<p>
</p>
<p>why can you presuppose that for hypothetical ivy league professors and not for professors at lesser known schools?</p>
<p>...and there isn't any excuse for calling people imbeciles</p>
<p>Will this thread ever die?</p>
<p>correspondence?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Are you serious nspeds? Just search for the definition of the word, "justification", its used not as a fact but as an explanation.</p>
[/quote]
</a></p>
<p>Any true philosopher would understand the nature of a justification, and that a paltry definition from a random dictionary will never suffice as one that can suit our discussion.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Also, I'm a student of Nietzsche and not Kant.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Nietzsche was a moral nihilist; he was not a philosopher, he was an individual who utterred meaningless statements and bastardized the Humean critique of inductivism. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Thus, so far as my knowledge of Nietzsche goes
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Which, if all you have studied is Nietzsche, is very little.</p>
<p>
[quote]
"People even got really excited about this new faculty, and the rejoicing reached its height when Kant discovered yet another additional facultya moral facultyin human beings, for then the Germans were still moral and not yet at all "political realists.""
[/quote]
</p>
<p>1) The statement renders a direct reference to a different section of Kant's argument, not Kant's moral thesis which is explicated in the Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals.
2) Research the term "categorical imperative" for a better understanding of Kantian ethics. As a person who is at least somewhat educated, at least you would understand that using a moral nihilist as reference for a recapitulation on an ethical system lacks objectivity on even the most basic level; with such incoherent analysis, I am better off looking for a recapitulation by Mill, or better yet, Bentham.</p>
<p>
[quote]
why can you presuppose that for hypothetical ivy league professors and not for professors at lesser known schools?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I did not presuppose a hypothetical, those professors actually exist. Their web-pages were included in a previous post:)</p>
<p>nspeds, you should go to a philosophy forum, it cant be fun to argue philosophy with people who dont really know it</p>
<p>_42, I agree. I simply used Kant as an example, and now people wish to argue with me about it.</p>
<p>Are you really serious?!</p>
<p>You better read up man, Nietzsches writing though obscure does not lack in better reasoning.</p>
<p>Your opnions and refutations, on the basis of being personal, lack the substance which could be even deemed civil and is more childlike. Even your great command of the English Language is lost by being blatantly ignorant, which flies in the face of your arrogance. Remember, there is a lot to learn boy, you don't know it all.</p>
<p>
[quote]
You better read up man, Nietzsches writing though obscure does not lack in better reasoning.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>As a person who has read nearly all of Nietzsche's texts, I can conclude that he was less of a philosopher, and more of an individual who revealed plenty of problems in modern philosophical methods. I doubt even Nietzsche would consider himself a philosopher.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Your opnions and refutations, on the basis of being personal, lack the substance which could be even deemed civil and is more childlike.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This coming from an individual who uses a moral nihilist to explain a moral theory. Kudos to you.</p>
<p>I never explained any moral theory, in the first place just showed you an error in some elses who you love to quote.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I never explained any moral theory, in the first place just showed you an error in some elses who you love to quote.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Oops, my mistake. This coming from an individual who uses a moral nihilist, Nietzsche, as a source for some recapitulation on Kantian ethics.</p>
<p>if i asked the same of you, you would not be able to provide proof for your "presupposed" ivy league professors.</p>
<p>not once have i claimed that interpretations are good or bad/right or wrong. they are simply different.</p>
<p>
[quote]
There is evidence available for this claim. It is a widely accepted belief that higher-ranked schools are less remedial in focus and more research and intellectually oriented. Brian Leiter of UT - Law School actually wrote a paper on this, which can be found on his website.
[/quote]
the other person was commenting on community college people in general. correct me if i'm wrong, but does your comment have anything to do with the generalization of cc students?</p>
<p>And, what is your point exactly, cept for your disdain for Nietzsche.</p>
<p>
[quote]
if i asked the same of you, you would not be able to provide proof for your "presupposed" ivy league professors.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The proof was in their resumes. For the second individual, the source was a testimony in regard to his teaching skills.</p>
<p>
[quote]
not once have i claimed that interpretations are good or bad/right or wrong. they are simply different.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Actually, I misinterpreted that from your claim:</p>
<p>
[quote]
there are no true or false answers when it comes to certain subjects; only one's own interpretation.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>However, my reductio still holds. By your reasoning, the claim that Hamlet is a form of Star Wars can neither be true or false. However, it is patently false.</p>
<p>
[quote]
And, what is your point exactly, cept for your disdain for Nietzsche.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I stated that Kant's ethical conception has little or nothing to do with faculties. You gave a Nietzsche quote that stated otherwise, however, Nietzsche was a moral nihilist, and is thus, ineligible to comment on the Kant's, or anyone's, ethical framework.</p>
<p>...
Because hes a moral nihilist, he can't do that? But he did so anyways.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Because hes a moral nihilist, he can't do that? But he did so anyways.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Which is why any decent philosopher would disregard his argument.</p>
<p>Its not a courtroom, where some evidence is allowed or not allowed. Its either "it is" or "is not".</p>
<p>
[quote]
Its not a courtroom, where some evidence is allowed or not allowed. Its either "it is" or "is not".
[/quote]
</p>
<p>How can you invoke a logical truth statement in regard to Nietzsche? He was hardly logical in any sense.</p>
<p>You say you read Nietzsche, but thus far, I am unimpressed by your arguments. Given this, I do not have anything to gain from arguing with you, and thus, this is a waste of my time.</p>
<p>Good Night.</p>
<p>Can I jump in here with a less subjective example?</p>
<p>Math in community college versus good colleges is vastly different, too. In fact, math in worse private university is vastly different in math from a better private university.</p>
<p>Proof-rigorous Linear Algebra, where the students are expected to be able to prove the basic theorems by the end of the course on their own steam, where part of the final is to be able to come up with proofs too vast to possibly memorize, where students are expected to have real understanding and are forced to demonstrate it in the form of problems that they could not possibly simply memorize a formula for, are more difficult than community college courses-- or again, courses from a worse 4-year university.</p>
<p>My father took Ordinary Differential Equations at a not-so-hot 4-year university. I'm taking Ordinary Differential Equations at a difficult liberal arts college. Even he admits that there is no comparison. He says that he mostly learned memorization of formulas, algorithms for how to solve the problems, but that he really never gained a real understanding. My class simply doesn't work that way; we need to formulate proofs, to solve such complex problems that memorization would never suffice. </p>
<p>More to the point, my mother is a professor at another fairly crappy 4-year university. She teaches Calculus; she has for 14 years, she still does. She follows about the same syllabus as all the other math professors. I took Calculus I and II at my current college. There were many problems, both on my homework and on projects, that my mother, Calculus professor, * was not able to do*. They were simply too difficult; she never presents her class with problems of anywhere near that difficulty. And she's told me that. </p>
<p>Yes. This is not just community college versus four year colleges. This is not just subjective interpretations. At *better<a href="not%20better-ranked,%20but%20better">/i</a> colleges, even math is very, very, VERY different. At worse colleges, it is more formulaic, more based on memorization, and it is much less proof-rigorous. </p>
<p>Of course, at my small, difficult but not very highly-ranked liberal arts college, someone transferred from here to Cornell. The math at Cornell was way too easy for him, he found it a snap and never learned anything. So, he transferred back here for the difficult math.</p>
<p>Another thing that shows that, despite the fact that math and physics is always "the same", that it is not taught the same:</p>
<p>In most major universities, there are two, three, or even four series of introductory courses in calculus, or general physics. Some of those are like "General Physics (variant a)", "General Physics (variant b)", and "Honors General Physics". They have different course numbers, the higher-level ones are prerequisites for thing sthat the lower-level ones are not, and they cover different things with different rigor. Yet they're all considered Introductory Physics. Even at the same university. </p>
<p>To say that math or physics is taught with the same rigor at every college is simply absurd. It's not even taught with the same rigor WITHIN a college or university!!!</p>