# I'm Tired of Studying the Arts



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Over this latest Christmas period, I have become increasingly disillusioned with my undergraduate degree, to the point where the mere thought of writing my next essay seems nauseatingly pointless. I wrote a blog post about it to vent and get my thoughts in line, and I'd love more than ever for you to prove me _wrong_ in my beliefs. It's quite long, so I've got a little "too late; didn't read" for you first.

----------

*TL;DR*: I'm studying medieval English. My three major passions, all equally, are English, Music and Physics (strange combination, I know). I ended up in English partly through circumstance. The more I think about it, the more I detest the thought of literary criticism, but I know I want a career in academics to support my more important desire to write poetry and music (which will probably never bring in enough money for me to do them alone). I wish I was studying physics, but I think I've passed the point of no return, so I'm doing my best to salvage some worthwhile career out of a subject where I believe the majority of research fields are laughably pointless.

----------

Over the past few weeks, I have been slamming my head harder and harder against a metaphorical wall of frustration and uncertainty, with all motivation for writing my next batch of essays almost completely drained. After just over three years of studying medieval English at undergraduate level (15 months of that time being spent away from university due to bad health), I have run into some serious degree-fatigue. The worrying thing is that I'm not just overwhelmed with tiredness at the tedium of writing essays and attending lectures, I'm plagued by that unsightly fundamental question: _what is the point_?

Just why did I ever bother undertaking an English degree? One glib answer is that it doesn't even matter because all the job market cares about is that I have a degree - any degree - so I just have to finish it and move on. But to what? Politics? That's poisonous. Law? That deserves its disrepute. Media? A chance-based game of ****-kissing. Journalism? Probably populated by hacks. Of course, I'm generalising unforgivably, but it's to make the point that I have never planned for my degree to be a simple gateway qualification to an unrelated job. Instead, I have always wanted to take the lofty road into academics, funding my major (but unlucrative) passion for writing poetry and music with research and teaching that I nonetheless enjoy.

My problem is that while I have always acknowledged that my academic career would be partly for supporting these other, more important endeavours, the amount I envisage enjoying it is lessening every day. I want to study something else, something radically different, because I've realised that I'm actually just an arts-interested _scientist_ trapped in an English professor's tweed jacket. If I had made some better-informed choices before studying for my A-levels (16-18 education in the UK), I would have applied for a physics degree with the goal of becoming an astrophysicist (still writing poetry and music, of course!).

Having to make a choice between English and Physics is undoubtedly uncommon, but they truly are equal passions for me. When I made those immature decisions at 16 about my future, I believed that a life of academics in either English or Physics would be equally rewarding, and so, led by circumstance, I ended up in English. But now I think I was tremendously wrong. Studying English does have obvious benefits - being forced to immerse myself in literature from all periods expands my horizons, and the critical approach required naturally improves my own craft - but these rewards taper off quite early, and I could have probably managed them without doing an entire degree. The more immense downside of studying English is that few people care about literary criticism and, in my opinion, no one _should_.

As a secret scientist, what I'm really passionate about is repeatable, observable truth - theories and facts that can be gradually uncovered in a beautifully methodical process that lies outside the realms of human bias, which we can rely upon and build upon. That doesn't exist in literary criticism, as it's entirely subjective. So subjective, in fact, and so lacking in wider cultural relevance, that it very often is the obtuse ******** that people accuse it of being, and I think academics know that deep down. The more I think about it, the more obvious it appears that English departments exist to provide safe havens for a few passionate literary aficionados to spend their lives buried in books, getting paid for it, with the only reason for their sustained existence being tradition and the never-ending influx of students.

Physics, on the other hand, is entirely different. Even if I were to assume from the outset that I wouldn't ever make a ground-breaking discovery, or write a best-selling science-popularising book, in my own little corner of esoteric research I could still be thoroughly satisfied that I had added to the sum of human knowledge about the cosmos, solidly placing myself in a giant house of cards where the contributions of every last unnamed drone have their value. In English, as fun and personally enlightening as it may be, academics are left spinning around uncertain circles of incorrigibly biased interpretations, getting into arguments that no one can ever resolve with evidence or reason.

Unless I go back to the drawing board, spend two years on a physics A-level, _hopefully_ get a place at a good university studying physics (not in the least bit guaranteed), starting from the undergraduate position again, physics is forever closed to me. If I dared to take that path right now, finding a place to study for an A-level this month, I would be 27 before I finished the undergraduate course. As tempting as that fantasy is, with my current disillusionment it doesn't seem worth the risk.

So have I come up with any way to salvage some morsel of a seemingly worthwhile career in English academia? Well, although most literary criticism is worthy of being burned, I haven't been entirely fair - there are _some_ avenues that interest me for their more scientific approach. For starters, there is the historical rather than literary approach. One of my key interests is audience reception (given my distaste for literary criticism, much of my undergraduate focus has been on the contemporary social relevance of texts rather than detached modern perception), and this requires a level of proper textual, historical, and archaeological evidence to substantiate truth-claims. Also within my medieval specialty, some areas of manuscript study (such as codicology), are firmly rooted in the books' physicality, and therefore require an evidence (and even technology-) based approach to analysis. Plus, a little further afield, the neuroscience of linguistics is truly fascinating, and that even opens up intersections with acoustics and music. I do not know if the usual route into these areas of research is via a science or an arts degree, but with hard work I'm sure I wouldn't be denied access.

Returning to the present though, my current, unshakeable feeling of worthless labour is due to the sad but unsurprising fact that my undergraduate degree doesn't feature any of these science-based approaches to English literature. The overwhelming majority of arts students simply wouldn't be interested. I do have one optional paper next year - a "write-anything-the-hell-you-like" paper - that I will hopefully use to explore these scientific realms, but otherwise I am left writing inconsequential, unprovable theses about Chaucer until I start my PhD. Maybe my MA, if I'm lucky. Bring on 2014!


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

well, I have 23 years, I'm doing a master degree in physics (oriented to the theoretical side) (in my country, we must go first to the master degree before going to the PhD). I have a rather good knowledge of general relativity (it was my obsession in the past two years) and now I'm studying quantum field theory. I can tell you that, I did not imagined this a year ago, I'm somewhat tired right now. When I started, I loved the abstract and theoretical of my study, now I feel that all I did was to write equations in a piece of paper and nothing of practical interest. I'm taking a break right now, until I get my enthusiasm reloaded. The past two years were very lonely for me, the only thing that I did was studying general relativity (I almost memorized Wald's book and Hawking and Ellis's book on the subjet). My point with this is that even we, physicists, have some mental breakdown sometimes. In my case, I think, was not a reaction against physics, but rather a call from attention because of my obsessive behavior.


----------



## Ravellian (Aug 17, 2009)

I understand your frustration with the subjectivity that is art, and the desire to do something practical or useful with your life. I often feel that my studying about music and analyzing pieces of music is a waste of time, even though I enjoy doing it... after all, I probably won't ever be able to discover anything "new" about composers that have been studied for centuries, and even if I did, who would really care? When I was choosing majors, I knew that I loved music and I wanted to do something with it, but I also recognized its limitations: that it is primarily a source of entertainment, and that it is very difficult to make a living doing solely music. So I picked a second major too.

I also wanted to do something practical. Like you said, many professions like lawyers, politicians, salesmen, businessmen, etc., are not very attractive... However, many "expertise" professions, like accountants, engineers, computer technicians, scientists, etc. are perhaps more fulfilling. I personally find the competition of business and working with cash to be more interesting than studying Earth and animals, so I chose accounting. Thus my double-major in Music and Accounting. 

I'm curious as to why you didn't double major in English and Physics or simply major in Physics at the beginning? If I were you, I would finish the English degree, get some job you can tolerate (perhaps teach English in the "scientific" manner you were suggesting), and study physics during your free time. After all, a university is not the be-all and end-all of learning. I guess that's kinda similar to how I plan to practice accounting regularly and study music on my free time.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Ravellian said:


> I'm curious as to why you didn't double major in English and Physics or simply major in Physics at the beginning? If I were you, I would finish the English degree, get some job you can tolerate (perhaps teach English in the "scientific" manner you were suggesting), and study physics during your free time. After all, a university is not the be-all and end-all of learning. I guess that's kinda similar to how I plan to practice accounting regularly and study music on my free time.


That would have been a very attractive option, but it's not possible in the UK system. Over here, about 80-90% of university degrees are single subjects (straight English, straight Maths, straight Foreign Languages, whatever) - the concepts of major and minor don't exist. There are some 'combined' degrees, but they're closely related. For example, some people might study English and French, or English and History, but nowhere would let you do English and Physics.

I'm going to talk to one of my tutors about whether or not there are any professors at my university who specialise in those "scientific" English areas. If there are, then I may be able to worm myself into a pleasing niche. If not, I may do as you suggested - perhaps an Open University course.


----------



## Dodecaplex (Oct 14, 2011)

This is all one huge false dichotomy, Polednice. You can study both the arts and science and everything else you want. Become a polymath. It solves all of your problems. It certainly has solved mine.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Dodecaplex said:


> This is all one huge false dichotomy, Polednice. You can study both the arts and science and everything else you want. Become a polymath. It solves all of your problems. It certainly has solved mine.


Yeah, if I want to be a jack of all trades and master of **** all.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

Dodecaplex said:


> This is all one huge false dichotomy, Polednice. You can study both the arts and science and everything else you want. Become a polymath. It solves all of your problems. It certainly has solved mine.


... at the cost of becoming crazy


----------



## Dodecaplex (Oct 14, 2011)

Polednice said:


> Yeah, if I want to be a jack of all trades and master of **** all.


You can master it all though. Do you want me to provide you with the evidence that proves you can?


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Dodecaplex said:


> You can master it all though. Do you want me to provide you with the evidence that proves you can?


Go on then.


----------



## Dodecaplex (Oct 14, 2011)

Polednice said:


> Go on then.


Okay, give me half an hour or so. Currently, I'm outside and typing a long post on a cell phone is annoying as hello. But don't consider this an excuse. I'll be back and you'll see.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Dodecaplex said:


> Okay, give me half an hour or so. Currently, I'm outside and typing a long post on a cell phone is annoying as hello. But don't consider this an excuse. I'll be back and you'll see.


All right. Don't rush, I'm going to bed now, so I'll see it in about ten hours.


----------



## Lunasong (Mar 15, 2011)

Poley,
It's not unusual to hit a wall at your level of study. I wish I had your eloquence; I'm sure it's a result of your natural ability being honed through all those essays you've had to write. I would definitely further investigate linguistics. Without more than just a surface knowledge and a quick review of Wiki, it appears to be a perfect way to apply scientific methodology to language study. Do you have anyone at your university whom you could ask about exploring these various subfields, including neurolinguistics?

One of my favorite elective courses in college was Phonetics


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

Why physics? Physics sucks. Far to competitive for a field whose hay days are past. I've seriously considered dropping everything and going into neurobiology. A remarkably young field still a disorganized mess and waiting for its Einstein to finally link consciousness with material reality.


----------



## Dodecaplex (Oct 14, 2011)

Okay, I'm back and here's my proof:

My proof, by the way, could actually be explained in one great famous philosophical sentence, but since it's misunderstood so often (I may have misunderstood it as well), I'm going to clarify a little bit. The great famous philosophical sentence is . . . *drum roll*:

"What can be said at all can be said clearly; and whereof one cannot speak thereof one must be silent."
--Ludwig Wittgenstein, from the introduction to the _Tractatus_.

What does this mean? It means that describing the facts in this world is easy. These facts are all clear and can be expressed in the most straight-forward manner. Physics belongs to the list of things that are easy to talk about. Although it may or may not seem complex at first, the most important point is that it could be clearly expressed.

But what cannot be expressed? What is it that we must be silent about? Well, anything and everything that's higher or beyond this world we cannot speak about. God, ethics, aesthetics, anything metaphysical etc. These are all beyond us and we must simply pass over them in silence since _our_ definitions and/or descriptions of them are of no value whatsoever (refer to my newest post in the "Defining Music and Non-music" thread for a further clarification). This brings us to the next point, which is: the only things that _are_ of any actual value are those things which we cannot describe. Everything that we can describe or express is nothing but child's play. In other words, physics is child's play. Are you following me so far?


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Dodecaplex said:


> "What can be said at all can be said clearly; and whereof one cannot speak thereof one must be silent."
> --Ludwig Wittgenstein, from the introduction to the _Tractatus_.


You keep trotting out this cute little quote, but the authority of Wittgenstein doesn't impose upon me! After all, my Mum said it far better: "Don't talk about stuff you don't know nuffink about."



Dodecaplex said:


> What does this mean? It means that describing the facts in this world is easy. These facts are all clear and can be expressed in the most straight-forward manner. Physics belongs to the list of things that are easy to talk about. Although it may or may not seem complex at first, the most important point is that it could be clearly expressed.


Everything seems fine so far.



Dodecaplex said:


> But what cannot be expressed? What is it that we must be silent about? Well, anything and everything that's higher or beyond this world we cannot speak about. God, ethics, aesthetics, anything metaphysical etc. These are all beyond us and we must simply pass over them in silence since _our_ definitions and/or descriptions of them are of no value whatsoever (refer to my newest post in the "Defining Music and Non-music" thread for a further clarification).


What logic tells you that ethics and aesthetics are beyond this world? Is your definition of "beyond", "things that are not material"? What about mental constructs such as aesthetics which are rooted in the physical interactions of cells in human biology?



Dodecaplex said:


> This brings us to the next point, which is: the only things that _are_ of any actual value are those things which we cannot describe.


Why does this follow?! And according to who? If I personally value the simple truths of science, am I 'wrong'?



Dodecaplex said:


> Everything that we can describe or express is nothing but child's play.


Descriptions of _known_ phenomena ought to be simple child-play, but science is about discovering the _unknown_, which is far more complicated.



Dodecaplex said:


> Are you following me so far?


I follow, but I agree with very little! I can see your general approach, but there are gaps to be filled.


----------



## kv466 (May 18, 2011)

Hey, that's why even though I knew I loved the arts I majored in psychology...and, there's nothing wrong with being a jack of all trades as long as you do them all very well; I'd rather be that any day than simply a master at one.


----------



## Dodecaplex (Oct 14, 2011)

Polednice said:


> You keep trotting out this cute little quote, but the authority of Wittgenstein doesn't impose upon me! After all, my Mum said it far better: "Don't talk about stuff you don't know nuffink about."


Oh, no no. It ain't a cute little quote. It's a massive giant great philosophical statement. You first have to understand it, then you'll see the world aright. 



Polednice said:


> What logic tells you that ethics and aesthetics are beyond this world? Is your definition of "beyond", "things that are not material"? What about mental constructs such as aesthetics which are rooted in the physical interactions of cells in human biology?


Language, you see. We confuse things that could be expressed with language with things that cannot be expressed with language. To explain this, I need an entire book, and that still may not be adequate. But hey, here's an idea, if you're into lanuage, why not try to get into some linguistic philosophy career? After all, Wittgenstein's whole philosophy is deeply rooted in language and what we can or cannot do with it. Why not give it a try?



Polednice said:


> If I personally value the simple truths of science, am I 'wrong'?


You're not wrong, it's just that you're not seeing any further than the truths of science. This is the view that logical positivists held. They said metaphysical matters are of no value whatsoever; Wittgenstein, on the other hand, came and slapped them right in the face, saying "no, they are the _only_ matters that are of any value."


Polednice said:


> Descriptions of _known_ phenomena ought to be simple child-play, but science is about discovering the _unknown_, which is far more complicated.


Unknown phenomena that exist in this universe will eventually become known phenomena, which means that, yes, no matter how complicated you think it is, it's all still child-play.



Polednice said:


> I follow, but I agree with very little! I can see your general approach, but there are gaps to be filled.


Like I said, give poor Ludwig a try, man. He'll fill the gaps for you.


----------



## Webernite (Sep 4, 2010)

It's too bad Wittgenstein changed his mind about half a dozen times during his life.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Dodecaplex said:


> Language, you see. We confuse things that could be expressed with language with things that cannot be expressed with language. To explain this, I need an entire book, and that still may not be adequate. But hey, here's an idea, if you're into lanuage, why not try to get into some linguistic philosophy career? After all, Wittgenstein's whole philosophy is deeply rooted in language and what we can or cannot do with it. Why not give it a try?


So are you saying that ethics and aesthetics are beyond language? If so, that's an even worse proposition! 



Dodecaplex said:


> You're not wrong, it's just that you're not seeing any further than the truths of science. This is the view that logical positivists held. They said metaphysical matters are of no value whatsoever; Wittgenstein, on the other hand, came and slapped them right in the face, saying "no, they are the _only_ matters that are of any value."


It seems to me that both camps may have been wrong, and I see no particular reason to believe in Wittgenstein's slap in face. It sounds to me as though he had some problems with the positivists, but went to far in his zeal to prove them wrong.



Dodecaplex said:


> Unknown phenomena that exist in this universe will eventually become known phenomena, which means that, yes, no matter how complicated you think it is, it's all still child-play.


Yes, but my point is that it's not the _phenomena_ that is (especially) interesting, but the very act of pursuing discovery itself. _That_ isn't child's play. It's the _process_ of turning things into child's play.


----------



## Dodecaplex (Oct 14, 2011)

Polednice said:


> So are you saying that ethics and aesthetics are beyond language? If so, that's an even worse proposition!


Why's that so? Ethics and aesthetics are the same thing by the way. They're beyond language because they're words that try to describe things that don't even exist in this universe. For instance, the word "the" doesn't describe anything that exists in this universe either, but we never argue about what "the" may be, nor do we ever judge the different kinds of "the".That's because we don't confuse it with what we can say or what we cannot say. But we do confuse ourselves about ethics/aesthetics. (Notice how dogmatic I am in asserting my positions? Yet I'm still right). Anyway, I thought you'd have more to say about my phenomenal suggestion, especially since it's not that far-fetched.



Polednice said:


> It seems to me that both camps may have been wrong, and I see no particular reason to believe in Wittgenstein's slap in face. It sounds to me as though he had some problems with the positivists, but went to far in his zeal to prove them wrong.


Not true. The logical positivists were the ones who went too far in their zeal. Wittgenstein was a humble and sensitive genius of geniuses. And what we say about them is of no value anyway.



Polednice said:


> Yes, but my point is that it's not the _phenomena_ that is (especially) interesting, but the very act of pursuing discovery itself. _That_ isn't child's play. It's the _process_ of turning things into child's play.


And my point, which I should have clarified, is that child's play isn't necessarily a bad thing. It's fun and I greatly enjoy finding out about things too, but this process itself is still child's play. It's all child's play, remember?


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Dodecaplex said:


> Why's that so? Ethics and aesthetics are the same thing by the way. They're beyond language because they're words that try to describe things that don't even exist in this universe. For instance, the word "the" doesn't describe anything that exists in this universe either, but we never argue about what "the" may be, nor do we ever judge the different kinds of "the".That's because we don't confuse it with what we can say or what we cannot say. But we do confuse ourselves about ethics/aesthetics. (Notice how dogmatic I am in asserting my positions? Yet I'm still right). Anyway, I thought you'd have more to say about my phenomenal suggestion, especially since it's not that far-fetched.


You can't call them "beyond language" because they aren't concrete objects. Concrete objects exist, and abstract concepts exist. Why should concrete things be granted special status in linguistic terms? There is nothing of the essence of a star in all the descriptions of a star that have ever been written. It's all just symbols and sound references that don't _really_ mean anything. So why the extra barrier for abstract concepts? Language can give us just as much a hold on such things. That's like saying that every poet who has ever written about love has wasted their time because love is "beyond language". Hell yeah, the feeling of true love is _not_ something that can be adequately described, but it can be approximated, and we can learn from and cherish those approximations. But can a concrete object be _fully_ represented in language? Of course not.



Dodecaplex said:


> And my point, which I should have clarified, is that child's play isn't necessarily a bad thing. It's fun and I greatly enjoy finding out about things too, but this process itself is still child's play. It's all child's play, remember?


I don't think it's fair for you to sweep the distinction under the carpet and just say that it's all child's play. I've made it quite clear that descriptions of phenomena could be considered child's play, but the act of finding the descriptions is not. Tell me _why_ that's wrong.


----------



## Fsharpmajor (Dec 14, 2008)

Dodecaplex said:


> Not true. The logical positivists were the ones who went too far in their zeal. Wittgenstein was a humble and sensitive genius of geniuses


I once read a very interesting article which claimed, quoting examples from Wittgenstein's writing, that he suffered from schizophrenia.

LATER EDIT: Anyway, Wittgenstein lived long before we knew anything about cosmology, relativity and quantum mechanics. These subjects aren't child's play. They're based on complex mathematics. They have a _philosophical basis_, to be sure--you won't hear me denigrate philosophy--but logical positivism had to wait until its interment by physicists in the first half of the 20th Century.


----------



## Dodecaplex (Oct 14, 2011)

Fsharpmajor said:


> I once read a very interesting article which claimed, quoting examples from Wittgenstein's writing, that he suffered from schizophrenia.


And all this time, I've been worshipping an insane philosopher. Sad, very sad. I already feel my existential crisis creating a giant hole in my heart. Maybe it's time to read some Nietzsche.


----------



## Fsharpmajor (Dec 14, 2008)

Sorry, I had already edited and re-submitted my post before I saw your reply. I'll see if I can find something on-line about Wittgenstein's alleged mental illness, though.

(I suppose there must be a logical fallacy of the _ad hominem_ variety, whereby you claim that any argument against your own is based on clinically demonstrable insanity).


----------



## Dodecaplex (Oct 14, 2011)

Polednice said:


> You can't call them "beyond language" because they aren't concrete objects. Concrete objects exist, and abstract concepts exist. Why should concrete things be granted special status in linguistic terms? There is nothing of the essence of a star in all the descriptions of a star that have ever been written. It's all just symbols and sound references that don't _really_ mean anything. So why the extra barrier for abstract concepts?


Give me a few years until I've properly studied and analyzed the _Tractatus_ and the _Philosophical Investigations_ and everything else related to this topic, and I'll answer your questions. But with my current understanding of them, which is very basic, I admit I have no way of defending my argument here. I'm just going to say that my current understanding is that language has to describe the universe in which it exists, and its descriptions have to be proper representations of this universe. For instance, using language, what words would you use to describe this image?











Polednice said:


> I don't think it's fair for you to sweep the distinction under the carpet and just say that it's all child's play. I've made it quite clear that descriptions of phenomena could be considered child's play, but the act of finding the descriptions is not. Tell me _why_ that's wrong.


I could say "because anything that doesn't belong to the field of metaphysics is child's play", and physics is not metaphysics, therefore, it's child's play. How's that for an answer?


----------



## Fsharpmajor (Dec 14, 2008)

Well, here goes:

*http://dreamflesh.com/library/louis...enstein-schreiber-and-the-schizophrenic-mind/*ctu

Actually I thought Wittgenstein was a figure of the 19th Century, so I stand corrected on that, while not budging from my main thesis that the guy was nuttier than a fruitcake.


----------



## Dodecaplex (Oct 14, 2011)

Fsharpmajor said:


> Actually I thought Wittgenstein was a figure of the 19th Century, so I stand corrected on that, while not budging from my main thesis that the guy was nuttier than a fruitcake.


Yes, I was quite surprised when you said he lived before the time of relativity. For a moment, I thought I was truly going insane.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Just answering the gist of your OP Polednice, this kind of "degree fatigue" or "study fatigue" is common. I went through it when studying my degree as did others I know. The pattern is that in your first year or two of uni, you aim high and you achieve high. You learn to "play the game" of uni, how to give lecturers what they want, etc. Then after that, I became rather jaded. My final year was basically doing the basics. Not getting brilliant marks just getting a pass. I was jaded of playing the game, I just wanted to get it over and done with. That may well be what you're going through. One can't sustain the same high level of interest as when you're bright eyed and bushy tailed in your first few semesters of uni. Some people do, but I didn't, neither did a few people I know.

That's all I'll say for now, for what it's worth.

Of course, to add, there's always postgrad study. Heaps of good programs you can choose from to specialise in writing on physics or science or whatever you want. Marry that up with literature and the arts, etc. Once you get your degree, you can build on it in many ways. Just get through this, and yes it may well be different in the short term from what you expected.

A lot of people feel anticlimax when you get that piece of paper, like "now what?" Well the answer to that is to be creative with it & build on it, & it's a continuing thing, even if not study in uni but on-the-job training programs. One has potential to learn new things and it might not be in a classroom, etc...


----------



## eorrific (May 14, 2011)

Ha! I feel quite similar to what you're feeling, Polednice. Med school has been memorise this and that and this and that. Life is so dull if you're forced to keep on memorising random facts and information and awkwardly named molecules, drugs, and diseases. GIVE ME PHYSICS OR LITERATURE OR ANYTHING DIFFERENT WILL DO! PLEASEEEE. I'm tired of spending my life memorising the content of books! EQUATE! POSTULATE! WRITE ESSAYS! ANYTHING! 

And becoming a polymath does sound interesting. I wonder if there's a degree for that?


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

Just don't cave in, Polednice. I can't help with motivation but I'm reminded of baseball pitcher Steve Carlton who was encouraged by team member Curt Flood when he had his occasional periods of doubt:

''Steve Carlton was always certain that each inning would be his last. 'I haven't got it' he would moan to me on the bench while our side was at bat. 'I'm shot. I'll never make it. They better take me out.'
''I used to give him the old Knute Rockney. 'Goddamnit, Carlton, you gotta hang in there. You're all we got. Now get your *** in gear and earn your money.' And he would drag his miserable self to the mound and throw the best left-handed stuff since Sandy Koufax, dying with every pitch.''

(From The Spirit of St. Louis by Peter Golenbock)

OK, it was OK for Steve Carlton as he was paid for what he did but there is a parallel - we all hit brick walls at various times in our lives for one reason or another but I'm sure you can break through this particular one.


----------



## Lunasong (Mar 15, 2011)

In a content-hungry world, Polednice, someone who writes as well as you should be able to find an audience. Hopefully a paying one 
I hope that you will find the freedom to learn and write about the topics that truly interest you, and be able to clearly communicate that immersion or joy to an attentive audience. Then you will be an _artiste_!


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Lunasong said:


> In a content-hungry world, Polednice, someone who writes as well as you should be able to find an audience. Hopefully a paying one
> I hope that you will find the freedom to learn and write about the topics that truly interest you, and be able to clearly communicate that immersion or joy to an attentive audience. Then you will be an _artiste_!


Thanks!  I returned to university yesterday, so I'm getting ready to tackle this pesky degree from a new perspective.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Good news has just fallen into my lap! I just opened this term's lecture list to find this one-of-a-kind entry (I've never seen a lecture series on stuff like this before):

Literature and Your Mind: an overview of scientific insights into literature, including evolutionary theory (which asks why humans have told and enjoyed storytelling for most of our history), neuroscientific studies, and empirical and theoretical work in psychology and the cognitive sciences.

This is precisely the stuff I want, so I've noted the lecturers' names and will find out if they are science or arts lecturers, and then ask my tutor if I can work with them on my special papers.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Good stuff, _Poley_! Subjects I've been interested in for... awhile. If it weren't so long a commute, I'd like to hear those lectures.

:clap:


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Do you think you could take the degree you get in English and become a teacher? That's what I am planning to do with my composition degree to put bread on the table.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Oh, I see a solution has already been found...never mind then lol


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

violadude said:


> Do you think you could take the degree you get in English and become a teacher? That's what I am planning to do with my composition degree to put bread on the table.


I want to teach, but I don't want to teach nasty little children; I want to teach at a university.


----------



## Fsharpmajor (Dec 14, 2008)

Polednice said:


> Good news has just fallen into my lap! I just opened this term's lecture list to find this one-of-a-kind entry (I've never seen a lecture series on stuff like this before):
> 
> Literature and Your Mind: an overview of scientific insights into literature, including evolutionary theory (which asks why humans have told and enjoyed storytelling for most of our history), neuroscientific studies, and empirical and theoretical work in psychology and the cognitive sciences.
> 
> This is precisely the stuff I want, so I've noted the lecturers' names and will find out if they are science or arts lecturers, and then ask my tutor if I can work with them on my special papers.


I think maybe somebody had better warn them about you.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

I would most heartily recommend back-pedaling and adding the time and investment in the discipline you think would keep you the most engaged. 

It is what we do best and feel the most enthusiasm for which brings about not only the most joy, the least amount of stress, but the most naturally good overall performance, and the patience to weather the duller parts, which any job, once it is your profession, is bound to have.

The world is filled with teachers who never wanted to teach, have no real passion for it. We've all suffered studying some course or t'other under a teacher like that, enough to know if we recall it, that is a horrible and sour place to be, and a nasty thing to visit on the student mind at any level.

It is to be hoped that no more than 50% of any work is 'the gruntwork' (i.e. 'just a job') and that otherwise you have a passion for your work. An even slightly greater imbalance of the negative, and you have a career where you literally resent waking up and going to the daily work -- for decades.

The pressures on people to hurry through school and 'get to work' are no greater than they have always been - and they are an artificial construct to hurry people through to start 'producing' and paying taxes. 

Even the best schools seem to treat all students more like a piece of processed cheese than an individual to train who will then be able to happily sustain themselves and possibly even make a good contribution.

All your former posts here scream your proclivity for science, that which can be proved, demonstrated, etc. by that discipline. I have, lance in one hand and sword in the other, here and there hammered away at you that you are, generally, running uphill into the wrong battle, trying to turn art into science because that was your particular bent. 

I am happy for you that your dilemma is becoming clear to you - you can save yourself by not finishing the path you started, stepping back a few paces, and walking down the one which takes you to a more wholly satisfying place.

This is no different, really, from someone being told that though they have a passion for science, it is not their avocation. In this case, it really seems like it is your true avocation. It is truly very unhealthy, state of body and mind, to 'not agree with yourself.'

If you are cringing thinking of teaching English to primary or middle school students, and feel you have no true calling for teaching -- at least that particular subject -- then it is time to change course before you throw more money and time away on a pursuit which will not find you in the least driven or satisfied. 

Several more years, at 18, is a significant 'wedge' from your lifetime pie-chart, but if you make that chart to include living to merely 60 ('youngish' these days ;-) you will see in a flash a few more years and pounds / dollars in debt is nothing in the bigger picture.

Any of the above arguments of the 'how many angels can dance on a pinhead,' variety are massively sophomoric and useless in making a concrete decision as to how you wish to spend a significant amount of your allotted time on earth, and make enough to support yourself while so doing.

While I do not at all envy you the dilemma (I was lucky, so possessed, I never thought of 'choice' in what I would study or what my work would be.) But since you are on the horns of it, perhaps you have a wider view from a bit higher above ground than usual.

Whatever you choose, I do pray it is that which is most 'in agreement' with yourself. That always fits best 

ADDED P.s. A tiny bone of a mixed discipline course here and there is NOT the solution, only a temporary relief. Unless you can switch over to a mixed discipline (interdisciplinary) degree program which will satisfy, do Not Let This appease you, you will, again, later find it was not nearly enough.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Just added a p.s. to the original, weird double-entries today, me or software somewhere (I am software?)


----------



## Head_case (Feb 5, 2010)

It's okay Petr -

Polednice has been banned. 

The arts requires humanity in order to cultivate one's garden. Science, on the other hand, adds fertiliser


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Webernite said:


> It's too bad Wittgenstein changed his mind about half a dozen times during his life.


and that he was not an artist


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Polednice said:


> Good news has just fallen into my lap! I just opened this term's lecture list to find this one-of-a-kind entry (I've never seen a lecture series on stuff like this before):
> 
> Literature and Your Mind: an overview of scientific insights into literature, including evolutionary theory (which asks why humans have told and enjoyed storytelling for most of our history), neuroscientific studies, and empirical and theoretical work in psychology and the cognitive sciences.
> 
> This is precisely the stuff I want, so I've noted the lecturers' names and will find out if they are science or arts lecturers, and then ask my tutor if I can work with them on my special papers.


Grill those lecturers mercilessly and ask if there are any schools which offer interdisciplinary programs - often custom designed and proposed by the student, approved of by faculty (with a few inevitable tweaks.) If such a thing exists, you can study the various areas with a pointed intent of their being a worthwhile synergy / synthesis of disciplines toward one purpose, including a diploma  They have been available in the states, are still relatively 'not promoted' and might be exactly fitting for what you hope to have and achieve. If that is possible, you are less likely having to ditch a handful of already completed units, or add much less to still get the degree than if you 'switched.'

Sorry all, but switching, if a heartfelt and understood necessity, is not an evil or wasteful thing. Your master's degree can not be in a field which is not directly related to your undergrad degree, or you end up making up additional undergrad units while in the masters degree program in order to qualify for the masters degree - which is back to what you are looking at now.


----------



## Ralfy (Jul 19, 2010)

Classes that integrate various art forms are fine, such as those that involve a literary work and a film and music works related to it thematically.


----------



## Iforgotmypassword (May 16, 2011)

I love how the Tl;DR is longer than the other paragraph


----------

