jump to last post 1-20 of 20 discussions (128 posts)

Philosophy help!!

  1. Rafini profile image87
    Rafiniposted 6 years ago

    I'm a beginning Philosophy student, and the in-class circles of discussion are not helping me to learn what I'm supposed to be learning!  Just what am I supposed to be getting out of this class??  lol

    We began by discussing Psychological Egoism & Cultural Relativism, and soon will be discussing Divine Command Theory.  I understand PE to be 'me, me, me'!  And CR to be 'majority rules'.  Divine Command Theory, if I remember correctly, is basically saying we have no free will.  (I learned something of Philosophy when I was much, much younger!  and it was probably a mix of self-learned and one on one instruction.) 

    Anyone care to join a discussion and help me relearn what I've forgotten?  lol  The instructor said the purpose of the class is to critically evaluate moral standards, understand moral reasoning, and (I think) to help the student determine right/wrong about the way things should be.  I know I can do it, I've done it before.  The problem is I don't know the correct steps to take, the terminology, or the basic ideas that brought me to my belief system. 

    Where do I start?  Thanks!  smile

    1. Shahid Bukhari profile image60
      Shahid Bukhariposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Philosophy ... is your Understanding of the Existent's Reality... It is necessary, if you do not Believe in Divine Origins, and Man's Eventual Accountability.

      One does not learn Philosophy ... thats an understanding by Rote ... your
      repeating what Plato or Zenos said...

      You are however, free to either Live the Correct Belief, or adopt your known Philosophy.

    2. profile image0
      Twenty One Daysposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      DCT does not openly say humans have no free will,
      it implies a condition of predetermined thought and potential/limitation based on divine process.

      However, there is a   h u g e  gap in the theory/argument for and against. Much of my recent work has been on this subject.

      My conclusions place Choice as the limitation. Choice is in question, not Free Will.

      (this is very short, but...) It is by the application of Pure Consideration, one determines Choice --the brand and label-- having been divinely preset, as to give humanity ability. By the very name of that label, humanism has engulfed itself in itself and that limitation as final. Although seen as infinite, is argued as finite. Much like depreciation.
      Still, Free Will exceeds humanism, the condition by which Choice is applied and labeled. Free Will encompasses choice by does not engage Choice as a participant of the process but as (watch closely) the processor.

      I suggest presenting the argument for thought as Choice/ a processor of divine making versus Free Will and see where it goes from there.

      James.

      1. Rafini profile image87
        Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Thanks so much, James.

        DCT does not openly say humans have no free will  -  Right. 

        DCT, in effect, says one of two things. 
        1. Our actions are right because they are commanded by God.  or
        2. God commands actions because they are right.

        The way I look at it is this:  God commands right/wrong only because he created mankind and knows what is right/wrong, or in the best interest, for humans.  However, God, in knowing right from wrong, allows a choice as to whether humans follow His guidance because He knows it's wrong to force humans into compliance.

        In other words, 1 = being told what to do, no thinking necessary!  2 = being able to think for selves regarding how to comply with commands.

        1. qwark profile image60
          qwarkposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Damn!

          I read the comments of "believers" in this mythical "god" thing and I am appalled at the embarrassing dirth of knowledgeable thought that is being offered...PUBLICLY!

          Obama was so right and with absolute agreement with me, when he said in his "State of the Union" address, that the USA lags in the education of it's children.

          To save this country and put it back on a path to viability, EDUCATION must rule!

          Regretably, 80 - 90% of the populace of the United States, BELIEVES in a mythical "superman" and the comic book stories presented in a "best seller" called the bible.

          With parents promoting and backing the stories in the  "comic book" as being true, is it no wonder that
          the comments of responding forum "BELIEVERS" are so dishearteningly embarrassing and speak so powerfully for a need to educate American children in science and math?

          "Philosophically" speaking, monotheistic belief frustrates learning and the development of "Wisdom!"

          I watch with interest as human evolution journeys on!

          Qwark

          1. Rafini profile image87
            Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            ??   lol


            just so you know, that came from my 8-9 year old self, (not in those exact words, I'm sure!)  when I first heard of the Divine Command Theory.  I don't think I understood at that time that I was supposed to be critically evaluating it - I'm sure I thought I was learning something true about the world. smile

            1. qwark profile image60
              qwarkposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Hi Raf:
              It took me quite a while to understand that the purpose of a college education is to make you think and teach one how to research and find things.
              You will do well I'm sure.  smile:
              Qwark

              1. Rafini profile image87
                Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                I've discovered, as an adult, that I enjoy researching things.  Once I get something in my head and I look into it, omg, I'll go all night/week until I'm satisfied with what I find!  In fact, it wasn't until about 5-6 years ago that I fully understood what Research meant!  lol   (I went crazy with Encyclopedia Britannica on my computer. lol)


                I'm just still struggling with where to go with my interests and skills. hmm  lol

                1. qwark profile image60
                  qwarkposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  RAf:
                  Time and effort will pay well.
                  Thumbs up   smile:
                  Qwark

              2. Rafini profile image87
                Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                (I'm still confused about your post - sarcasm?  or...what?)

                1. qwark profile image60
                  qwarkposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  RAf:
                  I'm sorry! What part confused you? I'm curious.
                  Sarcasm isn't me.
                  I tell it as it is and how I see it.
                  All of what I've posted to you is a sincere and honest response to your questions.
                  I'm for ya!
                  Qwark  smile:

                  1. Rafini profile image87
                    Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    lol  Well, I know you don't believe in God, and you seem to be kind (most of the time, to me, etc. smile ) but the post seems almost mocking.  I don't get what you're saying, unless you're trying to tell me to stop believing, again. smile

        2. Pcunix profile image88
          Pcunixposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Inherent in this is the assumption that humans are the most important creatures - an obvious conceit.

          What is 'right" for the microbes in the soil is that we die quickly so that they can get on with their use of our nutrients. What is "right" for the animals who used to enjoy their homes in the former forest where I now live is that there were not so many of us.

          What is "right" for many who have died in senseless wars is that we should be more peaceable and less greedy.

          Every action has its rights and wrongs.

          1. Rafini profile image87
            Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Every action has a reaction - be it considered right or wrong is up for discussion.

            To God (and humans!) humans are the most important creatures, for without humans there would be no purpose in the existence of the universe.

            Microbes don't have a choice in right or wrong.  Microbes just are. 
            Humans are responsible for doing whats right for the animals, however, humans are not required to do whats responsible.
            Senseless wars are a repurcussion of not being forced into moral compliance.

            1. Pcunix profile image88
              Pcunixposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Of course your religion has taught you this.

              There are broader views.

              1. Rafini profile image87
                Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                lol okay.  what religion would teach this?  (outside the first one)

        3. profile image0
          Twenty One Daysposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I know this is going to sound obscure --almost quantified, but bear with me, Rafini.

          Right/Wrong are the operators of Choice.
          Both require application to even exist.

          Voiding both would be Free Will, applying either would be Choice.
          So choice is the base (the necessity). Without necessity there are no conditions (terms/commands).

          You can still think for yourself but not apply the conditions or the base necessity.

          Right/Wrong, Tangible/Intangible, Good/Evil, Light/Dark are all identical.

          An example would be the human being - a tangible body, intangible spirit -right? But if you reverse the process spirit becomes tangible, body intangible. (some reference this a jin, death, transcending --it is even practical in yoga, etc.

          The unifier is the mind, the processor of tangible and intangible.
          Darkness is simple a lack of tangibility while light is a lack of intangibility and vice verse.

          Not challenging DCT, I would raise this point and see what they respond to: Use this ( which got me in serious hot water )

          "It is not necessary to consider a question -nor its opponent- a conclusion, both are relational parallels of Choice. Void both and you have unlimited Free Will. Apply either and you are the  condition --that is you are Choice and are processing Choice".


          smile
          James.

          1. Rafini profile image87
            Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            nope, not obscure, but I'm not sure about quantified. 

            Okay, what I'm getting is - obviously, right and wrong are polar opposites but it is possible to walk the line directly between the two.  Who's to say what's right and what's wrong?  What's right to me could be wrong to you.

            OMG!  That's putting it right back at the beginning!  lol

            Okay, let's try this again.

            Right and wrong are polar opposites, but the possibility of being directly in the middle while being capable of accepting non-opposing viewpoints does exist.

            Much better!  So, this would explain how murder is considered wrong but murder as self-defense is acceptable.


            Is this what you're saying?  (I can't raise your point unless I understand it. smile )

            1. profile image0
              Twenty One Daysposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Within Choice right/wrong exist as you said (exemplified by murder).
              However, Free Will is the sum and substance. Within the "sphere" of Free Will is choice and where the parallels exist. but Light/Dark are not different, only seen differently by the application.

              What is light? Tangible energy.
              What is dark?  Intangible energy.

              what is right is deemed visible/evident provable
              what is not right is deemed invisible/inevident unprovable

              what is good is deemed light
              what is evil is deemed dark

              What is the mind?
              The processor of light/dark.

              Now when a human applies thinking, relies on internal thoughts, they must choose. It is impossible for them not to --as the processor has become the Processor. This is where the division comes in. The mind is relatively singular in its processes, so it requires uniformity to make itself process as its own, else it would be void (unconscious) of itself and the flow of tangible-intangible would be uninterrupted.

              So, by applying (question, think, conclude/results **), the mind creates a parallel "uni" verse of conditions. These are all necessities.

              Remove the condition of necessity and there is no division.
              No division, no choice or applications of it.
              Free Will then is absolute.

              smile
              James.

              ** this is called the tres priori.
              Priori  - Question
              A Priori - Process within process
              Posteriori - Determination

              1. Rafini profile image87
                Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                whoa!  What is this?  It doesn't exactly sound like Philosophy ~

                Free Will is absolute = Everything is a choice.


                I'm not sure I understand: by applying (question, think, conclude/results) the mind creates a parallel 'uni'verse of conditions.


                Through the process of thinking, the mind creates its own set of conditions?

                1. profile image0
                  Twenty One Daysposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Exactly.
                  Choice is that set of conditions (limitation).
                  Free Will is void of Choice (unlimited).

                  Make sense?

                  1. Rafini profile image87
                    Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    lol yes and no.

                    By saying Free Will is void of Choice, it sounds more like the Divine Command Theory as written, rather than understanding the DCT as a matter of absolute choice. 

                    By being given a choice, whether to follow God's commands, God has, in fact, given all mankind an individual reality.

  2. Greek One profile image78
    Greek Oneposted 6 years ago

    Based on my memory of my University days, as well as my career experience to date, my suggestion would be to change your major.

    1. Rafini profile image87
      Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      roll

  3. Greek One profile image78
    Greek Oneposted 6 years ago

    .. plus, it will end up hurting your brain, trust me

    1. Rafini profile image87
      Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      It will not!  No, it wont!!  I swear, it wont!  lol

      Philosophy isn't new to me like Physics. big_smile  Just a forgotten process.

      1. Greek One profile image78
        Greek Oneposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        everything after Socrates is just hot air

    2. uncorrectedvision profile image62
      uncorrectedvisionposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      A philosophy major never ends well - look at Steve Martin and Bruce Lee, both dead before their time.

  4. Cagsil profile image61
    Cagsilposted 6 years ago

    Hey Rafini,

    I've no schooling on philosophy at all, however, during my time researching religion and history, I was forced to try to learn and understand a little bit about philosophy.

    I'm no good at the terminology, however, I did write a hub on Morals, if that helps. hmm

    1. Rafini profile image87
      Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I'll come over and take a look. smile  (what's the title?)

      1. Cagsil profile image61
        Cagsilposted 6 years ago in reply to this
        1. Rafini profile image87
          Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          thanks Cagsil! smile

          1. Cagsil profile image61
            Cagsilposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            You're quite welcome. smile

        2. Rafini profile image87
          Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Wonderful!

          Any action that purposely benefits mankind is good or right.
          Any action that purposely harms mankind is not-good or wrong.

          If I remember correctly, this is the conclusion I should reach, about morals, by the end of the semester.  Thank you Cagsil!

          1. Pcunix profile image88
            Pcunixposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            I think rather that it is a conclusion you should have reached somewhere around the age of seven.

  5. Pcunix profile image88
    Pcunixposted 6 years ago

    I would think a few hours at Wikipedia would refresh your memory and add new knowledge.

    1. Rafini profile image87
      Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      do you own stock in Wikipedia or something?  You always seem to be pushing for its use....

      all around, not a bad suggestion, but honestly, college doesn't approve Wikipedia for research....

      1. Pcunix profile image88
        Pcunixposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        No, I don't own stock in Wikipedia.

        You didn't say you were doing research that you needed to cite. My impression was that you needed to catch up and refresh your memory of things you once knew ("help me relearn what I've forgotten"). 

        If that wasn't what you meant, obviously you need to head to the library instead - because your college won't let you cite this forum either (though Wikipedia could still give you a quick list of what you'd be looking for).

        1. Rafini profile image87
          Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          (that's why I said 'all around not a bad suggestion')


          I'm not looking for different branches of Philosophy (what branch does a beginner study??)  but to understand what it is I'm supposed to be understanding. 

          Gotta remember, I'm a strange learner.  When I read about Cultural Relativism I think I'm reading theories that have been proven and it takes me a while to get the idea that I'm supposed to argue with it! 
          (because being critical isn't a good thing!! Or, so I've been told. hmm  Seriously though, ~ I'm not very good at separating when being critical is okay and when not to be critical hmm and most times I get it backwards)

  6. Cagsil profile image61
    Cagsilposted 6 years ago

    Hey Rafini,

    Remember also, emotions are amoral. Meaning, they are neither right or wrong. wink

    1. fits3x100 profile image56
      fits3x100posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      "Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance" R Persig I believe. "The problem of pain" C.S. Lewis. "Universe Lost".  Ultimately, I would agree with Cagsil regarding feelings. Doing the right thing rarely equates to doing the easy thing. I'm guessing that is due to the fact that we base so many decisions on how we will feel... Kind of fly's in the face of self-less-ness... Perhaps that is the gauge. Is the action selfish? Or selfless?
      Should be an awesome class! Just remember to avoid the shoehorn...one size fits all... accept it all or none at all... thinking that is implied when someone asks you about your philosophy... and it'll be fun!

  7. profile image0
    china manposted 6 years ago

    It would'nt be some type of religious college would it ?

    1. Pcunix profile image88
      Pcunixposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Likely.

      Whoever said "Philosophy is bunk" wasn't completely right, but that does have a lot of truth to it. It's always bunk when it shifts into its religious phase and an awful lot of it is the kind of stuff that should have been settled in your mind long before puberty.

      That's a harsh view, though. When properly combined with science and logic, some of the things philosophy addresses are worthwhile. 

      Only some, though. Much of it surely is bunk, or at least not anything an adult should need to waste any time on.

      1. profile image0
        china manposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I wouldnt agree with that, all the sciences and medicine sprang from philosophy. Its other main function is to teach how to reason, what makes a legitimate argument and what is a bs excuse for an argument.

        1. Pcunix profile image88
          Pcunixposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Certainly logic is part of philosophy, but it can stand alone without it.

          Certainly the quest for answers leads to science (or should - some people think "goddunnit" is an answer).

          But what I'm referring to is the kind of simplistic stuff that the OP referred to about morals. That is "bunk" - in that it should have been resolved in your mind long before reaching puberty.

          I further assert that there is no question philosophy can ask that is outside the realm of science and logic. Some may not be able to be answered quite yet, but none are outside. Therefore, in that sense, the study of philosophy is bunk, except as a means to gain a historical perpective on human thought.

          1. Paraglider profile image87
            Paragliderposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            That's a bit overstated. Philosophy can ask valuable questions about the relationship of language to reality, for example, or the nature of consciousness. Also Epistemology is more than logic and not strictly science.

            1. Pcunix profile image88
              Pcunixposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              We'll just have to disagree on that.

          2. Rafini profile image87
            Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            there is no question philosophy can ask that is outside the realm of science and logic

            Okay, wanna get the discussion going?  Give an example, please.

            1. Pcunix profile image88
              Pcunixposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              If you want to assert that there is such a question, have at it.  I can't imagine any.

              1. Rafini profile image87
                Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                ~a question that isn't outside the realm of science and logic~

                1. Pcunix profile image88
                  Pcunixposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  No. Your task is to provide a question that is outside of science and logic.

                  (I screwed up typing that twice, sorry!)

                  Not a question that hasn't been answered yet (like what are the underlying rules of matter and energy), but a question that can never be answered by logic and science.

                  1. Rafini profile image87
                    Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    understood, except I have no idea where to begin!  so, I'll ask random questions and you'll keep rejecting them until one comes along that fits the requirements?  Okay, I'll try one.


                    Why bother with eating of a well-balanced diet?

    2. Rafini profile image87
      Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      No China Man - I can't afford a private college!  lol

  8. Paraglider profile image87
    Paragliderposted 6 years ago

    Bertrand Russell's 'History of Western Philosophy'will take you from ancient Greece to early 20th Century in about as concise, readable and entertaining a path as you'll find anywhere.

    Then let Bryan Magee take you from Russell up to the present time.

    1. Rafini profile image87
      Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Would that exclude Psychological Egotism, Cultural Relativism, and the Divine Command Theories?

      1. Paraglider profile image87
        Paragliderposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        My mistake. I was recommending a book on Philosophy, under the impression that was what you were wanting to refresh on.

        1. Rafini profile image87
          Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          ??


          (who came up with these theories and when??  <----- basically my question)

  9. Aficionada profile image90
    Aficionadaposted 6 years ago

    In studying moral development, you might be interested in the research and writing of some psychologists to supplement the philosophical thinking process.  Examples:  Lawrence Kohlberg, James Rest, Thomas Lickona, Carol Gilligan, Mary Brabeck, Donald Elfenbein, William Damon, Robert Peck, Robert Havighurst and others.

    When I consider the difference in approach between the philosophical and the psychological (and, in some cases the anthropological), it seems to me that the philosophical approach is more theoretical and imaginative, while the psychological approach tends to rely on more concrete observation and even on the scientific method.

    It might be an interesting topic to discuss in class (i.e., the difference between these approaches).

    1. Pcunix profile image88
      Pcunixposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Indeed.  But I think the philosophical loses so badly that the professor wouldn't dare allow it smile

      1. Aficionada profile image90
        Aficionadaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        big_smile !!

        I'm guessing here (being philosophical), but it seems to me that the philosophical approach predated the scientific method and was an attempt to explain from some observation and a lot of thought what we later became capable of study with more controlled observations.  Then, later in history, philosophy became rather self-absorbed and focused more on the thought processes and less on concrete observation. Just IMHO.

        1. Pcunix profile image88
          Pcunixposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Absolutely.  The question often precedes the answer and the question may remain unanswered for a long, long time.

          I really think that there is no reason for pure philosophy - except for the religious, of course, which I dismiss as nonsense.

  10. RDSPhD profile image60
    RDSPhDposted 6 years ago

    Well guess I can't help you much since my degrees are all in (natural) sciences wink (except one in  Business Studies (which is actually sometimes referred to as a "science"too tongue)

    But just do what you like and don't consider changing your subject just because of money or prestige reasons - everybody should study what he or she likes the most! And if you're good at it you'll be happier anyways wink

    1. Rafini profile image87
      Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Hello RDS, if you have any experience in Philosophy I'm sure you'd be of some help. smile 

      I'm in the process of rediscovering what I like - I've always had an interest in Philosophy so I thought I should check it out.

      1. Pcunix profile image88
        Pcunixposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Please take this as genuine curiosity and not anything antagonistic.

        Why philosophy instead of science?

        1. Rafini profile image87
          Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          lol  truth?


          a few reasons.  I was introduced to Philosophy at a young age and have always been curious about it - many people close to me get sick and tired of my philosophical views.

          I suppose I could say I'm holding a grudge against my mother for not getting me that chemistry set when I was young.

          I consciously decided not to take chemistry & physics in high school thanks to a hellacious experience in Algebra class - I was terrified of a repeat.

          1. Pcunix profile image88
            Pcunixposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            We are quite the opposites. I was exposed to algebra very early and loved it. I loved science and math in general, though I have always had difficulty with geometry - I just don't do spatiality well.

            Philosophy really does seem silly to me.  Of course you will understand why I dismiss the religious aspects as meaningless, but it's more than that. Your earlier comment about a college class on morals (or was it moral relativism?) is a great example - that's the kind of thing I found very interesting at the age of 7 or 8, but if I walked into a discussion like that today, I'd back away as quickly as I could!

            1. Rafini profile image87
              Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              oh, I loved Algebra!  It was my favorite class! 

              That is...until my Algebra teacher decided to make an example of me and it backfired in my face. 

              I lost interest in science when I didn't get the chemistry set, lol, but may have pursued it in high school if Algebra hadn't turned out the way it did. 

              Well, ya see, I kind of have to take the Intro to Philosophy before getting into the higher levels.  I'm not too sure I will, but I'm exploring right now.  Last semester was all about my strengths.  This semester is about my interests.  (it actually seems to be beginning as a bust - I'm very bored hmm which doesn't make sense)  Next semester will be about meeting requirements (I haven't taken a math course yet either - I want to retake the Compass Test so I can land back in Algebra rather than Pre-Algebra)  And my final semester will be for any leftovers.

            2. lorlie6 profile image87
              lorlie6posted 6 years ago in reply to this

              I've got to defend the study of philosophy as an exercise in logical thinking.  My favorite(and most difficult)course in college was Symbolic Logic-actually Propositional Calculus.  Mathematics had a critical place in all of the classes I took investigating the validity/invalidity of arguments.
              Logic is essential to my understanding of thought processes.

              1. Rafini profile image87
                Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Calculus is logic?

                I really do get tired of trying to keep up with what classifies as what or belongs in what category. hmm lol  I'd prefer to do the work and just get it over with!  lol  You know, so I can move on to whatever's next. lol

                Mathematics helps with investigating the validity of arguments?  I suppose that makes sense.  My Reason In Communication class (from last semester) is listed as Quantitative Reasoning, which I heard can be used by some as a math credit.  (I guess it depends on the program - I couldn't use it as math)  I just don't understand how, I guess.

              2. Pcunix profile image88
                Pcunixposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Logic is obviously worthwhile. You don't need phiosoohy for that.

          2. RDSPhD profile image60
            RDSPhDposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            It's cool if you do what you like most. I was hungry for scientific knowledge since I was a small kid and that's what I later studied. And It made/makes me happy! So if you were interested in philosophy and always wanted to know more about it, it's the best thing to do what you're interested in. You only become good in subjects you really like not the ones who you study just for getting a good degree or making money. (And you can always change if you think that philosophy isn't the right thing for you wink) So go for it Rafini!! wink

            1. Rafini profile image87
              Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              big_smile  smile  wink  big_smile


              Ya know, now I'm wondering if I shouldn't take more science classes...there's obviously some kind of interest there....

              I'm so confused!!  lol

              1. RDSPhD profile image60
                RDSPhDposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                there are tons of tests online but they don't seem to help, the last one I took told me to get a doctor doctor (THAT kind of doctor wink) but well medical school never appealed to me big_smile
                But I'll try my best to help you myself, just answer these questions tongue

                Do you like reading textbooks?
                What's your dream job?
                Mathematics are... (complete the sentence wink)
                How many books do you read per month ?
                How much time do you have to spend for studying every day ?
                Where did you get the highest marks in school?
                What's the first thing you think of when you hear the term "paper"?
                What do you prefer: Sudoku, chess, crossword puzzles or playing basketball
                Cigarettes are... (complete the sentence once again wink)
                Life is... (complete the sentence - o.k. last time now xD)
                My favorite number is?
                Do you read newspapers?
                Do you have any pets ?
                Which foreign language appeals to you the most?
                Do you enjoy debating?

                Ok hope all the questions are clear and the "RDSPhD, which subject shall I study"-algorithm is ready for data processing tongue

                1. Rafini profile image87
                  Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Ooooh, a test!!  lol

                  1. yes  (I know, it's odd!!  lol  I read my son's history book from front to back!)
                  2. too many options!!  Do I really have to choose?  Um...Novelist.
                  3. numbers and equations
                  4. not many
                  5. study?  Well...you see...As long as I'm interested, I'll devote the right amount of time to complete my assignments.
                  6. throughout elementary & middle school - all subjects.  In high school, Math & English
                  7. give me a pen or pencil so I can write something!  (or doodle, make a mark, whatever!  just ink & paper go together. lol)
                  8. Sudoku
                  9. off limits
                  10. a complicated journey
                  11. 9
                  12. No
                  13. yes
                  14. Used to be Spanish, now, Latin piques my interest.  Sign Language, if it could be considered a Foreign Language.
                  15. NO!  But, I do enjoy discussing the opposite sides of things.  I suppose I could say I enjoy debating as long as it's civilized.


                  (I don't get it. hmm  lol  what's my fave # got to do with it?  lol)

                  1. RDSPhD profile image60
                    RDSPhDposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Haha ok well I've got to tell you from what you've answered you're very well suited for any scientific matter. But since that's just a feeling of myself based on 15 random questions (that I've tried to make very concealed so you couldn't predict the outcome) and you're also interested in philosophy I would suggest you to visit several lectures (maybe of last years class) in different matters before you start studying yourself. I think you will feel when you're sitting in the right subject (although it strongly depends on the teaching person wink).

  11. knolyourself profile image61
    knolyourselfposted 6 years ago

    At its most simple philosophy is the way things are done like different fisherman
    have different philosophies of fishing.
    On another level philosophy is how should
    one live one's life, like should one live
    for money or love? Philosophy is asking
    questions and trying to answer them.
    Philosophy classes teach what questions
    known philosophers asked and the answers
    they came up with. Why are we here and
    what is the purpose of life? To be a
    philosopher one asks questions themselves
    and tries to answer them themselves.

    1. Pcunix profile image88
      Pcunixposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Philosophies of fishing?  Methods of fishing. Algorithms. Theories. Not philosophies.

      Morals are subject to science and are particularly interesting in the context of evolution.

      Studies of the importance of money vs. human connections have actually made news recently.

      Why are we here is the subject of both evolution and physics.

      As to the "purpose of life" in a general sense, there is none - unless you are religious, of course. There may be reasons - physics may ultimately show us that life is inevitable - but "purpose" is a religious construct.

    2. Rafini profile image87
      Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      What kind of questions? 

      Like, what question would have been asked to come up with an answer such as the Cultural Relativism Theory?

      Wait!  Okay, maybe I'm getting it.  So, the question would have been something like, Why do people struggle to do what's right?  Who determines what's right or what's wrong?

      And then in order to answer the question, you don't give a simple answer.  You dig deeper than saying, "Because mom & dad told me to".   right?  lol  What actually causes, or compels, people to have a conscience or to follow a set of morals?

      1. Aficionada profile image90
        Aficionadaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        This is where the psychologists I mentioned can add some insight.  All of them wrote on some aspect of the way a moral awareness develops in children in stages, beginning with the stage (sometimes called the Zero Stage) that says "Whatever I want is what is right."  (Egocentric Reasoning)

        Stage 1: Unquestioning Obedience (I should do what I'm told)

        Stage 2: What's-in-it-for-me Fairness (Look out for myself and also be fair to those who are fair to me)

        Stage 3: Interpersonal Conformity (I should be nice & live up to the expectations of those I care about)

        Stage 4: Responsibility to "the System" (fulfill responsibilities to the social or value system I feel part of)

        Stage 5: Principled Conscience (greatest possible respect for rights and dignity of every individual person, support system that protects human rights)

        [Labels are from Thomas Lickona.]

        That's a synopsis of how morality develops in individuals.  The question in Philosophy would probably be, Why or how did the concepts of good and bad develop in the first place? -- Whether it's from a religious or a humanistic perspective, the general answer is that there is some value that is greater than the value of one individual person, and that value is worth preserving, protecting, and perpetuating.

        1. Rafini profile image87
          Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          These 5 stages make sense - are they supposed to be reached & passed on the way to adulthood or revisited on a regular basis?  (it feels like revisited would be correct)

          1. Aficionada profile image90
            Aficionadaposted 6 years ago in reply to this



            The way I remember the explanation was that most of us "live" in more than one stage at the same time - usually the stage below and the stage above the one that is the strongest in us at the time.  But I think you are right that there are times when we revisit some of the much earlier ones.  I think it would be a revealing study to try to figure out what triggers the visits to earlier stages (trauma? crises? specific matters or situations that are meaningful to the individual?).

            Stage 0 is usually for kids up to/through age 4.
            Stage 1 for around kindergarten age.
            Stage 2 - early elementary.
            Stage 3 - mid-elementary up to/through early-mid-teens.
            Stage 4 - high-school/ late teens.
            Stage 5 - young adults and beyond.

            Ideally.

            The problem is that there are plenty of people who never leave the stage they are in.  A lot of people never reach Stage 5 and some reach it at a later age than others do.

            In terms of helping others (especially our own kids or the ones we teach) move to the next stage, a recommendation is to accept them where they are and the thinking that goes along with that stage, but at the same time to challenge them to think about the issues of the next stage (such as by asking the question "What if everyone did that?").

            1. Rafini profile image87
              Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Excellent.  Thank you! smile

        2. Pcunix profile image88
          Pcunixposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          As best as I can recall, I passed directly from stage 1 to stage 5.  I may have briefly been in 2 - I absolutely was never in 3 or 4.

        3. Pcunix profile image88
          Pcunixposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Evolution can answer the why better than philosophy or religion.

          1. fits3x100 profile image56
            fits3x100posted 6 years ago in reply to this

            How so? The observation occurs after the fact, and is so far distant from the origin of "why" that there are no observable facts to substantiate reasonable theorems. Micro-E occurs everyday, but Macro-E (respectfully) requires as much, if not more "faith" than Ph. or the many "religious" explanations.

            I do think the question is what is our purpose? Why are we here? These are two small pieces of what separates us from the beasts. And yes Pcunix...that would imply a Grand Design and therefore Designer/s, and I understand why that does not frame well in your model.  (It takes all kinds to make a world!)

            1. Pcunix profile image88
              Pcunixposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              The "beasts" also have morals. 

              Fairness, justice, and the related actions help groups work together.  You don't need any fairy tales to explain it.

              1. fits3x100 profile image56
                fits3x100posted 6 years ago in reply to this

                No...beasts fail to pass that test. They have instinctual behaviors but are never "heroic". Which makes sense from an evolutionary point of view. I have seen Mother coyotes, foxes, bobcats, wolves and bears defend their  litters up to near death. They get a little chancy to be sure, but they will never sacrifice their lives for the benefit of another....that is a uniquely human trait...which fails to meet  Evolutionary guidelines...

                1. qwark profile image60
                  qwarkposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Fits:

                  ...but "WE" are earth's 'PRIME" beast!

                  Only a "fool" would sacrifice his life for anything but his children.

                  I am  human! There is no "trait" in me that would cause me to "sacrifice" my life for others.

                  Qwark

                2. Pcunix profile image88
                  Pcunixposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  I think you need to read up on current work with apes and other animals. Your view is way out of date and not correct.

                  Try this for starters: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/20/science/20moral.html

                  There is NOTHING that is "uniquely human". All we can ever claim is advanced degrees.

  12. knolyourself profile image61
    knolyourselfposted 6 years ago

    I construct a material purpose to pursue material gain.

  13. knolyourself profile image61
    knolyourselfposted 6 years ago

    "Cultural relativism is the principle that an individual human's beliefs and activities should be understood by others in terms of that individual's own culture." Should or does belief and activity transcend all culture and be universal? Yes you are
    getting it.

    1. Rafini profile image87
      Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Somehow I came up with Cultural Relativism to mean that any given society determines what is right/wrong for that society.  In other words, an individual is not capable of determining for himself what is right/wrong, and the individual is held accountable for following the ideal of Majority Rule.

      1. prettydarkhorse profile image63
        prettydarkhorseposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Hi Rafini, cultural relativism could mean for example -- in some culture it is alright for some men to sleep with the bride before she marries the next day, in some culture this is a no no. Women are dressed with their whole body covered in some Muslim countries. If we looked down upon them or try to say that it is wrong, we become ethnocentric - basing ones idea of correct behavior based on your own culture.

        Killing is considered wrong in all culture though.

        I know a culture where killing one of their brothers or relatives, they have the right to kill you - a tribe in the Philippines. I don't know if that tribe is covered by laws of the whole land.

        1. Rafini profile image87
          Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          right - ethnocentric also sounds like another word for discrimination, or the belief that ones own society is superior to another.

  14. knolyourself profile image61
    knolyourselfposted 6 years ago

    "an individual is not capable of determining for himself what is

    "an individual is not capable of determining for himself what is
    right/wrong,"

    There is a classic bit of literature concerning this subject called 'The Grand Inquisitor' by Fyodor Dostoevsky.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grand_Inquisitor

    This is to say that philosophy is not only found in philosophy classes but in novels, poetry, fifm, music almost anywhere especially in one's real life. The object is to create contexts to recognize. The context is the questions.

    1. Rafini profile image87
      Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      quite interesting, thank you!  I'll have to return to the bookstore. smile

  15. lorlie6 profile image87
    lorlie6posted 6 years ago

    Hi Rafini-It sounds to me like you're in quite an advanced class for a beginning philosophy student.  I've a minor in the discipline, and I found starting from scratch was very helpful when advancing.
    I'm a great supporter of a chronological approach: Aristotle, Plato, etc.  It gives you a sense of the evolution of philosophical thought.
    All my best!

  16. katiem2 profile image56
    katiem2posted 6 years ago

    Hey Girl, You go!  I love Philosphy of the heart, but you're studing for a degree and that type of focus and content is rarely the good stuff that gets your heart racing!

    Hang in there and remember your passion.  YOUR PASSION for Philosophy.

    smile

    1. Rafini profile image87
      Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      smile

  17. Aficionada profile image90
    Aficionadaposted 6 years ago

    Whoa, Rafini!  This is like the third time you've changed your profile picture today! (Two in the past five minutes, no?)  Is it an experiment?  Maybe a philosophical experiment, LOL?

    1. Rafini profile image87
      Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      lol

      I'm looking for a new one - getting kinda tired of all these men from India contacting me. hmm

      1. Aficionada profile image90
        Aficionadaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        BWAHAHAHAhahahaha!!!  I love it.

        Actually, all of the ones you've posted have been beautiful.  Don't think that you're gonna escape those men from India lol! Or from anywhere else, either.

        1. Rafini profile image87
          Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          lol


          omg!  It seems as though all I can find are the slutty sexy ones or the beautiful ones, lol - I'd rather go for the beautiful ones that look artistic. lol

          I did consider a space/scientific theme, but seeing as how I'm not knowledgeable in those areas I thought it might be a little too deceitful. lol

  18. prettydarkhorse profile image63
    prettydarkhorseposted 6 years ago

    For stages of moral dev't check also Piaget, Kohlberg and Gilligan. Lots of reading, why did you get that course, LOL

    1. Rafini profile image87
      Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      lol  I"ve held the interest for 35 years!  I felt it was time to explore it a little. smile

      1. prettydarkhorse profile image63
        prettydarkhorseposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Good luck rafini, as long as you are interested, you will be emerged into it and you will be thrown into the world of philosophizing and it is good. I know you are brilliant and persistent.

        1. Rafini profile image87
          Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          smile  thanks Maita

  19. qwark profile image60
    qwarkposted 6 years ago

    Raf:
    I argued, in class, with my philosophy prof.
    The definition of "philosophy" is "love of knowledge."
    If he made statement I didn't agree with I'd challenge him and remind him of that definition and that the purpose of a student attending college was to, not only be taught a subject, but to learn to think! Not just to accept rote, the words of a professor.
    My Prof would end out little debates by turning to the blackboard and announcing, to the class that Mr Qwark, had just earned an "F" for todays class and chalk a big "F" on the blackboard!
    I ended "Philosophy 101" with an A-   smile:
    Read your subject, know it well, and be ready to challenge your prof. If he/she is truly a "philosopher at heart," and you present your argument logically, knowledgeably and firmly. your prof will appreciate you as being a "thinker!"
    But be ready to accept a "studious and learned" beating. Accept it with honor and learn from the experience. You, at least tried!  smile:
    Qwark

    1. Rafini profile image87
      Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Great story!  smile

      omg - I have so much trouble opening my mouth in class hmm  and I do so much better in writing!  lol 

      Okay, I get the point. big_smile  I need to speak up in class, and not let everyone else have all the fun. smile

      1. qwark profile image60
        qwarkposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Raf:
        yep..smile:
        ...but don't be a "smart ass"...lol smile:
        Remember the Prof is the BOSS!  smile:
        Qwark

        1. Rafini profile image87
          Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          big_smile  (I'm only a 'smart ass' when I know I'm right!  lol)

  20. poptropica123 profile image53
    poptropica123posted 6 years ago

    I LOVE THE BEATLES

 
working