> OK, I can see that for some philosophy provides entertainment
> of a sort ..... but why shouldn't it compete in the marketplace for
> funds like jazz does rather than relying off state support?
>
I think you guys are on the wrong track. This kind of stuff - philosophy,
including pure maths, and to some extent classic studies and other
far-removed kinds of disciplines (english lit? art history?) - underpins all
the more pragmatic bodies of knowledge. Engineering is informed by maths &
philosophy, maths is informed by philosophy, etc... You can think of it as
intellectual infrastructure; analogous to the hardware communications
backbone, or an electricity grid (hmm... fuel cells... bad example).
You heard the old wisdom, that the market is bad at infrastructure? So it is
with the knowledge for knowledge's sake disciplines. We've gone though a
paradigm shift in the west in recent years, to only valuing those
disciplines which can pay their way, which can make a quick buck. Probably
we can even get away with that, for a while...
Personally, I think it's a symptom of having no strong competition. If there
was another planet out there (or even another bloc of countries) which was
seriously rivaling the west in economic/technological strength, things might
be different. As it is, we've gotten complacent, willing to run down our
greatest assets (like knowledge!), for short term gain.
Funnily enough, I think people are beginning to notice the longer term
effects of this short sighted attitude. There was an article in an Aussie
national paper recently with the Prime Minister talking about a lack of
skilled people here, and hinting at a crisis in the University system - the
irony is enormous, as his government was responsible for running it down,
but anyway. The proposed solution is to bring more skilled people in from
overseas, ala H1B. We've got some top thinking going on in the federal
government here!
Emlyn
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:50:40 MDT