<p>Can you? I'm taking Phil this semester and needless to say I find it direly boring and uninteresting. I have one of those crazy Phd. Professors that looks out the window while giving lectures as if he is in a Shakespherian play, is and I kid you not, in his late 60's and still wearing skateboarding shoes and talks amongst himself. His lectures are not very clear, and he seems to go off topic about chocolate cookies and diet pepsi every so often. Point is: our prof. has assigned some questions, can one's answer be wrong in Philosophy? I hope that its a matter of opinion rather than the justification of right or wrong.</p>
<p>What course are you taking?</p>
<p>You can be very wrong on philosophy.</p>
<p>It depends what they're asking you. </p>
<p>It is possible to misinterpret what a particular philosopher was saying, but as to questions of "truth", "justice", and whatnot, the answer depends on your perspective.</p>
<p>Many times in philosophy there is no right or wrong answer; however, for an answer to be valid, it must be properly supported.</p>
<p>If you could logically prove that the sky is green since blue is only a perception of humans, then you would be correct.</p>
<p>If you could logically prove that the sky is blue since the perception of an individual is reality due to the principle that one cannot know for certain anything outside of their own sense-data, then you would be correct.</p>
<p>Philosophy is aimed at forcing people to question accepted beliefs and present cogent arguments in the pursuit of knowledge. Sure, a professor could make the subject appear dull, but the study of Philosophy is truly fascinating if one has the desire to learn.</p>
<p>
[quote]
but as to questions of "truth", "justice", and whatnot, the answer depends on your perspective.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Huh? No, it doesn't. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Philosophy is aimed at forcing people to question accepted beliefs and present cogent arguments in the pursuit of knowledge.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That would be... epistemology. The rest of your post was bs, so I won't bother talking about it.</p>
<p>Put succinctly: there may not be right answers in philosophy, but there are definitely wrong ones. </p>
<p>Moreover, when professors grade philosophy papers (or when journals review articles for publishing), they generally look not just at the claims being made, but at the methodology exhibited in and clarity of the piece that is submitted. I would know, I'm an editor for a journal of philosophy.</p>
<p>Here is a helpful link on writing a philosophy paper:</p>
<p>He taught at Princeton philosophy, but is now at NYU.</p>
<p>Game theory and logic are generally considered branches of philosophy.</p>
<p>
Here is a helpful link on writing a philosophy paper:</p>
<p>He taught at Princeton philosophy, but is now at NYU.
</p>
<p>Thank you; very useful link!</p>
<p>u can always go wrong in philosophy. first of all, u have to watch out for those logical fallacy and be as logical as possible.
second, and this is the hard part, ur idea has to have some value. if u theorize on speedos oompa-loompas it will likely be worthless.</p>
<p>now, i think it is near impossible to come up with original ideas because there had been so much giants. the best way NEVER to go wrong is to BUILD on some one else's ideas. i don't suggest plato or aristotle because they had been already been built on. consider spencer, an obscure evolutionist whom nobody talks about. leibniz, spinoza, schopehaur are fine too. also consider scientists.</p>
<p>also, consider the greatest thinker of all time, me.</p>
<p>Epistemology is a branch of philosophy, therefore my definition of philosophy is correct, while it may not be all encompassing.</p>
<p>As you said there are no right answers, but I don't believe there are any inherently "wrong" answers either - only answers that aren't properly supported or proven.</p>
<p>Why don't you give a few examples of wrong answers?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Why don't you give a few examples of wrong answers?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Here is a great one...</p>
<p>
[quote]
Epistemology is a branch of philosophy, therefore my definition of philosophy is correct, while it may not be all encompassing.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That epistemology is a branch of philosophy does not make it the definition of philosophy. Its being a branch may be implied by the definition, but it in no way constitutes the definition.</p>
<p>
[quote]
but I don't believe there are any inherently "wrong" answers either
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Is that statement itself supposed to be a right answer?</p>
<p>you can be wrong in anything
however if u wanna proof for example that you don't exist, as long as u have reasons to back up, you can be right no matter what answers you choose. It is different than in math where there's sometimes only 1 answer.</p>
<p>I think we can reduce analytic arguments in philosophy to two parts: logic and semantics.</p>
<p>As it is applied in math, I think logic is universal and objective. There is a right or wrong way to logically deduce an argument: for example, we can use propositional logic, predicate logic, truth tables, etc. to determine a formal argument's validity and consistency. This is all very technical in nature.</p>
<p>However, subjectivity and controversy arises as soon as semantics are involved. To the best of our ability, we use words to describe ideas and concepts. But as wide as the English vocabulary is, there is still a lot of ambiguity as to what certain words mean--if not indeed, every single word we now. When one starts questioning things, it's often difficult to draw the line between what is and what is not. The lines become blurred. On top of that, we all have differing ideas as to what abstract ideas such as love, justice, and rights are. There is a lot of disagreement here, and that is what I think results in subjectivity.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I think we can reduce analytic arguments in philosophy to two parts: logic and semantics.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Huh? Then what about Tarski's definition of truth?</p>
<p>
[quote]
As it is applied in math, I think logic is universal and objective.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This is completely incorrect.</p>
<p>See: Goedel's incompleteness theorem and the purpose of logic (hint: it is a normative discipline, not a descriptive one).</p>
<p>
[quote]
r, subjectivity and controversy arises as soon as semantics are involved.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This statement is incorrect. There is actually a semantic view of logic that is quite clearly objective in its results. The view is dominant in contemporary of first-order systems.</p>
<p>This is pitiful.</p>
<p>I've heard of Tarski, but not about his definition of truth. I'm reading about his stuff right now though.</p>
<p>Apologies for my ignorance, but please note that my post was my theory--even if indeed it was, or is, mistaken. I did put "I think" there several times.</p>
<p>If I am wrong, then I concede. After all, I'm not an editor of a philosophy journal. Educate me, but keep your pity for someone else.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Educate me, but keep your pity for someone else.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Lmao. Best CC quote I've seen in awhile.</p>
<p>
[quote]
This statement is incorrect. There is actually a semantic view of logic that is quite clearly objective in its results. The view is dominant in contemporary of first-order systems.</p>
<p>This is pitiful.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Are you serious? Get over yourself.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Educate me, but keep your pity for someone else.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No. I like to distribute it evenly.</p>
<p>
[quote]
re you serious? Get over yourself.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Most often, the person who tells another to "get over him- or herself" often has the same problem. I suggest dealing with it before providing advice to others.</p>
<p>I cannot stress enough the importance of the link I provided above. No one here (including me) has provided an adequate response to the OP's question, and I think that link is sufficient for the job. Every other piece of speculation here is so amateurish, that it is almost like a freshman pulling at a panty-girdle.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The rest of your post was bs, so I won't bother talking about it.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
Every other piece of speculation on here is so amateurish
[/quote]
</p>
<p>nspeds, your comments throughout the thread are extremely condescending. Calling other peoples ideas "pitiful" is no way to have a meaningful discussion.</p>