- dogcrash truther
-
|
n/t
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2015 01:44
|
|
- Adbot
-
ADBOT LOVES YOU
|
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2024 00:01
|
|
- dogcrash truther
-
|
i thought hard about stuff while sitting on the toilet one time ask away
ok, well, my first question is what's it like to be a philosophy teacher
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2015 01:46
|
|
- dogcrash truther
-
|
no text
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2015 01:46
|
|
- dogcrash truther
-
|
Hello, what's it like being a philosophy teacher. How do you know if your students "get it"
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2015 01:51
|
|
- dogcrash truther
-
|
I'm a philosophy teacher.
How did you become a philosophy teacher?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2015 01:51
|
|
- dogcrash truther
-
|
Imagine you really, really love this thing and want to tell everyone about it because it's so amazing and can completely change your life but unfortunately you can only get paid to talk about it to teenagers and they just ignore you and post on instagram.
It's ok sometimes though because like in my class today you start out with a really small idea and end up in a really big place and you can see young minds being blown and that makes it cool. Also I am continually impressed and surprised at the abilities of my students to understand really complex ideas.
...you teach philosophy to high school students? I didn't even think that was a thing. Or are they underclassmen college students?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2015 01:55
|
|
- dogcrash truther
-
|
It was my ironic punishment [think the movie "Saw"] for loudly and repeatedly saying that I never wanted to become the worst version of myself
Do you think Saw is philosophically interesting?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2015 01:55
|
|
- dogcrash truther
-
|
Philosophy doctoral student, what's up?
Is your game plan to teach?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2015 01:56
|
|
- dogcrash truther
-
|
so wait...just to be clear. Amogn the 15 or so byob posters, there's a philosophy teacher, a philosophy grad student, and isnt bwatts or someone doing philosophy undergrad?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2015 01:57
|
|
- dogcrash truther
-
|
I teach undergrads but they're mostly underclassman. They did teach me what throwing shade is tho.
What subjects specifically do you teach? like what kind of philosophy/approach
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2015 01:57
|
|
- dogcrash truther
-
|
get out old man
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2015 01:57
|
|
- dogcrash truther
-
|
To be honest, it's more a requirement than a game plan. I'm not in my field to teach, but you don't get away without doing it either. I can live with teaching at the university level though. Ensuring that happens is, of course, another problem altogether.
what fields of philosophy do you specialize in?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2015 02:00
|
|
- dogcrash truther
-
|
also for any PHILOSOPHY people. real people: who's the best post-socratic philosopher
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2015 02:01
|
|
- dogcrash truther
-
|
I'm just teaching intro right now, so we cover basic stuff about god, knowledge, and metaphysics. We began our free will unit today and I ended class with "so you don't have free will. See you next week" 
Do you think free will is a useful or meaningful concept?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2015 02:05
|
|
- dogcrash truther
-
|
It's definitely Marx. Maybe someone in this thread can explain why he was so great?
I wouldn't call him a philosopher, he's really more of a historian, economist, scientist, and hero
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2015 02:06
|
|
- dogcrash truther
-
|
am I allowed to weigh in on these Q's
It's byob do what you feel
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2015 02:07
|
|
- dogcrash truther
-
|
an old man who lives on my floor told me he likes spinoza which was pretty cool. I'm a sucker for nietzsche because I had a nihilist phase in college ._.
hume is my boy. Let me tell you an apocryphal story about hume. One time he proposed to a lady, and he got down on one knee, but he was so...portly...that he couldn't get back up.
The correct answer is hume and Nietzsche was a chump
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2015 02:07
|
|
- dogcrash truther
-
|
my schoolbook taught me ralph waldo emmerson said that schoolbooks are stupid because you cant write down your own revelations and pass them down to others and still call it a revelation. that revelation was so cool i cant wait to learn more revelations like that.
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, dumb rear end!
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2015 02:09
|
|
- dogcrash truther
-
|
philosophy is a big waste of time anyways.
Wasting time pwns!
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2015 02:10
|
|
- dogcrash truther
-
|
Compositional Metaphysics and Normative and Metaethics.
What's compositional metaphysics? Is that, like, whether a thing is the sum of its parts and if not, what other metaphysical...thingies...are present?
quote:
Honestly, I think it's extremely difficult to narrow something like that down, because of how different the focuses and approaches have been over time. Post-socratic is just way too big a time-frame, probably better to approach from within specific epochs.
I had a band named Spynoza once.
Ok...uh...where did the analytic philosophers come in, epochwise?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2015 02:15
|
|
- dogcrash truther
-
|
he's not really the BEST (which is kind of meaningless) but I love Dan Dennett
lol of course you do
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2015 02:16
|
|
- dogcrash truther
-
|
There's a strange tendency amongst people in free will discussions to associate freedom with complete lack of restriction. A lot of objections to the idea of free will can eventually be revealed as making the error of equating free-choice with what would actually be complete and utter randomness. The real question to focus on is whether or not decisions are possible which can be construed as being primarily representational of the individuals concerned. I think.
Yeah. Seems to me though once you get rid of those objections you're left with an essentially unanswerable question and that makes me suspicious that maybe there's no There there.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2015 02:18
|
|
- dogcrash truther
-
|
can i weigh on in free will even if i'm not a philosophy student or teacher
It's fuckin byob dude do what you want
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2015 02:18
|
|
- dogcrash truther
-
|
hot 21st century girl: drat. im so horny and my pussy is like, wet and goopy or whatever. i love the uber mensch. haha, not. i just wona million dollars playing an isometric rpg.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2015 02:21
|
|
- dogcrash truther
-
|
Sorry, I get excited. This'll probably end up being DCT's star-trek trap all over again. Soon I'll be stuck in the philosopher's camp and ostracized just like in real life.
It definitely isn't meant to be at all. Philosophy is really interesting to me.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2015 03:30
|
|
- dogcrash truther
-
|
Interesting thing about Confucius is that he's essentially Aristotle in Chinese (or, really, Aristotle is the Greek Confucius). There are dramatic parallels between their work, both being essentially the same type of virtue theorist, it's just that Confucius spends a bit more time talking about family and the literal mandate of heaven, even if it's possibly pretty tongue-in-cheek.
Actually, for a long time Chinese and Western philosophy follow almost identical evolutionary paths, right up to Mozi bringing utilitarianism/consequentialism into the fore. Chinese philosophy moved generally a bit faster though, and ended up running straight into religiously devout Confucianism, which served more or less the same arresting role as devout christianity did in the west. Chinese philosophy may have hit that wall a little harder though; as far as I know they haven't really experienced the same sort of analytical revolution that the west arguably has.
I find it really interesting at least; two cultures almost entirely isolated from one another, and fairly culturally distinct, going through almost identical evolutions in major theories of thought and interperetation. Seems to illustrate something about how intensely influenced doctrines of thought are by basic human conditions.
poo poo like this is totally rad, thank you for sharing it
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2015 03:34
|
|
- dogcrash truther
-
|
can a philosophy teacher define good for me
Good like morally good, or good like qualitatively good?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2015 03:44
|
|
- dogcrash truther
-
|
Yea
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2015 03:56
|
|
- dogcrash truther
-
|
it s just different frames of reference, and specifically qualitiatively good can refer to whether a thing fulfills its function "good car" but that doesn't mean it's morally good because morality isn't a quality of things, it's a quality of an act
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2015 04:02
|
|
- dogcrash truther
-
|
and even then there are acts which are functionally good but many people would argue that doesn't make them morally good like for example a real good pitch in a baseball game
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2015 04:03
|
|
- dogcrash truther
-
|
i meant morally good in that case
oh okay yeah that's easy to define. is this for a quiz or something
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2015 04:28
|
|
- dogcrash truther
-
|
I have kind of a boner for the problem of induction because it's what got my into philosophy and blew my mind as a 16 year old. I don't think philosophers want to say like dude you don't knoooow anything science dude. It's more like, oh, this works, why does this work wtf?? The problem of induction is mainly about circularity. The future is like the past...why do we believe that (/more importantly, why are we justified in believing that)? because...the future is ...like...the past...ughhhhhhh whaaat
also I have a really huge pdf poster of famous philosophy majors that I have been trying to desperately post in this thread as an image for the past like 30 minutes. someone please pm me and help. i will send you the file and one of you image wizards can do it
The problem of induction is dope and if you don't express somne cartoon form of it it's not so easily dismissed and is great because of how many philosophical practices and approach es it completely wrecks
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2015 17:59
|
|
- dogcrash truther
-
|
however, it isn't a problem for people who actually do science because of what pedantra posted which was a really cogent explanation of the thing, I thought. what happens is that bacon presents a nice functional foundation for the scientific method/empiricism as a thing which has a use -- i.e to understand the world to master it and control it -- but then other people come along later like descartes and go -- from these processes, we can observe *reality* or *truth* or whatever the gently caress -- and it takes hume to come along and say "nuh uh." nobody sane argues that you can't learn anything useful from observation and experimentation, the main criticism has to do with the unnecessary confidence in the results of that process which is somthing that bugs a lot of scientists too
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2015 18:06
|
|
- dogcrash truther
-
|
Please explain it to me then!!
It's impossible to work out causation of any kind. This isn't a problem for scientists, but it is a problem for people who loving Love Science, if you know what I mean.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2015 18:07
|
|
- dogcrash truther
-
|
that's philosophy too! the topic of how the brain brains up a personality/cognition is still pretty big topic in philosophy, thats where you get into PNP, philosophy-neuroscience-psychology, which are the smartest and best philosophers
lol
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2015 20:00
|
|
- dogcrash truther
-
|
We should all revert back to magical thinking and sympathetic magic
There's already too many scientists
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2015 22:43
|
|
- dogcrash truther
-
|
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2015 23:27
|
|
- Adbot
-
ADBOT LOVES YOU
|
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2024 00:01
|
|
- dogcrash truther
-
|
cajn someone smart tell me why peter singer is a retard
hes not that, but his ideas are of limited...utility >
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2015 14:53
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2015 01:44
?
