<p>I disagree with the idea that there are no answers in law. While there always are unsettled areas of the law, that does not mean that you don't eventually get an answer with some of it. Sooner or later, in the law, you have to examine the validity of each argument and its relationship with "the law," and then come to a conclusion. Trust me on this one. I'm not just referring to law school exams - but actually to the entire practice of law. The system is set up to give people solutions to their problems, not to argue incessantly (although it does generate a lot of billable hours... ;) ).</p>
<p>Math certainly has answers. Engineering certainly has answers. While I've certainly gone nuts seeing "state your assumptions" at the beginning of my engineering exams, there really are answers. A reaction might not happen; building a plant won't be economically feasible; an electron won't tunnel. Answers! </p>
<p>Beware of spending too much time in your head; it starves the soul.</p>
<p>Aw, ariesathena, some people seem to disagree with your advice, such as Plato and Aristotle in the Republic and the Nicomachaen Ethics (Book 10 ch 6 until the end)</p>
<p>The 'ad hominem' accusation is grossly misused; it is only an 'ad hominem' if I draw a conclusion from the attack. A regular viteruperation does not qualfy as the fallacy.</p>
<p>Well, perhaps you could demonstrate the conclusion you wish to share which follows from his justification of slavery. Where is that written, anyway?</p>
<p>
[quote]
As to the other half of my previous post?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>There was no conclusion to be drawn.</p>
<p>But even if there was, that would not render my post fallacious. Your post suggested that since Aristotle and Plato prioritize the the soul, those who do so right now are in good company; however, does that mean that slave owners are also in good company because of Aristotle's politics? Of course not.</p>
<p>Both Plato and Aristotle espoused claims, some of which haven been rejected; that they espoused such claims does not change the cognitive status of them.</p>
<p>Yes, he thought a lot of things that were wrong. But he was right about a lot of things, too (i.e., logic, the existence of atoms, the force of habit, etc.) A corpus as extensive as his is bound to have both successes and failures. </p>
<p>Every great philosopher drops a few turkeys.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Every great philosopher drops a few turkeys.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Indeed, and sometimes what outlives their works are arguments they never intended to make salient. Kant's notion of autonomy opined in 'The Groundwork...' is one of the many instances of this.</p>
<p>mai gawd...just reading these posts tells me how much y'all read philosophy :) it's the structured, logical responses to each previous post. have fun philosophizing...there was once a time when i too wanted to major in philosophy. people told me "that's gotta be the most useless major ever." i of course disagreed (and still do), since learning how to think, write, and read analytically is pretty damn useful. i want to go to law school. eventually i decided upon political science, legal studies, and history (only american history, world history drives me up the wall)...so i'm staying in the land of philosophy i suppose...but i just admitted to myself that i couldn't stand 4 yrs of learning stuff with no direct practical impact...So what if you learn whether we have free will or if determinism is truth...go do something. not to criticize philosophy majors at all. it's just, i can't stand more than 30 minutes of pure philosophy because it's too abstract and <em>Seemingly</em> purposeless.</p>