<p>I will take a small break after law school to pay my depts, if that counts.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
Moreover, I do not see how attending law school allows one to generalize, since that is the conclusion your post implies
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>You said "law school will kill your love of law"...you haven't been to law school, therefore I don't see what personal experience you could draw upon to make such a proposterous assumption. How do you know that you might not love law school if you attended? When you say "law school will kill your love of law" you imply that this is a condition that befalls all students. Wreckless.</p>
<p>I take it your joking...</p>
<p>
[quote]
You said "law school will kill your love of law"...you haven't been to law school, therefore I don't see what personal experience you could draw upon to make such a proposterous assumption.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Empirical observation is not the only criteria for verifiability; the statement may also be axiomatic, and in the context of law schools, you will find that the statement is appropos.</p>
<p>
[quote]
How do you know that you might not love law school if you attended?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, I have done research under law school students, I read jurisprudence in my personal time, and I research constitutional and legal theory in general. I have empirical reports from my friends and relatives, who all agree with my statement, and thus far, I do not mind at all.</p>
<p>
[quote]
that this is a condition that befalls all students.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Read "One L" by Scott Tudrow, perhaps that will add to your repertoire of evidence regarding law school.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Wreckless.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Learn the difference between incorrigability and self-evidence in the context of verifiability, and also learn the distinction between necessary and sufficient conditions. Perhaps next time, you will be able to render a more coherent argument:P</p>
<p>
[quote]
I take it your joking...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No I am not.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
I take it your joking...
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>About what?</p>
<p>I was talking to the other dude... I figured you were serious. </p>
<p>and to illamatic...about claiming his statement is generalizing...</p>
<p>
[quote]
You said "law school will kill your love of law"...you haven't been to law school, therefore I don't see what personal experience you could draw upon to make such a proposterous assumption.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>By the way, this argument rests on the "preposterous assumption" that empirical observation is a criterion for truthness.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
Perhaps next time, you will be able to render a more coherent argument
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>Argument? I didn't even think I was debating you...</p>
<p>You haven't attended law school, you have no personal experience from which to give these people advice. You can't use your two friends to gauge the experiences of what? 20,000 law school students? Not happening</p>
<p>
[quote]
You can't use your two friends to gauge the experiences of what? 20,000 law school students? Not happening
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Off the top of my head, I can count at least 54 students I know personally. I can also count thousands of students from message boards and casual conversations from students who attest to the same statement, as well as professors from respected institutions who assure me that law school is difficult.</p>
<p>
[quote]
You haven't attended law school, you have no personal experience from which to give these people advice.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>To quote myself:</p>
<p>
[quote]
By the way, this argument rests on the "preposterous assumption" that empirical observation is a criterion for truthness.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>If you wish to accept that assumption, your criteria for empirical verifiability becomes self-defeating.</p>
<p>Good Day:)</p>
<p>see this is why I couldn't do philosophy...I picked up Kant's theory on pure reason or maybe it was one of his other reasons...read about two pages and the ADD kicked in (I don't really suffer from ADD in the medical sense) I hate following arguments that are theoretical in nature...only if I have a goal in discovering some point will I willingly pick up a philosophy book (or what is considered philosophy).</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
If you wish to accept that assumption, your criteria for empirical verifiability becomes self-defeating
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>I'll admit my defeat, although I don't see how you can equate emperical evidence with what amounts to hear-say. Yeah, you heard it was difficult...but you didn't experience this difficulty yourself.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
see this is why I couldn't do philosophy...I picked up Kant's theory on pure reason or maybe it was one of his other reasons...read about two pages and the ADD kicked in (I don't really suffer from ADD in the medical sense) I hate following arguments that are theoretical in nature...only if I have a goal in discovering some point will I willingly pick up a philosophy book (or what is considered philosophy).
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>Nah, this is exactly why I have fallen in love with Philosophy. I've really just developed a passion for it over the past 2 months, but you see what he did, he just ripped up my argument. I love that, granted, if I was as imersed as he was I wouldn't have to take his word so much, but I'm just starting so no worries. </p>
<p>I love this stuff. I want to memorize the Groudwork by the end of this summer...I'm not sure how useful it will be since I seem to arrive at a different interpretation everytime I read it, but I admire people who have memorized it.</p>
<p>
[quote]
picked up Kant's theory on pure reason or maybe it was one of his other reasons...read about two pages and the ADD kicked in (I don't really suffer from ADD in the medical sense)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>1) You never start with the Critique of Pure Reason. It is 9/10 on the difficulty scale, with the likes of Derrida and Heidegger being even more abstruse.
2) Perhaps if you enroll in Georgetown, I will be able to help you trace the arguments in the critique. I am not an expert, but I do have a pretty firm grasp of his metaphysics and epistemology:)
3) Nearly every significant conception is long and drawn out; when you become more familiar, you will learn that there is a lot of repitition, and you skip it. The difficulty with Kant is that, aside from the excess of redundancy, he always adds extra to every instance, so you cannot look over it! But soon, after being enveloped in many texts, you will become accustomed to the nature of philosophy and why the arguments are long and drawn out. You do not have to read texts in one try; I have already perused Kant's Critique of Pure Reason three times, and plan to do it for a fourth; I usually spend a week reading the Critique of Pure Reason.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I want to memorize the Groudwork by the end of this summer...I'm not sure how useful it will be since I seem to arrive at a different interpretation everytime I read it, but I admire people who have memorized it.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Never memorize the English version, as translations always lead to different interpretations. I am learning German this summer just for the task of reading Kant's works, and memorizing it, in the original tongue.</p>
<p>maybe you can suggest some easier stuff...i took an intro to philosophy course this semester and the readings for that class were easy but it was an intro class at a community college, but I like contemplating things like how we perceive things and how it can all be based on your interpretation if you examine it to a point...but where's a good place to start because i have no job for the summer and will most likely be at home...</p>
<p>Also, if you do not wish to learn German, but still desire adeptness at the Groundwork, I highly recommend the edition by Christine M. Korsgaard.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
Never memorize the English version, as translations always lead to different interpretations. I am learning German this summer just for the task of reading Kant's works, and memorizing it, in the original tongue
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>I'm Jewish so best believe I will not even bother to look at German</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
Christine M. Korsgaard
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>Word, thats the one I have</p>
<p>Masta, if I were starting in philosophy, I would begin in several places:
1) Plato and Aristotle
2) Reading an anthology of Modern Epistemology/Metaphysics (a decent one should include the works of Descartes, Hume, Locke, Spinoza, and Leibniz)
3) Reading an anthology of Ethics, ranging from the works of Kant to Mill and Bentham as well as Locke.
4) Along with anthologies, also try to buy reputable secondary sources, so you can identify patterns early in the readings themselves.
5) Once you are done in establishing a foundation, decide which camp with which you wish to occupy yourself: the analytics or the continentals.</p>
<p>Here is a good site that elaborates on the distinction:
<a href="http://www.philosophicalgourmet.com/analytic.htm%5B/url%5D">http://www.philosophicalgourmet.com/analytic.htm</a></p>
<p>
[quote]
Word, thats the one I have
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Korsgaard is perhaps the most competent scholar in Kantian ethics in all of academia, so you are in good hands.</p>