what type of math do you now get? algebra? statistics? calculus?

Shakesphere is awesome. You'll learn far more from him on psychology and ethics than most people ever learn.

The solution is clear: Hang them.

You would ignore them. And you suffer for it. Your listed authors are no ultimate authorities by any stretch of the imagination.

You can judge us as "ethical" empirically? You're a freak; you don't count.

> Red_Rooster wrote:

> hey i think we ought to remove english classes here in the U.S. after grade 8. The highschool english clashes are all full of bullshit that will never help you in real life. For example, what job interviewer will ask you about if you know what happened in the romeo and juliet story? what person will ask you what happens in mythology?

Perhaps instead of english we should have a writing/speaking class because that is important in all careers. high school english on the most part is completely useless waste of time.

on topic, math is the most logical subject and to me it is the easiest. i can't understand how people dont like it but i guess i will never know

High School english ATLEAST for me, was VERY VERY helpful!
It taught me a LOT

@ Justinian
"If you want to learn psychology, then read B.F.Skinner and other Behaviorists.

If you want to learn ethics, read "The Selfish Gene," by Richard Dawkins. Secondly, read other works by other evolutionary psychologists. Ignore the literary, religious, and philosophical crew for ethics."

Justinian, if you were trying to imply that to learn psychology you can only read Skinner and that literature and psychology don't go together then --> it is impossible to separate psychology and literature, the two go hand in hand, as all literature is conventional  and conventions tend to form due to human psyche.
Read Jung, Frye, Campbell, Hyman, Fiedler, Chase you'll learn more about psychology and its place within literature.

If that wasn't what you were trying to imply then... nvm

@avo
I'm mostly doing calculus in school right now but back in high school I remember I had a lot of trouble in grade 10 with functions, geometry and some algebra. But after grade 10 I pulled up my socks, did AMAZING in grade 11 functions, even better in advanced functions and some what the same in Calculus as in advanced functions, and I think I took data management too (probability, statistics, counting etc.) Data was where I would get 100's in one unit and almost fail in probability and another unit, I think I pulled off a high 80 in the end though.

That's like asking him a philosophical question of validity using his reason. He does not see any value in philosophy or reason.

> avogadro wrote:

> justinian, i want you to empirically prove that empirical standards are more valid then any other standards.>

That's impossible. I don't assert positivism, but I do assert a standard of dismissing any theory not empirically testable. The reason here is not that our conclusions from experience are more true than ones that aren't, because then we run in to the problem of under-determination and we raise the question of how we are supposed to test our experience to see if it matches with the way reality actually is. Rather, rigid fidelity with experience has optimum practical value. Secondly, experience is the only means that humans come to understand something. So something like ethics is meaningless beyond being a set of rules to follow.

> avogadro wrote:

> if the reason isnt empirical then its not valid.>

It's only not epistemically valid, but so far all epistemic theories that try to provide a fail-safe means of determining what's true have failed. In other words, how is it that we can know x? It turns out no intellectual has been able to adequately answer that question yet, so one strategy is to find a different reason for having loyalty to one means or another. Experience is one of the most popular ones, and some claim it's just virtuous and others that it's practical. I'm claiming the latter, fidelity with experience is practical. We have good practical reason for having loyalty to experience, as opposed to say the bible.

It's no more faith based than any other alternative.

> K. William Fancsali wrote:

> And no less!>

.

But at least it has practical value. At least it is, at least so far, the means for obtaining power.