Grading Hell: Death to the Teachers!!!

[Asher]

Originally posted by Comrade Tassadar
Asher; I'm usually on your side but could you please take your anti-Agathon troll elsewhere?
Create an anti-philosophy thread or something.

I don't see how it's out of place to troll a philosopher who is trolling teachers. You get what you give.

However, because I love you dearly: http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...hreadid=109710

[Nubclear]

It's out of place because it's off topic.
Heck, if you create a new thread about it I might even participate

[GePap]

Originally posted by Asher
For example, this means jack-**** to non-philosophers:

Utilitarianism proper rounds out to three things.

1) An account of the good.

2) An acceptance of consequentialism.

3) A principle of aggregation, whereby more of the good is better and less is worse.

Deontological ethics denies 2 and 3 (wrongly in my view).

So your ignorance is proof against Agathon? If your theory about philosophy being a waste of time and iincapable of teaching you anything, then you should, through your own intelliegence and innate ability for rational thought figure this out, no?

Or perhaps, Philosophy does teach one things, and in learing philosophy you get to know what thesae things mean, and then you can use the new terms to build a greater understanding of the dieas out there.

[Asher]

Off-topic of what, calling all teachers morons?

It should be a crime against humanity to turn that around and say maybe the people teaching the teachers are morons...

[Asher]

Originally posted by GePap
So your ignorance is proof against Agathon? If your theory about philosophy being a waste of time and iincapable of teaching you anything, then you should, through your own intelliegence and innate ability for rational thought figure this out, no?

Sure, here's what inate rational thought does:
1) An account of the good. --> A story or recorded enumeration of events that are "good".
2) An acceptance of consequentialism. --> **** happens.
3) A principle of aggregation, whereby more of the good is better and less is worse. --> Sex twice is better than once per night

Or perhaps, Philosophy does teach one things, and in learing philosophy you get to know what thesae things mean, and then you can use the new terms to build a greater understanding of the dieas out there.

Or perhaps, Philosophy does teach one things, and in learning philosophy you get to know what these things mean, and then you, too, can act like a pretentious ass on web forums, talking down to villains like teachers?

[Nubclear]

TAKE IT ELSEWHERE

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Asher
When I posted the thread about Windows running on PowerPC 970FX processors, I instead called it the "Apple G5" to confuse less people.

I do go out of my way to simplify my language when talking to people outside of my field, yet Agathon repeatedly assumes everyone would know the formal philosophical definition of "Utilitarian" and uses it as such, then argues with people who use it differently.

Yes, and if I started arguing about the latest iBook with a PowerPC 970FX, you would correct me and say "no it's a G4".
This is exactly what Agathon did on utilitarianism. Don't use the word if you don't know what it means (not that I agreed with him, but simply that he had the right to do this).

This brings me to another problem I have with philosophers: pretentiousness.

Philosophers talk about ethics and supreme causes- topics that also fall under the discourse of the common man. Unfortunately, the comman man usually refuses to admit the philosopher's superiority on the domain, probably because beliefs are ferociously defended by whoever has them.
No one would dispute an engineer in his field of specialty, while philosophers get labeled as 'pretentious' every time they try to talk about ethics.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Asher
For example, this means jack-**** to non-philosophers:

Utilitarianism proper rounds out to three things.

1) An account of the good.

2) An acceptance of consequentialism.

3) A principle of aggregation, whereby more of the good is better and less is worse.

Deontological ethics denies 2 and 3 (wrongly in my view).

Um, I'm not remotely a philosopher, but I understood this just fine. What don't you understand about it?

[Nubclear]

Would fakeboris, Asher, and Gepap please take their anti-philosophy flame elsewhere so that the discussion of teaching can continue in this thread?
Thank you.

[GePap]

Well, one out of three ain't bad..sort of.

Or perhaps, Philosophy does teach one things, and in learning philosophy you get to know what these things mean, and then you, too, can act like a pretentious ass on web forums, talking down to villains like teachers?

Boring. The realtive ignorance of most people is not the fault of the philosophers. The fact is, when you try to lay out extremely complex notions, you get into extremely complex language- a simple reality in life.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Yes, and if I started arguing about the latest iBook with a PowerPC 970FX, you would correct me and say "no it's a G4".
This is exactly what Agathon did on utilitarianism. Don't use the word if you don't know what it means (not that I agreed with him, but simply that he had the right to do this).

No, because utilitarianism is not Utilitarianism. It's a mistake Agathon made.

The definition of utilitarianism is:

u·til·i·tar·i·an·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (y-tl-târ--nzm)
n.

The belief that the value of a thing or an action is determined by its utility.

which Boris certainly used correctly. So a more correct analogy would be you saying you had the latest iBook with a G4, and Agathon telling you "no, books contain pages!!!!".

Philosophers talk about ethics and supreme causes- topics that also fall under the discourse of the common man. Unfortunately, the comman man usually refuses to admit the philosopher's superiority on the domain, probably because beliefs are ferociously defended by whoever has them.
No one would dispute an engineer in his field of specialty, while philosophers get labeled as 'pretentious' every time they try to talk about ethics.

Because ethics are relative and based on moral beliefs, not scientific fact.

[GePap]

Excuse me Tas, but you ain't the keeper of the thread. It was started by a philosopher after all.

SO STOPSPAMMING AND MAKE YOUR OWN ANTI-SPAMMING THREAD!

[Nubclear]

Leave this thread now or I'll get my tank

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Comrade Tassadar
Leave this thread now or I'll get my tank

Allright, fake Comrade, we'll move.

[GePap]

Because ethics are relative and based on moral beliefs, not scientific fact.

Ah, yes, science..glad you bring that up..

Care to explain why we should listen to science, and not, say, faith, when thinking about the answers to a myriad of problems? After all, what is the value of empirical knowledge?

Interestingly enough, the validation of science is not a scientific answer at all, but a philosophical one.