<p>Has anyone taken this, are the classes easy?</p>
<p>Philo 1 (Beginnings of Western Philosophy) was a tough one...
Philo 2 (Introduction to Philosophy of Religion) was a breeze...</p>
<p>Like math classes, the difficulty depends on the professor.</p>
<p>thanks, anyone else?</p>
<p>I'm a philosophy major here - the difficulty of classes varies greatly by professor, and run the whole spectrum from nice and easy to extremely difficult to get an A.</p>
<p>It's a great department, and I've heard from my brother's former roommate, a philosophy majors, that it is largely focused on logic and mathematical aspects of philosophy. Perhaps he did this as a sort of concentration or the requirements for the major focus on this aspect of philosophy. The graduate department is all around amazing, and is particularly famous for the area of philosophy known as philosophy of language. Here's something that you should be aware of . . . </p>
<p>But most importantly, this</p>
<p>UNDERGRADUATE STUDY</p>
<p>Over the years, many high school students or their parents have contacted me to inquire how to use the Report with respect to choosing an undergraduate institution. The first point to make is that the focus of this Report is on graduate study only: Pittsburgh may have an outstanding philosophy department, but it might make more sense for a good student interested in philosophy to do his or her undergraduate work at Johns Hopkins or Amherst, where student-faculty ratios are more favorable, and where there is a stronger focus on undergraduate education. Many faculty at major departments did not do their undergraduate work at institutions with top-ranked PhD programs. The tenured faculty at Michigan , for example, did undergraduate work at Harvard (2), Swarthmore (2), Wesleyan, Tulane, Oberlin, Amherst, Berkeley, and John Carroll, among other places. Texas faculty did undergraduate work at Yale (4), Princeton (3), Haverford, Drew , Cal Tech, Missouri , Michigan State , Brown, UVA, and Columbia , among other places. There are eminent philosophers--who have held or now hold tenured posts at top ten departments--who did their undergraduate work at the University of New Mexico, Queens College (New York), and the University of Pittsburgh. It is possible to get good philosophical training in many undergraduate settings.</p>
<p>High school students interested in philosophy would do best to identify schools that have strong reputations for undergraduate education first. Only then, should they look in to the quality of the philosophy department. Some ranked PhD programs have good reputations for undergraduate education, like Princeton , Yale, Brown and Rice, among many others. The larger universities (like Harvard or Michigan or Texas ) tend to offer a more mixed undergraduate experience, largely due to their size. Since much of the teaching at those institutions will be done by graduate students, it pays to go to a school with a strong PhD program, since that will affect the intellectual caliber of teachers you will encounter.</p>
<p>Among schools that do not offer the PhD or MA in philosophy, those with the best philosophy faculties would probably include: Amherst College, California Institute of Technology, Dartmouth College , Reed College , University of Vermont , and Wellesley College . But many other good liberal arts colleges and universities that only offer a B.A. have strong philosophy faculties as well (i.e., faculties doing philosophical work at the research university level), for example: Barnard College; Bates College; Brandeis University; California State University at Northridge; Colby College; Colgate University; Davidson College; Franklin & Marshall College; Haverford College; Mt. Holyoke College; Iowa State University; Kansas State University; New College (South Florida); North Carolina State University; Oberlin College; Occidental College; Pomona College; Smith College; Southern Methodist University; Swarthmore College; Trinity University (San Antonio); University of Alabama at Birmingham; University of Delaware; University of Massachussetts at Boston; Vassar College; Virginia Commonwealth University; Wesleyan University; Western Washington University; and College of Willliam & Mary, among others. (This list is not exhaustive; see below for how to evaluate other programs.) St. John's College , the "great books" school at both Annapolis and Santa Fe , offers strong historical coverage of the field, but weaker coverage of contemporary philosophy; still, many St. John's grads do well in admissions to graduate school.</p>
<p>In general, when looking at the philosophy department of a liberal arts college, you should look at two things. (1) Does the department provide regular offerings in the history of philosophy (ancient, modern, Continental), formal logic, value theory (moral and political philosophy), and some combination of metaphysics, epistemology, philosophy of language and philosophy of mind. You will need courses in most of these areas to be adequately prepared for graduate study, not to mention to get a serious education in philosophy. (2) Where did the faculty earn their PhD? The majority of the faculty at any good department should have earned PhDs from well-ranked programs (as a rule of thumb, those in the top 50). If significant numbers of faculty earned their PhDs elsewhere, be wary. Some liberal arts colleges, even some very good ones, have philosophy faculties that are now pretty far on the margins of the discipline.</p>
<p>You might also consider contacting the philosophy department at an undergraduate institution you are considering to inquire about where graduates have gone on for PhD study. A school like Reed sends more students on to top PhD programs than most universities with top twenty philosophy departments; that says something important about the quality of the philosophical faculty and curriculum. Amherst also provides interesting and impressive information about its alumni in academia: see <a href="http://www.amherst.edu/%7Ephilo/alumni.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.amherst.edu/~philo/alumni.html</a>.</p>
<p>Keep in mind that the rankings concernt graduate study, and read criticisms about the system of ranking, but it's a good start and a helpful tool to use.</p>
<p>Also, read about the department.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.humnet.ucla.edu/humnet/phil/%5B/url%5D">http://www.humnet.ucla.edu/humnet/phil/</a></p>
<p>Philosophy is rarely known as an easy course of study anywhere.</p>
<p>thanks for the great info</p>
<p>You should certainly take classes in the department to see if you like it, in addition to reading about it. I think logic is a class everyone should take, as well as a few survey courses, probably some ancient and some modern philosophy. Anyway, wherever you go, give it a look.</p>
<p>Yeah i agree - logic is a great class. So is intro to ethical theory (which you can take for a writing II requirement)</p>
<p>bump! (10 characters)</p>
<p>wow - your second post is a "bump".... nice contribution :rolleyes: necroposting is wrong haha</p>
<p>UCLA philosophy classes are probably nothing like anything you've ever taken in high school, community college, or a California State college -- they're much more rigorous, especially the upper division courses.</p>
<p>It's an 'analytic' department, so if you're looking to study Nietzsche, Sartre, Foucault, Diderot, Heidegger, etc., as an undergrad, then it's not the place for you. This is not to say that this isn't the place for you if you like those philosophers. Did that sound inconsistent? Well, let me explain why it's not.</p>
<p>UCLA will train you to be meticulous thinkers. Period. You will notice differences where before, in your judgment, none existed. You will be expected to clearly explain a difficult concept, position, or argument. Trust me, clarity is harder than you think. You will learn the tools of the trade that philosophers use, so you can implement them in your thought processes and recognize them when reading philosophy -- all for the betterment of your understanding. In a nutshell, UCLA will prepare you to be a rigorous thinker, which will prepare you to understand Nietzsche, Sartre, etc., all the better. </p>
<p>UCLA has lower division courses and upper division courses, but the lower division courses and the upper division courses come in two kinds. Let me break it down for you below.</p>
<p>Lower Division: Survey and Non-Survey. </p>
<p>The Survey Courses usually have between 150-250 students and usually cover a lot of material -- hence "survey". (Psst, I know I put the period outside the comma. It's common practice in philosophy to put punctuation outside quotation marks). There are three required survey courses, and the grading system depends on the professor. Some like to give in-class midterms and finals, consisting of short answers to multiple questions; others prefer take-home midterms and finals, consisting, typically, of two 3-5 page responses to two question you're given about a week ahead of time. </p>
<p>The Non-Survey Courses are also jammed packed, but the reading is much more manageable. You'll probably be surprised with just how few readings you'll have in a typical philosophy course, but that's because you're going to have to read everything at least three to five times before you understand even 70% of it. The grading in these courses is of the latter variety mentioned above. </p>
<p>Ironically, these lower division courses generally tend to be more difficult -- at least that was my experience and that of my fellow philosophy buddies -- than the upper division courses. Our theory is that they're trying to weed out the non-hackers. (Pun intended).</p>
<p>Upper Division Courses: Regular and Seminar.</p>
<p>The (Regular) Upper Division Courses are limited to 40 students. Usually you'll start with 40 but finish with 30, because many will drop or withdraw. These courses will focus on a very narrow topic in philosophy. The grading will consist of questions that are even more narrow than the course topic, and it'll be take-home. So, you won't write on everything covered in the class. </p>
<p>The Seminar Courses usually have 8-12 students enrolled, focus on a narrow philosophical topic, but more is required from the student -- usually a more cummulative and in-depth understanding, which translates into just a single (8-12 page) final paper. So your whole grade will depend on this final paper. Yeah, it puts a little pressure on you.</p>
<p>BE WARNED AND BE READY: UCLA cannot give everyone an 'A'. Only about 10% of you will get A's, which means only two, possibly three, of you will get an A in a class consisting of 40 students. Here's a ROUGH breakdown of how the grading goes in a 40 student course.</p>
<p>Grade Number of Students</p>
<p>A+ 0 - 1 (usu. 0)
A 2
A- 2
B+ 3
B 5
B- 4
C+ 6
Who Cares The Rest</p>
<p>Frankly, if you're getting a C+ in a class, you're not understanding.</p>
<p>Lower division classes have lecture and discussion sections. Lecture is where you go listen to your professor lecture. You can ask questions during lecture, but it's at the discretion of the professor to call on you. Don't be a time hog. Disccusion section is run by a graduate student, your TA, and consists of a smaller portion of your class, usu. 30 students. It really matters if you have a good or bad TA. Discussion section isn't supposed to be a regurgitation of the lecture but something to augment the lecture, and it's more acceptable to ask more questions in this section. </p>
<p>Professors and TA's also have office hours. Take heed shy ones: go to office hours! Office hours are held in a little office which can usually accommodate up to 8 students. Rarely do 8 show up. Be one of those 8! But let me give you some advice: come prepared. In other words, your questions in office hours shouldn't be about the lecture or discussion you missed, the reading you didn't do, or the material which you haven't pondered about. Office hours are for questions which remain after you've spent some considerable time contemplating. Anything short of that is self-centered and highly inconsiderate. </p>
<p>This goes somewhat for questions in class. Don't ask questions in class if those questions would have been answered had you done the readings. Trust me, people will challenge your opinions and sometimes your behavior in a philosophy class. Everything you say is open to public scrutiny, so be smart and considerate.</p>
<p>
[quote]
UCLA will train you to be meticulous thinkers. Period. You will notice differences where before, in your judgment, none existed. You will be expected to clearly explain a difficult concept, position, or argument. Trust me, clarity is harder than you think. You will learn the tools of the trade that philosophers use, so you can implement them in your thought processes and recognize them when reading philosophy -- all for the betterment of your understanding. In a nutshell, UCLA will prepare you to be a rigorous thinker, which will prepare you to understand Nietzsche, Sartre, etc., all the better.
[/quote]
do you learn useful stuff like logic and seeing things from a different perspective, or is philosophy at UCLA more like religion?</p>
<p>basically, would hawking enjoy the class?</p>
<p>Mr Muffin,</p>
<p>This is how 'analytics' see it. You need the basics before you go exploring the more profound questions. In fact, today, the most respected Nietzsche scholars have analytic backgrounds. So, whatever your philosophical interests, I recommend you get solid analytic training. UCLA offers that.</p>
<p>Yes, there's logic: indunctive, deductive, propositional, predicate, fuzzy, and meta-logic.</p>
<p>UCLA's strengths are philosophy of language, philosophy of mind, philosophical logic, metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, Medieval, early Modern, History of Analytic Philosophy (Frege, Russell, Wittgenstein), and a few others.</p>
<p>As for seeing things from different perspectives, I'm not sure what you mean. Sometimes people mean that we must be tolerant of other opinions or perspectives. This is a pretty vacuous position, as whichever perspective someone offers us, we'll want an argument for why we should adopt it. Once my argument and your argument are on the table, then logic will help us settle whose argument is better -- whose perspective we should subscribe to. </p>
<p>But some people mean that we should approach a problem from a variety of angles. Nietzsche was famous for this. (I was a bit of a Nietzsche fanatic before I got into analytic philosophy). This is an obviously wise way of doing philosophy. So obvious that it's almost pointless to preach. </p>
<p>Just the same, you can look at a problem or phenomenon from as many perspectives as you like, but ultimately you're going to have to come up with your best argument, and you'll need analytic philosophy to make that argument. </p>
<p>Simply looking at something from many perspectives doesn't lead to a better understanding. Think of it like this. I have a poweful pair of binoculars and you have a significantly weaker pair. You can view something equally distant from both of us from as many equi-distant perspectives as you like, but I'll likely have a better idea of what it is from my single perspective because I can get a 'closer' look at the object. </p>
<p>So if you're worried that the teaching is done in a dogmatic way...well...it kinda is, but that's because you're being taught by experts in argumentation and good reasoning, so why would you expect anything different? You wouldn't go to medical school and complain, "Hey, you're only teaching me one way to do this." In philosophy, that complaint would sound even more preposterous. </p>
<p>The problem I've noticed many times, almost always by the weakest philosophy students, is that they dismiss the way we're being taught to do philosophy in favor of some other method. They have strong opinions but weak arguments. And we are obligated by reason, sometimes compelled, to believe the opinion with the strongest argument. </p>
<p>Given everything I've said, I'll let you answer the Hawking questions yourself.</p>
<p>inductive logic isn't logic at all. it may be necessary to have "this viewpoint might sounds cool" conversations, but it's useless when attempting to find truth</p>
<p>i don't see how arguing ethics can get 'deep'. the basics are pretty simple, really: if something is not harmful to other people, it should be allowed. the issue then becomes more scientific, where tests are performed to see how harmful something is and in what ways. then specific measures are put to maximize the prevention of the action/toy/whatever hurting other people (while still allowing it if possible). maybe some philosophy can go into how harmful say, a toy can be to be released to the public. but that's not a very interesting discussion. the cutoff point will be more or less arbitrary.</p>
<p>oh that reminds me, i heard philosophers use different definitions for some words such as "supernatural" (which doesn't have a coherent definition outside of philosophy. and maybe it won't in philosophy either, i don't know) and "life" (which will be arbitrary in definition). is this true and if it is, how confusing does it get?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Simply looking at something from many perspectives doesn't lead to a better understanding. Think of it like this. I have a poweful pair of binoculars and you have a significantly weaker pair. You can view something equally distant from both of us from as many equi-distant perspectives as you like, but I'll likely have a better idea of what it is from my single perspective because I can get a 'closer' look at the object.
[/quote]
with the powerful binoculars you have a more focused view; however, the weaker one allows you to see a larger area. depending on the context, either or none of them can give you a better perspective than the other binocular.</p>
<p>thanks for your post. it helps a lot</p>
<p>Mr. Muffin,</p>
<p>You seem to want to debate me, when I was here simply giving empirical facts about UCLA's philosophy department. This has led to some questions that are, admittedly, open to debate, but I didn't come here to have that debate. But, now, some things have been claimed (by you) which are not accurate and I'm going to critique those opinions -- because, after all, that's what we philosophy students do. </p>
<p>You said: "inductive logic isn't logic at all. it may be necessary to have "this viewpoint might sounds cool" conversations, but it's useless when attempting to find truth"</p>
<p>One, inductive logic is logic by definition, so you're wrong.
Two, inductive logic is common in attempts to find the truth. Without it, you probably wouldn't hold more than half of the true beliefs you hold.</p>
<p>You say: "i don't see how arguing ethics can get 'deep'. the basics are pretty simple, really: if something is not harmful to other people, it should be allowed."</p>
<p>Your reasoning is based on the notion that 'from the simple you cannot get something complicated'. That's an empirical falsehood. From simple elements like electrons, neutrons, and protons we get very complex substances. </p>
<p>Your 'basic principle' of ethics is not very helpful. If you break into my house carrying a gun and I shoot you in fear of my life, then I have harmed you but have not done something unethical. If a mother living in a remote home somewhere in Montana kills herself which leads to the death of her newborn baby, who dies because it's uncared for, then what does your theory tell us? The mother only harmed herself. If you argue that she didn't just harm herself, then you're going to have to qualify your basic principle to cover the harm she does to the baby. That's how ethical questions get deep. </p>
<p>You say: "oh that reminds me, i heard philosophers use different definitions for some words such as "supernatural" (which doesn't have a coherent definition outside of philosophy. and maybe it won't in philosophy either, i don't know) and "life" (which will be arbitrary in definition). is this true and if it is, how confusing does it get?"</p>
<p>Yes, philosophers (as well as non-philosophers) use words in different ways. This is why we're big on defining any special or technical definition one is working with. For instance, everybody will concede that inductive logic is logic, but you used "logic" is some narrow sense which you didn't define. This only confuses matters and doesn't help us understand each other or get at the truth. The problems of philosophical jargon are not insurmountable. Even non-jargon is confusing. Ask three people to define 'happiness' and you'll have three different, sometimes inconsistent, definitions. </p>
<p>You said: " with the powerful binoculars you have a more focused view; however, the weaker one allows you to see a larger area. depending on the context, either or none of them can give you a better perspective than the other binocular"</p>
<p>I'm not sure you know how binoculars work. My powerful binoculars can both give me a more focused view and the less focused view of your weaker binos. The analogy was meant to grant you only the ability to have different points from which to view the object. In other words, your different perspectives might allow you to see that it's a male mule and not a female mule, but my powerful binos will allow me to correctly identify the animal as a donkey. The analogy was apropos, I thought, to help us see that philosophy, like powerful binos, can help us understand the more basic nature of something. </p>
<p>I think we've hijacked this thread. The original post was about UCLA's Philosophy classes. I'd like to stick to that topic from here on out. I'm not against having philosophical debates, though, but we should probably do that on another thread.</p>
<p>You're welcome and thank you too for your comments.</p>
<p>
[quote]
You seem to want to debate me
[/quote]
yes because every time i start arguing with someone they say w/e or keep repeating the same goddamn thing over and over again till my brain gets wasted away. i need the internet to help reconstruct the stubble inside my head</p>
<p>
[quote]
One, inductive logic is logic by definition, so you're wrong.
Two, inductive logic is common in attempts to find the truth. Without it, you probably wouldn't hold more than half of the true beliefs you hold.
[/quote]
what i meant is inductive logic is an unreliable way of looking at anything. yes, you can get lucky and actually be correct, but without evidence to support any claim, your certainty is going to be very, very low. the commonality of inductive logic by no means shows how "correct" or "useful" it is when attempting to find truth (basically cause people are stupid). you wouldn't say assuming a leprechaun exists and then having a discussion on their impacts on human life is a logical method of finding truth, would you? in fact, if there were no such thing as leprechauns, you would be getting further AWAY from truth. if you use deductive logic, you don't assume anything, so you are going to be "more" correct</p>
<p>
[quote]
Your reasoning is based on the notion that 'from the simple you cannot get something complicated'. That's an empirical falsehood. From simple elements like electrons, neutrons, and protons we get very complex substances.
[/quote]
actually that's not what i meant. a <em>closer</em> analogy would be that a glucose molecule in a closed system isn't going to degenerate into anything more complex, although that's still not what i'm saying. umm i don't know how to explain it right now.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Your 'basic principle' of ethics is not very helpful. If you break into my house carrying a gun and I shoot you in fear of my life, then I have harmed you but have not done something unethical.
[/quote]
breaking into someone's house with a gun is enough of a reason for the homeowner to defend him/herself from potential harm. i'm sure you agree that breaking into someone's private property carrying a dangerous weapon is unethical.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If a mother living in a remote home somewhere in Montana kills herself which leads to the death of her newborn baby, who dies because it's uncared for, then what does your theory tell us? The mother only harmed herself. If you argue that she didn't just harm herself, then you're going to have to qualify your basic principle to cover the harm she does to the baby.
[/quote]
the mother does harm the baby because she knows that the baby's life depends on her. it's like saying it's not harming someone to tell them to hide in a garbage compacter. sure, you may not have crushed the kid, but you told him to go there knowing full well what the compacter does and how often it's used. it's the same with the mother - she had the baby knowing that without her, the baby would die (unless brought to someone else) and she chose to make it so the baby has nobody to care for it.</p>
<p>those two situations didn't seem very complex to me</p>
<p>
[quote]
Ask three people to define 'happiness' and you'll have three different, sometimes inconsistent, definitions.
[/quote]
that's because there ISN'T a rigorous definition for "happiness." it would be a debate on (almost) pure opinion. although i'd like to ask if you can give me a coherent (and "useful") definition for "supernatural"</p>
<p>
[quote]
I'm not sure you know how binoculars work. My powerful binoculars can both give me a more focused view and the less focused view of your weaker binos. The analogy was meant to grant you only the ability to have different points from which to view the object. In other words, your different perspectives might allow you to see that it's a male mule and not a female mule, but my powerful binos will allow me to correctly identify the animal as a donkey. The analogy was apropos, I thought, to help us see that philosophy, like powerful binos, can help us understand the more basic nature of something.
[/quote]
oops i forgot how they worked. i haven't touched one for about 10 years.</p>
<p>the binocular analogy isn't so much an analogy of different points of view as it is just one person with more information than the other. by points of view, i meant something like viewing the animal from a different angle. of course the person with less information will almost always come to a more incorrect conclusion.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I'm not against having philosophical debates, though, but we should probably do that on another thread.
[/quote]
these boards are filled with too many stale questions about college anyways. this discussion isn't stopping anyone from asking questions on philosophy at UCLA.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I think we've hijacked this thread.
[/quote]
i'm a muffin terrorist. i eat those chocolate ones they have for brunch every weekend. mmm</p>
<p>:]]]]]]]</p>
<p>OH wait, i may be misunderstanding what the logics are.</p>
<p>damn my sucky reading comprehension</p>
<p>Worst. Flame war. Ever.</p>
<p>it's not a flame war, idiot</p>
<p>:]</p>
<p>Mr. Muffin,</p>
<p>I'll continue our discussion since you're so into it and I know how that feels. I empathize.</p>
<p>
[quote]
what i meant is inductive logic is an unreliable way of looking at anything. yes, you can get lucky and actually be correct, but without evidence to support any claim, your certainty is going to be very, very low.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Both what you said before and what you're saying now isn't accurate. </p>
<p>Look, the sun has "come up" for the last millions of years, so we believe it'll come up tomorrow. This is inductive logic at work and it's pretty darn reliable. The evidence is the sun's having come up day after day after day after day.... So of course it can be a reliable way of getting at the truth.</p>
<p>Second, you shouldn't speak of certainty. Certainty has a loose definition and a technical definition, and in philosophical discussions it's going to be taken as technical. The loose definition is something like, "Oh, I'm pretty certain the sun will come up tomorrow." That's perfectly acceptable talk in everyday language, but it's unacceptable when we're talking philosophy, specifically epistemology (or Theory of Knowledge). Technically, no one can be certain that the sun will come up tomorrow, even if it turns out that the sun does in fact come out tomorrow. Heck, 'certainty' is such a strong notion that we don't even require it for theories of knowledge. In the technical sense, there is no low or high degree of certainty; this only applies to the loose sense of the term.</p>
<p>
[quote]
breaking into someone's house with a gun is enough of a reason for the homeowner to defend him/herself from potential harm. i'm sure you agree that breaking into someone's private property carrying a dangerous weapon is unethical.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Sure, I'll agree that breaking into someone's private property carrying a dangerous weapon is unethical and illegal. I wasn't contending that there aren't some clear cut ethical situations. That wasn't your original claim. </p>
<p>You claimed that all ethical questions were clear cut, and I presented a not clear cut case, thereby refuting your claim. </p>
<p>
[quote]
the mother does harm the baby because she knows that the baby's life depends on her.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yes, but your first simple principle was that "if something is not harmful to other people, it should be allowed."</p>
<p>Notice that this is a negative definition: you're talking only of actions that don't harm other people, and of these actions you're saying that they should be allowed, meaning that they're ethically okay. You used the term 'harm other people', which you didn't specify as a technical notion or define. If the term doesn't mean strictly directly slapping, stabbing, drowning, etc., other people, then you're going to have to explain how far this notion of doing harm to others extends. In other words, if I live in a village that counts on me to hunt and gather, wouldn't I be harming other people if I kill myself? If I own a company that produces a certain honey, a honey that helps a unique diabetic stay alive, and I shut down the company, which has the result of harming the diabetic, then didn't I harm him? Sure, it's an indirect harming, but you've said nothing about how far this harm extends, so it applies to your notion. In which case, we have yet another difficult case.</p>
<p>You see, "harming others" isn't an easy thing to spell out, and you're going to have to spell it out if you want to build an ethical principle on it. Again, ethics can get deep.</p>
<p>Think of abortion. This is a perennial topic in ethics, and if the notions of ethics were simple, wouldn't you think we would have settled this issue already? Think of harming someone in order to prevent them from harming somone else. Think of lying to your mother. This might not involve harming her, or anyone else, but we think it's unethical, so your principle does us no good here.</p>
<p>
[quote]
that's because there ISN'T a rigorous definition for "happiness." it would be a debate on (almost) pure opinion. although i'd like to ask if you can give me a coherent (and "useful") definition for "supernatural"
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This is precisely my point. If we're going to talk about happiness and the supernatural, then we need to give 'working definitions', so we can at least understand what the other person is saying. If we just used 'happiness' and 'supernatural' in some argument, without at least giving a working definition, then our whole discussion is going get bogged down on just those terms. </p>
<p>I have no definition of supernatural. By super we mean 'above', so something above the natural is not natural, I suppose. But, of course, like "miracle", we have no clear understanding of what would count as not natural, because everything, in a sense, is natural. Some things are just beyond our comprehension, but that doesn't make them unnatural. This doesn't mean that we can't just give off a list of things we're saying are supernatural. It won't matter if these things aren't really not-natural or unnatural, because the intention is only to talk about and possibly explain these particular things: e.g., ghosts, angels, statues that bleed, etc. </p>
<p>
[quote]
the binocular analogy isn't so much an analogy of different points of view as it is just one person with more information than the other. by points of view, i meant something like viewing the animal from a different angle. of course the person with less information will almost always come to a more incorrect conclusion.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Not exactly. You don't have to think that the person with the powerful binos has more information -- they could both have the same amount -- but that he has a different kind of information, namely the kind that allows him to speak more accurately about the basic make-up of what something is. So the powerful bino guy can tell you that the animal is a donkey, while the weaker bino guy can only tell you its sex but not its animal type. </p>
<p>In this regard, the bino analogy fits nicely with having good reasoning skills versus looking at things from different perspectives without good reasoning skills.</p>