVE
AND BECAUSE EMPIRICISM CANNOT VERIFY THESE AXIOMS, IT IS SUBJECTIVE REGARDLESS OF '''''REALITY''''
>>8091864
>If not P, then not Q
>Not Q
>Therefore, not P
>implying this is a valid syllogism
>>8091864
Majoring in Anthropology so I can be an Archaeologist.
>>8095525
congratulations, you're the dumbest poster in this thread yet
>>8091864
Now that this thread has been sufficiently derailed, English major with minor in History. I was a bit late in my career before I found an interest in Asian studies and WGS, which would have also been minors likely. Currently going into my MA. Thoroughly enjoying what I do.
>>8095552
I know it's just a joke but I have a hang up about doing logic properly.
i'm doing cs and english. i came in with a lot of ap credits so now, going into my second year, i can take 2 cs and english classes per semester and still graduate on time. stem and humanities is cool, but be prepared for countless people to tell you it's an "odd" combo.
>>8095559
But it's not a logic argument, it's an appeal to emotion. If it was constructed like a logic argument, I'd be on your side.
Major in Biology, Post-grad in Medicine
Parents. I'm being a resident physician.
>>8095598
Philosophy is just structuring and formalizing in natural languages.
mathematics are about formalizations of your speculations (which you form from your desire to see things that you experience [the empirical world, once you chose to objectify what you feel] through induction, as similar or dissimilar) to the point that you have a structure more formalized than your speculations structured in natural languages.
Logic is just a the formalization of your speculations about *validity of inferences*, so here logic is a formal part of mathematics.
It turns out that plenty of mathematical structures are cast into some formal deductive logic (like set theory formalizes your structures of numbers).
I meant your usual set theory cast in FOL. Set theory is just a structure too and it turns out that you can interpret a part of this structure as some kind of numbers.
Science is just claiming that your formalized structures (in formal languages or not) gives you access to some *reality*, more or less hidden with respect to what you are conscious of[=the empirical world, once you choose to ''externalize, objectify'' what you feel].
Same thing for the religions which go beyond empiricism [=claiming that you feel and think is **not** enough from which you choose to dwell in your mental proliferations].
Some mathematicians, typically Brouwer, think that mathematics should, equally to the speculations (however formalized) of the scientists, talk about the empirical world. So typically, your formal symbols are real entities: these entities belong to some world and they connect or not back to the empirical world.
to be clearer, the symbols are names of real entities and, since you begin always from the empirical world, this world constrains you on the creation and usage of these real entities. then these real entities can or cannot belong to some other world as well.
>>8095482
Tell me how do I verify that an electron exists in the wire of my lamp.
>>8095705
>used the word 'real' in a philosophy debate
oh boy
here we go
>>8095708
Not quite a lamp, but here:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transistor
You can't see it, but your computer would not function if the electron model was incorrect.
>>8095525
It's modus tollens, which is a valid syllogism.
If not P, then Q (I will be sad)
Not Q (I will not be sad. I assume this is true because i don't wish to be sad)
Therefore not not P (P is true, in other words)
I have a bachelor's in Criminal Justice. I've wanted to be a police officer for a very long time.
>>8095766
you have to observe that the computer is functioning, that's empirical
>>8095812
>>8095909
no argument from mr. logic and reason I see
scientific realism is a failure
>>8091864
I am currently a PolSci student, but I am going to switch to Linguistics this year (I was planning to be a bureucrat but I decided that's not what I want).
I am actually most interested in ethology, but the thing is I don't want to actually work. Linguistics is almost equally interesting to me, and it would allow me to do freelance "jobs" like translation.
>>8093523
You learn about how businesses work with an emphasis on advertising/marketing - examining demographics, promotional and pricing strategies, etc. Lots of projects.
If you're interested then go for it, its pretty rewarding all around if you really get into it. Especially with a good professor, I was fortunate enough to find an extremely experienced and fun guy to learn from.
>>8096917
Wow, are you the last logical positivist left on earth?
>>8091864
>Law major
>living in south america
Well, i pretend to be a lawyer and get a degree in pilosophy after i graduate. If you are not a STEM fag, law is the only reasounable degree to get here. You can try something in Health as well but anything i want to know i can search for myself.
> by droping a bowling ball from the top of a height, i can predict the when it will reach the ground, given the acceleration of gravity and air rrsistance. Given its mass, i can discover the force upon which it will hit the floor, andthe amount of energy that is dissipated in the impact, either by breaking the floor, the ball or making it bounce. So forth I can choose the proper material to build the floor, so it can resist the impact.
> I now how two substances react, and the products of such reaction. One of the products, substance X, is toxical to anaerobic forms of life, and will cause immediate death if ingested by said organisms.
> It's possible to calculate the force between two or more electric charges, and the field created in their surroundings.
Just random examples... it's lissing in the ocean at this point, but still.... i can really understand how you can "subjectivize" something so objective and hard as science.
> Inb4 we're just vibes, man...
>>8097091
Man i fucked up my grammar bad.
English is my third language. Forgive me.
>>8097091
Literally the only way to do it is to assume that your senses are too flawed to comprehend reality, in which case you lose any sense of what reality is anyway. It's a retarded line of thinking that erodes any possible discussion, but philosophy pseuds like that tripfag hold it up as the end-all be-all of arguments for some reason.
>>8097122
Thank you!
>>8091864
MA in European Affairs
>>8097122
He's not wrong, the argument that if you reject the axioms of empiricism then every conclusion made within empiricism becomes subjective is pretty hard to refute. However, the same method can be used against any system of thought. Any argument can be defeated by asking 'why' enough times, including the argument of the person asking. Thus everything is equally invalid.
All of this is fine and correct, but it's a pretty simple conclusion in the end. Most philosophy versus science threads are better summarized by 'I like this thing, therefore it is better than the thing you like'. Which is never going to be resolved and we are all doomed to have the same arguments over and over again. As is the endless fate of 4chan.
>>8091864
cambridge being retarded
>>8091864
Music, because it's the only thing I'm good at.
>>8097478
>As is the endless fate of academia
Fixed that for you.
Comparative Literature because anglo-american philosophy sucks
>>8091864
Math major
I am attracted to math by nature
Quickly going through the thread I didn't see anyone else doing economics. I always thought that taking something like philosophy or English at uni would just be tedious and better placed as a hobby. Do you guys not just feel like you're being told what to think in something that feels like it's supposed to be a purely creative subject?
I'm going to be a welder/metalworker and travel around my country doing that for various businesses. I want to not have to speak to anyone outside of work for at least one year to put things into perspective.
>>8099037
Art is creative, but it's necessary to learn the tools of the trade first. Same thing with writing I believe.
Do yourself a favor and don't major in trash tier liberal arts degrees.
These are all wonderful subjects, but they are absolute shit to learn in a university setting.
You're going to be paying thousands of dollars to listen to a jew professor spout his rhetoric in a class filled with pretentious hipsters and supreme gentlemen.
Then you graduate in debt with very limited job prospects and no real skill set.
That's about as politically incorrect as you can get, but it's the truth.
Get a STEM degree and learn others on your own time.
>>8099345
Speaking from experience?
>>8099351
How'd you know?
I'm so stupid I had to get two bachelors degrees
First in art and then in engineering
BS in Economics because I want to get a job.
>>8099356
Rough, lad. I'm already halfway through my undergrad creative writing degree. I might possibly end up in the same boat as you.
>>8098977
just like you are attracted to cocks
I have degrees in Philosophy and Electrical Engineering. I really don't know what to think about this entire thread. The STEM fags are obviously butthurt because they don't know shit about empiricism (which might really help their argument), but the humanities douchebags don't know enough about Nietzsche to make their "truth is subjective without being relative" argument.
Basically, all of you are wrong, and this "argument" isn't doing any work. You should all shut the fuck up and go read.
>>8099854
>EE
jesus, why
philosophy and physics here. agree with your post entirely.
>>8091864
Undergrad in philosophy > law school > suicide b/c I don't have any goals beyond those pretty pieces of paper
Pure mathematics here. Was originally in geology until I realized how much more I enjoyed my math classes. Then within a couple weeks of the new year I learned the "pure" side of math was totally foreign to me and I struggled mightily then. Nowadays I'm quite capable but certainly not the most brilliant math mind, analysis in particular still shits on me but I've certainly improved a ton since I first started
Graduating soon and hoping of apply to grad programs in actuarial science and / or financial math.
>>8091992
heyy, somebody give me your opinion on this pls, even if u think its worthless
>French foreign language and literature
>International Relations
Going to France in 5 days
>>8099864
Because now I get to work on the power systems on fighter jets, which is much cooler than law school.
>>8099950
hurr durr anything i dont like is from the same person but is braindead when it triggers me
Why is reason a good thing?
>>8091992
>>8099919
please
>>8092318
yeah the more esoteric mathematics requires so much original thought and a great degrees of ingenuity and creativity. But many people don't realize that, so can't really blame /lit/.
>>8099996
Stop using the word "good", you don't know what it means.
German, History and Polsci. I have always wanted to become a historian, if that fails though I still have the option to become a highschool teacher, which isn't as bad in my country (Germany)
Criminology.
>How
I find it interesting and i want to be a fed.
>>8100011
Stop using a "tripcode", nobody cares who you are.
>>8100139
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
>>8099840
Sure thing bby, wanna sum fuk?
>>8100169
Don't care about your arguments at all. I'm not trying to dispute any of your claims. I just wish you'd quit using a trip when your identity is unnecessary. It's an anonymous image board. Your ego is getting in the way.
>>8091864
graphic design with a focus in advertising
honestly the only reason i'm going for it is because i go to a state college and grants cover everything on my end
yeah i'll be starting out with like, 20-30k maybe, but i don't have any real aspirations and my mom raised me on 11kit's the only thing i'm even moderately good at. 4.0 gpas mean nothing. at this point in the game it's a bit late to really solidify stem, and any music aspirations went out the window a long time ago.
>>8091992
Sounds like you're a healthy, happy, aspirational person. People like you make it regardless of the field they go into.
>>8097746
But "obeys the rules" is just a more simple (and admittedly retarded) way of saying "functions as described by". It's a bad way to say it, but not a fallacy.
![d36[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/eOnJemN.jpg "d36[1].jpg")
Education/Pedagogy/Teaching
>mfw just finishing a 10 week practice at a local highschool
I don't know what I expected.
At least I won't be a jobless loser.
Undergrad was political science, finishing my MPA in a week.
>>8092160
>I'm qualified to talk about philosophy because I don't do philosophy.
>>8091992
Don't do physics for the job prospects. They actually aren't very good, since any job doing anything close to actual physics will require an advanced degree.
>>8101750
But many companies hire physics grads less for the actual physics and more because somebody who can handle physics at a top school knows shitloads of problem solving and math, often with coding experience. A lot of places will hire physics majors over cs majors for their coding work.
>>8101860
>implying CS is software engineering
You have no idea what you're talking about. Kill yourself undergrad.
>>8092406
yeah I want to
CS and don't care for it lmfao
used to be film, considering the switch back
>>8099854
>truth is subjective without being relative
could you explain this?
I started uni as only a Chemistry major, but now I'm double majoring in Chemistry and Mathematics.
I do sincerely love literature and philosophy, however.
Economics because I enjoy money.
>>8091864
I studied East Asian studies, with a focus on Japanese.
I now work at a local video game company, doing the localization, whilst helping out with programming and translation.
Wish my university had offered better IT classes for those outside of IT majors; If I wouldn't be so lazy and would see it as less effort, I would have probably majored (or at least minored) in some IT field.
>>8099985
please let me contact you
>>8091864
graduating with a degree in East Asian studies with a minor in Chinese and Religious studies.
I switched from Chemistry/Computer Science degree into the humanities.
I hate anime, manga, and all that other bullshit. The only reason I stayed with this degree is that I was heavy into translation and writing about Chinese philosophy.
>>8099854
>>8099854
Only correct post in entire thread.
Taxes
Political Theory with a Minor in French Lit
Going to Law School
I wish I'd done something besides traditional undergrad but its too late for that now. Pretty content with how my life is going.
>>8098898
correct. wya boy?
