Intellectual?

Colleges and Universities A-Z Williams College
1

<p>First and foremost, I want to make clear that Williams College is the quintessential all-round college. And when I stayed at Williams for its Preview program, I did NOT get a sense of an overbearing jock community, and so i think the myth that Williams focuses too much on athletics is a unsubstantiated. Yet, I feel obligated to point out how Williams is a perfect LAC for an athlete, considering the fantastic professors and facilities. </p>

<p>While I visited Williams, I met with some of the nicest people I have ever met, some of whom helped me get around campus (I have a horrible sense of direction :-P) and helped me choose which classes to sit on (Philo 101 and 102, a math tutorial, and a poli sci level 300 class). I noticed that while many students debated issues in class, political and philosophical, I did not find many intellectuals that would talk about such issues out of class. At this time I also want to make clear that I am simply saying that I did not detect an academic community--that, by no means, indicates that there is none, nor does it mean that it is small. Rather, I just could not <em>find</em> one. (I don't want to scare away propective students.) Could current students or alumn tell me of the intellectual community at Williams?</p>

<p>I think having someone to argue with is a very important aspect of a college--at least to me. One objective to going to college is to learn, and since debating with someone social, political, philosophy, contemporary issues falls is an ideal medium through which to learn, it is just as important, I think, as having amazing professors. (I am not obsessed with debating; I simply want to be able to have the occasional debate without looking too hard fof them.) Especially considering that high school students cannot have such discussions, especially on controversial topics, so I want that chance at college. Thank you to anyone who can help me. </p>

<p>PS I'm choosing between Williams, Amherst, and Chicago
PPS Of the people I met at Williams, there seems to be the most cross-admits from Brown, then from Yale, then from Harvard. I met two who got into MIT (for physics), and only one other who got into Amherst.</p>

2

<p>My experience at Williams has been extremely intellectual. I've stayed up to the early morning discussing academics--often with people not in my class. Last semester I took a course on Free Will and it seemed that all I ended up talking with my friends about was whether or not we have meaningful free will. Students typically work and study together outside of class all of the time, and such study sessions obviously typically lead to long discussions taking off from the coursework. </p>

<p>Cross-admit-wise, I also noticed a surprising number of Brown admits visiting. Statistically, Williams shares the most admits with Yale, Harvard, Amherst, Dartmouth, and Middlebury I believe.</p>

3

<p>Josh, if you end up going and can't find someone to debate with (though you will find tons of people I'm sure), you can search me out! I absolutely love debating but unfortunately I have had little opportunity at my high school. I'm from a very rural area, where everyone is conservative and of the same religion minus a few people, such as hmmm my family....</p>

<p>I love debating issues, whether they be controversial or not. It's the greatest when you can debate with others and everyone seriously listens to the points of one another... I can't wait for late night talks!</p>

<p>By the way, that free-will course sounds super interesting. Actually, that concept has bothered me for a long time. Originally people have no power over their situation (we can't choose genetics or environment). And a person's conscious (which judges each event or choice) develops according to those two (not chosen) things and each previous choice (which was the result of the shaped conscious and unchosen things). It's crazy when you think about it. Am I missing something or what? Seriously, that reasoning has serious implications!</p>

<p>You can ignore that big speel if you want to!</p>

4

<p>Leonesa-- You're touching on one of the major problems free will proponents must overcome--determinism (the philosophical theory that everything has a cause). If every action that you do has a cause and none of those causes ultimately originate from YOU, it's hard to say you're freely doing things, at least not in a meaningful sense.</p>

5

<p>What you just said Haon, is exactly what I have thought about for a long time. I tried explaining this to my friends, but they were just like,"You still choose your actions." I tried to explain that yes you choose, but that decision is ultimately the result of a shaped conscious or mind that developed because of things you originally could not affect.</p>

<p>Where is the flaw in that? I don't understand how more people don't see that or see it as consequential! </p>

<p>What do your professor think about determinism and free will, if you wouldn't mind sharing?</p>

6

<p>My professor was either a compatibilist or libertarian (both positions do believe in free will). The course I took was a tutorial (I'd strongly recommend it for you--it was a great class and you seem particularly interested in the subject), and it was never obvious from class meetings where she stood--I only kind of found out when we were having dinner at her house at the end of the semeseter. Incidentally, her partner--also a philo prof (I have him now)--did not believe in free will. </p>

<p>Compatibilism argues that as we have choices, we have free will. Even accepting determinism, we still have choices to make, choices which occur within us. While we are determined prior to our birth to make choices a certain way, the existance of a choice, and our involvement in making this choice are criteria enough to indicate free will.</p>

<p>Libertarian viewpoints (these are philosophical libertarians which are different from political libertarians) tend to be more varied than Compatibilist's. Generally, the libertarian will view determinism as less-than-absolute. Usually this will involve a "mover unmoved" theory--a theory that a person can make a decision influenced, but not necessitated, by their surroundings. This is the view most people intuitively feel. If you haven't thought about the subject much chances are you'll probably fall into this category.</p>

<p>You sound like you're heading in the direction of what is known as hard determinism. You believe that determinism is absolute, and that meaningful free will cannot co-exist with determinism. While we may have choices to make, our choices were all effectively "decided" for us prior to our birth, and thus are not meaningful choices.</p>

<p>It's important to realize that you can reject meaningful free will but still strive to lead a fruitful and productive life. However, rejecting free will probably requires that you avoid all vindictive punishment--you can still punish people for their wrongdoings, but only if the punishment helps them (or society) more than it hurts them (or society). You cannot hold anybody ultimately responsible for their actions--after all, they have no free will to affect them-- but you should still strive to be a "good" person (although whether or not you will be succesful in this has already been determined). "Good" and "bad" can exist in a world without free will...moral responsibility probably cannot. </p>

<p>Obviously these are all super-condenced over-simplified explanations, but I hope they make some amount of sense. Take the course! ...Philo 272T with Professor Barry...and email me if you have more questions. We've kinda hijacked this discussion (is anyone else interested in the subject? Does anyone else have any thoughts on the subject)?</p>

7

<p>I am most definitely interested in the subject. It's a topic I've discussed many times... I'm still trying to figure out what I really think about it though. I am wary of being closed-minded... and so I just try to absorb others' viewpoints while trying to form some semblance of one myself. </p>

<p>I do think that free will is limited by societal constraints. There are certain aspects of our everyday behavior that we assume are human nature when in fact they are merely proof that society (and not the individual) decides what we do. For example, if someone in class argues with me, I'm not going to stand up and stab them in the eye with a pencil. That's not because I couldn't physically do that if I wanted to... but simply because there is a constraint on my behavior that was instilled in me since I was born. Maybe in a completely uncivilized world, there could be pure free will... but in the society we live in, free will only exists within the limits we impose on ourselves from birth. </p>

<p>That's just my opinion though... :P Anyone have any thoughts?</p>

8

<p>Hey josh I went to the program too and the freshmen I stayed with were pretty smart and often would stay up talking to us about their classes or argueing politics and the philosophy presented in the class I went to go see (it was their philosophy class). I guess it just boils down to who you talk to.</p>

9

<p>Lauren--</p>

<p>in your situation as long as you're actually able to get up and stab the person in the eye, you have pure free will. It doesn't matter if societally it's unaccepted or not--maybe you're so mad at this kid in class that you no longer care what societally is acceptible or what possible punishment stabbing him in the eye might get you.</p>

<p>The libertarian would say you have pure free will because you were influenced by many factors, but ultimately it was your decision to do the stabbing. </p>

<p>The compatibilist would say that you have pure free will because while you were influenced by many factors and ultimately determined to do the stabbing, you (as a person) were offered the choice of whether to stab or not to stab, even though given your genetic and character disposition and the situation, you would have never done otherwise.</p>

<p>The hard determinist would say that you were caused to stab, and that your act of stabbing has been determined to happen for generations. The causes of your stabbing might include your genetics, your character, your upbringing, situations you experienced in your childhood, and the situation of this particular argument. None of these causes originate from you (all originate externally) and none are causes that you have any control over. </p>

<p>I would say--Whatever you say is right. Please don't stab me in the eye.</p>

10

<p>
[quote]
I would say--Whatever you say is right. Please don't stab me in the eye.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>lol!! a fitting finish</p>

11

<p>HAHA! No stabbing going on here... I promise. ;) Thanks for the reply... it summed up the different viewpoints very well. Kudos!</p>

12

<p>josh, you'll be in an intellectual environment at any of the three schools from which you're choosing. of the three, my fave is uchicago. not giving up anything in terms of academics (actually probably a gain for you based on how you've described yourself) and chicago sure beats williamstown and amherst.</p>