111–120 of 155 posts
It’s a bit better than I expected although it does seem odd that everything in the first two years is very Eurocentric. It’s only in the third year are students exposed to anything by Asian authors (and there’s some cheating there in that the Dao de jing is listed twice—no, wait, three times!) and those are all under the category of elective works. I’m frankly unconvinced of the value of reading historical works of s…
It's an interesting approach. They do like the classic sources. I've at least skimmed more than half of those titles, long after college. It's amusing that they have students read Pikkety's "Capital" before Marx's "Capital". You don't want to learn geometry from Euclid. You read Euclid after you already know geometry, to see how he built it up. Similarly, you don't want to learn calculus from Newton. Or physics from…
Those are excellent suggestions. I think we are probably at the point where you could do a Great Books curriculum in Computer Science. Would be interesting to put together that list: 10-20 foundational primary texts in Algorithms, Programming/Software Engineering, Logic, AI, and Computer Architecture. But, as you note, it'd probably be a terrible way to actually learn how to engineer software. More intellectually sat…
Carnegie Mellon University has put together a list of "Seminal Papers in Software Engineering": http://reports-archive.adm.cs.cmu.edu/anon/isr2015/CMU-ISR-1...
It's an interesting approach. They do like the classic sources. I've at least skimmed more than half of those titles, long after college. It's amusing that they have students read Pikkety's "Capital" before Marx's "Capital". You don't want to learn geometry from Euclid. You read Euclid after you already know geometry, to see how he built it up. Similarly, you don't want to learn calculus from Newton. Or physics from…
Is Euclid just about geometry? I have not read it, but others have written it is a good introduction to mathematical proofs. A few comments on HN over the years said Hammack's "Book Of Proof" or Velleman's "How To Prove It" are more thorough, but are intended for 3rd/4th year math undergrad, and Euclid is easier to get through. My last math course was stats and business calc about 30 years ago.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you looking for a book to learn proofs from? Are you looking to learn any math topics in particular? I think you can go through any of the books you listed and get an understanding of proofs. The proofs books usually use basic number theory or set theory for examples because the point is to learn the logic and structure of proofs. (If the book isn't enough for you, you can use Khan Academy as a refresher.) Learni…
WRT math topics: probably Calculus and linear algebra. I will look into the proofs book you recommended. Thanks.
You can also cover linear algebra without proofs.
There are, of course, books that do cover proofs for calculus and linear algebra, but it depends on what you’re trying to get out of the material.
Remarkably missing many works of Christian theology... No St. Augustine, Aquinas, St. John of Chrysostom, Calvin, etc.
I have read many of these works listed. I don't like this database-looking list format; too many books there. Some of them are quite challenging. Freshman Reading: Homer - Illyad, Odyssey ... ok! if you read the Odyssey in your own native language (not greek), you probably will enjoy it, but how are you going to know about the grand themes unless someone tells you about it? seems sad in a way that these great works a…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> a very serious view in the postmodern, post-WWII academy is That's just a load of edgy nonsense to get attention. Unfortunately, it seems to have worked.
Which part, exactly, is “””edgy”””?
And, it completely ignores the achievements of "Western thought", as well as the barbaric actions that have taken place elsewhere, from Turkey to Japan, while simultaneously suggesting their thinkers should be read.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
RE 3: as an SJC alum, I found my reading speed slowed drastically both during and after four years spent reading and discussing these books. I found myself thinking while reading more often, making more connections within and between works. That said, reading alone misses the meat of “The Program” (always capitalized!) - it’s the searching, pointed, urgent discussion of a work with others who share a common language…
Is it usually a value-add or how often does the push for intellectual rigor slide to something else? Had a notoriously argumentative coworker from nearby SJ in SF. He’d always swear he was just asking questions or wanted to know why “they chose this way over another” but not so secretly just wanted the world to burn.
Think of it like the light and dark sides of the force: skill in rhetoric can just as easily be used to derail conversations or slide into sophistry as it can to explore the foundations of an idea, argument, or position in search of insight.
Intellectual honesty tends to require a certain restraint from the practitioner, whereas resentment and anger can feed into deliberate conversational malice.
The forms of discourse at St. John’s contribute greatly to earnest inquiry in the classroom setting: the system of formal address, for instance, in which other students are addressed as, say, “Ms. Klein” or “Mr. Armstrong” in class creates an incredible separation between daily life and the classroom - enabling you to treat someone’s statements and arguments at face value.
My experience with St. John’s was that the Tutors (called professors anywhere else) generally managed to guide and keep conversations on track with a light, deft hand on such occasions as intervention was called for - this was increasingly rarely over the course of the Program, however, as keeping things directed and on track was primarily enforced by one’s fellow students, whose urgent pursuit of truth and understanding brooked no interference, and suffered very little foolishness.
My guess is your former coworker was probably just as argumentative before he came to St. John’s as when you met him. The school isn’t formative in the sense of changing your nature; it’s formative in the sense of giving you the tools to better understand the world around you. Most people left with the same personalities and political views they came in with.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
WRT math topics: probably Calculus and linear algebra. I will look into the proofs book you recommended. Thanks.
You can take four terms of calculus using the Stewart book and not need to do any proofs. You do need to review algebra and have a good grounding in that, though. You can also cover linear algebra without proofs. There are, of course, books that do cover proofs for calculus and linear algebra, but it depends on what you’re trying to get out of the material.
I should have listed proofs as a third topic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
(edit: apparently these are just "books tagged mathematics", not the mathematics tutorial reading list. First and second paragraphs mostly hold) I went through a great books curriculum (not in math), and this list reminds me of my primary complaint with the whole Great Books approach. "Great Books" is mired in fairly a ridiculous fetishism of the Greek classics, the Enlightenment era, the American founding, and the A…
Computing is not yet old enough for us to know which books on computing are great books. Also the point of reading Euclid is not really to learn geometry but rather to investigate and examine the oldest, most primordial expression of the idea that math should be formalized using a few axioms.