Philosophy (3 Viewers)

[Zarathustra]

Very few philosophy graduates become lecturers (obviously) but quite a few become non-academic philosophers (aka welfare recipients ) - it's mostly valued for broadening your thought (as mentioned by leiara) - and being able to think logically and express yourself well - it is a very handy course to do for all sorts of jobs.

 

[Jase]

Nietzsche is cool. One of the greatest satisfactions is trying to spell his name and getting it right without looking.
.. i agree with most of his views about Christianity and Jesus, especially from "the antichrist", (although mabye not to such a cycnical degree) and some of the ideas on the Will to Power.
I dont know much about zarathustra/zoroaster though. or much else, too much to read.

and theres also Kant and some metaphysics every now and then..

When does an object exist and cease to exist?

 

[troubleddreamer]

i did a philosophy course this year. mind and morality at sydney uni. well worth it as a summer school course.

it covers morals and ethics. and also what is mind, body, and do you need both to exist. it covered artificial intelligence as well.

 

[gordo]

i have created my own theory called meyerism

its very in my head atm, but this is wat i could put down on paper. the main idea is there etc

comments please, feel free to extrapolate on wat i have laid the foundations for

 

[empty.lightness]

the meyerism sounds interesting...sounds reminiscent of what we learnt in history today: the subjectivity aspects... did you do a thesis for extension history or something?

it's an interesting concept: history does not actually exist, it is created by people. although.. that doesn't quite fit into meyerism.. but.. anyway

i think.. philosophy (as a studied course) is too scientific sometimes. literature(as in, novels, poetry and blah blah) and art come closer than the scientific and methodical formulations of philosophy in trying to describe existence.

i went to a philosophy lecture in the holidays and they discussed the essentialism of art. but it was so.. utterly.... seemingly... pointless. it seemed like they were applying a whole heap of jargon to a concept that could be easily explained and discussed without fanciness.. .. that's just if you philosophy is formally studied though..

 

[lengstar]

art is an important aspect of history though as well as understanding the artist.

 

[AsyLum]

Essay

Comments

Could someone have a read of the essay and then have a look at the comments of the tutor and tell me if you agree or disagree, i really need to find out cos im thinking of disputing it and some sections i thought seemed rather easy to understand so thanks .

 

[gordo]

sometimes the tutor doesn't understand the essay

 

[Sheehan :)]

Death is a night between 2 days

 

[dark_angel]

what is the 'self'

 

[paganinio]

existentialism is pretty interesting,
what are peoples thoughts on it?

my uncle asked me not to read it before about the age of 18

 

[haboozin]

The ultimate question:

WHY?



(your brains should soon explode)
(unless you're just confused)

Ultimate answer:

WHY NOT?

 

[Slidey]

How can we know that you and I think the same? Just because we act the same sosn't mean that you and I are thinking in the sae way.
So how can I know that you really think at all?

Since, IMHO, it's pretty obvious we all think differently, I'll expand on that.

How do you and I know that when we both see a house, and say "that is a house", that we are truly seeing the same house?

That's a simplistic example. A more complex one would be the discussion of clouds in the sky. At first we clearly don't see the same thing as the person who points to a cloud and says "That is a man with a walking stick", but then almost immediately, or perhaps after a short time, we go "Ahh, yes, I see it now!". That, too me, seems a GREAT extrapolation of available evidence (objectively, and on the scale of the amount of information processed to come to such a conclusion), and yet we presume we are always correct.

Meh. I've forgotten many of my oldest thoughts on philosophy and psychology. I hope to rekindle them at uni by taking PHIL and PSYCH courses.

 

[Kierkegaard]

I spent more time studying philosophy than I did studying my school subjects. Collecting second-hand copies of papers by Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, Kant, Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, Wittgenstein, Russell, Quine and many others; I'm a veritable philosophy nut.

I plan to study a BA/BSc with majors in Mathematics, Physics, Philosophy and a minor in either a language or Political Science. Philosophy is the grounding upon which science grew. I plan to focus mainly on Logic and Philosophy of Science (I'm far too scientific to study Derrida and other postmodern crap) with a view to getting into intelligence, a think tank or academia.

 

[Slidey]

Postmodern crap is correct. You should read "Corrupting the Youth".

I want to major in mathematics, but also study psychology (especially education), philosophy and Latin. But I figure I'm screwed because I don't want to do a BA.

 

[deusexmachina]

I spent more time studying philosophy than I did studying my school subjects. Collecting second-hand copies of papers by Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, Kant, Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, Wittgenstein, Russell, Quine and many others; I'm a veritable philosophy nut.

I plan to study a BA/BSc with majors in Mathematics, Physics, Philosophy and a minor in either a language or Political Science. Philosophy is the grounding upon which science grew. I plan to focus mainly on Logic and Philosophy of Science (I'm far too scientific to study Derrida and other postmodern crap) with a view to getting into intelligence, a think tank or academia.

Of course, Kierkegaard. Except that a large amount of modern philosophy of science is, in fact, postmodern. You don't have to read Derrida (because it's a real pain), but you do need to know dominant trends in intellectual thought: much like reading a newspaper, keeping up to date is important no matter your specific academic interests.

Oh, in terms of think-tanks, check out the Australia Institute (www.tai.org.au); it's at the ANU.

 

[Cyan_phoeniX]

Say if we ever manage to invent teleporters, which teleport people across places. How would we ever know that 'you' are teleported across and the result is still the 'you.'? What if that when we teleport, the 'us' matter is distintegrated and a clone of you appears on the other end? A clone that is not you, but a replicate. Everyone wouldnt know the difference, although 'you' would be dead..

just a random thought.. me sleepy.

 

[Kierkegaard]

It depends, are you a materialist, dualist, phenomenologist or just plain confused.

It could be that what you now see as being you is in fact not you.

 

[Slidey]

If they ever do manage to make teleportation, it will recreate you. This is because matter cannot be teleported - only information can (not to be confused with energy, which can be converted to matter). If perhaps you had two machines, one which sent your spin information and one which decoded it, maybe we could be recreated at a different location.

Either way, it's not going to be the same you, atomically.

 

[sladehk]

so basically they copy your data, then at the other side, recreate you. what if the data is corrupted? = dead!