Total Posts:13|Showing Posts:1-13
Jump to topic:

Institutional philosophy

homework
Posts: 31
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2010 1:44:20 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/6/2010 7:47:09 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 4/6/2010 7:16:48 PM, homework wrote:
meh. I guess I won't let it die just yet.

What's wrong with institutional philosophy?

Institutionalized Philosophy: Old fat farts who got rich out of pretending to be productive twist the minds of young people to become intellectuals who will also become old fat farts who get rich out of pretending to be productive, all the while making them cocky and useless as hell - just like they are!


Philosophy, from my point of view, should be useful. All knowledge should be useful. If you cannot link every single piece of knowledge directly or indirectly back to reality and your own life and what you do or can do, it is useless except for pretending that you're using it usefully, i.e. writing up books and papers and giving speeches.

I don't count that as being productive.
I count that as mental masturbation.

I'm sure institutionalized philosophy does teach some philosophy that is useful and each person could do it on their own if they just thought about it a little. They definitely do in the beginning courses, I'm sure. But just as it is with this topic on school, they work like disinformation agents - give you some stuff you can use, then once you've bought into it and think they are truth prophets, they flood you with disconnected fluff and intellectual high-nose attitude.

I'm sure there are Einsteins out there who come out of philosophy programs and can link most or maybe even every last idea back to reality.

But I don't need that. And by what I identify as my main sources of inspiration and food for thought, I don't think anyone else does either.

I just watch anime.
And maybe a couple of novels every now and then.

And I think I'm pretty well off in terms of epistemology and semantics and such in basic aka useful philosophy. If I can do it, so can mos other people. It's really not that deep or hard.

It definitely isn't as lofty as the institutions paint them as.

I see it as fraud.
Psychologists think they're experimental psychologists
Experimental psychologists think they're biologists
Biologists think they're biochemists
Biochemists think they're chemists
Chemists think they're physical chemists
Physical chemists think they're physicists
Physicists think they're theoretical physicists
Theoretical physicists think they're mathematicians
Mathematicians think they're metamathematicians
Metamathematicians think they're philosophers
Philosophers think they're Gods
homework
Posts: 31
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2010 1:46:12 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/7/2010 1:34:28 PM, homework wrote:
" young people to become intellectuals who will also become old fat farts who get rich out of pretending to be productive, all the while making them cocky and useless as hell - just like they are!"

1)Why do you get to judge what's useful and what's not?
2)The median income for a P F*ING HD in philosophy is 80-90k a year. My mom makes more than that with a f*ing associates degree. Not really the lifestyle of rich old fat farts...
http://www.payscale.com...(PhD),_Philosophy/Salary
http://www.payscale.com...(PhD),_Philosophy/Salary
3) Have you ever met or red a professional philosopher? If you have, what made you think of them as cocky? And if you haven't, just what are you basing this accusation off of?

"Philosophy, from my point of view, should be useful. All knowledge should be useful. If you cannot link every single piece of knowledge directly or indirectly back to reality and your own life and what you do or can do, it is useless except for pretending that you're using it usefully, i.e. writing up books and papers and giving speeches."

You do realize people have different definitions of "useful" than you? Mayhaps useful for some isn't just useful for a job or useful as in "productive"? Useful in terms of feeding the soul, useful as in excercizing the intellect, finding a different way of thinking, is an end in itself? Why isn't finding a different way of thinking applicable to "your own life", and why isn't finding a different way of thinking "what you do or can do"? Why is it justifiable to say that your conception of "usefulness" is the brand that is okay, but those other brands are either not to be acknowledged or inferior?

"I count that as mental masturbation."

Nietzsche came to a mental meltdown cause of philosophizing, finding that the meaning of the world is total nihilism, and spent a good part of his life in an insane ward. He must have been allergic to masturbation.

"once you've bought into it and think they are truth prophets, they flood you with disconnected fluff and intellectual high-nose attitude."

disconnected from the "usefulness" you mentioned earlier? Then this point is already answered.

"intellectual high-nose attitude?" You need to clarify what this means.

"But I don't need that. And by what I identify as my main sources of inspiration and food for thought, I don't think anyone else does either.
I just watch anime.
And maybe a couple of novels every now and then."


Good for you, you get all the inspiration and food for thought u need from anime and novels, and you don't need institutional philosophy. But the problem arises when you say

"I don't think anyone else does either"

That's a strong statement. From your unique intellectual journey, you have concluded that no one else needs different resources than you on that journey? You're confident enough to say that "these inspirations and food for thought, which are enough for me, ought to be enough for anyone"? That's especially weird considering you being an anarchist. It would be like me saying "the evidence I have seen which satisfies me in proving the good intent of the government, ought to be enough evidence for anyone". It's clearly not true for you, you kept digging for more evidence. Why should it be different for "intellectuals"?

"I see it as fraud."

It would only be fraud if they lied about what they're giving you. Do you know what they they say they're giving?

Holy cow this is interesting. :D

and here are the links

payscale dot com/research/US/Degree=Doctorate_(PhD),_Philosophy/Salary

education-portal dot com/
articles/Doctor_of_Philosophy_(PhD)_in_Education:_Online_Degree.html
Psychologists think they're experimental psychologists
Experimental psychologists think they're biologists
Biologists think they're biochemists
Biochemists think they're chemists
Chemists think they're physical chemists
Physical chemists think they're physicists
Physicists think they're theoretical physicists
Theoretical physicists think they're mathematicians
Mathematicians think they're metamathematicians
Metamathematicians think they're philosophers
Philosophers think they're Gods
JBlake
Posts: 4,634
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2010 2:00:27 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Rezzealaux:

I think you may be making the mistake of assuming that everyone else's brain functions the same way that yours does. Just because you can pick up these subjects quickly, easily, and with little effort does not mean that everyone, or even most people do.
marcusbrutus
Posts: 118
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2010 2:02:53 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/7/2010 2:02:05 PM, marcusbrutus wrote:
JBlake: Who are you talking to?

nvm I see its a quote of Rezz's didn't bother to read the wall o text
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2010 3:15:20 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/7/2010 2:00:27 PM, JBlake wrote:
Rezzealaux:

I think you may be making the mistake of assuming that everyone else's brain functions the same way that yours does. Just because you can pick up these subjects quickly, easily, and with little effort does not mean that everyone, or even most people do.

Nope, it doesn't. But it sure as hell means I'll be clueless as to why not.

1)Why do you get to judge what's useful and what's not?
Why do YOU get to judge whether or not why I get to judge what's useful and what's not? If you're going to use an argument, be consistent with it. I'm not about to let you paint me as some person who thinks he's high and mighty while you're "just pointing out the reality". You're in this reality too. You don't have any more authority to judge me as you claim that I do anyone or anything else.
2)The median income for a P F*ING HD in philosophy is 80-90k a year. My mom makes more than that with a f*ing associates degree. Not really the lifestyle of rich old fat farts...
http://www.payscale.com......(PhD),_Philosophy/Salary
http://www.payscale.com......(PhD),_Philosophy/Salary
80k-90k is low? Huh. Perhaps you should move out of your philosophical closet and look around the world, or perhaps even just around the country, no, just your state, and see if people think an 80k-90k job is decent. Bay Area living standards are ridiculously expensive. It's not my fault you didn't think past them.
3) Have you ever met or red a professional philosopher? If you have, what made you think of them as cocky?
I've already answered this. They are being deliberately esoteric, using vague and complicated wording. Is it 100% certainly true? No. Do I believe that they're being intellectuals from my own experience and what I've read? Yes.

You do realize people have different definitions of "useful" than you?
"You do realize you may be wrong?" I do, but I don't think you do. I really don't mind that other people have different definitions of useful than me. It's bound to happen on absolutely every topic, if you zoom into detail enough. But I believe that at a completely arbitrary level of zoom based on a completely arbitrary standard, my definition of useful is similar enough to what most other people think it means. And by "completely arbitrary" I mean "based on my culture and experiences".

That's the difference between you and me.
You think what you believe is the truth.
I think what I believe is what I believe is the truth.

Which is why I have a cocky/aggressive act while you have on a "just curious"/intellectual one.

Mayhaps useful for some isn't just useful for a job or useful as in "productive"? Useful in terms of feeding the soul, useful as in excercizing the intellect, finding a different way of thinking, is an end in itself? Why isn't finding a different way of thinking applicable to "your own life", and why isn't finding a different way of thinking "what you do or can do"? Why is it justifiable to say that your conception of "usefulness" is the brand that is okay, but those other brands are either not to be acknowledged or inferior?
Most institutionalized philosophy runs on taxpayer money. Be spiritually productive they may well be doing, but they sure as hell aren't sharing it with their funders if they write in complicated words and syntax.

And please don't come back saying that I was lying or something when I said all these things about IP when I meant only most of them. Just because I say "Tomatoes are red" does not exclude the possibility of a green one. (Do I really need to go over such simple sh!t? Really?)

Nietzsche came to a mental meltdown cause of philosophizing, finding that the meaning of the world is total nihilism, and spent a good part of his life in an insane ward. He must have been allergic to masturbation.
More akin to "He masturbated too much so he got erectile dysfunction".

You need to clarify what this means.
You have it to some degree, so I can't. A fish can't see the water it's in.

Good for you, you get all the inspiration and food for thought u need from anime and novels, and you don't need institutional philosophy. But the problem arises when you say

"I don't think anyone else does either"

That's a strong statement. From your unique intellectual journey, you have concluded that no one else needs different resources than you on that journey? You're confident enough to say that "these inspirations and food for thought, which are enough for me, ought to be enough for anyone"?
I apologize I can't fit in smoothly everything I can possibly say on a certain topic into one post.

From my own experience and what I have observed indirectly, yes, I have concluded that most people do not need IP, and would find the things taught in there mostly fluff and useless. Many people get it from thinking about sermons, listening to songs, watching movies, and listening to old people talking. Most of mankind has got their philosophy in this way. I'm sure that most people wouldn't find IP an absolute zero benefit, they'd gain something, at least the names and people who did the same thing they did in the past - but I don't think it would be particularly useful.

And about the "anyone else" thing, I'm not going to explain myself again on what that means. When I say it, it means something totally different than what it means than from when you say it.

That's especially weird considering you being an anarchist.
Which is kind of funny, considering that you're painting me as some guy who thinks the whole world operates just as he does. We've been over this issue a thousand times. When I say "always", it's the same as your "almost always". When I say "that's not gonna happen", it's the same as your "it's probably not going to happen". When I sad "a thousand times", it's the same as your "lots of times".

Who are you to tell me what the phrase "a thousand times" means, huh?
Who the hell do you think you are?

It would be like me saying "the evidence I have seen which satisfies me in proving the good intent of the government, ought to be enough evidence for anyone". It's clearly not true for you, you kept digging for more evidence. Why should it be different for "intellectuals"?
It isn't. Everything out of my mouth is my belief. If you want to convince me otherwise, you're going to have to how me "more evidence", and not go around pointing out how I could've thought about it differently, or how my beliefs might not be justified. An unimaginably complex web of thoughts, dreams, experiences, and culture lead to each single belief. That's for everyone. At least, that's my belief.

It would only be fraud if they lied about what they're giving you. Do you know what they they say they're giving?
Who are you to tell me what fraud means?

This is why I hate pursuing semantics, god damit.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
homework
Posts: 31
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2010 8:07:07 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
This answer is way longer than I expected, so I'll use 1 post for just this 1 response.

"They are being deliberately esoteric, using vague and complicated wording. Is it 100% certainly true? No. Do I believe that they're being intellectuals from my own experience and what I've read? Yes."

Just a point of clarification, I think you might be misinterpreting the motive behind using vague, complicated wording. I also had this suspicion when I started to read Heidegger. And there's no better example of complicated wording than Heidegger.

I might be able to shed the light on the matter. Read the following explanation and explain to me why you think it's wrong, if it is at all.

When I dive into heidegger as seriously as you dive into politics, and actually begin to understand it on that depth, I found that the complex wording was due to the complexity of the theories. Sometimes, only by making up new words and coming up with unconventional sentence structures can Heidegger get to what he's really saying.
ex) Heidegger uses the word "Dasein" to substitute "human beings" without telling the reader. He does this because he does not want the reader to have any preconceptions about "human beings" in their minds when they read about "Dasein". Furthermore, he does a huge amount of analysis on a particular mode of Dasein's being, and labels his analysis and everything that went with it into 1 word, like "care", or "thrown". Hence, When Heidegger talks about "thrown-ness" and does another huge amount of analysis, readers are expected to substitute EVERYTHING that "thrown" signifies back into this new analysis.
Furthermore, sometimes philosophers does this with words analysed by OTHER authors. I.E., Heidegger could have used the word "synthetic" as defined by Kant, and all of the dozens of pages of significance that the word "synthetic" holds, and use that to do his own analysis, without any explanation except to say "in Kant's synthetic blahblahblah".

In short, these philosophers expect readers to keep up with them and know background information in an amount that would be impossible on an introductory or pre-introductory level.

Hence sentences like
"the upon-which of a primary projection in terms of which something can be conceived in its possibility as that which it is", which doesn't make ANY sense and seems like unnecesarily complex language. But if you know what a "primary projection" signifies, what a "possibility" signifies, and what "that which it is", signifies, this sentence would make perfect sense. But Heidegger isn't going to wait around and explain everything, because he presupposes that whoever's reading his stuff has the capacity to understand a sentence which only makes sense if another 30 pages of analysis (in which he talks about "primary projection", etc) are fully understood and extremely vividly remembered in every significant or insignificant detail. And understanding of those 30 pages of analysis presupposes the same process.

This also applies to the sentence
"the Being of Dasein means ahead-of-itself-Being-already-in (-the-world) as Being-alongside (-entities-encountered-within-the-world). This Being fills in the signification fo the term 'care' ". Like before, he has somewhere or another defined and analysed every single word in that sentence needed to understand it, and the fact that it has no rests (, .) means that it cannot be thought of as anything but 1 single conception. Furthermore, now, whenever he wants to say that long string of hyphens and everything that it signifies, he's just going to use the 1 word "care". Insanely condensed writing.

Heidegger could have written his book in a fashion that everyone can understand it, but then it'd be a 5000 page book, not a 500 page one. As hard as it is to remember the stuff from the beginning of a 500 pager by the time u finish the book (Taking into account stuff at the beginning of the book is used constantly), it would be damn near impossible to hold everything in your head if the book were 5000 pages.

And this doesn't mean that they're trying to keep people who don't know background in western philosophy out of the loop. That's why there are introductory philosophy books, like the broken-covered blue book called "an introduction to philosophy" which I was reading awhile back with the crazy christian. Books like that starts with writing anyone can understand, and slowly complicates it, doing the kind of condensing that Heidegger does, just much less. By the time you read Heidegger, you'll know some of the stuff he expects you to know.

These writers don't use intentional complex writing to make themselves sound smarter than they are or to confuse people. They just don't want to write 5000 page words, and don't want to go over theories that should've been covered in an introductory book, before their book was ever attempted.

It's the same as if I were hypothetically designing the best f'ing software that has ever existed or will ever exist, I don't want to have to write Karel the Robot code every single time, and I don't wanna rewrite all the header files that should've already been there before I started. I don't wanna define RandGen every f'ing time I wanna use it, I could be using it 100000 times in this program. If there's a glitch, obviously someone without comp sci training won't know what the f*ck is going on when they read the code, but that doesn't mean I was trying to confuse them.

In this very post I am presupposing that you know what Karel the Robot and C++ header files are, which you probably do considering you told me you taught urself C++. Heidegger and other philosophers just do this, x100.

And finally, to get back to institutional philosophy, that's why I think philosophy on a college level is useful in its own way. I've only to manage to understand Heidegger's book semi-functionally (like being semi-fluent in a language) by becoming familiar with the concepts he presupposes I know through the crazy christian intro book, which I only found after tons of searching, and which didn't even fit with Heidegger that well. It's not easy to find the background info yourself, and definitely not easy to find one with explanations that fit into the high-level books. But professors who've already gone through the familiarizing-with-background-info can direct and guide this searching and familiarization starting from a intro level. It's not that the intro concepts that professors teach are the "correct" ones, but they do know just which sets of intro concepts that Heidegger built his book on, and so can guide the students focus on those concepts, to understand them, not necessarily accept them.

phew.holy sh!t that was long.
Psychologists think they're experimental psychologists
Experimental psychologists think they're biologists
Biologists think they're biochemists
Biochemists think they're chemists
Chemists think they're physical chemists
Physical chemists think they're physicists
Physicists think they're theoretical physicists
Theoretical physicists think they're mathematicians
Mathematicians think they're metamathematicians
Metamathematicians think they're philosophers
Philosophers think they're Gods
homework
Posts: 31
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2010 8:41:12 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
and now for the other stuff

"Why do YOU get to judge whether or not why I get to judge what's useful and what's not? If you're going to use an argument, be consistent with it. I'm not about to let you paint me as some person who thinks he's high and mighty while you're 'just pointing out the reality'. You're in this reality too. You don't have any more authority to judge me as you claim that I do anyone or anything else."

If you haven't noticed, What I've been doing is negating your points and questioning them. I've never made an independent judgment throughout this whole thing. Alota why questions, tho. "why do you get to judge what's useful" is a question, implying you should justify why the whole host of other "usefulness" i've listed isn't useful, because they are certainly things that institutional philosophy can and do do often. In other words, why is this form of "usefulness" any less valuable than your form of usefulness? And given that other peoples sees my list of usefulness as also useful, this question also implies why their view of it as useful isn't adequate to convince you that it is useful for people (more than a few exceptions), maybe not you. I too, am not going to let u straw man me as if I were just saying "Hey, judging is bad!"

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that, to you, what I mean when I say something is almost or is as unusual and inconceivable as what you mean when you say something to me. Or at least this seems to be an instance where that's the case. But since I've had to deal with the fact that I don't know your definition on almost every significant word in our discussions, I guess it's not so mean that you didn't know what the full signification of my question was.

"80k-90k is low? Huh. Perhaps you should move out of your philosophical closet and look around the world, or perhaps even just around the country, no, just your state, and see if people think an 80k-90k job is decent. Bay Area living standards are ridiculously expensive. It's not my fault you didn't think past them."

1)"decent" is the same, or even close to "rich fat farts"?
2) Remember these people are PhD holders. Sure, a 90k job is decent to most everyone, but most everyone don't have PhD's. Is a PhD, the highest level of education offered anywhere, who can't break 100k a year, really an "old, fat fart"? Even slightly impressive, given that they have PhD's? Again, my mom with an associate's degree (basically the lowest available) makes more than 90k, and not through unconventional methods. Just got a job and stayed there. Even if it is 90k in the Bay Area, the fact that it's lowest lvl of college vs highest lvl of college still means that a PhD in philosophy's salary is far from impressive.

If you group all levels of education together without stratification and compare incomes that way, of course a PhD has higher income than a bachelors. The same is what's wrong with comparing 90k to the world. Because if we're comparing to the world, in more than half of it (developing and undeveloped countries, where people get payed cents per hr), even 10k a year would be enough to make you a "fat rich fart" x 10. The comparison loses its meaning if it's not stratified.
3) But beyond all that, I'm genuinely curious as to do you actually think that people go into philosophy to get rich? (mostly, as you would say by not saying)

"You do realize you may be wrong?" I do, but I don't think you do. I really don't mind that other people have different definitions of ...... And by "completely arbitrary" I mean "based on my culture and experiences".

This is basically what's talked about in the "why do you get to judge" discussion, the first thing I address in this post.


I think what I believe is what I believe is the truth.


That seems internally contradictory. If you don't believe anything about your beliefs except that they're your beliefs, how can those beliefs, which you believe are yours, exist in the first place? Wouldn't the creation of those beliefs which you believe you believe only be possible if you believed that those newly created beliefs are true? Or at least, you had to believe SOMETHING about your beliefs other than that they're you're beliefs. If not, it seems that it would be impossible to come up with them in the first place.

Most institutionalized philosophy runs on taxpayer money.

anyone who wants to eat food gets a job, no matter what field they go into. And that job pays taxes. And a portion of those taxes inevitably goes to the education that they got. And don't forget that there's the tuition. Just because someone who went into philosophy didn't get a career in that field doesn't mean they're not contributing back.

Be spiritually productive they may well be doing, but they sure as hell aren't sharing it with their funders if they write in complicated words and syntax.

discussed in my previous post.

And please don't come back saying that I was lying or something when I said all these things about IP when I meant only most of them. Just because I say "Tomatoes are red" does not exclude the possibility of a green one. (Do I really need to go over such simple sh!t? Really?)

Doesn't change much. If you see this view of philosophy as a rule, as you did with cops and sadists, then any exception will simply be that, an exception. It doesn't mean you any less adamantly believe in your rule. Unless I'm mistaken, we're having a discussion about the premises behind that rule, not the exceptions?

More akin to "He masturbated too much so he got erectile dysfunction".

what a n00b.

You have it to some degree, so I can't. A fish can't see the water it's in.

then we're not gonna get anywhere on this.

From my own experience and what I have observed indirectly, yes, I have concluded that most people do not need IP, and would find the things taught in there mostly fluff and useless. Many people get it from thinking about sermons, listening to songs, watching movies, and listening to old people talking. Most of mankind has got their philosophy in this way. I'm sure that most people wouldn't find IP an absolute zero benefit, they'd gain something, at least the names and people who did the same thing they did in the past - but I don't think it would be particularly useful.

That seems pretty reasonable. But isn't it a stretch to go from that to "old fat farts"? Why don't you think the exceptions to your "most people don't need it" are the ones who go into philosophy?

Which is kind of funny, considering that you're painting me as some guy who thinks ...... When I sad "a thousand times", it's the same as your "lots of times".

addressed in the "the exception doesn't disprove the principle" discussion above.

Who are you to tell me what the phrase "a thousand times" means, huh?
Who the hell do you think you are?


LOLWTF?
1) for any discussion to take place, basic definitions such as these have to be agreed to. It's not a matter of who the hell am I.
2) if I ever really had to define that phrase for you, we'd be in real big trouble. ;_;

It isn't. Everything out of my mouth is my belief........That's for everyone. At least, that's my belief.

Addressed in the "why do you get to judge" discussion. Tell me if you think it's not.

Who are you to tell me what fraud means?

ffs it's LITERALLY as if we're speaking 2 different languages.
Psychologists think they're experimental psychologists
Experimental psychologists think they're biologists
Biologists think they're biochemists
Biochemists think they're chemists
Chemists think they're physical chemists
Physical chemists think they're physicists
Physicists think they're theoretical physicists
Theoretical physicists think they're mathematicians
Mathematicians think they're metamathematicians
Metamathematicians think they're philosophers
Philosophers think they're Gods
homework
Posts: 31
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2010 8:42:03 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
lawlz overkill on my part
Psychologists think they're experimental psychologists
Experimental psychologists think they're biologists
Biologists think they're biochemists
Biochemists think they're chemists
Chemists think they're physical chemists
Physical chemists think they're physicists
Physicists think they're theoretical physicists
Theoretical physicists think they're mathematicians
Mathematicians think they're metamathematicians
Metamathematicians think they're philosophers
Philosophers think they're Gods
lastrequest691
Posts: 339
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2010 7:37:26 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
There is no such thing like Institutional Philosophy.
Institutions like Schools & Colleges only supress them.

You got to be free to become philosophical and that is only possible if there are no schools or colleges involved.

Colleges are for Losers!
"That song was absolutely waste of talent; you sounded like a wounded animal and who told you to play the guitar by yourself." Simon Cowell
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2010 7:51:24 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/8/2010 7:37:26 PM, lastrequest691 wrote:
There is no such thing like Institutional Philosophy.
Institutions like Schools & Colleges only supress them.

You got to be free to become philosophical and that is only possible if there are no schools or colleges involved.

Colleges are for Losers!

lol...

I like mine, thanks.

Teachers kind of help you a bit.. especially connecting the ideas you're having with ones other people have.

So when you read a certain thing for class, and talk about it with the teacher they can kind of reference you to further stuff....

And also from what I've seen Philosophy teachers are, for the most part, Just as interested as Arguing/discussing with you about this stuff as you are with arguing/discussing it with them.... And arguing/discussing and reading/hearing lots of philosophy really does help with polishing your own understanding of things.

I'd say if you like philosophy you'd prolly enjoy taking courses in it.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
lastrequest691
Posts: 339
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2010 7:56:18 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/8/2010 7:51:24 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 4/8/2010 7:37:26 PM, lastrequest691 wrote:
There is no such thing like Institutional Philosophy.
Institutions like Schools & Colleges only supress them.

You got to be free to become philosophical and that is only possible if there are no schools or colleges involved.

Colleges are for Losers!

lol...

I like mine, thanks.

Teachers kind of help you a bit.. especially connecting the ideas you're having with ones other people have.

So when you read a certain thing for class, and talk about it with the teacher they can kind of reference you to further stuff....

And also from what I've seen Philosophy teachers are, for the most part, Just as interested as Arguing/discussing with you about this stuff as you are with arguing/discussing it with them.... And arguing/discussing and reading/hearing lots of philosophy really does help with polishing your own understanding of things.

I'd say if you like philosophy you'd prolly enjoy taking courses in it.

I never said I had a Philosophical mind. I am too dumb to have a philosophical mind.
Teachers should know their position and stay out of our personal life. Teachers are there to teach not to tell us how to live our life. Teachers are paid to teach only and nothing else.

Teachers who get involve in a student's life is a bad teacher because teacher is there only to teach and not get himself/herself involved with the student.
"That song was absolutely waste of talent; you sounded like a wounded animal and who told you to play the guitar by yourself." Simon Cowell
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2010 7:59:06 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/8/2010 7:56:18 PM, lastrequest691 wrote:
I never said I had a Philosophical mind. I am too dumb to have a philosophical mind.
Teachers should know their position and stay out of our personal life. Teachers are there to teach not to tell us how to live our life. Teachers are paid to teach only and nothing else.

Teachers who get involve in a student's life is a bad teacher because teacher is there only to teach and not get himself/herself involved with the student.

I don't understand why you're posting on this thread.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."