philosophy.. hard?

Student Lounge College Life
41

<p>Ok, then let's look at the argument. First, the claim that philosophy is "divorced from reality" rests on a false dichotomy - namely, the idea that if a method of investigation doesn't rely on "empirical evidence and trial and error", then the method is divorced from reality. The fact that philosophy doesn't involve laboratory experimentation does not mean it's divorced from reality -- in fact, the professed goal of much of philosophy is to investigate the fundamental nature of reality. The investigation is just carried out without quantifiable experimentation. Furthermore, much of philosophy DOES use empirical evidence, such as the specialty area known as Philosophy of Mind. Philosophers of Mind have to know a whole lot about contemporary research in neuroscience/neurobiology because it is useful to rely on such research in the advancement of their claims. And Philosophy of Mind touches on many other branches of philosophy. </p>

<p>The problem is that many of philosophy's central problems preclude the use of scientific testing - such as the question of what constitutes a state of knowledge, or how words get their reference. But can we really say that these problems aren't part of reality? If they're not part of reality, then what are they part of? Are they "made up"? Some would say yes, and there's no convincing those people. But I think it's abundantly obvious that words do refer to objects, and that people do have knowledge, so the problems surrounding how these states of affairs come to exist can't possibly be "not part of reality." Thus, philosophy's methods are not necessarily divorced from reality, and neither are its objects of study; so the claim that philosophy is so divorced falls flat. No ad-hominem attack necessary.</p>

<p>Finally, I want to point out that the idea that "life is not a discrete system" is utterly incoherent. What does Max mean by "life" in this context? This idea needs to be defined before he can make his claim. Furthermore, philosophy does not rely solely on "pure logic", and I'm not even sure what Max has in mind when he says this. If he means formal logic, he's completely wrong; hardly any arguments are ever formalized in the philosophical literature. If he means that the rules of logic can't be applied when making arguments about problems that exist "within reality," then he just defeated his own claim -- for he used some of the rules of logic in his argument!</p>

<p>In general, it's not a good idea to make sweeping claims about an academic discipline when it's obvious that one knows next to nothing about it.</p>

42

<p>
[quote]
In general, it's not a good idea to make sweeping claims about an academic discipline when it's obvious that one knows next to nothing about it.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>That is super true. I am growing weary of that.</p>

<p>In my opinion, one of the neatest things about learning is "entering a world of the unknown." And, then maybe carrying on with things at a higher level after you have a good, well balanced foundation. Not, assuming to be a blessed expert in an academic subject because you took one general education class or one higher level class as an elective.</p>

<p>I mean no disrespect to anyone. I am just growing tired of these threads devolving into a mine is bigger than your argument all the time.</p>

43

<p>I should note I wasn't correct in declaring that an ad hominem above. His post was substantively worthless, but not really fallacious. It just had no backing.</p>

44

<p>"In general, it's not a good idea to make sweeping claims about an academic discipline when it's obvious that one knows next to nothing about it."</p>

<p>In case you missed it:</p>

<p>
[quote]
This discussion is obviously MUCH larger than I can cover in one post, but I'll give the uber-executive summary

[/quote]
</p>

45

<p>I have a solution: if you want to get a degree in philosophy, more power to you. Prove those who say philosophy is useless or not worthwhile wrong. You have one life to live, at least take some risks.</p>

46

<p>^ haha you're assuming that chosing philosophy as a major is a "risk" :)</p>

<p>
[quote]
With much of modern and almost all of contemporary philosophy, however, the jury is still out. Thus, devoting too much time on these courses is often a waste of time. Stick with the Greats.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>If you think the "jury" isn't still out on the so-called "Greats", then you know next to nothing about philosophy. ALL philosophy is worth studying. And ancient philosophy is constantly under attack (with very strong arguments I might add). But nice try.</p>

47

<p>^I may have chose the wrong words, what I meant to say that if you wan to major in something, have the balls to do it regardless of the money or prestige.</p>

<p>As of right now, I'm thinking of getting a degree in Philosophy. My parents won't be too happy about it though (when are they ever).</p>

48

<p>
[quote]
ALL philosophy is worth studying. And ancient philosophy is constantly under attack (with very strong arguments I might add). But nice try.

[/quote]

I just finished writing a term paper in the form of a lengthy dialogue between Socrates, Protagoras, and a potter debating the value of philosophy. Fun to write, but it makes your head start to hurt after a while. :/</p>

49

<p>wow yeah a paper in the form of a dialogue would be painful. In my Topics in Aesthetic Theory class (upper div), we were just assigned a 10-page paper in which we have to explain how we feel "emotion" when we watch a movie or listen to music. And the philosophers we're focusing on are very modern writers (within the past 25 or so years)</p>

50

<p>
[quote]
With much of modern and almost all of contemporary philosophy, however, the jury is still out. Thus, devoting too much time on these courses is often a waste of time. Stick with the Greats.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>You'd be amazed how influential many modern and contemporary philosophers are on our thinking. Russel comes to mind almost instantly.</p>

51

<p>postmodern philosophers rockkk compared to plato & co.</p>

52

<p>
[quote]
Ok, then let's look at the argument. First, the claim that philosophy is "divorced from reality" rests on a false dichotomy

[/quote]
</p>

<p>This is simply not true. There is either a priori or a posteriori. You can posit the fallacy all you want, but I urge you to refute the following philosophers in the process:
Descartes
Locke
Hume
Kant
Frege
Carnap
Kripke
Quine</p>

<p>Send me a PM when you are done.</p>

<p>
[quote]
ure of reality. The investigation is just carried out without quantifiable experimentation. Furthermore, much of philosophy DOES use empirical evidence, such as the specialty area known as Philosophy of Mind. Philosophers of Mind have to know a whole lot about contemporary research in neuroscience/neurobiology because it is useful to rely on such research in the advancement of their claims.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, that is just one branch of philosophy of mind, and a very contentious one at that. There are those in philosophy of mind (ie. token-dualists) who make no use of observation.</p>

<p>
[quote]
With much of modern and almost all of contemporary philosophy, however, the jury is still out. Thus, devoting too much time on these courses is often a waste of time. Stick with the Greats.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Coming from a classics major, I am not at all surprised that you would say such nonsense. If I am not mistaken, it was the moderns who freed philosophy from the influence of the church, and it was through this freedom that science flourished. I am not going to argue that the modern are "the greats," but they definitely have a lesson to teach us – one that cannot be found in the ancients. </p>

<p>Contemporary philosophers have also accomplished much. It only takes a good dose of ignorance to state that one group of philosophers should be studied to the exclusion of others. </p>

<p>I have yet to take a single course on the ancients; I know Plato's/Socrates' arguments and so forth, but they simply do not factor in the work I do. Does this make me an inferior philosopher? You could argue that, but then you would have to maintain that claim against the factual problem of my already participating in the graduate curriculum here at Georgetown.</p>

53

<p>Philosophy is probably a better minor than a major.</p>

54

<p>yep, if I went with philosophy, I'd probably go with it as a minor too.</p>

55

<p>unleash the micropolitics of desire, baby</p>

<p>Deleuze And Guattari FTW</p>

56

<p>i know this is an old thread, but does anyone know how hard philosophy is?</p>

<p>i know philosophy is difficult, but is tit difficult compared to other humanities or compared with everything? for example, how would you compare it to the likes of the engineering sciences?</p>

<p>i'm really interested in philosophy, but its reputation makes it seem perhaps too tough.</p>

57

<p>-----bump-----</p>

58

<p>It, of course, depends on the person.</p>

<p>Logic skills are needed in both philosophy and the engineering sciences.</p>

<p>What might make it easier is it is fundamentally less math (of course). What would make it harder is that there is no general method of approach to most problems when you're analyzing positions in writing a philosophy paper.</p>

<p>All and all, it's logic and analytic creativity. You can't make loose connections in philosophy as you can in say, English--that's the main difficulty.</p>

<p>It isn't that hard, in the same way that math proofs aren't really all that hard, but require a different style of thinking.</p>

59

<p>My brother is getting his PhD in Philosophy, and honestly, I have no idea what he is talking about a lot of the time. Some of that stuff is so weird! He's the smartest person I know though so...</p>

60

<p>I would imagine Philosophy is hard. That is why I am not doing it.</p>