Page 1 of 9 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 85

  Click here to go to the first staff post in this thread.   Thread: Ask me about Philosophy

  1.   Click here to go to the next staff post in this thread.   #1
    Didn't try, Succeeded Fay V's Avatar



    Weasyl
    Fayv
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    1,379

    Ask me about Philosophy

    I'm getting my Master's in philosophy, my field is applied ethics (neuroethics yay), but I'm happy to discuss pretty much any field of philosophy. I figured we could have some intelligent discussion.
    Ask questions
    debate topics,
    whatever.

  2. #2
    Banned Tycho's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    296
    How would you say your education in philosophy has prepared you to operate as a part of modern working society?

  3. #3
    ... You should have started this thread earlier. :<
    I have an exam on religion and world-views tomorrow, but a lot of it discusses philosophy as well.

  4.   Click here to go to the next staff post in this thread.   #4
    Didn't try, Succeeded Fay V's Avatar



    Weasyl
    Fayv
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    1,379
    Quote Originally Posted by Tycho View Post
    How would you say your education in philosophy has prepared you to operate as a part of modern working society?
    Extremely well actually. Or at least extremely well prepared for work within a desired niche.
    First and foremost Philosophy is extremely writing intensive. The average person writes...okay, which is fine on average. Extremely writing intensive fields have a tendency to produce people who are able to write well and above average, which is a subtle difference that takes a while to fully understand. The average person simply doesn't need to understand how to effectively structure an essay, or how to avoid colloquial writing.

    The benefit obviously, is I can always find work in writing, and it was through my undergrad that I developed the skills for transcription, which is rather profitable if you have the taste for it.

    The more important aspect is philosophy in particular trains individuals in critical thought. It's something which is being sought in our economy because most people are not very good at it, particularly being able to divorce your emotional attachments, which philosophers are more likely to do in such a setting. Critical thinking unfortunately for many is a skill which requires a lot of steady reflection and practice and like with writing most that learn will simply learn to the average "okay" level.

    Those are the two most important aspects and since roughly my junior undergraduate level I have not been unemployed outside of my own conscious choice.

    Personally my employment record and my abilities within the workforce are influenced by philosophy in that I use those skills to best work out how to apply myself to a particular place then use all other skills to accomplish whatever task is at hand. (my history in biochem, psychology, and english mostly)

    The thing with humanities is, it works so far as you can find yourself a place, so this isn't exclusive to philosophy. I like philosophy and my intention is to work in experimental philosophy research, so that is why I selected this path.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hardrockangel View Post
    ... You should have started this thread earlier. :<
    I have an exam on religion and world-views tomorrow, but a lot of it discusses philosophy as well.
    Welp hit me with whatever.

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by Fay V View Post
    Welp hit me with whatever.
    Let me put my translating brain-cap on for a second.
    So there's the philosophers Rawls and Habermas who have both contemplated the function of religion in public debate and they have both (in broad terms) stated that use of religion or a religious belief is not an issue on the condition that the religious beliefs have been translated from the field of "opinion-forming" to be broadly acceptable in the field of "decision-making".

    I'm just not sure if a correct example of this would be:
    A Christian politician can oppose abortion on grounds of his religion, but! In order for him to be able to use his religion as grounds for him opposing abortion, he has to translate his beliefs into an argument that is not "Because God says so!" but for instance "Because life is sacred".

  6. #6
    Premium User FishNChips's Avatar

    Weasyl
    N/A
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,052
    What is philosophy?

    Haha, just kidding. But I'd like to start reading about philosophy but I haven't got a clue what to begin with.

  7.   Click here to go to the next staff post in this thread.   #7
    Didn't try, Succeeded Fay V's Avatar



    Weasyl
    Fayv
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    1,379
    Quote Originally Posted by Hardrockangel View Post
    Let me put my translating brain-cap on for a second.
    So there's the philosophers Rawls and Habermas who have both contemplated the function of religion in public debate and they have both (in broad terms) stated that use of religion or a religious belief is not an issue on the condition that the religious beliefs have been translated from the field of "opinion-forming" to be broadly acceptable in the field of "decision-making".

    I'm just not sure if a correct example of this would be:
    A Christian politician can oppose abortion on grounds of his religion, but! In order for him to be able to use his religion as grounds for him opposing abortion, he has to translate his beliefs into an argument that is not "Because God says so!" but for instance "Because life is sacred".
    So it's been a while. For Rawls I recall the "original position" is his big breadwinner. Basically when the rules of a society a group mutally works together and must assume each person will be part of that society, but where they are in said society is unknown.

    Related somewhat is his Reflective equilibrium I think it's called. Basically you have a set of intuitive ideas about justice or politics and then must translate those ideas to a foundational aspect. So don't murder people because life is sacred.

    Habermas I think has the translate argument. He puts the burden on politicians (not normal folk) with religious beliefs. If they desire to argue for something they must translate that issue into a secular reason.

    So and example would be perhaps banning the use of songbirds in meal preparation. Now while it does give a reason in Leviticus that says "don't eat these birds" the politician would have to translate that to a secular argument. Songbirds are riddled with parasites and puts unnecessary risk into the process.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Gibby View Post
    What is philosophy?

    Haha, just kidding. But I'd like to start reading about philosophy but I haven't got a clue what to begin with.
    It literally means love of knowledge.

    I'm not sure. Philosophy is extremely broad. The five main branches are Logic, ethics (what is and is not okay), epistemology (study of knowledge), metaphysics (what exists, our understanding of reality), Aesthetics (study of beauty and such)

    There's also social and political to the side, it's mostly with ethics though. sort of like the ethics step child.

    The way to start, well if you have access to school just a 101 class is fun. If not find what you like. Existentialism is easy to get into, it's continental philosophy so it's not as dry. Camus I like, Kafka is in there. etc.

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Fay V View Post
    So it's been a while. For Rawls I recall the "original position" is his big breadwinner. Basically when the rules of a society a group mutally works together and must assume each person will be part of that society, but where they are in said society is unknown.

    Related somewhat is his Reflective equilibrium I think it's called. Basically you have a set of intuitive ideas about justice or politics and then must translate those ideas to a foundational aspect. So don't murder people because life is sacred.

    Habermas I think has the translate argument. He puts the burden on politicians (not normal folk) with religious beliefs. If they desire to argue for something they must translate that issue into a secular reason.

    So and example would be perhaps banning the use of songbirds in meal preparation. Now while it does give a reason in Leviticus that says "don't eat these birds" the politician would have to translate that to a secular argument. Songbirds are riddled with parasites and puts unnecessary risk into the process.
    That sounds a lot more comprehensible than the garbled gobbledigook in my textbook.
    You are a fantastic person for explaining this, thank you! <3

  9.   Click here to go to the next staff post in this thread.   #9
    Retired Staff Tiger's Avatar
    Weasyl
    Tiger
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Michigan
    Gender
    grrl
    Posts
    1,287
    How familiar are you with philosophy of art? ("art" here is extremely broad). A few names being Reynolds, Tolstoy, Wilde, Fry, Bell, even sneak in some Plato. Those were some of the philosophers (although some may not necessarily have that specific title) whose positions we talked about in my Philosophy of art class. Mainly discussing defining art, how to decide what is and is not art, and what it has to offer us.

  10.   Click here to go to the next staff post in this thread.   #10
    Didn't try, Succeeded Fay V's Avatar



    Weasyl
    Fayv
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    1,379
    Quote Originally Posted by Hardrockangel View Post
    That sounds a lot more comprehensible than the garbled gobbledigook in my textbook.
    You are a fantastic person for explaining this, thank you! <3
    very glad to help. But yeah, basically I guess the idea is that secular arguments make it an even playing field and if the politician can't translate the idea from a religious one (god said so) he can't argue for it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tiger View Post
    How familiar are you with philosophy of art? ("art" here is extremely broad). A few names being Reynolds, Tolstoy, Wilde, Fry, Bell, even sneak in some Plato. Those were some of the philosophers (although some may not necessarily have that specific title) whose positions we talked about in my Philosophy of art class. Mainly discussing defining art, how to decide what is and is not art, and what it has to offer us.
    Aesthetics is my weakest subject, something that seems to really amaze my dept mates cause I'm the only one that's an artist and I didn't take that course this semester. It was all metaphysics meinong bullshit anyway so meh.

    I am comfortable with Plato, I know Aristotle's poetics fairly well (I disagree with him immensely on it). I know some of the work of Wilde in regards to art but that was more through English than philosophic study, same with Tolstoy.

 

 

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •