Have you ever taken a class in Philosophy?

[WiFO215]

I don't think Newton had an education in physics either.

Dude! He had no problems. See, all HE did was come over to PF. Check out the homework sub-forum. It's all there.

 

[nismaratwork]

Dude! He had no problems. See, all HE did was come over to PF. Check out the homework sub-forum. It's all there.

"I call that bold talk for a one-eyed fat man!"

j/k! Newton did have access to something like a bit of PF library resources for the time.

 

[armolinasf]

Took an into to philosophy class in high school at a community college, the teacher would have been an awesome guy to have a beer or two with but he wasn't that great a teacher.

I have to say that philosophy is one of those subjects that thrives outside of a school setting. At the heart of it it really is just about thinking and examining yourself and your environment, and that's something that can be done anytime and anywhere.

 

[nismaratwork]

Took an into to philosophy class in high school at a community college, the teacher would have been an awesome guy to have a beer or two with but he wasn't that great a teacher.

I have to say that philosophy is one of those subjects that thrives outside of a school setting. At the heart of it it really is just about thinking and examining yourself and your environment, and that's something that can be done anytime and anywhere.

Interesting, I never got that social with in high school with a teacher, but we did get together at his place (boarding school) to play cards. Just as you said, good guy, smart too... meh as a teacher.

I think you need other people to interact with to learn philosophy properly, but I'm not sure that you NEED a teacher. Ideally you would, but if you're a philosophy teacher, I think I'd be more impressed if you were a philosopher yourself, and not just on paper. Get out there and live in the public square as it were, but ideally... not literally.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Took an into to philosophy class in high school at a community college, the teacher would have been an awesome guy to have a beer or two with but he wasn't that great a teacher.

I have to say that philosophy is one of those subjects that thrives outside of a school setting. At the heart of it it really is just about thinking and examining yourself and your environment, and that's something that can be done anytime and anywhere.

I would say the recent moderating actions in the Philosophy forum are evidence otherwise. If left to do as you suggest, the forum is reduced to nonsense. In fact, given the nature of the subject, I would say that philosophy is one the least self-teachable subjects because it is so easy to go right over a logical cliff. There is no way to check your work! This is in fact what we have seen happening in the forum for years now.

 

[nismaratwork]

I would say the recent moderating actions in the Philosophy forum are evidence otherwise. If left to do as you suggest, the forum is reduced to nonsense. In fact, given the nature of the subject, I would say that philosophy is one the least self-teachable subjects because it is so easy to go right over a logical cliff. There is no way to check your work! This is in fact what we have seen happening in the forum for years now.

PF Philosophy Forest: There's just a lomax, weeping for the locked threads... and me laughing at him.

As lofty as its goals are, something about the discussion of philosophy over the internet just turns into a catfight.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

As lofty as its goals are, something about the discussion of philosophy over the internet just turns into a catfight.

That isn't the problem. The problem is that the arguments posed are nonsense.

They often begin with a flawed premise, such as "Einstein said everything is relative". Before you even start, you are done. That is simply not true. This is one example why we have the new requirement for a paper, to start a discussion. This forces the participants to address legitimate questions and not whatever pops into their heads.

 

[nismaratwork]

That isn't the problem. The problem is that the arguments posed are nonsense.

They often begin with a flawed premise, such as "Einstein said everything is relative". Before you even start, you are done. That is simply not true. This is one example why we have the new requirement for a paper, to start a discussion. This forces the participants to address legitimate questions and not whatever pops into their heads.

Hmmm... I believe that's a problem, and I believe that's the problem here (you'd know more than I), but it still seems true; anonymity and discussions of philosophy mix poorly.

 

[fuzzyfelt]

Yes, but courses generally art related.

 

[EnumaElish]

I had always been partial to philosophy, in particular philosophy of science. So I read Thomas Kuhn and Karl Popper when I was in college. But first, some background. In the seventies philosophy was still sort of hip (the post-war french had a big role in popularizing philosophy -- Brirain had the Beatles, France had the Existentialists, and for example "cutting edge" psychology [Lacan] and history of western institutions [Foucault] were overlapping with philosophy). In college, the soc. sci. and the humanities had the hippest and better-looking people while other departments had little of either, and their student population was significantly skewed toward "far too many men and too few women." Which, taken altogether, produced an interest in me toward soc. sci. & philosophy classes. I ended up taking grad-level Critique of Pure Reason. The prof. knew the stuff and was a very good teacher; she was serious (almost stern) and also a little paranoid, she thought my best-ever paper deserved only B because it was "written so well" that it could not have been "anything but plagiarism." I am not resentful for having taken the class, though.

 

[nismaratwork]

I had always been partial to philosophy, in particular philosophy of science. So I read Thomas Kuhn and Karl Popper when I was in college. But first, some background. In the seventies philosophy was still sort of hip (the post-war french had a big role in popularizing philosophy -- Brirain had the Beatles, France had the Existentialists, and for example "cutting edge" psychology [Lacan] and history of western institutions [Foucault] were overlapping with philosophy). In college, the soc. sci. and the humanities had the hippest and better-looking people while other departments had little of either, and their student population was significantly skewed toward "far too many men and too few women." Which, taken altogether, produced an interest in me toward soc. sci. & philosophy classes. I ended up taking grad-level Critique of Pure Reason. The prof. knew the stuff and was a very good teacher; she was serious (almost stern) and also a little paranoid, she thought my best-ever paper deserved only B because it was "written so well" that it could not have been "anything but plagiarism." I am not resentful for having taken the class, though.

bolded mine: Wow. Just wow, and DAMN, I'd love to read that paper.

 

[Math Is Hard]

I ended up taking grad-level Critique of Pure Reason. The prof. knew the stuff and was a very good teacher; she was serious (almost stern) and also a little paranoid, she thought my best-ever paper deserved only B because it was "written so well" that it could not have been "anything but plagiarism." I am not resentful for having taken the class, though.

How peculiar. So did she say, "You Kant have written this"?

Sorry. That is truly awful. I would love to read your paper.

 

[EnumaElish]

How peculiar. So did she say, "You Kant have written this"?

:rofl:

bolded mine: Wow. Just wow, and DAMN, I'd love to read that paper.

Sorry. That is truly awful. I would love to read your paper.

Thanks; you're very kind. I'll try to find it.

 

[nismaratwork]

:rofl:

Thanks; you're very kind. I'll try to find it.

I appreciate it; I admit, my curiosity has been well and truly piqued.