A bit of a problem with the liberal arts department

[Nano-Passion]

I've went above and beyond in my philosophy class and wrote an outstanding (at least compared to other students) essay, or in my opinion at least. I had very good sentence structure, coherence and flow, vocab and ideas, good progression of logic, I had original insight into the topic, and finally I brought much more to the table than what was asked etc. The topic was about the good life, and I supported my idea of happiness with a good solid foundation of science. I brought up deep and profound philosophical topics and went above to provide original insight into the philosophy. However I got a B+. I was very surprised to say the least.

Later, I figure out why I attained that grade. During class, the professor mentioned "leave the science out of it, this is a philosophy paper," and "don't write about the chemistry of happiness." (The Cold Chemistry of Happiness was the title of my paper and the main theme was happiness from a scientific perspective and rooted in a philosophical context. I quickly questioned (professionally and in a mannerly order) the professor in class and added my perspective, saying "Science is the pursuit of truth, and philosophy through science is only stronger."

I wasn't surprised to find that the professor is a faithful theist, and believed that "science is materialistic." Unfortunately, he believes in some mumbo-jump psyche complex (at least it seems to me; as much of a relativist as I am, I am an absolutist with respect to science). Surprising to say, the professor and I have a pretty good relationship, I usually start an intellectual conversation with him. In addition, I actually find him to be a very intelligent and wise person, full of philosophical complexity.

But what I am afraid of is that his differing belief will completely affect his judgement of my papers. I talked to him after class a bit (not about the grade but concerning science and philosophy), and the conversation was running in circles. There is just no way to get to him the value of science in philosophical topics it seems. I don't want to have a bad semester grade because he believes that science should stay out of it; I will not be able to keep science out of it in my future essays because science is the very center of my life, including my belief systems.

Unfortunately, this is a perfect example of how your graded based on what the professor wants to hear (in humanities).

 

[lisab]

My experiences with humanities professors mirror yours. Once you discover what you're dealing with, you have two choices: continue on the path you're on, and get a B or maybe even a C. Or you can do what the prof is telling you to do - write papers on the topics he assigns, i.e., leave science out of it.

The first choice, staying on your path, is for stubborn people. The second path, doing what the prof assigns, is for people who do what they're told.

The first path will result in a higher GPA. The second, not so much.

Me...I'm stubborn .

What will you choose?

 

[Nano-Passion]

My experiences with humanities professors mirror yours. Once you discover what you're dealing with, you have two choices: continue on the path you're on, and get a B or maybe even a C. Or you can do what the prof is telling you to do - write papers on the topics he assigns, i.e., leave science out of it.

The first choice, staying on your path, is for stubborn people. The second path, doing what the prof assigns, is for people who do what they're told.

The first path will result in a higher GPA. The second, not so much.

Me...I'm stubborn .

What will you choose?

I'm stubborn too unfortunately. Luckily, I am well articulated; I can transfer the energy of my adamant position to convince him of my approach.

 

[Deveno]

personally, i'd be inclined to do what i would do anyway, to the best of my ability. it comes down to: who do you want to be...the person you'd like to be, or the person you'd like other people to think you are?

for some, the outward image is everything: social standing and reputation mean more to them than any inward ideal. there's nothing wrong with this, but it is certainly a different path than being true to what you believe. but, in all fairness...that way (living your beliefs) is fraught with cost: for there will be many people who don't see things as you do, and may actively put obstacles in your way.

that said: there is something to be said for trying to put aside your own beliefs, and understand someone else's. there's a fine line between stubbornness, and pig-headedness. and, just because your professor may be prejudicial, doesn't make you right.

in other words: it's not just about how well-written your paper might have been. are you learning anything from the class? is that showing in what you've written? are you aware of the short-comings in your own belief system?

if the answer to all of the above is "yes", then it could be a case of simple injustice. life is like that, it's rather hard to avoid. don't worry, the class won't go on forever.

 

[twofish-quant]

However I got a B+. I was very surprised to say the least.

B+ is good.

But what I am afraid of is that his differing belief will completely affect his judgement of my papers.

First of all, I know lots of people in academia that love it when people disagree with them. I also know lots of people that don't. Figure out which one your professor is, and behave accordingly. The fact that you got a B+ for a paper which he disagrees with suggests that its closer to the former than the latter.

There is just no way to get to him the value of science in philosophical topics it seems. I don't want to have a bad semester grade because he believes that science should stay out of it; I will not be able to keep science out of it in my future essays because science is the very center of my life, including my belief systems.

The question then becomes can *you* constructively deal with people that have different philosophical beliefs. Also, can *you* think in the mindset of someone whose beliefs you fundamentally disagree with. If you can't, then I don't think you should get an A in the course.

(Also, personally, I think it is *extremely* unwise to make science the center of your life. Science is far, far too uncertain for that.)

Unfortunately, this is a perfect example of how your graded based on what the professor wants to hear (in humanities).

First, you got a B+.

Second, yes you are graded based on what the professor wants to hear, because it's his class. Some professors like to argue. Some don't. If the professor is being a jerk (and I don't see any sign that he is) then write exactly what he wants you to write, get the grade you want, and then you are done. Consider it training for when you have to do this at work.

 

[twofish-quant]

for some, the outward image is everything: social standing and reputation mean more to them than any inward ideal. there's nothing wrong with this, but it is certainly a different path than being true to what you believe. but, in all fairness...that way (living your beliefs) is fraught with cost: for there will be many people who don't see things as you do, and may actively put obstacles in your way.

On the other hand, maybe the professor as a point. What if your beliefs *are* wrong.

One of the reasons to try to write something that will make your professor happy is that it will help you learn what he thinks. Knowing what he thinks may be useful, because it let's you think about how the world looks from different eyes. Also, *even* if you conclude it's all nonsense, being able to write an essay from a different viewpoint will let you out argue them. I'm pretty sure that if someone asked me to, I could write a decent essay supporting young Earth creationism, and being able to write a convincing essay supporting young Earth creationism makes it more effective for me to undermine it.

in other words: it's not just about how well-written your paper might have been. are you learning anything from the class? is that showing in what you've written? are you aware of the short-comings in your own belief system?

And you got a B+. If you are going to go into a tail spin because you got a B+, you are not going to do well in graduate school.

The other thing is that I think it's more likely that my view of the world is closer to your professors than it is to yours. I think the statement that "science is the pursuit of truth, and philosophy through science is only stronger" is fundamentally wrong, and if you are getting a professor that is forcing you to question that statement (and I don't think he is being a jerk about it) that's good for you.

 

[mege]

Think about it conversely: what if you wrote a paper about philosophy on your E&M midterm? Especially after the professor specifically told you 'numbers & symbols only' on your test? "What is EMF really? It's nothing more than our imagination..." I don't think will get you very far.

I think you should count yourself lucky that you got a B+ for doing something your instructor specifically said he didn't want (sounds like he wanted something purely metaphysical). Part of a liberal education is learning to think differently - or at least express yourself in different terms. Applying the same rhetoric to every paper/class/experience doesn't actually expand your personal context. Humanities classes are supposed to expand the horizons for STEM majors just as Science classes are supposed to expand the horizons for English majors.

 

[mal4mac]

... I got a B+. I was very surprised to say the least.
Later, I figure out why I attained that grade. During class, the professor mentioned "leave the science out of it, this is a philosophy paper," and "don't write about the chemistry of happiness." (The Cold Chemistry of Happiness was the title of my paper...

I've known professors, atheist or theist, who would have given me an F for totally ignoring their explicit demand. And actually rubbing his face in it with that title! The essay would have come back in shreds from some of those profs... Why not stretch your mind by trying to 'leave the science out'?

 

[sweetpotato]

But what I am afraid of is that his differing belief will completely affect his judgement of my papers. I talked to him after class a bit (not about the grade but concerning science and philosophy), and the conversation was running in circles. There is just no way to get to him the value of science in philosophical topics it seems. I don't want to have a bad semester grade because he believes that science should stay out of it; I will not be able to keep science out of it in my future essays because science is the very center of my life, including my belief systems.

I don't think his differing beliefs will cause him to give you bad grades. In fact, I think he was generous in giving you a B+, a decent grade, after you didn't follow his specific instructions to "leave the science out". If "leaving the science out" entirely is so personally difficult for you, at least try to make it less central to your papers... like don't put it in the title of your essay! For example, if you typically mention science in 10 paragraphs in your essays, try to just mention it in one or two.

EDIT: Plus, just because something is at the center of your belief system doesn't mean you must bring it up all the time. For example, I am Christian, but I once took a class in Existentialist Philosophy, much of which denies the value of Christianity or other religions. I did not feel the need to bring my personal beliefs into my essays. In fact, I am glad I took this class and was exposed to new ideas and beliefs that contradicted my own.

 

[twofish-quant]

I've known professors, atheist or theist, who would have given me an F for totally ignoring their explicit demand.

Same here. If the professor had failed you and screamed at you, then he is obviously being a jerk, and then thing to do there would be to just make him happy until you leave the class. With a B+, it doesn't look like the professor was being a jerk, and who knows. Maybe he was going to give you a B but added points because you disagreed with him.

Having been on the evaluation end of things, trying to outguess yourself can make your mind go in circles. For example, if you interview someone and get a bad impression, you have to ask yourself whether that bad impression was because the interviewee just disagreed with you, in which case if you give your gut evaluation you'll just end up with yes-men and that's a bad thing. But if you try to correct for that, you have to figure out how much and how, and your head starts spinning, because you might be giving someone too many points for disagreeing with you.

And even if you get rid of conscious bias, then you always have to worry about unconscious bias.

 

[micromass]

I've went above and beyond in my philosophy class and wrote an outstanding (at least compared to other students) essay, or in my opinion at least. I had very good sentence structure, coherence and flow, vocab and ideas, good progression of logic, I had original insight into the topic, and finally I brought much more to the table than what was asked etc. The topic was about the good life, and I supported my idea of happiness with a good solid foundation of science.

And you know this because you think it's true?? Maybe the essay is just not as good as you think?? A bit of self-criticism can never hurt.

 

[bcbwilla]

Later, I figure out why I attained that grade. During class, the professor mentioned "leave the science out of it, this is a philosophy paper," and "don't write about the chemistry of happiness." (The Cold Chemistry of Happiness was the title of my paper and the main theme was happiness from a scientific perspective and rooted in a philosophical context. I quickly questioned (professionally and in a mannerly order) the professor in class and added my perspective, saying "Science is the pursuit of truth, and philosophy through science is only stronger."

I haven't read your paper, but I don't necessarily disagree with what your prof is doing. I mean, if you're a science person, obviously you think about science all of the time and are good at it. The professor knows this, and so is probably just pushing you to branch out a bit.

But yeah, I see where you're coming from, too. I usually incorporate science as much as possible into my elective courses so I don't get bored. I had to do an article review for a geography class once, and one of the possible articles was about population growth. It was a technical paper and had all kinds of linear algebra and differential equations in it, so of course I picked that one.

 

[AlephZero]

Without seeing the essay it's impossible to comment on your claims about its excellence, but apparently you made one basic mistake: you didn't answer the question that you were asked. Treat that as a learning experience.

Of course there are times and situations in real life where not answering the question you were asked is a good strategy, but "handing in work that affects your course marks" isn't one of them.

 

[920118]

Unfortunately, this is a perfect example of how your graded based on what the professor wants to hear (in humanities).

I used Category Theory when doing an assignment on diagonalization and self-reference in my logic class, but my Professor wanted me to use set theoy and recursion, because that's what the class was about. He didn't give me an A, even if I did much more than he asked for, and in a much more interesting way than he wanted me to.

Unfortunately, this is a perfect example of how your grade is based on what the Professor wants to hear (in mathematics).

(Are you serious?)

 

[Number Nine]

I used Category Theory when doing an assignment on diagonalization and self-reference in my logic class, but my Professor wanted me to use set theoy and recursion, because that's what the class was about. He didn't give me an A, even if I did much more than he asked for, and in a much more interesting way than he wanted me to.

Unfortunately, this is a perfect example of how your grade is based on what the Professor wants to hear (in mathematics).

(Are you serious?)

It's true, on one hand, that category theory is vastly more interesting that what your professor asked for, but it's also true that you need to know set theory and recursion. Now, you probably do know those things, but the only thing the professor has to go on is the work that you hand in. He's grading your knowledge of those concepts, which he can't do unless you use those concepts.

I sympathize, though, since I once has marks taken off for invoking a result from group theory in an introductory mathematics course.

 

[SophusLies]

And you know this because you think it's true?? Maybe the essay is just not as good as you think?? A bit of self-criticism can never hurt.

My thoughts exactly. I highly doubt that your professor is just picking on you because of your beliefs.. You probably didn't follow the assignment correctly and now it's time to take a bite from the humble pie. After you're done eating, throw it up back up in their face.

If anyone can say they went through college with a grudge it was me. From my very first semester of college I know people thought less of me because I was the "black kid from the ghetto." Anytime, I would get bad grades I would use these as a motivating factor to prove myself. Do whatever it takes to show that professor that you're smarter than he/she is. Make them write that A+ on that next paper so you can hold your head high.

 

[Mmm_Pasta]

It's true, on one hand, that category theory is vastly more interesting that what your professor asked for, but it's also true that you need to know set theory and recursion. Now, you probably do know those things, but the only thing the professor has to go on is the work that you hand in. He's grading your knowledge of those concepts, which he can't do unless you use those concepts.

I sympathize, though, since I once has marks taken off for invoking a result from group theory in an introductory mathematics course.

I think they were using an example to undermine the claim that humanities professors are the only ones that grade based on they want to hear.

A B+ is still good, and you should be more concerned about learning that a grade. Your professor seems to really care about your learning and most likely wants you to think from a different perspective. I feel his personal beliefs have very little to do with how he graded you.

Thinking in a non-scientific perspective may be doing you a favour. There are times when I don't want to talk about science at all. Although I love physics, I do think I would get a little annoyed if the physics of cooking was mentioned frequently when I talk about my cooking. :P

 

[mal4mac]

Same here. If the professor had failed you and screamed at you, then he is obviously being a jerk, and then thing to do there would be to just make him happy until you leave the class. With a B+, it doesn't look like the professor was being a jerk...

Then again, maybe he was. I've known jerks who will do anything for an easy life. I would ask the student to rewrite the essay 'according to instructions', maybe after a lengthy e-mail exchange! Students can't just write the essay they want 'cause they dislike the one they are asked to write... Otherwise what is the point of having teachers? If the student then point blank refused to write the essay I would, without shouting and screaming, award an F. Some jerk of a dean would then probably haul me up for not being nice to the student... I'm so glad I'm out of the academic scene :)

 

[Nano-Passion]

personally, i'd be inclined to do what i would do anyway, to the best of my ability. it comes down to: who do you want to be...the person you'd like to be, or the person you'd like other people to think you are?

for some, the outward image is everything: social standing and reputation mean more to them than any inward ideal. there's nothing wrong with this, but it is certainly a different path than being true to what you believe. but, in all fairness...that way (living your beliefs) is fraught with cost: for there will be many people who don't see things as you do, and may actively put obstacles in your way.

that said: there is something to be said for trying to put aside your own beliefs, and understand someone else's. there's a fine line between stubbornness, and pig-headedness. and, just because your professor may be prejudicial, doesn't make you right.

in other words: it's not just about how well-written your paper might have been. are you learning anything from the class? is that showing in what you've written? are you aware of the short-comings in your own belief system?

if the answer to all of the above is "yes", then it could be a case of simple injustice. life is like that, it's rather hard to avoid. don't worry, the class won't go on forever.

I'm learning, but I'm not aware of the short-comings of my own belief system. To me science is and just is. It is truth. Of course it is not the complete truth, and there are lots of holes to fill; but I would rank it higher then vague ideas of the soul etc. I'm going to visit my professor and learn as much as possible about his own ideas though. I will give it a chance.

B+ is good.

For an intro to philosophy class it is not good (to me).

The question then becomes can *you* constructively deal with people that have different philosophical beliefs. Also, can *you* think in the mindset of someone whose beliefs you fundamentally disagree with. If you can't, then I don't think you should get an A in the course.

I can deal with others with different philosophical beliefs, I'm a relativist at heart. But when I hear ideas that science is materialistic, and to resist mentioning science then my ears tend to slightly close. Using science as a guide to philosophy is almost a common sense to me. Science becomes a guideline in which you can thread, because it holds elements of truth. It keeps philosophy from straying too far. Philosophers use science unknowingly to an extent. You don't hear of philosophers saying "we are the most important beings in the universe because we are the center of the universe," simply because science says we aren't even the center of the solar system. Science is a guideline, it keeps philosophy from running wildly rampant away from reality. I realize that science has a lot of evolution to do, but its what we have now.

(Also, personally, I think it is *extremely* unwise to make science the center of your life. Science is far, far too uncertain for that.)

Science is as certain as it gets. Science is based on more certainty than any liberal arts. It is certainly more certain than pseudo ideas of astrology and other who are not supported by science.

And you got a B+. If you are going to go into a tail spin because you got a B+, you are not going to do well in graduate school.

Well, its just the fact that it is an intro to philosophy class and because the grade was because of a philosophical difference--my paper being materialistic in his opinion. I thought different philosophical ideas were supposed to be accepted by the validity of their argument. And if you ask me, the validity of my arguments are much more than other pseudo-scientific ideas of the soul (whatever soul is supposed to mean anyways).

The other thing is that I think it's more likely that my view of the world is closer to your professors than it is to yours. I think the statement that "science is the pursuit of truth, and philosophy through science is only stronger" is fundamentally wrong, and if you are getting a professor that is forcing you to question that statement (and I don't think he is being a jerk about it) that's good for you.

I can't see how it is fundamentally wrong. See my previous argument about this.

You are a very scientific- minded individual (or so it seems). I don't see how you would actually dismiss science and pursue other vague ideas.

 

[Nano-Passion]

Think about it conversely: what if you wrote a paper about philosophy on your E&M midterm? Especially after the professor specifically told you 'numbers & symbols only' on your test? "What is EMF really? It's nothing more than our imagination..." I don't think will get you very far.

I think you should count yourself lucky that you got a B+ for doing something your instructor specifically said he didn't want (sounds like he wanted something purely metaphysical). Part of a liberal education is learning to think differently - or at least express yourself in different terms. Applying the same rhetoric to every paper/class/experience doesn't actually expand your personal context. Humanities classes are supposed to expand the horizons for STEM majors just as Science classes are supposed to expand the horizons for English majors.

But it was philosophy. It was my philosophy of the good life, verified by the idea of science of happiness. That doesn't compare to using electromagnetism verified by philosophy, because philosophy doesn't verify electromagnetism.

Also, he didn't say beforehand to avoid science. He only said it after he handed back our papers. I didn't go against his wished or anything. He asked for a philosophical paper, and I gave him one.

I've known professors, atheist or theist, who would have given me an F for totally ignoring their explicit demand. And actually rubbing his face in it with that title! The essay would have come back in shreds from some of those profs... Why not stretch your mind by trying to 'leave the science out'?

His demand was only noted after the paper was given back.

EDIT: Plus, just because something is at the center of your belief system doesn't mean you must bring it up all the time. For example, I am Christian, but I once took a class in Existentialist Philosophy, much of which denies the value of Christianity or other religions. I did not feel the need to bring my personal beliefs into my essays. In fact, I am glad I took this class and was exposed to new ideas and beliefs that contradicted my own.

But I didn't bring any personal beliefs in. I simply noted the good life, and based it around happiness. Then, I supported it by what neuroscience and psychology has to say about happiness. How is that a personal belief? Its an impersonal and objective reality supported by hundreds of years of work.

I think they were using an example to undermine the claim that humanities professors are the only ones that grade based on they want to hear.

A B+ is still good, and you should be more concerned about learning that a grade. Your professor seems to really care about your learning and most likely wants you to think from a different perspective. I feel his personal beliefs have very little to do with how he graded you.

Thinking in a non-scientific perspective may be doing you a favour. There are times when I don't want to talk about science at all. Although I love physics, I do think I would get a little annoyed if the physics of cooking was mentioned frequently when I talk about my cooking. :P

I'll visit my professor his next office hours and will listen to his beliefs. I want to understand them as much as possible. I'll seek first to understand, then to speak. Then I'll adjust my following papers accordingly (to some extent).

 

[920118]

[1]But it was philosophy. It was my philosophy of the good life, verified by the idea of science of happiness. That doesn't compare to using electromagnetism verified by philosophy, because philosophy doesn't verify electromagnetism.
[...]
[2] I'll visit my professor his next office hours and will listen to his beliefs. I want to understand them as much as possible. I'll seek first to understand, then to speak. Then I'll adjust my following papers accordingly (to some extent).

(bold added by me)

1. Would you mind telling what your thesis was, and how you went about to defend it? Based on your claim above it sounds, to me at least, as if you totally messed up.

2. Either your professor is an ***, and tweaking your essays according to his views is a good idea, or you're consistently missing the point. I for one have never had a professor give me a bad grade for disagreeing with him/her, and I've never met anyone who has either.

 

[Jobrag]

"leave the science out of it, this is a philosophy paper," and "don't write about the chemistry of happiness."

Which bit of this sentence didn't you understand?

 

[Nano-Passion]

"leave the science out of it, this is a philosophy paper," and "don't write about the chemistry of happiness."

Which bit of this sentence didn't you understand?

Let me answer that question with a direct quote of my original post.

Later, I figure out why I attained that grade. During class, the professor mentioned "leave the science out of it, this is a philosophy paper," and "don't write about the chemistry of happiness."

What bit of this sentence did you not understand? Later implies after. After what? After the test was handed back.

 

[micromass]

Let me answer that question with a direct quote of my original post.


What bit of this sentence did you not understand? Later implies after. After what? After the test was handed back.

So if you figured it out, why are you still blaming the professor for your grade?? You know what was wrong now and how you should fix it.

 

[Nano-Passion]

So if you figured it out, why are you still blaming the professor for your grade?? You know what was wrong now and how you should fix it.

But there is nothing wrong with the essay. Obviously there was a disagreement between his and my philosophy. He stated it himself when he said "science is materialistic." I realize that one should try to adapt to prejudice and bias with respect to grades but I don't see why so many on this thread are agreeing with him. I guess the only argument that will hold is whether my essay has many flaws or fulfills the criteria.

(bold added by me)

1. Would you mind telling what your thesis was, and how you went about to defend it? Based on your claim above it sounds, to me at least, as if you totally messed up.

2. Either your professor is an ***, and tweaking your essays according to his views is a good idea, or you're consistently missing the point. I for one have never had a professor give me a bad grade for disagreeing with him/her, and I've never met anyone who has either.

1) The essay was to be written on your idea of a good life. My thesis was that the good life to me was happiness. I'll post my essay to see how I defended it. Though there isn't much to defend, it is a personal essay of what the good life to you is. Not what IS the good life. It was specifically stated by him many times.

2) Well that is pretty much what happened. My essay just didn't agree with his views, and he shunned my philosophy as materialistic. I'll post my essay in a few moments.

 

[micromass]

But there is nothing wrong with the essay. Obviously there was a disagreement between his and my philosophy. He stated it himself when he said "science is materialistic." I realize that one should try to adapt to prejudice and bias with respect to grades but I don't see why so many on this thread are agreeing with him. I guess the only argument that will hold is whether my essay has many flaws or fulfills the criteria.

Uuuh, science by definition is materialistic... You better have very good arguments to argue the contrary.

I don't quite understand it anymore. Before you wrote your essay, didn't he say "no science"?? That implies that your grade is the result of not following his instructions and the grade would be entirely justified.
If he said "no science" after the essay was written and handed in, then you might have a point.

 

[Nano-Passion]

Uuuh, science by definition is materialistic... You better have very good arguments to argue the contrary.

I don't quite understand it anymore. Before you wrote your essay, didn't he say "no science"?? That implies that your grade is the result of not following his instructions and the grade would be entirely justified.
If he said "no science" after the essay was written and handed in, then you might have a point.

Better to be materialistic than be superstitious. I don't see a problem with "materialistic." The way he said it held a negative connotation, as if he looked down upon it.

He said no science after the essay was written and handed in. Anyways, at the moment I'm trying to upload my essay on google document but I'm running into a bit of a problem. I'll upload it in a few moments.

 

[Nano-Passion]

For the readers:

Format asked of:

2-3 pages (I gave him 5 pages but he didn't seem to mind, 2-3 was probably a minimum).
Clearly bold and underline your sections
Section 1: Introduction, briefly introduce your personal idea of a good life.
Section 2: Correlation, correlate it to another philosophy of a good life.
Section 3: Group Input, how did your group contribute/discuss your correlation
Section 4: Theory, name your theory and discuss it.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My essay: https://viewer.zoho.com/docs/aSjbda

 

[SophusLies]

So if you figured it out, why are you still blaming the professor for your grade?? You know what was wrong now and how you should fix it.

I agree.

To Nano-Passion: From the requirements stated earlier, it's very clear that you didn't follow them correctly. There comes a point when you have to accept that you did something wrong. I'm very bullheaded too but this is getting out of hand. Fix it and move on.

 

[ModusPwnd]

B+ is good.

Not in my experience. B+ is bad, its going to set your GPA back and make your grad application less competitive.

 

[920118]

For the readers:

Format asked of:

2-3 pages (I gave him 5 pages but he didn't seem to mind, 2-3 was probably a minimum).
Clearly bold and underline your sections
Section 1: Introduction, briefly introduce your personal idea of a good life.
Section 2: Correlation, correlate it to another philosophy of a good life.
Section 3: Group Input, how did your group contribute/discuss your correlation
Section 4: Theory, name your theory and discuss it.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My essay: https://viewer.zoho.com/docs/aSjbda

Wow. Never had an assignment like that... He's clearly crazy (I'm serious. Section 3 and 4 doesn't seem philosophically relevant at all). Do you mind if post eventual comments in this thread, or would you rather have them sent to you privately?

btw, did you write it in English originally, or did you translate it afterwards?

 

[Nano-Passion]

I agree.

To Nano-Passion: From the requirements stated earlier, it's very clear that you didn't follow them correctly. There comes a point when you have to accept that you did something wrong. I'm very bullheaded too but this is getting out of hand. Fix it and move on.

I'm not sure specifically what requirements you are talking about and I don't understand why you think its getting out of hand. This is just a thread about a belief prejudice that affects one's grade. Judging by the papers of my peers, I suspect that it was just that issue.

Your telling me to accept that I did something wrong. And I argue that there is nothing wrong with using science to guide your philosophy. *Read my argument in response to two-quant and others.* So with that said, there is two things we can do from here. 1) We can discuss our different points of view as per any dispute. Or 2) you can tell me that it is getting out of hand and judge me as very bullheaded. The latter is personally frustrating because I've made my argument and people seem to ignore its basis.

Read the paper and judge from there, I won't be offended if you tell me this is the worst paper ever created by mankind. I rather a criticism given from a good basis of information than one from a lack of one.

 

[Nano-Passion]

Wow. Never had an assignment like that... He's clearly crazy (I'm serious. Section 3 and 4 doesn't seem philosophically relevant at all). Do you mind if post eventual comments in this thread, or would you rather have them sent to you privately?

Any is fine.

btw, did you write it in English originally, or did you translate it afterwards?[/B]

That sounds a bit like a joke at my essay lol but at any rate it was originally written in English.

 

[deluks917]

This is why I don't like Humanities classes. There is no way to decide if your professor is being unfair even if we could see the essay. I think this ambiguity makes Philosophy classes and the like fundamentally authoritarian and should be treated as such.

 

[micromass]

I didn't like the essay. Some remarks

1) Your references consist out of wikipedia and www.expertscolumn.com. These are not scholarly references. If you want to back your point up with science, at least provide a scientific references.

2) Your view of happiness is a little bit skewed. You see happiness as everything that makes you happy. Then what if I strap you to a chair and pump drugs in you that constantly make you happy. According to your philosophy, this would be the ultimate form of happiness. But I don't think many people would actively choose for this form of existence. There is something you're missing.

3) You say that the pursuit of intellect and wisdom is part of the pursuit of happiness. I did not see any argument why this might be true.

4) You suggest that good and evil are just the product of indoctrination in your childhood. I don't think this is backed up by science. I would rather say that good and evil are evolutionary byproducts. People with a severely undeveloped sense of evil get selected against. In any case, you should think more about this.

5) You fail to recognize that a human lives in a society and that the society has certain norms and ideals. Conformation to society is in most cases desirable as it will make you happier.

 

[Choppy]

Hi Nano-Passion,

I had a quick look at the essay. I can't claim to be an expert in philosphy essays however I can't help, but wonder if you're interpreting general comments made by the professor as comments specifically directed towards your essay.

What you've posted above is not a "God's Gift of to Philosophy 101 Professors" of an essay. You're quoting from Wikipedia and Yahoo websites - that didn't even pass muster in high school for me.

Your postulate that happiness is defined through chemistry and thus is any good or pleasant feeling, is likely failing to address some of the key philosophical issues that the assignment was meant to cover.

Take for example an alcoholic who derives pleasure from drinking. Many alcoholics are not in any way happy with their behaviour. So, is happiness and thus the 'good life' an instantaneous quantity? Or is it a time-integrated quantity?

I'm not trying to start into a debate on the issue. Simply having taken the class, you're likely more well-read on the issue than I am. The point I'm trying to make is that it may not be just a conflict in viewpoint that resulted in a less-than perfect mark. Rather, it could have come from the fact that adopting that particular viewpoint puts you in a position that does not address some of the points of the assignment. Perhaps if you had adopted the same position, but addressed and sufficiently dissmissed those points, you would have gotten full marks.

 

[Nano-Passion]

Hi Nano-Passion,

I had a quick look at the essay. I can't claim to be an expert in philosphy essays however I can't help, but wonder if you're interpreting general comments made by the professor as comments specifically directed towards your essay.

What you've posted above is not a "God's Gift of to Philosophy 101 Professors" of an essay. You're quoting from Wikipedia and Yahoo websites - that didn't even pass muster in high school for me.

Haha yes I'm guilty. Because it was a philosophy essay I didn't care much for the sources but I just wanted to insert some interesting quotes on the topic.

Your postulate that happiness is defined through chemistry and thus is any good or pleasant feeling, is likely failing to address some of the key philosophical issues that the assignment was meant to cover.

Take for example an alcoholic who derives pleasure from drinking. Many alcoholics are not in any way happy with their behaviour. So, is happiness and thus the 'good life' an instantaneous quantity? Or is it a time-integrated quantity?

I'm not trying to start into a debate on the issue. Simply having taken the class, you're likely more well-read on the issue than I am. The point I'm trying to make is that it may not be just a conflict in viewpoint that resulted in a less-than perfect mark. Rather, it could have come from the fact that adopting that particular viewpoint puts you in a position that does not address some of the points of the assignment. Perhaps if you had adopted the same position, but addressed and sufficiently dissmissed those points, you would have gotten full marks.

Well one part of the essay addresses the physiological portion, while the other addresses the psychological portion. In the essay I adopt a point of view that the psychological portion is inherently tied into chemistry. For example, one's long-term contentment is governed by his levels of neurotransmitters. There are likely many studies supporting that, but I wasn't trying to make a neuroscience essay. I just wanted to address some accepted ideas in psychology/neuroscience as a basis of my philosophy.

Thanks for your reply by the way.

I didn't like the essay. Some remarks

Okay, I'll pinch in my perspectives (hopefully not to be mistaken for an argument and stubborness).

1) Your references consist out of wikipedia and www.expertscolumn.com. These are not scholarly references. If you want to back your point up with science, at least provide a scientific references.

I'm pretty sure he would have laughed if I assessed his criteria and decided to make a scientific paper out of it (wasn't the whole complaint that it was too scientific, why make it more scientific? It is not a peer reviewed journal but a personal statement). I just thought that I would briefly state some widely accepted ideas and discuss my idea of a good life around it.

2) Your view of happiness is a little bit skewed. You see happiness as everything that makes you happy. Then what if I strap you to a chair and pump drugs in you that constantly make you happy. According to your philosophy, this would be the ultimate form of happiness. But I don't think many people would actively choose for this form of existence. There is something you're missing.

Simple. Drugs will trigger/inhibit certain neurotransmitters. While being stuck in a chair will trigger/inhibit neurotransmitters (won't trigger ones that will make you feel good). I'm sure if one were to tie you down and fold you then you would be flooded with fear and anxiety. It all traces back to brain chemistry. I don't really see your point of view here unless you can clarify.

3) You say that the pursuit of intellect and wisdom is part of the pursuit of happiness. I did not see any argument why this might be true.

People can feel more significant if they are intellectual and wise. It is part of your sense of self. Of course your sense of self is a complex phenomena, but in general people feel a bit better of themselves being wise verses being a failure. And yes this is a generalization, as per any psychological phenomena.

4) You suggest that good and evil are just the product of indoctrination in your childhood. I don't think this is backed up by science. I would rather say that good and evil are evolutionary byproducts. People with a severely undeveloped sense of evil get selected against. In any case, you should think more about this.

This is a big philosophical topic in its own. Good and evil is not inherent to the construct of the fundamental universe. It is based on perception that developed with the mind. It is something we introduced with language and culture. There is only the atom and the void. Everything else is created out of the basic ingredients of the universe, including the incredible arrangement of molecules we see today. There is only good and evil in perception.

5) You fail to recognize that a human lives in a society and that the society has certain norms and ideals. Conformation to society is in most cases desirable as it will make you happier.

I briefly addressed this in my essay: " I do not fight my urge for human compassion, status of accomplishment and respect, the “immortal name,” or other more basic drives such as food and water. I do not fear my hunger for fame as a respected scientist or thinker. Rather, I embrace these tendencies as part of the journey to happiness. It is much easier to flow the overwhelming current of the river that is your genetics and mind than to fight the current upstream."

I have no problem with constructive criticism. For example, when you state "You fail to recognize that a human lives in a society and that the society has certain norms and ideals," I disagree yet agree. I do recognize the phenomena but I probably should have clarified my views first. That is why communication gets very complex, you have to close down as much different interpretations as possible. One of the reasons why an innumerable amount of arguments occur is that everyone has their own mind and as a consequence their own interpretations. Without going on a tangent, the point is that your right in a sense that I should have clarified my position.

 

[Nano-Passion]

Hi Nano-Passion,

I had a quick look at the essay. I can't claim to be an expert in philosphy essays however I can't help, but wonder if you're interpreting general comments made by the professor as comments specifically directed towards your essay.

What you've posted above is not a "God's Gift of to Philosophy 101 Professors" of an essay. You're quoting from Wikipedia and Yahoo websites - that didn't even pass muster in high school for me.

Your postulate that happiness is defined through chemistry and thus is any good or pleasant feeling, is likely failing to address some of the key philosophical issues that the assignment was meant to cover.

Take for example an alcoholic who derives pleasure from drinking. Many alcoholics are not in any way happy with their behaviour. So, is happiness and thus the 'good life' an instantaneous quantity? Or is it a time-integrated quantity?

Both (as implied in my essay).

I'm not trying to start into a debate on the issue. Simply having taken the class, you're likely more well-read on the issue than I am. The point I'm trying to make is that it may not be just a conflict in viewpoint that resulted in a less-than perfect mark. Rather, it could have come from the fact that adopting that particular viewpoint puts you in a position that does not address some of the points of the assignment. Perhaps if you had adopted the same position, but addressed and sufficiently dissmissed those points, you would have gotten full marks.

But you see, the whole point of the essay was to discuss your personal idea of a good life. He wanted us to have a bit of introspection. Its just that my personal idea of a good life was too scientific and did not run congruent with his beliefs of a good life . Maybe I have a bit of a unique view that is frowned upon in mainstream philosophy. Or maybe not, I'm not even a philosophy major so I wouldn't know.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Its just that my personal idea of a good life was too scientific and did not run congruent with his beliefs of a good life . Maybe I have a bit of a unique view that is frowned upon in mainstream philosophy..

You keep repeating that you were treated unfairly, but have provided no evidence for it.

I've studied philosophy. Your paper is poor. It argues by repeated assertion, and it uses flowery language that doesn't clarify. Furthermore, as your aside points out, you did not follow the assignment. Your B+ was a gift. Any of my professors would have flunked you.

So long as you have this attitude that you know more than your professor, you're not going to learn anything. My advice is to either change this attitude or drop the class - it will just be a waste of time and money.

 

[920118]

Any is fine.

That sounds a bit like a joke at my essay lol but at any rate it was originally written in English.

I don't know what the standard is like in introductory philosophy classes where you're attending school, so can't say if you should have a better grade or not. What I do know, however, is that I wouldn't give you an A for that essay, and I highly doubt that you would get higher than a D, or perhaps a C if lucky, (on the ECTS scale) if you were attending the same school as I am. (Not that the school I'm attending has very high standards or anything...) On the other hand, the assignment seems pretty stupid, so I'm not really sure how much of what I have to say that will be relevant. Okay, so I'm a bit tired right now (it's 03:40ish and I've been spending the last hours on an algorithm that doesn't do what I want it to), but I'll give you some short comments and feedback.

1. The introduction

Cons:
You take up too much space saying things that aren't relevant. The relvant parts of the introduction (i.e., your thesis and how you are going to use certain terms. I would be hard pressed to acknowledge there being a thesis in there though) could be stated more concisely. Aim for simpler phraseology and cut out vagueness, ambiguity and unnecessary words. (Why is the subset obscure, and is it relevant for your paper?)

Example: "But what is happiness anyways with its cacophony of meanings? The word happiness is thrown around with a dizzying array of meanings, sure to put any neuroscientist in a state of disorientation. To stray clear away from any confusion in this paper, I will define happiness as any good feeling and will umbrella all other terms introduced through our complex language, such as contentment, pleasure, etc.. I will also define 'good feeling' as any feeling that appears pleasant to oneself, either in the short or long-term span (possibly the feeling of contentment); or in some cases, simply a lack of 'bad.' "

Philosophy version: "In what follows, 'happiness' will be used for all states of mind which the subject finds pleasant, independent of their duration, as well as for the absence of non-pleasant states of mind." [at least I guess that this is what you're trying to say...?]

Pros:
You briefly stated your view, which the assigment asked for.

2. Correlation

Cons:
1.If I remember my Aristotle, your first statement is off. Aristotle wasn't expressing an opinion; he was putting forth a theory of what the it means to lead a good life. Just state his thesis and give a reference (unless your professor said you don't have to).
2. What you "contend" isn't relevant. Give an argument, either your own or someone elses, or leave it out. The entire first paragraph looks like high school-rhetoric, the purpose of which is to fill upp space.
3. The second paragraph seems quite off as well. I am not really sure what you're arguing, and again, I feel that your reading of Aristotle isn't completely accurate. (People disagree abot Aristotle quite often anyway, so I won't push this)
4. You also mention that you're saying these things to support your argument, but you haven't presented any such thing yet. When is it comming? Why didn't you use the introduction to clearly state your thesis and in what order you were going to present things? And again, why are you contending so many things, and arguing for so few? Why are you speculating? Argue, give references to arguments, or cut it out.

Pros: You kind of correlated your view to that of Aristotle (though you used at least half of the text doing nothing)

3. Group input

-

4. Theory

I'll treat this part paragraph by paragraph.

§1. The point could be stated more concisely. Do you need every example? Is it relevant that you're aspiring to become a theoretical physicist, or a neuroscientist? Did you ave to include three different possibilities? Again, you use too much space.

Pros of §1. You finally presented your view somewhat explicitly.
Cons of §1. The paragraph is sort of confusing and wordsy.

§2. Blah blah, speculation without arguments, blah blah, anecdotes.
Cons of §2. Doesn't contribute with anything philosophically relevant. At all. Except that it hints at you being a determinist, but what you believe isn't philosophically interesting.

§3. What, there was a physiological discussion!? Where? Oh, you mean that... The only interesting part of this paragraph (to me at least) is this part:
"I do not try to fight these Darwinian goals, but embrace them. If you were to combat the very genetic tendencies that make up your DNA, then you are in a hopeless and never-ending struggle. We are enslaved to our genetic predisposition and brain chemistry, as belittling as it sounds"
But for some reason, you didn't spend any time discussing what you mean. I guess that you're a determinist, but if so, how does it even make sense to talk about fighting against your predetermined dispositions? What does that even mean? If everyone is enslaved by their genes, then fighting against your genes could only be the result of certain causal reactions, in which your genome plays a causally relevant role. Right?

One might also wonder what you mean with "Darwinian goals". Are you suggesting a natural teleolgy, or are you just using philosophically unsuitable phraseology again? Why aren't you arguing for these ideas? It doesn't make sense to just mention these without engaging with them.

Cons of §3 Still no arguing! Still lots of blah blah blah.

§4. Too many words, too little said. No argument. You could've said "I want to understand everything" or something like that instead of using an entire paragraph to list a few examples. "To know the brain and how it gives us the illusion of reality that we conceptualize through our brain (of which most fail to bring to second-thought)." This sentence sounds pretty awkward, and a philosopher would probably wonder what to make of it.

§5. A summary would've been better; that way the reader would have an easier time understanding what you thought that you were doing in the paper. Good that you have ambitions.Overall:

Ideas for improvements:
1. Use more arguments. It's The Way to do philosophy
2. Exclude pretty much all information which doesn't contribute to the arguments. If you can't motivate every part of every sentence, then cut or change it.
3. Be explicit about what you're arguing for, where you get your premisses, why things follow from each other, how what you're currently doing is relevant to what you're trying to achieve &c
4. You could be a bit more straight forward in your writing.

End note: I'm not saying any of this to be mean. I'm trying to show what the guy (or gal) grading your work might think. (I'm really tired, so some of it might just be me being a bit lost at the moment.) But yeah. You shouldn't be upset about getting a B+ for this essay. (Though, to be fair, I'm quite upset that it's so easy to get high grades in some places. No wonder so many american universities reject over 90% of the people applying for grad school in philosophy)
Oh, and English isn't my native language, so if there is some strange grammar or somesuch, I'd be more than happy if you were to point it out.

Better luck next time.

 

[Nano-Passion]

You keep repeating that you were treated unfairly, but have provided no evidence for it.

I've studied philosophy. Your paper is poor. It argues by repeated assertion, and it uses flowery language that doesn't clarify. Furthermore, as your aside points out, you did not follow the assignment. Your B+ was a gift. Any of my professors would have flunked you.

So long as you have this attitude that you know more than your professor, you're not going to learn anything. My advice is to either change this attitude or drop the class - it will just be a waste of time and money.

Poor is an adjective, adjectives are relative. So then, poor to what standards? I would rank it sufficient compared to my peers. Like I said before, its just an intro to philosophy course in a community college. But if you mean poor by other standards then I agree and I realize there is always room for improvement!

By the way Vanadium, you were a philosophy minor/major or you mean you took a class or two?

 

[Nano-Passion]

I don't know what the standard is like in introductory philosophy classes where you're attending school, so can't say if you should have a better grade or not. What I do know, however, is that I wouldn't give you an A for that essay, and I highly doubt that you would get higher than a D, or perhaps a C if lucky, (on the ECTS scale) if you were attending the same school as I am. (Not that the school I'm attending has very high standards or anything...) On the other hand, the assignment seems pretty stupid, so I'm not really sure how much of what I have to say that will be relevant. Okay, so I'm a bit tired right now (it's 03:40ish and I've been spending the last hours on an algorithm that doesn't do what I want it to), but I'll give you some short comments and feedback.

1. The introduction

Cons:
You take up too much space saying things that aren't relevant. The relvant parts of the introduction (i.e., your thesis and how you are going to use certain terms. I would be hard pressed to acknowledge there being a thesis in there though) could be stated more concisely. Aim for simpler phraseology and cut out vagueness, ambiguity and unnecessary words. (Why is the subset obscure, and is it relevant for your paper?)

Example: "But what is happiness anyways with its cacophony of meanings? The word happiness is thrown around with a dizzying array of meanings, sure to put any neuroscientist in a state of disorientation. To stray clear away from any confusion in this paper, I will define happiness as any good feeling and will umbrella all other terms introduced through our complex language, such as contentment, pleasure, etc.. I will also define 'good feeling' as any feeling that appears pleasant to oneself, either in the short or long-term span (possibly the feeling of contentment); or in some cases, simply a lack of 'bad.' "

Philosophy version: "In what follows, 'happiness' will be used for all states of mind which the subject finds pleasant, independent of their duration, as well as for the absence of non-pleasant states of mind." [at least I guess that this is what you're trying to say...?]

I like your version, its much better!

Pros:
You briefly stated your view, which the assigment asked for.

2. Correlation

Cons:
1.If I remember my Aristotle, your first statement is off. Aristotle wasn't expressing an opinion; he was putting forth a theory of what the it means to lead a good life. Just state his thesis and give a reference (unless your professor said you don't have to).
2. What you "contend" isn't relevant. Give an argument, either your own or someone elses, or leave it out. The entire first paragraph looks like high school-rhetoric, the purpose of which is to fill upp space.

Why is that?

3. The second paragraph seems quite off as well. I am not really sure what you're arguing, and again, I feel that your reading of Aristotle isn't completely accurate. (People disagree abot Aristotle quite often anyway, so I won't push this)

I was arguing that virtue does not equate to happiness, that happiness is cold and mechanical.

4. You also mention that you're saying these things to support your argument, but you haven't presented any such thing yet. When is it comming? Why didn't you use the introduction to clearly state your thesis and in what order you were going to present things? And again, why are you contending so many things, and arguing for so few? Why are you speculating? Argue, give references to arguments, or cut it out.

Our topic of thesis was simply what your idea of a good life is. My thesis was the very first sentence.

Also, you say that I contend too much and don't argue enough things. I'm guessing your saying that I put up very weak arguments (because all my sentences were there for an argument). How can I improve on that? Is there a certain way your supposed to go about arguing?

Pros: You kind of correlated your view to that of Aristotle (though you used at least half of the text doing nothing)

3. Group input

-

4. Theory

I'll treat this part paragraph by paragraph.

§1. The point could be stated more concisely. Do you need every example? Is it relevant that you're aspiring to become a theoretical physicist, or a neuroscientist? Did you ave to include three different possibilities? Again, you use too much space.

Pros of §1. You finally presented your view somewhat explicitly.
Cons of §1. The paragraph is sort of confusing and wordsy.

§2. Blah blah, speculation without arguments, blah blah, anecdotes.
Cons of §2. Doesn't contribute with anything philosophically relevant. At all. Except that it hints at you being a determinist, but what you believe isn't philosophically interesting.

I think you have the criteria confused. You say in that particular paragraph I wasn't putting up a good argument, but there is nothing to argue against. Let me explain. The essay is broken into different parts. One part, the correlation, is to correlate your idea of a good life to a philosopher. And another part, the theory, is to talk more about your idea of a good life.

§3. What, there was a physiological discussion!? Where? Oh, you mean that... The only interesting part of this paragraph (to me at least) is this part:
"I do not try to fight these Darwinian goals, but embrace them. If you were to combat the very genetic tendencies that make up your DNA, then you are in a hopeless and never-ending struggle. We are enslaved to our genetic predisposition and brain chemistry, as belittling as it sounds"
But for some reason, you didn't spend any time discussing what you mean. I guess that you're a determinist, but if so, how does it even make sense to talk about fighting against your predetermined dispositions? What does that even mean? If everyone is enslaved by their genes, then fighting against your genes could only be the result of certain causal reactions, in which your genome plays a causally relevant role. Right?

I'm not particularly a determinist or a non-determinist. I view genetics as the cause of your social tendencies.

One might also wonder what you mean with "Darwinian goals". Are you suggesting a natural teleolgy, or are you just using philosophically unsuitable phraseology again? Why aren't you arguing for these ideas? It doesn't make sense to just mention these without engaging with them.

Cons of §3 Still no arguing! Still lots of blah blah blah.

§4. Too many words, too little said. No argument. You could've said "I want to understand everything" or something like that instead of using an entire paragraph to list a few examples. "To know the brain and how it gives us the illusion of reality that we conceptualize through our brain (of which most fail to bring to second-thought)." This sentence sounds pretty awkward, and a philosopher would probably wonder what to make of it.

§5. A summary would've been better; that way the reader would have an easier time understanding what you thought that you were doing in the paper. Good that you have ambitions.


Overall:

Ideas for improvements:
1. Use more arguments. It's The Way to do philosophy
2. Exclude pretty much all information which doesn't contribute to the arguments. If you can't motivate every part of every sentence, then cut or change it.
3. Be explicit about what you're arguing for, where you get your premisses, why things follow from each other, how what you're currently doing is relevant to what you're trying to achieve &c
4. You could be a bit more straight forward in your writing.

End note: I'm not saying any of this to be mean. I'm trying to show what the guy (or gal) grading your work might think. (I'm really tired, so some of it might just be me being a bit lost at the moment.) But yeah. You shouldn't be upset about getting a B+ for this essay. (Though, to be fair, I'm quite upset that it's so easy to get high grades in some places. No wonder so many american universities reject over 90% of the people applying for grad school in philosophy)
Oh, and English isn't my native language, so if there is some strange grammar or somesuch, I'd be more than happy if you were to point it out.

Better luck next time.

Thank you so much for your constructive criticism! I wish I had more critical English professors, but that is okay, I'm going to take more writing classes when I transfer to Rutgers University anyways.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Poor is an adjective, adjectives are relative. So then, poor to what standards? I would rank it sufficient compared to my peers.

You're complaining that you didn't get an A, and got a B+ instead. That takes more than "sufficient". Indeed, you're arguing that your paper is so gloriously wonderful that the only possible explanation for the B+ is that the professor treated you unfairly.

It's not.

By the way Vanadium, you were a philosophy minor/major or you mean you took a class or two?

Four: Intro/Logic, Epistomology, Ethics, Political.

 

[twofish-quant]

I'm learning, but I'm not aware of the short-comings of my own belief system.

That's a bad thing.

To me science is and just is. It is truth.

I completely reject this sort of system of belief. Science is a social mechanism for creating useful models of the universe. Science being done by falliable human beings is itself falliable, and for the more important questions in the universe, it says absolutely nothing of use.

But when I hear ideas that science is materialistic, and to resist mentioning science then my ears tend to slightly close. Using science as a guide to philosophy is almost a common sense to me.

Materialistic has a certain meaning in philosophy and science *is* materialistic because it makes statements about the material universe. Also, once you get used to science, you are aware of its limitations, and personally I think that using science as the basis for a philosophy is highly unwise, and extremely dangerous.

You don't hear of philosophers saying "we are the most important beings in the universe because we are the center of the universe," simply because science says we aren't even the center of the solar system.

I think you are confusing lots of terms. There are many valid meanings for the term "center" and even as a physical center of the universe, the Earth is just as good as any other.

Science is as certain as it gets. Science is based on more certainty than any liberal arts. It is certainly more certain than pseudo ideas of astrology and other who are not supported by science.

Absolutely disagree. The core of science is doubt and skepticism. There *is* no certainty in science because the universe can change. For the last 13 billion years, the gravitational constant of the universe has been the same, but it could change tomorrow.

Science is about doubt, because the social processes that keep scientists from turning into monsters involve doubt and skepticism. (And even skepticism about skepticism). If you try to turn science into *certainty* you are mixing science and non-science in a dangerous way.

Well, its just the fact that it is an intro to philosophy class and because the grade was because of a philosophical difference--my paper being materialistic in his opinion.

I think you are misunderstanding the meaning of the term materialism. If you have a philosophy that is based on science, it *has* to be materialistic

I thought different philosophical ideas were supposed to be accepted by the validity of their argument.

Depends. The point of philosophy is to figure out what "validity of an argument" means.

And if you ask me, the validity of my arguments are much more than other pseudo-scientific ideas of the soul (whatever soul is supposed to mean anyways).

I don't think you've thought very deeply about this. I don't think the idea of the soul is "pseudo-scientific". There are standard problems with materialist arguments, and even if you don't agree with them you ought to know about them. For example, if you argue that "souls" don't exist because they aren't material, then do "circles", "numbers" and "money" exist?

You are a very scientific- minded individual (or so it seems). I don't see how you would actually dismiss science and pursue other vague ideas.

The fact that there are a number of people on this thread with a lot more experience with science than you do and aren't impressed by your arguments should tell you something. I don't expect you to agree with me, but the fact that you don't *understand* my point of view suggests that you should get a low grade in any philosophy intro class.

Personally, the more I see, the more convinced I am that you've got an excellent professor that was being extremely generous for giving you a B+.

 

[twofish-quant]

Better to be materialistic than be superstitious. I don't see a problem with "materialistic." The way he said it held a negative connotation, as if he looked down upon it.

Look. If you are taking an intro philosophy course, and you don't understand what "materialism" means then a B+ is extremely generous.

You can start with the wikipedia article

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism

It's got a link to Michael Polanyi who has very heavily influenced my thinking.

 

[twofish-quant]

Your telling me to accept that I did something wrong.

For one thing he asked for 2 to 3 pages, and you gave him 5 pages. That in itself knocks you down to a B+. Page limits are extremely important because

1) the point of page limits is so that the reading isn't flooded with pages
2) it's good practice to try to express an argument briefly

*Read my argument in response to two-quant and others.*

I'm sorry, you haven't presented an argument. You've just made an assertion.

The latter is personally frustrating because I've made my argument and people seem to ignore its basis.

I haven't seen any argument. The only thing that I've seen you say is that it's obvious that you are right. One of the points of communication is that what is obvious to one person isn't obvious to another.

Also, even at the level of making an assertion, you haven't done a good job at that. I have no clue what you mean by "science" and what you consider "scientific" and "un-scientific." The problem here is that you assume that you if you just say "science", people will know what you mean, but people don't. I don't know. Is economics a "science"? You've mentioned that you don't think astrology is a science. You haven't mentioned why exactly.

 

[SophusLies]

By the way Vanadium, you were a philosophy minor/major or you mean you took a class or two?

I know Vanadium already answer this question but I can tell you're still early in your academic career from this question. Just because someone has studied something doesn't mean they learned it in a classroom. I still remember being thoroughly impressed with the electrical engineering kids coming into upper level math or physics classes. Some of them audited those classes and blew all the math and physics majors away. I became friends with a couple of these guys and they self studied like mad on their own.

Also, if you ever get into the software industry you'll see a whole bunch of people that have never in their lives taken a software/programming class yet they can create incredible programs. If someone asked them about where they got their degrees or what classes they took they would laugh in that person's face because they know classes don't mean a thing if you can't code.

 

[deRham]

To me science is and just is. It is truth. Of course it is not the complete truth, and there are lots of holes to fill; but I would rank it higher then vague ideas of the soul etc.

I'm somewhere between scientist and philosopher (mathematician). Well that's inaccurate really, more like some of what I am interested in can have strong interactions with science.

I think the issue might be either that you didn't ask or that your professor didn't explain the real problem. But I strongly suspect it has less to do with your beliefs, more that you should (and I suspect do) recognize that "TRUTH" is incredibly overused, in many different senses. And to say "to me, this is what truth is" is like saying "to me, the universe is ___" -- great, but there are lots of things people think about. One of the whole points in philosophy courses is to ask what it means to get certain kinds of knowledge. It's to get at very fundamental things. Fundamental at the level of questioning what the methods of acquiring knowledge do and don't do, can and can't do...

The easiest way to see this is to note that, while incredibly related, logic and mathematics are somewhat different things.

 

[920118]

Thank you so much for your constructive criticism! I wish I had more critical English professors, but that is okay, I'm going to take more writing classes when I transfer to Rutgers University anyways.

I wrote a long answer, but got logged out before I could post it, and for some reason it was gone when I logged in... I'll rewrite it later, but for the time, I'll just say:

Read and do more philosophy! It's the best way to become better at it. This paper is a pretty easy and pedagogical example of a good (imo) paper. A lot of people find it interesting and enjoyable; maybe you will as well.

 

[jeebs]

Conformation to society is in most cases desirable as it will make you happier.

hmmm, that's a bold claim.