A lot of this is coming out of discussions I've been having this semester with a bunch of fucking pragmatists. And they're all "woo hoo help society" and I'm all "fuck you guys". And I'm trying to figure out how that conversation eventually ends. But without any firm foundation I think that both sides end up dissolving into nothingness.
I'm afraid the pragmatists are probably doing the right thing.
You know I wish I was capable of this level of discourse in my philosophy class but for some reason I can't think when I'm listening to a lecture and nothing interesting pops out.
try treating your lecture as a personal discussion between you and the professor.
of course it helps if you talk to the professor outside of class.
The problem I have is that I just can't think. When I read someone's post on the forum here my response almost spontaneously coalesces inside of my mind without any thinking on my part. Then I look it over, clean it up a bit, and I type out a response with tremendous ease. When I'm listening to my professor, however, I can't think and I can't fabricate a response.
try visiting his office hours and debating with him or discussing with him.
trust me, he won't mind.
Dunadan019 on
0
Options
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
You know I wish I was capable of this level of discourse in my philosophy class but for some reason I can't think when I'm listening to a lecture and nothing interesting pops out.
try treating your lecture as a personal discussion between you and the professor.
of course it helps if you talk to the professor outside of class.
The problem I have is that I just can't think. When I read someone's post on the forum here my response almost spontaneously coalesces inside of my mind without any thinking on my part. Then I look it over, clean it up a bit, and I type out a response with tremendous ease. When I'm listening to my professor, however, I can't think and I can't fabricate a response.
try visiting his office hours and debating with him or discussing with him.
trust me, he won't mind.
Well recently I've been getting better with it, and I'm going to be doing some extra reading on the side that might help me out and give me something to work with during class.
You know I wish I was capable of this level of discourse in my philosophy class but for some reason I can't think when I'm listening to a lecture and nothing interesting pops out.
try treating your lecture as a personal discussion between you and the professor.
of course it helps if you talk to the professor outside of class.
The problem I have is that I just can't think. When I read someone's post on the forum here my response almost spontaneously coalesces inside of my mind without any thinking on my part. Then I look it over, clean it up a bit, and I type out a response with tremendous ease. When I'm listening to my professor, however, I can't think and I can't fabricate a response.
try visiting his office hours and debating with him or discussing with him.
trust me, he won't mind.
He's a philosophy professor. He has nothing better to do.
That's not true at all. Helping one person could be deemed inconsequential on a long timeline whereas discovering something influential and eternal will have lasting ramifications.
I bet there were some pretty swell medics and nurses a hundred years ago but while their impact on a few lives may have been great the last effect of their work has diminished substantially over time.
two things
1. Einstein falls deathly ill before completing his best work. A physician saves his life. Could it not be said that the physician's work is as enduring as Einstein's, since it made Einstein's work possible?
2. If you're evaluating worth over a long enough timeline--say, until the heath death of the universe--influential discoveries do indeed become inconsequential.
1. His work is still more important than the physicians.
A lot of this is coming out of discussions I've been having this semester with a bunch of fucking pragmatists. And they're all "woo hoo help society" and I'm all "fuck you guys". And I'm trying to figure out how that conversation eventually ends. But without any firm foundation I think that both sides end up dissolving into nothingness.
I'm afraid the pragmatists are probably doing the right thing.
They seem to think so.
My problem with them is that philosophy is the manner by which things came to be known. Empirical science? That was philosophy. Psychology? That was philosophy. Physics? That was philosophy. Every academic pursuit? That was philosophy. So when people say that "philosophy is finished" I get pissed off. Because inquiry never ends. People just eventually stop doing it.
Except inquiry within a context (say, psychology) only ever finds truths unto that context. So non-contextual truths, the aim of philosophy que philosophy is inquiry unbounded. So then we start asking "why" a lot.
And the other problem is we get these great answers from people like Descartes and Berkeley and Leibniz. But people don't like them so they ignore them. And that seems...something.
You know I wish I was capable of this level of discourse in my philosophy class but for some reason I can't think when I'm listening to a lecture and nothing interesting pops out.
try treating your lecture as a personal discussion between you and the professor.
of course it helps if you talk to the professor outside of class.
The problem I have is that I just can't think. When I read someone's post on the forum here my response almost spontaneously coalesces inside of my mind without any thinking on my part. Then I look it over, clean it up a bit, and I type out a response with tremendous ease. When I'm listening to my professor, however, I can't think and I can't fabricate a response.
try visiting his office hours and debating with him or discussing with him.
trust me, he won't mind.
Well recently I've been getting better with it, and I'm going to be doing some extra reading on the side that might help me out and give me something to work with during class.
i've gotten A's in classes just from going to office hours.... just go talk to the guy. he will want to talk.
You know I wish I was capable of this level of discourse in my philosophy class but for some reason I can't think when I'm listening to a lecture and nothing interesting pops out.
try treating your lecture as a personal discussion between you and the professor.
of course it helps if you talk to the professor outside of class.
The problem I have is that I just can't think. When I read someone's post on the forum here my response almost spontaneously coalesces inside of my mind without any thinking on my part. Then I look it over, clean it up a bit, and I type out a response with tremendous ease. When I'm listening to my professor, however, I can't think and I can't fabricate a response.
try visiting his office hours and debating with him or discussing with him.
trust me, he won't mind.
He's a philosophy professor. He has nothing better to do.
Freecell.
moniker on
0
Options
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
1. His work is still more important than the physicians.
2. No sir, nihilism is not practical.
1. Explain how. I'm serious. I can see it both ways.
2. It's only nihilism if you define value as influence on human affairs over an arbitrary time period. I don't quite accept that theory of value, though.
Hachface on
0
Options
SarksusATTACK AND DETHRONE GODRegistered Userregular
edited February 2009
Well I ought to finish this homework I was supposed to have started at 8PM. That was due on Wednesday. Farewell.
I tend to find no reason to not be ultimately solipsistic.
But that's one of the questions. Or, going with Berkeley, how can you know that something you are not currently perceiving exists? You remember it having existed? Fine, you can remember it. But how do you know that it exists right now?
It's the dichotomy between living in the world, whatever that means, and articulating the world. But when I articulate it then I'm the only thing which exists.
So does that mean that the articulation is incorrect or that the non-articulated phenomena is incorrect?
_J_ on
0
Options
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
My problem with them is that philosophy is the manner by which things came to be known. Empirical science? That was philosophy. Psychology? That was philosophy. Physics? That was philosophy. Every academic pursuit? That was philosophy. So when people say that "philosophy is finished" I get pissed off. Because inquiry never ends. People just eventually stop doing it.
Except inquiry within a context (say, psychology) only ever finds truths unto that context. So non-contextual truths, the aim of philosophy que philosophy is inquiry unbounded. So then we start asking "why" a lot.
And the other problem is we get these great answers from people like Descartes and Berkeley and Leibniz. But people don't like them so they ignore them. And that seems...something.
Metaphysical inquiry is not the only kind of inquiry, and I can definitely understand the sentiment that metaphysics is nothing but baseless conjecture and that lines of inquiry derived from logic and empiricism are inherently more fruitful.
Dunadan, I can't help but feel that this professor you keep referring to is yourself, and that this is all a desperate cry for someone to talk to you.
Dan, I am here for you. Let's rap. How are you?
dude, i loved talking to my philosophy professors. but i went to an engineering school where there weren't that many students per humanity... so maybe that was it.
Dunadan019 on
0
Options
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
Dunadan, I can't help but feel that this professor you keep referring to is yourself, and that this is all a desperate cry for someone to talk to you.
Dan, I am here for you. Let's rap. How are you?
dude, i loved talking to my philosophy professors. but i went to an engineering school where there weren't that many students per humanity... so maybe that was it.
A lot of this is coming out of discussions I've been having this semester with a bunch of fucking pragmatists. And they're all "woo hoo help society" and I'm all "fuck you guys". And I'm trying to figure out how that conversation eventually ends. But without any firm foundation I think that both sides end up dissolving into nothingness.
I'm afraid the pragmatists are probably doing the right thing.
They seem to think so.
My problem with them is that philosophy is the manner by which things came to be known. Empirical science? That was philosophy. Psychology? That was philosophy. Physics? That was philosophy. Every academic pursuit? That was philosophy. So when people say that "philosophy is finished" I get pissed off. Because inquiry never ends. People just eventually stop doing it.
Except inquiry within a context (say, psychology) only ever finds truths unto that context. So non-contextual truths, the aim of philosophy que philosophy is inquiry unbounded. So then we start asking "why" a lot.
And the other problem is we get these great answers from people like Descartes and Berkeley and Leibniz. But people don't like them so they ignore them. And that seems...something.
I rarely see the value in 'why' when compared with 'how' and that's the major difference between philosophy and everything else. Why does existence exist? I don't give two shits. How does existence exist? Let's build a massive ring of magnets and find out.
Dunadan, I can't help but feel that this professor you keep referring to is yourself, and that this is all a desperate cry for someone to talk to you.
Dan, I am here for you. Let's rap. How are you?
dude, i loved talking to my philosophy professors. but i went to an engineering school where there weren't that many students per humanity... so maybe that was it.
I like talking to myself sometimes, too.
i will respond with my natural inclination.
you're mom was a pirate hooker.
Dunadan019 on
0
Options
ElldrenIs a woman dammitceterum censeoRegistered Userregular
Dunadan, I can't help but feel that this professor you keep referring to is yourself, and that this is all a desperate cry for someone to talk to you.
Dan, I am here for you. Let's rap. How are you?
dude, i loved talking to my philosophy professors. but i went to an engineering school where there weren't that many students per humanity... so maybe that was it.
Yes, there's almost no humanity. The world does feel empty sometimes and a grand authority would be comforting to talk to, to learn why things exist.
Dan, I'm going to give you some spiritual pamphlets. I think they'll point you in the right direction. If you ever need me, man, I'll be here whenever.
Still trying to figure out the best way to use it to build up endurance for paintball though. I guess doing multiple, short runs with high resistance with short breaks in between would be the best...
Dunadan, I can't help but feel that this professor you keep referring to is yourself, and that this is all a desperate cry for someone to talk to you.
Dan, I am here for you. Let's rap. How are you?
dude, i loved talking to my philosophy professors. but i went to an engineering school where there weren't that many students per humanity... so maybe that was it.
Dunadan, I can't help but feel that this professor you keep referring to is yourself, and that this is all a desperate cry for someone to talk to you.
Dan, I am here for you. Let's rap. How are you?
dude, i loved talking to my philosophy professors. but i went to an engineering school where there weren't that many students per humanity... so maybe that was it.
I like talking to myself sometimes, too.
i will respond with my natural inclination.
you're mom was a pirate hooker.
No Dunandan, you are mom was a pirate hooker.
i saw that, i thought about changing it.... then i went to get another beer.
I rarely see the value in 'why' when compared with 'how' and that's the major difference between philosophy and everything else. Why does existence exist? I don't give two shits. How does existence exist? Let's build a massive ring of magnets and find out.
The problem I have is whether the person with the magnets understands that his discoveries are based upon the premise of the existance of the magnets which has yet to be founded upon anything but self-referrential tautologies.
It's the "problem" of people taking their little contexts too seriously. Which I do not take to be an issue in philosophy qua philosophy given that questioning the context is what is done.
It's neat that the question "Why do I think about philosophy?" is itself a philosophical thought. That's a fun little trick.
_J_ on
0
Options
SarksusATTACK AND DETHRONE GODRegistered Userregular
Having an argument about philosophy and being able to understand the concepts presented always serves as a big confidence boost for me. Good thing Poldy wasn't here, otherwise I would be in my bed crying myself to sleep.
ARE YOU GREAT?
Sarksus on
0
Options
cj iwakuraThe Rhythm RegentBears The Name FreedomRegistered Userregular
edited February 2009
I'm focusing on the Asakusa Tunnel in Nocturne, so I guess that means good.
(Aside from the place I work at closing down in two months)
cj iwakura on
0
Options
HarrierThe Star Spangled ManRegistered Userregular
edited February 2009
_J_, you hold that essence precedes existence, am I right?
Because that seems to be the hub around which this whole discussion is turning.
Harrier on
I don't wanna kill anybody. I don't like bullies. I don't care where they're from.
0
Options
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
I rarely see the value in 'why' when compared with 'how' and that's the major difference between philosophy and everything else. Why does existence exist? I don't give two shits. How does existence exist? Let's build a massive ring of magnets and find out.
The problem I have is whether the person with the magnets understands that his discoveries are based upon the premise of the existance of the magnets which has yet to be founded upon anything but self-referrential tautologies.
It's the "problem" of people taking their little contexts too seriously. Which I do not take to be an issue in philosophy qua philosophy given that questioning the context is what is done.
It's neat that the question "Why do I think about philosophy?" is itself a philosophical thought. That's a fun little trick.
No, it's mirrors reflecting mirrors. And without Bruce Lee kicking all sorts of ass in between them.
moniker on
0
Options
cj iwakuraThe Rhythm RegentBears The Name FreedomRegistered Userregular
edited February 2009
Okay, blood on the walls everywhere, panicked Manikin screaming about Sakahagi. Bad sign.
Posts
I'm afraid the pragmatists are probably doing the right thing.
try visiting his office hours and debating with him or discussing with him.
trust me, he won't mind.
so I take it you're more into analytic philosophy.
Well recently I've been getting better with it, and I'm going to be doing some extra reading on the side that might help me out and give me something to work with during class.
1. His work is still more important than the physicians.
2. No sir, nihilism is not practical.
They seem to think so.
My problem with them is that philosophy is the manner by which things came to be known. Empirical science? That was philosophy. Psychology? That was philosophy. Physics? That was philosophy. Every academic pursuit? That was philosophy. So when people say that "philosophy is finished" I get pissed off. Because inquiry never ends. People just eventually stop doing it.
Except inquiry within a context (say, psychology) only ever finds truths unto that context. So non-contextual truths, the aim of philosophy que philosophy is inquiry unbounded. So then we start asking "why" a lot.
And the other problem is we get these great answers from people like Descartes and Berkeley and Leibniz. But people don't like them so they ignore them. And that seems...something.
i've always been a grounded individual. my response to 'what is the meaning of life' is 'what does it matter'
i've gotten A's in classes just from going to office hours.... just go talk to the guy. he will want to talk.
Freecell.
1. Explain how. I'm serious. I can see it both ways.
2. It's only nihilism if you define value as influence on human affairs over an arbitrary time period. I don't quite accept that theory of value, though.
Dan, I am here for you. Let's rap. How are you?
I tend to find no reason to not be ultimately solipsistic.
But that's one of the questions. Or, going with Berkeley, how can you know that something you are not currently perceiving exists? You remember it having existed? Fine, you can remember it. But how do you know that it exists right now?
It's the dichotomy between living in the world, whatever that means, and articulating the world. But when I articulate it then I'm the only thing which exists.
So does that mean that the articulation is incorrect or that the non-articulated phenomena is incorrect?
Metaphysical inquiry is not the only kind of inquiry, and I can definitely understand the sentiment that metaphysics is nothing but baseless conjecture and that lines of inquiry derived from logic and empiricism are inherently more fruitful.
dude, i loved talking to my philosophy professors. but i went to an engineering school where there weren't that many students per humanity... so maybe that was it.
I like talking to myself sometimes, too.
I rarely see the value in 'why' when compared with 'how' and that's the major difference between philosophy and everything else. Why does existence exist? I don't give two shits. How does existence exist? Let's build a massive ring of magnets and find out.
i will respond with my natural inclination.
you're mom was a pirate hooker.
El deus de los muertos!
Yes, there's almost no humanity. The world does feel empty sometimes and a grand authority would be comforting to talk to, to learn why things exist.
Dan, I'm going to give you some spiritual pamphlets. I think they'll point you in the right direction. If you ever need me, man, I'll be here whenever.
Still trying to figure out the best way to use it to build up endurance for paintball though. I guess doing multiple, short runs with high resistance with short breaks in between would be the best...
Hah, as if there were any other kind.
At the moment? Rather sweaty.
You?
No Dunandan, you are mom was a pirate hooker.
:winky:
i saw that, i thought about changing it.... then i went to get another beer.
The problem I have is whether the person with the magnets understands that his discoveries are based upon the premise of the existance of the magnets which has yet to be founded upon anything but self-referrential tautologies.
It's the "problem" of people taking their little contexts too seriously. Which I do not take to be an issue in philosophy qua philosophy given that questioning the context is what is done.
It's neat that the question "Why do I think about philosophy?" is itself a philosophical thought. That's a fun little trick.
I'M GREAT.
Having an argument about philosophy and being able to understand the concepts presented always serves as a big confidence boost for me. Good thing Poldy wasn't here, otherwise I would be in my bed crying myself to sleep.
ARE YOU GREAT?
(Aside from the place I work at closing down in two months)
Because that seems to be the hub around which this whole discussion is turning.
that's pretty much how I feel about it
Dudes.
One of these upcoming weekends I am going to get to go to a private paintball training facility.
Siiiiiiiiiiiiiick.
Hahaha.
Like some Blackwater-esque compound designed for paintball engagements?
No, it's mirrors reflecting mirrors. And without Bruce Lee kicking all sorts of ass in between them.
(Referring to SMT Nocturne)