What are you taking this semester?

[GePap]

In a dscussion of philosophy, why not first define it?

philosohy: 1. orig lve of, or the search for, wisdom and knowledge 2.theory or logical analysis of the principles underlying conduct, thought, knowledge, and the nature of the universe: included in philosophy are ethics, aesthetics, logic, epistemology, metaphysics, etc. 3. the general principles or laws of a field of knowledge, etc. [the philosophy of economics] 4. a) a particular system of principles for the conduct of life b) a treatise covering such a system 5. a study of human morals, character and behavior 6. mental balance or composure thought of as resulting from the study of philosophy. [OBS] 7. NATURAL PHILOSOPHY.

So, philosophy is the first subject of higher study (which is why the thing is called a Ph.D, or Doctorate in Philosophy). Over time, as subheadings of this field got more and more complex they got their own offshoot classes. Over time, what wasd then left in philosophy is the most basic concepts which are applicable to ALL of the sub-headings that got their own little fiefdom over time.

[Asher]

And what we have now is a barren department, completely without use. All of the useful fields have shot off into their own departments.

Philosophy departments are simply obsolete.

Earlier you mentioned neo-conservatism, liberalism, etc -- isn't that what political science is for?

Philosophy is too vague and too general and too limited to be genuinely useful anymore. Which is precisely why no one has come up with any contributions -- either ideas or innovations, or anything that has impacted anyone's life -- from the past 50 years.

[GePap]

Actually, philosophy is the underlying foundation of all disciplines in the university,and thus exactly why it will continue to be taught.

There is a large amount of philosophy in Pol Sci rightfully, and having knowledge of philosophy helps greatly.

But you are essentially a mathematician at heart, which means you got your head so far up into numbers you can't see much beyond them..a sort of virtual mathematical reality. Newsflash though, the symbol for something is not always the thing in itself

[Kropotkin]

Yeah, but poly sci is just ignorance turned into science anyways...

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kropotkin
Yeah, but poly sci is just ignorance turned into science anyways...

* Gepap starts writing down the names of those that will be killed when the revolution starts:

Kropotkin
.........

[Asher]

Originally posted by GePap
Actually, philosophy is the underlying foundation of all disciplines in the university,and thus exactly why it will continue to be taught.

So explain to me the usefulness of PHIL 105 that Reismark is taking: Philosophy of Film.

I understand that "philosophy" (which could very well be synonymous for education) is very general and serves as the foundation for just about everything, but that's precisely why it needs to go.

If political science courses require philosophy courses on political science type stuff, why is this not simply a political science course?

Why have upper level philosophy of logic courses? Just what the hell do they hope to accomplish by bickering over syntax and being able to find utterly-important paradoxes like saying "I am lying", or whatever...

But you are essentially a mathematician at heart, which means you got your head so far up into numbers you can't see much beyond them..a sort of virtual mathematical reality. Newsflash though, the symbol for something is not always the thing in itself

I'm not a mathematician, I'm an applied mathematician -- computer science. The very nature of that means I look for ways to apply it to our world, the reality.

Philosophers, on the other hand, have their heads up in the clouds. Which is precisely why they're incapable of seeing just how useless their field is today.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Asher
So explain to me the usefulness of PHIL 105 that Reismark is taking: Philosophy of Film.

If we return to the definition given, ths falls under defi.3, or, the general principles of the subject.Oh my, now why would someone want to learn the general principles of their subject?

I understand that "philosophy" (which could very well be synonymous for education) is very general and serves as the foundation for just about everything, but that's precisely why it needs to go.

Yes, arithmatic is the foundation of all higher math..since we can use calculators to do it all anyway, children should no longer be taught this in school, it is a waste of time! So the kid can;t add 2 plus 3 in his head..big freaking deal! They can do it electronically, and that suffices: who needs to know the foundations of anything!

If political science courses require philosophy courses on political science type stuff, why is this not simply a political science course?

Because the subject matter is not limited to political science: it has applications accross the board, to all fields of klnowledge. Thus it is philosophy, and not political science.

Why have upper level philosophy of logic courses? Just what the hell do they hope to accomplish by bickering over syntax and being able to find utterly-important paradoxes like saying "I am lying", or whatever...

It would be reall nice for an individual, when asked to exlain the basis for their arguement, to give either an answer, or more likely, a logical arguement for its validity. Philosophy might lead you to a bunch of paradoxes, but in tackling these you are able to decide what you believe, and then be able to back up any other beliefs based on this higher up in the chain of ideas.

I'm not a mathematician, I'm an applied mathematician -- computer science. The very nature of that means I look for ways to apply it to our world, the reality.

Computers aren;t the real world either boy.

Philosophers, on the other hand, have their heads up in the clouds. Which is precisely why they're incapable of seeing just how useless their field is today.

Philosophy is as usefull today as it was in 300bc, and as long as man strives for knowledge beyond faith, it will remain as usefull.

[Kropotkin]

Gepap: Yeah well, not likely. Your time as a shady dictator is long gone by now.

[Asher]

Originally posted by GePap
If we return to the definition given, ths falls under defi.3, or, the general principles of the subject.Oh my, now why would someone want to learn the general principles of their subject?

Why is it only possible to learn general principles of your studies under a philosophy department?

Yes, arithmatic is the foundation of all higher math..since we can use calculators to do it all anyway, children should no longer be taught this in school, it is a waste of time! So the kid can;t add 2 plus 3 in his head..big freaking deal! They can do it electronically, and that suffices: who needs to know the foundations of anything!

Strawman! I agree completely that basic arithmetic should not be taught in university as well as philosophy. See, I am consistent.

Because the subject matter is not limited to political science: it has applications accross the board, to all fields of klnowledge. Thus it is philosophy, and not political science.

How is neoconservatism vs. liberalism philosophy and not political science?

It would be reall nice for an individual, when asked to exlain the basis for their arguement, to give either an answer, or more likely, a logical arguement for its validity.

But the philosopy TEACHER can't give the basis for his argument, nor a logical argument for its validity. So why is he teaching this crap??

Computers aren;t the real world either boy.

So Agathon believes computers will not exist in 100 years, and you believe they don't exist...period.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Asher

Why is it only possible to learn general principles of your studies under a philosophy department?

Because maybe someone in the visual arts department ddin;t crosslist this class? or maybe cause some prof. in the philosophy dept. wanted to talk about film?

Strawman! I agree completely that basic arithmetic should not be taught in university as well as philosophy. See, I am consistent.

When you find me an elementary school that teaches it's kids philosophy, we can talk about it no longer being in a university. But beyond this, i find your point incredible: you acknowledge philosophy to be the basis, yet you deny then the importance of learning the basis?

How is neoconservatism vs. liberalism philosophy and not political science?

Becuase the differences are based on a world view difference. Poli Sci by itself is a focus on how government works, how states interact, how political power is wielded. Now, there are disagreements about how to use power based on differing world-views, and this is where philosophy enters pol sci.

But the philosopy TEACHER can't give the basis for his argument, nor a logical argument for its validity. So why is he teaching this crap??

Actually, any good philosopher can do these things.

So Agathon believes computers will not exist in 100 years, and you believe they don't exist...period.

Maybe you should take a class in grammar as well as more philosophy.

[Asher]

Originally posted by GePap
When you find me an elementary school that teaches it's kids philosophy, we can talk about it no longer being in a university.

Hey, it was your strawman, not mine...

But beyond this, i find your point incredible: you acknowledge philosophy to be the basis, yet you deny then the importance of learning the basis?

Because it's not necessary. It was the basis of all of the fields, which have since evolved and matured and are now on their own. Learning the basis with philosophy is like talking to your great great great great great great grandfather about computers these days. It's not exactly the best way to go about it, even if he was somehow the basis...

Maybe you should take a class in grammar as well as more philosophy.

You're the one with about 100 spelling mistakes and counting in this thread, but you don't see me sinking to that level and picking on it. Does that say something for how strong your case is?

Do you also understand what a wink means? Would you like another philosophy class on the purpose of a wink, is that the only way your type can understand that?

Sheesh.

(And your comment that "computers aren't the real world" is ridiculous on so many levels...)

[GePap]

Originally posted by Asher
Because it's not necessary. It was the basis of all of the fields, which have since evolved and matured and are now on their own. Learning the basis with philosophy is like talking to your great great great great great great grandfather about computers these days. It's not exactly the best way to go about it, even if he was somehow the basis...

Hmm, so now we are getting to more basic issues.

The analogy is false.Beyond the nitpicky arguement that there was no computing that many generations ago, the fact is that the field we are speaking of, KNOWLEDGE, remains similar enough so that the ideas of someone 2000 years ago are valid. The basis of all science today is the scientific method: this is a philosophical creation. Someone centuries ago decided and create an arguement for why the only knowledge to be trusted is that which one experiments on. This is a philosophical arguement. It seems impossible to me to attempt to teach science without teaching the scientific method: how then can you trust that students will understand the basis for what they are doing? Ditto for philosophy and all fields.

You're the one with about 100 spelling mistakes and counting in this thread, but you don't see me sinking to that level and picking on it. Does that say something for how strong your case is?

I was questioning your reading comprehension, not how you structure your sentences or spelling.

(And your comment that "computers aren't the real world" is ridiculous on so many levels...)

And true in so many others.

[Asher]

Originally posted by GePap
Hmm, so now we are getting to more basic issues.

The analogy is false.Beyond the nitpicky arguement that there was no computing that many generations ago, the fact is that the field we are speaking of, KNOWLEDGE, remains similar enough so that the ideas of someone 2000 years ago are valid. The basis of all science today is the scientific method: this is a philosophical creation. Someone centuries ago decided and create an arguement for why the only knowledge to be trusted is that which one experiments on. This is a philosophical arguement. It seems impossible to me to attempt to teach science without teaching the scientific method: how then can you trust that students will understand the basis for what they are doing? Ditto for philosophy and all fields.

Scientific method is taught in jr. high and high school, at least here...philosophy, in the university level, is practically the antithesis of the scientific method. You can't prove much of anything, so you try to make convincing arguments. It's a high school debate club with a larger vocabulary.

I was questioning your reading comprehension, not how you structure your sentences or spelling.

But the glorious irony is it was you who did not comprehend.

And true in so many others.

Computers are not the real world, that much is obvious.
Philosophy is not the real world.
In fact, the only thing that is the real world is the real world itself.

Boy, semantics shur iz phun. I be a filosofer.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Asher
Scientific method is taught in jr. high and high school, at least here...philosophy, in the university level, is practically the antithesis of the scientific method. You can't prove much of anything, so you try to make convincing arguments. It's a high school debate club with a larger vocabulary.

Yawn. It is at the university level that one gets to argue whether empirical knowledge is more valid or not. In essence, you demand empirical knowlegde to come from philosophy (which I infer from your statement about "prove"), which is not going to happen. So we come back to your biases and preferences coloring your view of this subject.

But the glorious irony is it was you who did not comprehend.

It is not writen anywhere that placing a smiley means the other posetr must respond in the same spirit of the post. I chose to disregard the smiley, as is my perogative.

Computers are not the real world, that much is obvious.
Philosophy is not the real world.
In fact, the only thing that is the real world is the real world itself.

Boy, semantics shur iz phun. I be a filosofer.

A lousy one, yes. You are learning a bunch of mathematical rules so that later in life you imput a bunch of numbers and symbols into an electronic machine so that then you get the desired output, be it more symbols and numbers, or something sensual, or an action. Someone with a different bias vs. symbols can very easily claim what you do is nothing but mumbo jumbo.

[monolith94]

"My supervisor is a Grinnell graduate. I can testify to his ass-kicking nature."

I think of us as UChicago in smaller, pill form in cornfields... If that makes sense.

Asher seems like he would like Socrates - Socrates didn't like the teachers (sophists, right?) who claimed to teach ideas...

Perhaps Asher is a modern day Socrates pointing out the inadequacies of the philisophical profession?




nah