Discussion in 'IntroSpectrum' started by Shit with corn in it IRM'S BITCH, May 15, 2009.
Anyone had any experience with this? What are some of the pitfalls? Planning? Help.
i think the main things is
like 8-12 years
somebody told me
that instantly frightened me and to the left to the left
as they say
well that is my experience with getting my phd
what does your sig quote mean
8 to 12 years? where did you get that from?
It's 3 years if you do it full-time.
And the sig is not actually heidegger directly so I must change that, it's a guy named hubert dreyfus talking about what heidegger said. Basically what (heidegger) means by nihilism is that there are no meaningful differences anymore. we are losing sight of the culural paradigms that used to hold up what was important and let there be heroes /villains, victory/disgrace, disaster and blessing etc. we tend to flatten things into one dimension and see them as objects. efficiency has turned into a high human value
does that depend on what youre doing though. becrause community college is only like 2 years so how could a phd only require an extra year of some schooling
i would imagine the school would require getting a phd to take as long as creatively possible for them so they can get payed over the long span
catch my drift (or you feel me)
i am interested in heidegger but never read any heidegger. as he has been related to me he seems really complex. actually no he seems pretty simple but the terms others use to to describe his philosophy are very complex. or should i say ornate. probably because he argues about the "essences" of things which by nature are a hazy subject to define. its like trying to define "zeitgeist" or "swag"
which makes me wonder if anyone really understands what he was saying
as i understand things thus far
his concept of being (which was his big thing) seems to be saying that a thing is composed off all the things that preceded it and all the things around it. so that it doesnt actually have an "essence" of its own but is really just a sum of parts. its "essence" is just a big reaction or response back to these other things. which is counter to the thought that things possess inherent essences in and of themselves that cant/wont change. both stances seem contrary to each other but are they really? what if the essence of a thing was to adapt to its surroundings. if surroundings can be described as being ultimately of a fixed and constant nature (never changing rules) then that would thereby implicate that a thing as it responds to its surroundings would also be bound by those rules....
ultimately making a thing appear ever-changing on the surface level but deep down always constantly following a set path of rules
what do you think?
Community college? Sorry, I meant 3 years after you have a degree, and perhaps an MA, so yea depending on what stage you are at.
so you are questioning whether anyone really understands heidegger while making a theory of your own of what he meant by "being" without having read him?
I haven't read Being and Time
I'm still getting to grips with his philosophy
so how many years for the whole thing?
BBG you would be surprised how many people will say they know about something but then not really know anything.
I was asking you what I asked you to create a discourse. just making conversation w/ you. also if I can understand his base thinking (being) then I can understand all his conclusions. I just had a hunch on him. because he is like many other thinkers I've already come across. Theres really only two different types. they just vary slightly on the surface level. but deep down they are the same thing. so if I could just pinpoint where he stands in that respect I can predict all of his later conclusions with some certainty.
i was trying to test my hunch on you
having a wife and child can slow your progress a bit.
It will also vary wildly by program (and, I'm guessing, country).
Here's how my program works. Students who get full funding have a HEAVY teaching load in addition to their own work. Fellowships/grants/scholarships (through the department itself anyway) are very rare...maybe 1 out of 15 incoming PhD students in my program receive a fellowship. The rest of us get paid a (small) stipend on top of our tuition remission, but teach autonomously like any other professor. In three years as an autonomous instructor I've already taught FOUR different courses. Prepping for a new course takes up a lot of time too...I always get the same course in the Autumn, but in the spring I've gotten a new course every year which gives me about one month to plan for it. Sometimes you get stuck teaching a course you have no interest in to 95 students....without a Teaching Assistant (even though you would have gotten a TA if the class was capped at 100 students).
It also helps if your department is well funded and offers graduate seminars needed to fulfill requirements on a regular basis.
I'd say, on average, in my department it takes students 3 years to get through the MA program and 5-6 (and occasionally more) to get through the PhD program.
In sum: Don't listen to me...I had a very long and trying semester and at the moment am a bit jaded with the entire process.
Separate names with a comma.