1. Nietzsche -- Thus Spoke Zarathustra
2. Ayn Rand -- Atlas Shrugged
3. Frederick Turner -- The Culture of Hope
4. Milan Kundera -- The Book of Laughter and Forgetting
5. Dostoevski -- Crime and Punishment
6. J. T. Fraser -- Time, Conflict, and Human Values
7. Don Beck and Christopher Cowan -- Spiral Dynamics
8. Sophocles -- Three Theban Plays
9. Walter Williams -- The State Against Blacks
10. Goethe -- The Sorrows of Young Werther
7 comments:
In the EconLog post responding to Bramwell you express what seems to me gratitude toward the prof who shifted you from a focus on genetics to the humanities. You have written numerous times on how despite getting a phd you were unable to obtain a teaching position. This doesn't apply to me (I got out of school fast as possible and into software development), but if a person where in a similar situation as yours, what would be your best argument for choosing a focus on the humanities rather than a S.T.E.M career?
For me, the ability to get a decent teaching position -- or any position that could make use of my degree -- is a separate issue from the value one gains from a degree in the humanities. If, that is, you are majoring in humanities for the right reason. I went from biology to the humanities in no small part because I was a theoretician more than a lab worker. If you love lab work, the sciences are for you. If you don't, then it's definitely not the place for you. At the time I was working on my Master's in biology, not a lot of theoretical work was going on. Bioinformatics was just barely starting, and I didn't have the computer knowledge necessary to do it at the time. Ironically, in my dissertation I was able to do a great deal of theoretical biology -- primarily human biology -- and cognitive science. My recent paper published at NOMOI is theoretical neurobiology. So for me, my humanities degree has allowed me to do the kind of biology I was really interested in. Of course, the problem with that is that humanities departments aren't interested in that kind of work -- and my lack of a degree in biology or psychology keeps me out of biology, psycology, and cognitive science departments.
The reason I ended up with a Ph.D. in the humanities is 1) I am a poet, playwright, and fiction writer, and 2) I love humanities scholarship. As a scholar, my obsession is with complex systems, and there are no more complex systems than sociocultural systems and their products. I grew bored with molecular biology because it was too simple -- and that's the honest truth. But I may have sacrificed having a good job for the privilege of doing the kind of work I love. And I do love it. Which is the bottom line, for me. I found the work that I love.
Troy, you don't need to say "top" and "most" in the same sentence.
"Of course, the problem with that is that humanities departments aren't interested in that kind of work -- and my lack of a degree in biology or psychology keeps me out of biology, psycology, and cognitive science departments. "
Troy, your like the kind of person who isn't married in their forties, and then complaints it's the fault of the people they meet!
Wow, what a pair of incredibly petty comments. I guess you didn't have anything substantial to attack, so here we are with these.
As for your last comment, you have taken it out of the context of what I was saying. I am getting papers published in fields that won't help me get a job in my field. That is a fact. It's not really a complaint. It was more of an observation of the current state of things in academia. But don't worry, I will still continue to publish works on Hayek, cognitive science, sociology and economics, as I have been doing, even without a degree in those fields, and even though such publications won't help me get an academic job. Because the point is the work, not the categories people want to put me in.
I'm just "Troying" your blog, dude!
Apology accepted.
Post a Comment