Any Philosophers here??

I'm majoring in philosopy(unless a change my mind) because I find it interesting and helpful in understanding the world. However, a degree in philosophy does not effect your ability to be a philosopher. Some of the deepest philosophical ideas people have communicated to me came from high school drop outs

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Hy

I'm a philosohy's teacher and trying to be a little philosopher. I studied philosophy and social sciences at Universitat Jaume I of Castelló in Catalonian Countries (Spain, Europe). Then I passed a "oposición" (I don't know its english) to become a teacher. Now I'm finishing Filosofia in the UNED (a non presential university) and learning about astronomy. I investigate about a minimal ontology (reality theory) who autorize us to start thinking and saying in each field of the sciences, trying to discover the metaphysical prejudices in each science (matemathics, physics, biology...) and how to reconciliate phenomenology and analaithical philosophy.
I can tell you all that a good philosopher is like and old spanish medicine: "good for all things and able for nothing!"

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

some one wants to work at McDonalds

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I tried to take a philosophy of mind course once. wasn't really my thing. it was just too wishy washy. and the prof always deflected any good questions.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yeah, the working at mcdonalds thing might yet change my major...at least as an enlish major i could be an editor or something.

I've never taken a philosophy of mind course, but that hasn't been my experience in any of the philosophy classes i've taken. Perhaps you had a bad professor?

 

1. The quality of education varies much within the field of philosophy just like many other fields of schoolarship. My point is you can't seperate the formally educated with from the non-educated some will have a significantly better education than others.
2. The concept of philosophers are very vague some just mean people who wonder some again others mean formally educated philosophers. Having the first kind in mind im sure you will find many outside universities e.g. children tend to like this This is true but it should not be confused with the idea that formal education in philosophy is worthless. Anybody can wonder(and ought to) but formally educated know the different stances and the arguments that have been made through time. Also fields of e.g. "theori of argumentation" and "logic" are presented to formal educated these serve as tools of the trade. I can proberly aid some who has experienced a traficcrash in someway(firsthelp) but that doesn't make me a docter(med). Obviosly the years of medical training will make a difference between the med. and me, the same goes for philosophy.
3. Concerning money. I don't think anyone natural philosophically inclined will put this above the interest in philosophy. Philosophy means love of knowledge(wisdom) if your more concerned about the money then you should pick something else. Else you could do like Spinoza who though himself a handwork and made lenses for selling. I think a person who attend philosophy(high level education) should be pretty serious. This is not something you should expect to earn money on this should be from pure interest. Also at least where a study the dropout rate is very high this deffinatly isn't for everybody.
4. Philosphy=history, that is WAY off at least where I attend. Sure there is plenty of "history of philosophy" BUT it is very "theory-oriented" which means that the focus is on the different stances presented throughout history. The purpose is that we should know the different stances and the flaws of these stances so that will not present the same flaws that have already been made. Where I attend there is little historical detail all weight is put on the agumental philosophical technical side.
5. Why study philosophy? Because it is a field that can be improved and formal education is the most natural and proerly effective way to do it.

Cheers Frotiw

 

"Philosphy=history, that is WAY off at least where I attend. Sure there is plenty of "history of philosophy" BUT it is very "theory-oriented" which means that the focus is on the different stances presented throughout history"

Disagree wholeheartidly. In my studies of philosophy, discussions with the formally educated various university professors one thing I can safely say is that you learn the HISTORY as well!

Think about this way; could you understand how Beethovan arrived at his music without studying his period in time? Could you understand the birth of democracy without understanding the struggle in Athens first? Could you understand the French Revolution without understanding all the causes and events that led up to it? Nope. And you sure as fuck couldn't understand Descartes without the Renaissance, Nietzsche without the Franco-Prussian wars or Wittgenstein without Hitler.

Like Sartre said; The essense cannot precede the existence.

A B.A. in Philosophy will involve discussion about history. It will involve the professor teaching you about the setting. Past that, from what I've heard, you better be prepared to learn what's actually going on in the world at the time the author wrote.

 

Well thats a philosophical stance you can choose. You may opt for this stance or not, but it is not necessarily the natural view of the role of "history of philosophy". Personally I disagree on this stance, I understand(correct me please) as philosophy in the context of history. Sure the setting has great influence on what stances that will evolve. The focus of philosphical investigation will also be greatly determined by historical setting but this is almost purely of interest of the historicans. Yes we need to understand the historical context to understand why e.g. this specific stance was introduced instead of another one. But this is historical investigation and undoubtly of great interest for the historians. This is not philosophical investigation. The philosophers(doing philosophy) are generally not that interested in historical setting. The philosophers are not interested in the conditions and underlaying past that has lead to a certain idea. The philosophers are concerned with the "eternal ideas". The supposed stances are either valid or not valid completly independant of history. That is exactly why we need to be educated in past theories, we need to concider them as philosophical theories. That is why e.g. Platon, Socrates etc. are often mentioned because their thought are still relevant.
The understanding of how these theories came to be that is what Tyler express, are indeed interesting but for the historians.
There is nothing wrong with the persude of wisdom of the way a theory was produced but this is the field of "History of Ideas" and should not be confused with philosophy. Just to point it out again "History of Ideas" are a historical area not an philosophical. What tyles points at is not within the field of philosphy but histoty.
As you might have noticed "history" and "history of ideas" both depend on a philosophical stance(also know as theory of history). That is the methodology of the "history".
The last comment was intended those that would subscribe "historicism" as philosophical stance. Tyler's reply seem to indicate such a thought.

To get my point: concider the offence to Descartes if his works was only to be understood in a historical frame. He intentionaly started out doubting anything(he thought) to build up a secure foundation of knowledge. What would he had said if told him his works was dependant on historical context? He explicitly attemptet to counter such thought by doubting anything and then building only on what was claimed sucure(also through history).

Cheers

 

screw satre. why get bogged down in the details. cant the essence of anything be captured by by merely focusing and paying attention it? is it like to learn, i gotta make mistakes first? if fuckers are that stupid to include historical baggage in whatever endeavour, it probably not worth the time! are you aware of the term "timeless"? aim for that. make sure your relevance is not tied down to any fucking period in time!

 

Sadly, you boys seem to have missed the point here - though spookz in a much more unthinking manner.


So, first, Frotiw;

"Well thats a philosophical stance you can choose. You may opt for this stance or not, but it is not necessarily the natural view of the role of "history of philosophy"

Not true at all. If you've studied music to a great degree, philosophy, psychology or basically anything else that falls into this kind of category you'll soon find out that you inevitably are forced to learn the history.


"The focus of philosphical investigation will also be greatly determined by historical setting but this is almost purely of interest of the historicans. Yes we need to understand the historical context to understand why e.g. this specific stance was introduced instead of another one. But this is historical investigation and undoubtly of great interest for the historians...The philosophers are concerned with the "eternal ideas". The supposed stances are either valid or not valid completly independant of history"

Wrong, and I can't stress enough the extent to which. First of all, most philosophers of the twentieth century on (or, hell, the 19th on) would be disgusted if you told them they were concerned with "eternal ideas". There are no "eternal ideas" in modern philosophy. That's an admitted fact. And as for the stances being completely independant of history? Hell no. Philosophy students are being taught to understand the concepts of philosophy. You cannot understand the concepts of philosophers to the full extent until you understand the times they were bred in.

Like I said before, you will never get through a music course without learning about Chopin's Poland or Mozart's Austria.


"That is why e.g. Platon, Socrates etc. are often mentioned because their thought are still relevant."

No. They are still discussed because they were the founders of philosophy and the basis of rational thought.


"The understanding of how these theories came to be that is what Tyler express, are indeed interesting but for the historians."

Wrong. Philosophy in University is the study of philosophy, the study of knowledge and the persuit of it. Like I've said before, you cannot understand the product until you understand the production.


"What tyles points at is not within the field of philosphy but histoty"

Wrong. And I can get numerous statements from Professors if you'd like.


'"The last comment was intended those that would subscribe "historicism" as philosophical stance. Tyler's reply seem to indicate such a thought."

Wrong. I simply wish to understand the assembly before I state I understand the product.


"To get my point: concider the offence to Descartes if his works was only to be understood in a historical frame."

Where in fuck did you see me say that it was "only to be understood" in historical frame?


"What would he had said if told him his works was dependant on historical context?"

Probably; "Yes, Tyler, I agree. I am definetly influenced largely by my environment - like every single human being"

 

"screw satre. why get bogged down in the details. cant the essence of anything be captured by by merely focusing and paying attention it?"

I'm not going to go through the concepts of Sartre and existentialism with you - but you need to do some reading if that's your understanding of what I said.


"are you aware of the term "timeless"? aim for that. make sure your relevance is not tied down to any fucking period in time!"

Yes, and at the same time I will make myself a flying purple unicorn. That's about as likely as me being able to overcome what every human has suffered - and that's being greatly shaped by your environment.

 

hey i just read frotw and he seems to be saying the same thing as i did!
(the man is a genius)

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

enjoy your childhood fella. it aint gonna come around again

 

Sartre was a child? Eh.

I'll deliver your message to UofT post-haste, spookz. I've not been speaking on my own assumptions here - I'm speaking from what I've been told by many

 

Tyler:
Wrong. Philosophy in University is the study of philosophy, the study of knowledge and the persuit of it. Like I've said before, you cannot understand the product until you understand the production.

This is exactly where you go wrong. The last sentence is what shows the confusion between history and philosophy. Production(the progress) emphasized over product is history. Had you attented a course of "theory og argumentation" perhaps also "logic" would you ought to know that the way of manufaction(origin) is insignificant to the validaty of an argument. As a matter of fact this is exactly what is known as the "genetic fallicy". For those that do not know it that is the generalization of such arguments as e.g. "Ad Hominem". Philosophers tend not to wish to build their framework on a well known fallacy. I am repeating myself when I say this but here I go again:
Your right you cannot historically understand a theory without understanding the historical context. This however is not the job for philosophers. The philosophers are to concider the theory on it's own merrits. In practis this e.g. means that it is very commen to use broad concept like e.g. empirism which are easily understood without referering to history. In philosophy we are simply not concerned with the origin(or way of manufacturing) of a theory that is for the historians. The same goes for quantum mechanic. You do not have understand the timeframe of Bohr and Einstein to understand Quantum Mechanic. If you historically want to understand how Quantum Mechanic came to be as a theory(historicaly) you can concern yourself with the historical background setting. If you are phycisian working as a phycisian with quantum phenomenons you have little need of knowing the historical background. For the theory of quantum mechanics the history means shit. Obviosly the same goes for philosphy we don't need to know the historical background to know either vaildaty or argumental force and flaws.

A B.A. in Philosophy will involve discussion about history. It will involve the professor teaching you about the setting. Past that, from what I've heard, you better be prepared to learn what's actually going on in the world at the time the author wrote.

Well this is not the case with my B.A.

There are no "eternal ideas" in modern philosophy. That's an admitted fact

Ok a simple confusion I wasn't refering to onthological ideas I simply means objective/absolute theories or at least and argumentation based on an objective level.

Wrong. I simply wish to understand the assembly before I state I understand the product.

Yes and understand the assembly is historical investigation not philosophycal just like the above "quantum mechanic example" is history of science and not science.

 

"Production(the progress) emphasized over product is history"

Again you amke this one error that completely looses it for you.
I never said production over product. I said understanding production is neccesary to understnad the product.

I think, Frotiw, you and I are saying very similar things. You just seem to think I put more weight on the history than I actually do. I put as much importance on understanding The Renaissance in understanding Descartes as I saw the importance on understanding history when learning about Mozart and Chopin and Strauss in music training.


"Well this is not the case with my B.A."

No? It's my understanding that most B.A.'s in philosophy discouse Descartes' Discourse on Method. Did you not talk about the renaissance and it's influence on Descartes during your years? If not, it appears I'm well ahead of myself!


"Ok a simple confusion I wasn't refering to onthological ideas I simply means objective/absolute theories or at least and argumentation based on an objective level"

Good enough.


"Yes and understand the assembly is historical investigation not philosophycal just like the above "quantum mechanic example" is history of science and not science"

No, you are right, the history is not a philosophical investigation. However, you are not thinking in enough dimensions here. Imagine you could only see ten feet above your head. All of a sudden you notice rain dropping. Would you tell me that to understand rain we need only look at the rain itself - or should we look at the clouds as well? A look at the cause is definetly important. Perhaps not to the amateur philosopher (which is what I am right now), perhaps not to the B.A. student (as the B.A. course in Uni tends to lead most people out of philosophy, not onto a Ph.D.) - but if you want to reach any kind of plateau in understanding philosophy and the progression of human thought (note; no, this is not a "history" topic. If you look at your course selection sheets for further studies in Philosophy you'll likely notice that the history aspect of philosophy is found there - and not in a "history" course), it is integral to actually know what causes the thoughts men have.

 

tyler

However, you are not thinking in enough dimensions here

ahh the frikking arrogance! i am gonna have some fun with your ass!

Imagine you could only see ten feet above your head. All of a sudden you notice rain dropping. Would you tell me that to understand rain we need only look at the rain itself - or should we look at the clouds as well?

what a ridiculous example. where is its relevance? you are being disingenuous

If not, it appears I'm well ahead of myself!

yes it is very apparent. dont come running back crying for mommy!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

If you look at your course selection sheets for further studies in Philosophy you'll likely notice that the history aspect of philosophy is found there - and not in a "history" course), it is integral to actually know what causes the thoughts men have.

the authors of a school curriculum are now of exalted status? the inclusion of history keeps you guys busy and them paid!

instead of frikking generalizing and standing in the rain, why dont you pull out a philosophical concept that cannot be understood without a notion of its circumstance? once that is done, introduce another that can be understood by itself (honesty for a change!)

now that i think about it you were pulling the same shit in some movie thread
what was it, mr ebert? to really understand the movie you gotta..........what?

 

"Well thats a philosophical stance you can choose. You may opt for this stance or not, but it is not necessarily the natural view of the role of "history of philosophy"

Not true at all. If you've studied music to a great degree, philosophy, psychology or basically anything else that falls into this kind of category you'll soon find out that you inevitably are forced to learn the history.
Forced? Probably a non acurate concept. You don't need more history to study aristotelian logics than you need in astronomy.








"The focus of philosphical investigation will also be greatly determined by historical setting but this is almost purely of interest of the historicans. Yes we need to understand the historical context to understand why e.g. this specific stance was introduced instead of another one. But this is historical investigation and undoubtly of great interest for the historians...The philosophers are concerned with the "eternal ideas". The supposed stances are either valid or not valid completly independant of history"

Wrong, and I can't stress enough the extent to which. First of all, most philosophers of the twentieth century on (or, hell, the 19th on) would be disgusted if you told them they were concerned with "eternal ideas". There are no "eternal ideas" in modern philosophy. That's an admitted fact. And as for the stances being completely independant of history? Hell no. Philosophy students are being taught to understand the concepts of philosophy. You cannot understand the concepts of philosophers to the full extent until you understand the times they were bred in.

This is an unaccaptable prejudice that I have listened many times before. First, let us stablish what world is and what time is and then (not before) we can talk about history. It's impossible understand history without some ontological precepts beacuse it suposes that "existence", "universe" or "time" are out there. What do you mean when said that there are not eternal ideas in the modern philosophy? What about hegelian idealism? What about transcendental idealism in Kant?






Like I said before, you will never get through a music course without learning about Chopin's Poland or Mozart's Austria.
Music starts from a matemathical bases. If you want to apreciate formal objectes of any art, you don't need its historical context.





"That is why e.g. Platon, Socrates etc. are often mentioned because their thought are still relevant."

No. They are still discussed because they were the founders of philosophy and the basis of rational thought.
Yes, my God! Aristotle or Plato are classic philosophers beause the problems they investigated seems as interesting now as before.







"The understanding of how these theories came to be that is what Tyler express, are indeed interesting but for the historians."

Wrong. Philosophy in University is the study of philosophy, the study of knowledge and the persuit of it. Like I've said before, you cannot understand the product until you understand the production.
Nope. The logic value of a sentence (E=mc^2) doesn't depends of the making off.







"What tyles points at is not within the field of philosphy but histoty"

Wrong. And I can get numerous statements from Professors if you'd like.






'"The last comment was intended those that would subscribe "historicism" as philosophical stance. Tyler's reply seem to indicate such a thought."

Wrong. I simply wish to understand the assembly before I state I understand the product.


"To get my point: concider the offence to Descartes if his works was only to be understood in a historical frame."

Where in fuck did you see me say that it was "only to be understood" in historical frame?
I just understood the same way, help me understand you.






"What would he had said if told him his works was dependant on historical context?"







Historicism, in philosophy, it's a hardly reductive tendence I have never understand at all. The historical context can help you to understand an autor, agree; but a) Philosophy is not only waht philosophers said, b) What philosophers said is significant by its internal logics not by its historical impact, c) May be there's not history at all... but I'm sure there is any idea in my conscience (Descartes), d) In philosophy and sience, we must to separate the arguemental context and the historical context (Richenback), and I state that the philosophically important is the first, e) "Every statement needs its historical context to be justified" (I don't know if anybody here thinks that way) needs, if right, its historical context to be true... so it can result true today and false tomorrow. If this sentence wants to itself become a serious true, it must become a non historical sentence; but then we would obtain A and no A; and f) When Sartre, using an "ethiolate use of the lenguage" (Austin) by my point of view, said that the essence is posterior to the existence, they only spoke about human being.

 

Huh ?

I don't need to study History or the history of Philosophy to be
able to understand and read essays on Free Will, God, Morality
and other most interesting topics. Who the hell needs to know
what was going on at the time to enjoy such timeless problems?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

What am I missing here people ? (if anything...)

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

tyler

i channelled sartre and he demands you stop misrepresenting him!

 

Ha, ha, ha! I remember that Sartre was quite materialist... I don't think that he goes easily to a ouija session!