Philosophy Questions

Off Topic
21

[quote]nephorm wrote:
eengrms76 wrote:
I think that’s a remarkably short-sighted view. The goal of liberal education is, in part, to allow students to learn from the greatest minds in history, and to be thoughtful about the world around them. What you are advocating is little more than a trade school.[/quote]

Just curious, are you a college professor? Why is the term trade school thrown around whenever people complain about the impracticalities of school and how they don’t teach anything relevant. I’m a college grad, a recent law school grad, and somewhere in between I paid my way through a police academy. My opinion of all 3 is the same. I paid a bunch of money for a piece of paper and any real learning came after graduation. Our current system of education is way too focused on things like algebra, Charles Dickens, poetry, music, and other superfluous stuff. While all that stuff is great and wonderful, it doesn’t make you more competitive in the job market. Furthermore it adds to the cost and increases the time spent without an income. This just reinforces the stereotype that education is only for the rich. Wouldn’t that run counter to the liberal of liberal arts? In addition, my undergrad degree was in Mass Comm (Radio/TV among other things). For the TV production end of it, I’d have been better off going to a trade school.

22

In addition, Milk and Squats!!!

23

Don’t know if your paper was due already, but there have been some good answers. Neph is on point as usual, and the dude who referenced Kant was dead-on.

To answer the question about metaphysics and epistemology you need to really understand what the words mean. If you’re not clear on your terms, you can’t answer the question, and your first question is one that is essentially checking to see if you understand the terms.

In ancient Greek, metaphysics literally means “after those on nature”, which refers to Aristotle’s work after the Physics (from Gk ‘phusike’, literally ‘the knowledge of nature’) that dealt with questions on the nature of reality, the existence of God, our place/role in the universe.

Epistemology sort of sits underneath metaphysics; the word is derived from ‘episteme’ (knowledge) and logos (explanation/account); it asks questions about the nature of knowledge-- what do we know? what are we capable of knowing? how do we know things?

Do you see why those two necessarily overlap now? If metaphysics is concerned with the knowledge of nature, it necessarily follows that one would need to know just how we know those things.

ALL THAT SAID, you’re still a fucking ASSHAT for not doing this research on your own. If you can’t put some time into your work, you’re part of the intellectually bankrupt youth in this country, and I have nothing but contempt for your inability to get your shit together on your own.

24

[quote]Spike9726 wrote:
Our current system of education is way too focused on things like algebra, Charles Dickens, poetry, music, and other superfluous stuff. While all that stuff is great and wonderful, it doesn’t make you more competitive in the job market.[/quote]

Some of us think there is more to life than the job market or time spent with/without income. I happen to think that algebra, Charles Dickens, philosophy, music, and literature are not at all superfluous; they represent some of the finest contributions of world civilizations. Without a deep understand of what has come before, one is doomed to intellectual servitude.

25

[quote]Spike9726 wrote:

I’m a college grad, a recent law school grad, and somewhere in between I paid my way through a police academy. My opinion of all 3 is the same. I paid a bunch of money for a piece of paper and any real learning came after graduation. Our current system of education is way too focused on things like algebra, Charles Dickens, poetry, music, and other superfluous stuff. While all that stuff is great and wonderful, it doesn’t make you more competitive in the job market. Furthermore it adds to the cost and increases the time spent without an income. This just reinforces the stereotype that education is only for the rich. Wouldn’t that run counter to the liberal of liberal arts? [/quote]

I would say that you opinion the value of college education reflects the value of your particular college rather than the value of college education.

Just because something is not necessary does not mean that it is superfluous. Food is more necessary than love, and a paycheck is more necessary than being educated, but love is higher than food and beind educated is sometimes higher than having a big paycheck.

The ‘liberal’ in ‘liberal arts’ antedates the association of ‘liberal’ with the political left and democratic sentiment. ‘Liberal arts’ are the arts befitting a free man. In its most ancient sense, this meant the arts befitting the leisured Greek aristocrat who did not work at all. In its more recent sense, it means those arts befitting a free man in the modern sense–the citizen of a country, capable of conducting in a way that is not only beneficial to him and those of his generation but also to the heirs of his property and his country.

Short version: Deemphasizing liberal education in favor of job-based training benefits the private individual at the expense of his country and his descendants. It’s the educational equivalent of the Social Security problem: Mortgaging the future for present gains.

26

[quote]Spike9726 wrote:
nephorm wrote:
eengrms76 wrote:
I think that’s a remarkably short-sighted view. The goal of liberal education is, in part, to allow students to learn from the greatest minds in history, and to be thoughtful about the world around them. What you are advocating is little more than a trade school.

Just curious, are you a college professor? Why is the term trade school thrown around whenever people complain about the impracticalities of school and how they don’t teach anything relevant. I’m a college grad, a recent law school grad, and somewhere in between I paid my way through a police academy. My opinion of all 3 is the same. I paid a bunch of money for a piece of paper and any real learning came after graduation. Our current system of education is way too focused on things like algebra, Charles Dickens, poetry, music, and other superfluous stuff. While all that stuff is great and wonderful, it doesn’t make you more competitive in the job market. Furthermore it adds to the cost and increases the time spent without an income. This just reinforces the stereotype that education is only for the rich. Wouldn’t that run counter to the liberal of liberal arts? In addition, my undergrad degree was in Mass Comm (Radio/TV among other things). For the TV production end of it, I’d have been better off going to a trade school. [/quote]

There are goals to education besides preparation for the job market. Besides, if everyone was educated to prepare for the ‘job market’, then everyone would be more competitive compared to how things previously were; but there would be more competition from everyone, so in the end the bar is just raised only to make everyone climb higher equally and miss an intellectually stimulating educaion.

Also, this varies depending on what kind of job someone plans on holding- to an engineer or a scientist, a more academically oriented secondary eduation would be more pragmatic than trade-school, but for a lot of jobs the converse would hold true.

27

[quote]Spike9726 wrote:
Just curious, are you a college professor?
[/quote]
No. I’m not sure if that’s an insult or not…

If all you want college to do is to teach you how to perform at a particular job… that’s a trade school. I’m not using it as a pejorative term; I’m calling a spade a spade.

That’s unfortunate. At the very least, you ought to have learned to be a “paraprofessional,” as some educators are putting it these days. That is, learned enough skills and have generalized knowledge that can be applied to a wide variety of professional tasks. You ought to at least have learned, to some extent, how to learn.

You say that as though this is some sort of newfangled, artsy-fartsy idea of education, rather than a system that has been around for hundreds of years.

[quote]
While all that stuff is great and wonderful, it doesn’t make you more competitive in the job market. Furthermore it adds to the cost and increases the time spent without an income. This just reinforces the stereotype that education is only for the rich. Wouldn’t that run counter to the liberal of liberal arts? In addition, my undergrad degree was in Mass Comm (Radio/TV among other things). For the TV production end of it, I’d have been better off going to a trade school. [/quote]

Well, no. One of the other goals of a liberal arts education is to give you enough of an understanding about the world that you can be a good, thoughtful citizen. That may be an antiquated thought, but there it is; how can you live in a democracy and participate in it without understanding its foundations, or something about the world around you other than your own narrow specialty?

28

[quote]nephorm wrote:
Spike9726 wrote:
No. I’m not sure if that’s an insult or not…

Not intended to be an insult in any way bud, just trying to stir up some interesting conversation. There are plenty of trolls and smart asses on this board, I’m not one of them.

If all you want college to do is to teach you how to perform at a particular job… that’s a trade school. I’m not using it as a pejorative term; I’m calling a spade a spade.

Maybe so, but go back to why are people there. Most people are not paying a bunch of tuition strictly so they can read the classics or recite poetry. I’d really like to see more hands on, internship based programs. Less emphasis on fine arts. Before last year I would have argued for more adjunct professors, but be careful what you ask for. You may get it.

That’s unfortunate. At the very least, you ought to have learned to be a “paraprofessional,” as some educators are putting it these days. That is, learned enough skills and have generalized knowledge that can be applied to a wide variety of professional tasks. You ought to at least have learned, to some extent, how to learn.

How can you imply that I haven’t learned. Or are you now trying to insult me? A lot of the real world comes back to things like people skills, punctuality, playing the politics game, adapting to folks from different perspectives, and so forth. Law school in particular actually kind of admits that they aren’t teaching you the law so much as a way of looking at things. In short how to teach yourself. I thought a lot of my professors spent more time preaching their agenda more than teaching the black letter law. At the end of the day, people want to know about experiences and specialized training. Who you know helps too.

You say that as though this is some sort of newfangled, artsy-fartsy idea of education, rather than a system that has been around for hundreds of years.

Just because it’s been around doesn’t mean it’s right. Just because it’s been around for hundreds of years
doesn’t mean it’s current.

Well, no. One of the other goals of a liberal arts education is to give you enough of an understanding about the world that you can be a good, thoughtful citizen. That may be an antiquated thought, but there it is; how can you live in a democracy and participate in it without understanding its foundations, or something about the world around you other than your own narrow specialty?[/quote]

Fair enough, but I never actually said I didn’t want to see classes on Government, history, etc. I’m for these things. In my younger more rebellious days I used to say that History was the only relevant class because it actually happened.

Think I’m gonna go to bed. Goodnight.

29

Let me try to sort this out.

[quote]Spike9726 wrote:
Maybe so, but go back to why are people there. Most people are not paying a bunch of tuition strictly so they can read the classics or recite poetry. I’d really like to see more hands on, internship based programs. Less emphasis on fine arts. Before last year I would have argued for more adjunct professors, but be careful what you ask for. You may get it.
[/quote]

I have no problem with hands-on learning… I just don’t think the object of university is solely to learn how to do a particular job. I think you can do both… and I don’t think it damages your soul or body.

I’m not trying to insult you. You viewed school as pieces of paper you were forced to get before getting a real education. I was pointing out that if you didn’t at least get some minimal return on investment beyond the degree itself, that’s a shame. Most schools offer something better than that.

I haven’t yet gone to law school, so while I have plenty of things to say, I will allow those with actual experience of these things to speak up, instead.

I never said that. I was responding to your use of the word “current,” which seemed to imply that the university system is a wholly different animal than it used to be. I will say that I disagree with a lot of the subject matter that is required these days, and I think requiring the classics and great books would be a better approach. All in all, however, I think our universities are doing their part to educate.

My suggestion to you is that there is more to being a good, thoughtful citizen than memorizing history or taking government classes.

I’m smiling while I write this, because you sound exactly like the ‘democratic man’ Tocqueville describes in “Democracy in America.” Focused on the practical, on profit, on how he can put new skills to use in the shortest period of time. When he learns about things that have no immediate practical value, he prefers facts to long-chains of reasoning, and large ideas to subtle and difficult ones. I don’t think any of that is bad, and I’m not trying to poke fun at you. And while I understand why people would think this way, I do think it is important to give a little bit more to students.

[quote]
Think I’m gonna go to bed. Goodnight.[/quote]

Me too, before I stop making sense entirely.

30

A liitle off topic: Why did Kant belive that, just because we see things in a particular way, we aren’t seeing actual (noumenal) reality? Just because we use space and time to understand our environment doesn’t mean those things are inaccurate.

Neph?

31

[quote]Ross Hunt wrote:
Spike9726 wrote:

I’m a college grad, a recent law school grad, and somewhere in between I paid my way through a police academy. My opinion of all 3 is the same. I paid a bunch of money for a piece of paper and any real learning came after graduation. Our current system of education is way too focused on things like algebra, Charles Dickens, poetry, music, and other superfluous stuff. While all that stuff is great and wonderful, it doesn’t make you more competitive in the job market. Furthermore it adds to the cost and increases the time spent without an income. This just reinforces the stereotype that education is only for the rich. Wouldn’t that run counter to the liberal of liberal arts?

I would say that you opinion the value of college education reflects the value of your particular college rather than the value of college education.

Just because something is not necessary does not mean that it is superfluous. Food is more necessary than love, and a paycheck is more necessary than being educated, but love is higher than food and beind educated is sometimes higher than having a big paycheck.

The ‘liberal’ in ‘liberal arts’ antedates the association of ‘liberal’ with the political left and democratic sentiment. ‘Liberal arts’ are the arts befitting a free man. In its most ancient sense, this meant the arts befitting the leisured Greek aristocrat who did not work at all. In its more recent sense, it means those arts befitting a free man in the modern sense–the citizen of a country, capable of conducting in a way that is not only beneficial to him and those of his generation but also to the heirs of his property and his country.

Short version: Deemphasizing liberal education in favor of job-based training benefits the private individual at the expense of his country and his descendants. It’s the educational equivalent of the Social Security problem: Mortgaging the future for present gains.[/quote]

Seriously, Ross, this is one of the most eloquent posts I’ve read in a long, long time.

32

[quote]nephorm wrote:
seraphim28 wrote:

Hi everyone I was hoping I could get some help answering a couple a questions.

  1. why is it that epistemology and metaphysics necessarily overlap?

  2. which epistemology positions establish which metaphysical positions (vice versa)?

any help would be great I have to write a paper and these are a couple of the questions I have to answer.

In the finest of philosophical traditions, why don’t you give us your first attempt to answer the questions. Then we, in turn, will add our own small contribution of truth.

If we find something good or useful, we should then hold it out as a good among us. [/quote]

sorry I have not been on to reply to any questions but I have been real busy.

As to the questions I more or less have the answer needed to answer #1 it is #2 that I have trouble with. My answer for #1 is as follows. I have to write the answers and all in an essay so the answers might be set up weird.

Philosophy is the analysis of the nature or causes of reality, knowledge,and values based on logical reasoning.It is the study of thinking and being.Two branches that pertain to this are Metaphysics and Epistemology. Metaphysics is the branch that seeks to explain that nature of being or reality. The focus of Metaphysics is to answer how humans know that they know what they know. Epistemology is the branch in philosophu that examines the nature, methods, orgins, and limits of knowledge. Epistemology asks questions like ,where did knowledge come from? How did it become to be known?,and Is what humans know to be true necessarily true? Although these are two different studies they usually go hand in hand. Metaphysics and Epistemology necessarily overlap because, in order for us to know something, that something must exist. The way in which it exist determines what we can know about it and what there is to know.

well that is my answer to question 1.
Can anyone help me with #2

33

hehehe.

I love to start a fight and sit back and watch you guys duke it out. It is “philosophically entertaining!”

Have a nice day guys. I’m off to look for another victim. TaTa hehehe

34

I recently took a philosophy class and we had a similar assignment. When discussing the ways they relate to eachother and establish positions for the other, some people wrote about how physical objects are just a group of ideas. Therefore things can not exist without the mind percieving it. I do not really remember how this established positions for the other but perhaps someone can elaborate.

35

[quote]Skuebb wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
csuson wrote:
Squats and Milk…

ROFLMAO!!

What people don’t realize, and I’ve only recently learned, is that THIS REALLY IS THE ANSWER. FOR EVERY QUESTION. Utopia = flowing rivers of milk, with squat racks everywhere. And squat rack curlers being crushed by bricks falling from the sky …
Wait, what was the question again?[/quote]

And exploding bosu balls on the Fourth of July.

36

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
A liitle off topic: Why did Kant belive that, just because we see things in a particular way, we aren’t seeing actual (noumenal) reality? Just because we use space and time to understand our environment doesn’t mean those things are inaccurate.

Neph?[/quote]

I’ve often thought the same thing. Just because something is a perception, it doesn’t make it an illusion. Either I’m missing something here or some of the world’s greatest philosophers have some explaining to do.

37

I’m curious, what level of schooling is this for?

38

[quote]Skuebb wrote:
nephorm wrote:
eengrms76 wrote:
If the OP’s major is Philosophy then maybe your point is valid. AR was assuming it wasn’t and hence it would be a waste of time. I was an engineering major and you wouldn’t believe the stupid humanities classes I had to take. They were certainly a waste of time. I could have gotten out of school a whole year earlier and save a lot of $ if I didn’t have to take any of them.

I think that’s a remarkably short-sighted view. The goal of liberal education is, in part, to allow students to learn from the greatest minds in history, and to be thoughtful about the world around them. What you are advocating is little more than a trade school.

And, by the way, trade school might be just fine if you actually do nothing but engineering forever. But I sat next to a couple pretty good engineers in somelaw school classes. It took them quite some time to figure out that everything in the world is not a math problem. Why limit yourself?

[/quote]

There’s been a lot of discussion on this since my post, so I won’t delve too deep into it. I’ll just add a few points-

I make more than enough money right now in my profession that I don’t feel limited. If I wanted multiple degrees in multiple fields- I would have gone after that. I knew what I wanted to do as a career so that’s really all I “needed” to learn.

My comment was geared towards the fact that I was “forced” to take these classes in order to get my piece of paper. And I had a limited selection of classes (only about 200) I could pick from that the college deemed relevant to Engineering in some fashion. I wasn’t just allowed to take whatever I wanted. That’s a shame and that’s where I felt limited.

Yes I have always appreciated the trade school education process, it’s just a shame they don’t make as much money. I value my income higher than my overall education level, mainly because I can’t pay for my house or car, or put my kids through college, based on how many books I’ve read or how “well-rounded” my education was. For me, being a true scientist, I need the tangible benefits.

It is true that there are those that value their education higher than money. Typically those people either have no money, or way too much of it. The exceptions are people who just have different priorities than me.

Now this could be why I don’t enjoy literature, art, politics, humanities, etc. But I’m not going to lose any sleep over it.

39

[quote]KombatAthlete wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
A liitle off topic: Why did Kant belive that, just because we see things in a particular way, we aren’t seeing actual (noumenal) reality? Just because we use space and time to understand our environment doesn’t mean those things are inaccurate.

Neph?

I’ve often thought the same thing. Just because something is a perception, it doesn’t make it an illusion. Either I’m missing something here or some of the world’s greatest philosophers have some explaining to do.[/quote]

If you see things in a particular way, rather than as a unified whole, you are not seeing reality, you are seeing a construction of it. Physically we understand that what we are looking at are representations subject to distortion.

Senses are simply imperfect; by looking at one thing and comprehending it as separate from another, we are making possibly false distinctions. The real world is a bunch of “stuff,” and we can only understand a little bit of it at a time, and imperfectly. Perfect knowledge would be knowledge of the whole, and only God can know the whole.

As for why Kant thought that way… well, his argument is long and technical. He wrote the Critique of Pure Reason at a fever pitch, worrying that he would die before its completion… which didn’t help its clarity.

Suffice it to say that the Greeks understood that there was some difference between what is thought and the thing itself… their formulations are different from the Kantian one, of course.

40

[quote]KombatAthlete wrote:
I’m curious, what level of schooling is this for?[/quote]

Kindergarten. School for the gifted.