<p>And… the fun things comes up a lot. I think we can confidently say that the frat/party scene isn’t as pronounced here as it could be, and my time (particularly my free time!) is valuable to me. That said, I’ve had more than my fair share of satisfying social experiences-- AND I’ve been to some frat parties along the way.</p>
<p>I think the conversion can go something like this…100 pages of history = 15 pages of Kant = 1 page of Hegel = 1 paragraph of Heidegger</p>
<p>The first time you read the last two, you’ll think that they just threw a bunch of words down that they thought sounded cool.</p>
<p>So, wait, are you saying that you think Heidegger makes any kind of actual sense? I wasn’t aware that was possible.</p>
<p>Man, I tried reading Tractatus Logico Philosophicus a few months ago and couldn’t get through the first ten pages. I tried to chalk it up to a bad translation. Don’t tell me people actually use sentences like “That which the atomic fact constitutes is thereof one of that which is it.” (Exaggerated, but barely)</p>
<p>Philosophers are certainly not known for their writing abilities. :P</p>
<p>Dead-white-man canon is fine as long as I can bring living/woman/color into conversation if not into classroom. I’m pretty flexible. P.S., not everyone likes HUM or SOSC right? I don’t think I’ll like HUM very much, but I like the other elements of the core. And I’m thinking I’ll probably really enjoy SOSC… since, uh, that’s my potential field.</p>
<p>I didn’t mean to imply that dead white men were the only people studied at the University of Chicago. I was referring to the common elements of most of the HUM-SOSC Core sequences, i.e., what becomes the frame of reference that all the students share, regardless of their majors. Once you get into the actual courses of actual departments, Chicago is as hip as anywhere, hipper than most. You want womyn, queer theory, and post-colonialism, you got 'em!</p>
<p>As for HUM and SOSC – results can be surprising. My hard-core English-major kid hated HUM, thought it was like high school, and dropped it as soon as possible. (Although as a fourth year she went back and looked at her HUM papers, and wished she had been able to listen to her writing TA a little more, since he had been very accurate about what she needed to do to take her academic writing to the next level.) She really loved SOSC, which was all new to her – but only took a couple of social-science courses the rest of her time at Chicago. </p>
<p>My other kid is a social-science type who flirted with pre-medism. He always hated literature courses in high school, although he doesn’t hate reading literature at all. He could not have loved his HUM course more – just adored everything about it, all three quarters. (I think Counting Down’s math kid had a similar experience.) SOSC, on the other hand, was very hit-and-miss for him (depending on the teacher, who changed from quarter to quarter). Nevertheless, apart from choosing a somewhat literary CIV his experience with HUM did not inspire him to take another literature course, nor did his disaffection with SOSC turn him off of social sciences. (He does say that he would take any course his HUM teacher offered, regardless of subject matter, though.)</p>
<p>S1 loved his HUM, CIV and his science courses (particularly physics), but not his SOSC so much. Ironically, he is now a SOSC major. The work varies at Chicago as has mentioned, but what does not vary is the quarter system. Combine Chicago’s work requirements with the quarter system and it can be exhausting. S1 found he struggled more with his coursework when he took only three courses. With four courses he said he could not even begin to say, “I have time to do this later.” As his time at Chicago winds down S1 has become very grateful for his education and increasingly appreciative. Though doors are opening for him in top grad programs and job offers, he feels that he has changed. He feels more rigorous and disciplined in his thinking, confident that no task is too difficult, and feels he possess some knowledge in just about any area, from Greek literature, to physics, to African culture, to child development, to game theory, etc. It has been hard, and it has been a challenge, but when I ask if he wished he could have gone elsewhere, he is emphatic, Chicago is the only place he would want to be and would do it all again. (And he had fun, even found a wonderful GF.)</p>
<p>I mean, it’s hit and miss, and largely dependent on the teacher and students rather than the subject.</p>
<p>^ Not to mention the time of day. People just aren’t going to be awake enough at 9 AM in the morning to contribute much to a discussion. At least, from my experience. My SOSC class goes dead silent several times throughout a class period, and it gets horrendously awkward.</p>
<p>Yes, philosophers tend to be bad writers (for some reason, especially the German ones), but some such as Rousseau (especially if you read it in French) and Nietzsche were amazing writers.</p>
<p>Also, I would not recommend digging right into the Tractatus. I think you did get a bad translation because I never recall reading something like that (I have the Ogden translation), but nevertheless I would start out by reading some Bertrand Russell (his logical atomism stuff because that was one of the major influences on the ideas in the book), Rudolf Carnap, and A.J. Ayer before trying to tackle the Tractatus. It’s an extremely tough book to tackle for someone without a background of knowledge on logical positivism (even though logical positivism is as good as dead now), so…yea. I wouldn’t even bother with that one anyways. I would go for Philosophical Investigations by Wittgenstein…it’s written much more playfully and the ideas in it are clearer than those in the Tractatus in my opinion.</p>
<p>Yea, Heidegger makes sense…only when he talks about hammers and nails though :P.</p>
<p>Once you master the Tractatus, you can read Philosophical Investigations which, though not entirely, refutes it. :)</p>
<p>Crap. It was the Ogden version I tried to read, so I probably should try Bertrand Russell first :x</p>
<p>You could probably just read this:</p>
<p>[Russell’s</a> Logical Atomism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)](<a href=“Russell’s Logical Atomism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)”>Russell’s Logical Atomism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy))</p>
<p>i just read u of c’s supplements.</p>
<p>the way the whole thing is worded, the need for those prompts, the prompts themselves…yeah, i can tell they’re looking for both intellectuals and people who can have a little fun…</p>
<p>i’m applying. :)</p>