What does Yea Forums think of Oxford’s reading lists for Philosophy, Psychology and Computer Science?

What does Yea Forums think of Oxford’s reading lists for Philosophy, Psychology and Computer Science?

Attached: 2688CCC2-0AEA-4B4D-9C1A-C7E6713DF707.jpg (2587x3464, 1.02M)

>book of Russell is from 2008
is this an actual list? I don't think Oxford make a mistake

and not good list for philosophy either, I didn't read all of book but It looks obvious it took out big chunk of themes such as phenomenology

the dates are wrong on all the books, so i'm guessing it's do with certain publications

This typifies why academics are useless.
1) No foundational texts
2) All recently published
3) From academis

Why the hell Consciousness Explained and Wife for a Hat exist in a list in psychology? isn't they should care about Jean Piaget or Adler?
This type of book is fucked up even for some generalization like Geisteswissenschaften.
Freud and Jung, I admit that the theory is too old. but this list is really worse than reading their book

Lmao you think because they didn't buy into the start with the Greeks meme they're worthless? There's no reason to learn about philosophy in such a linear fashion

The man who mistook his wife for a hat is a great book for those getting into neuropsychology

>pinker
>Dennett

trash garbage

>Lmao you think because they didn't buy into the start with the Greeks meme they're worthless?
No

philosophy died with Boethius. They are not teaching philosophy.

your saying is almost as right as spice and wolf is great book for economical history of medieval era.
I mean yes, but seriously Oxford.

ah yes, universities are a scam

t. smug asshole upset they didnt get into oxford like her friends :(

why would they have pinker in the psychology section on language when there are loads of works by chomsky which are actually valid and true?

nonono user, textbooks and introductory texts are useless, the only correct way to get started on any subject is to download books you saw on some chart on a chinese cartoon forums, then jump straight into the text, give up after 20 pages, skim through the wikipedia article and then pretend that you actually know what you're talking about. those universities and academics know nothing.

universities ARE a scam when you are going there to take PHILOSOPHY.

>theres no reason to learn about philosophy in a linear fashion
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahagahahahahahahahahahahahahagahahahagagahagahagahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah

...well put

Hahaha ^

Could work as an introduction into philosophy, but is a complete waste of time once you realize you are consuming rehashed and possibly misinterpreted views of other, actually relevant philosophers. Philosophy isn't like mathematics and science where somebody can easily reexplain how somebody else approached the solution to the problem, because philosophy is much more abstract, and complex solutions depend on other complex solutions depend on other complex solutions that are all created and solved by the original philosopher. It is not like mathematics and science where ideas are only build off of eachother. Good luck interpreting any of what the continental philosophers, or of what the postmodernists said, from a secondary source. For instance, the first book covers the critique of pure reason in 7 pages. lol. And they spend more time on his groundwork of the metaphysics of morals? Of course, 1/3 of the book is just talking about Locke. Imagine learning about Nietzsche in 14 pages from a secondary source that covers only two of his works.

>There's no reason to learn about philosophy in such a linear fashion
Then why do the universities teach philosophy in a linear fashion? Oh yeah, because you are another pseud who has no knowledge on what he's talking about.

Those aren't the reading lists for actual courses. Those are books that they recommend you read before you even begin the degree. They are recommending this stuff to high schoolers

>her
why don't you show us your smug right little asshole