Also, we discussed how in philosophy you have to be open to other ideas. Yes, you may have your own beliefs decided before you walked into the classroom, but you need to be able to listen to other people’s ideas. Other people may have ideas that you never even thought about before, and you might actually take those ideas into consideration the next time you think about your beliefs.
Then, our final discussion was a major point in our group. We discussed whether college is the place where he or she strays from the beliefs of their parents now that they are in a diverse and more open environment.
Evan Lester
Section H1
Group 4 (Name Pending!)
Discussion
Question:
Do you think you will hold true to your philosophical ideas that you learned
from your parents or guardians as a child/teenager when you are at college? If
not, then why did you decide to change? Do you plan to change?
Factual Question:
Q:
Who in Philosophy Bites had the idea
that “Philosophy is the name we give to a collection of questions which are of
deep interest to us and for which there isn’t any specialist way of
answering.”?
A:
Paul Snowdon
I
believe this link provides some interesting information on how we believe in an
idea and turn it into a fact in our lives. Also, it provides information about
how we evaluate everything in our lives. This is something that some of us may
have to work on (including myself!). As stated in the summary, we will have to
be open in philosophy, even though we already have our beliefs. There are other
parts to this article if you are interested to read those as well.
As a floater, with my time with this group, we discussed whether philosophical statements (made by philosophers) are facts or opinions. Specifically whether or not these people making these statement believe that it is true for only themselves or all humanity blanketed. Do they believe that their statements are a fact of nature or an opinion of nature.
ReplyDeleteMichele, I like your comment. I've thought about that too, whether philosophical ideas operate as laws (much like scientific laws) or if they are applicable only to specific situations (and vary in another situation). I suppose it would have to depend upon the philosophical idea in question, but it's something I want to keep in mind as we read more this semester.
ReplyDeleteI guess one of the great things about philosophy is that it's so fluid in the ways it can be applied and redirected, as opposed to science, which is usually a bit more rigid and immovable in comparison.
DeleteI think this is going to be a very interesting class indeed.
An interesting topic today was how philosophy is something more of a personal endeavor than a public goal. In a sense, it is public in that, as a people, we all strive to find meaning. However, we all are unique; therefore, our perceptions are unique. Even if two people share the same perspective, there will always be a difference, however minute, in the way they view the object/idea of that belief.
ReplyDeleteWe also talked about cycles of belief; how one can go through a phase in their life believing one thing, and then choose to believe another thing, then another thing, and so on. I agree with Dr. Oliver's assessment that flip-flopping for the sake of change and flip-flopping due to persuasive new information are two different things, and that the latter has more meaning than the former (I think that is where he was going with it, and if not, I apologize — that is, however, my take on it).
I guess if one believes there is nothing to live for, there is no point in believing only one thing his whole life; why not try out many different things? On the contrary, I believe there is something after death, and I strive to act on those beliefs. I believe there is eternity after life, that there is Heaven and there is hell. That is why I follow Jesus Christ, who wants me to live for Him on earth so I can spend that eternity with Him in Heaven. It just goes back to where we think we are going when we die. I think that helps form the basis of what we will believe during our short time on this planet.
DQ: Do you think that two contradictory views can still be true?
FQ: Who is the author of A Theory of Justice and is perhaps one of the most influential political philosophers?
Link: http://www.philosophynews.com/post/2013/01/03/The-Limits-of-Free-Speech.aspx
Interesting article about responsibly using our right to free speech.
Keaton H1 Group 4
" ...flip-flopping for the sake of change and flip-flopping due to persuasive new information are two different things..."
DeleteThis quote reminded me of something C. S. Lewis said in The Screwtape Letters that demons had managed to accomplish in modern (1940's for him) culture: namely, that human nature is to enjoy both change and permanence throughout life, but that demons had influenced people to possess nothing less than a "demand for absolute novelty" (136). Many people in our culture today appear to do just that, abandoning positions, ideas, or people (relationships), solely for the sake of experiencing new things and not becoming bored with life. I do not think that instant gratification caused by the internet and mass communication has helped, as people cannot stand being bored or having nothing to do for extended periods of time.
Lewis, C. S. The Screwtape Letters. New York: HarperCollins, 1942. Print.
(ISBN: 978-0-06-065293-7)
Mason Riley
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteNate and Michele, in response to whether the statements made by philosophers are true and similar to scientific laws, I should think not. In my Biology class right now, we're talking about how theories and laws are never absolute (I think we touched on this is Astro last semester, too). "Scientific law" implies a group of observations to which no exceptions have been found. I think both philosophically and scientifically, it's just a matter of working with what you have been given and continuing to test your idea (or hypothesis) until you find an exception. And then you altar your idea or belief and start over. This is probably a lot easier in sciences like Biology, because they deal with the tangible whereas Philosophy works with concepts, beliefs, and ideas.
ReplyDeleteI also think it definitely varies between situations and the concepts you're debating. Perhaps I am wrong, but it seems unlikely you would use the same reasoning when discussing the philosophy of language that you would use when discussing the death penalty. I believe it probably varies depending on the "weight" of a concept. But I might be wrong. :)
There is no right answer. I feel like that really explains a lot of what we were talking about. The definitions from the reading were not really consistent. While they did sometimes focus on the same thing, no two were alike. Everyone views things with a different perspective. You can think of philosophical ideas as facts or opinions, but you will never know what the truth is. I feel like we always look for right answers, so when there is none, it is a bit overwhelming. On top of that, there are so many different viewpoints and ideas. It forces you to really think for yourself. In college, you are exposed to all of these new things. Examining different viewpoints helps you determine what you really believe. Are any of the beliefs less factual? Is it fact or is it opinion? That is kind of difficult to grasp. It all depends on how you approach the question. I feel like something can be fact and opinion at the same time, which is why I think two contradictory views can still be true. If there is no way to prove either one is right, then both are still true. You cannot refute on over the other. Then again, you cannot view everything this way. It is kind of like what we learned in astronomy: everything is correct in an infinite world.
ReplyDelete(DQ) Where do you draw the line between fact and opinion while still respecting someone’s beliefs? How do reason something so broad?
(FQ) According to Julian Savulescu, you need a good balance between what two things in regards to ethical discourse?
As the floater, I was able to gain a consensus of what each of the groups was discussing. Whether or not philosophy operates as law or opinion was a topic brought up in 3/4 of the groups. A law is something that yields the same results every time. It’s irrefutable, and it is always right. Considering every philosopher in this section had a different view on what exactly their profession is, I don’t think philosophy in the general definition is a law. However, I think that each individual person’s views (their opinion), is adapted to what they believe is the truth. Whether it is religion, or beliefs, or an idea of how the world is meant to operate. That truth, to each individual, is valued highly by them. (Does this make sense? In some ways people’s beliefs/religions/ideas are regarded as always being right aka law) As we meet new people, what we think can be altered, or we can feel more confident in our own thoughts.
ReplyDeleteDQ: How can meeting new people affect your views & beliefs in a way that changes your beliefs/views? In a way that strengthens your beliefs/views?
FQ: Which philosopher believes that “philosophy is critical thinking about issues that deal with man and the world and their role in the world?”
ANSWER: Thomas Hurka
I found our discussion to be very interesting. My idea of philosophy has already broadened quite a bit. As of right now, my definition of philosophy would have to be thinking critically about questions that have no definite answer. It's hard for us to be surrounded by so many issues that really can't be solved. Like we talked about in our group, we can search our entire lives for those answers but we will never be able to find them. I think Keaton mentioned that he believes there is an absolute truth and humans are constantly seeking that. I agree.
ReplyDeleteI think Mason brought in the idea that no boundaries set up personal boundaries. I really liked that. We can't know the truth completely causing people to choose it for themselves and decide whether or not to believe one thing and then follow that. Humanity is so diverse. Which reminds me of another point that Dr. Oliver made in our group: when sharing your beliefs with others, there has to be an equal exchange. He was sharing his experience with Christians who believed they were superior because of their belief. As a Christian, this broke my heart because I don't want other people to view all Christians in that way. But I have definitely seen it first-hand. I believe there can be absolutely no harm in listening to differing viewpoints. Even if you believe the other person is completely wrong, you can use that to strengthen your personal beliefs.
DQ: What is your own personal reason for why you seek the truth knowing you can never know for sure?
DQ: What ethical issues cause you to have a "Yuk!" response? Why?
FQ: What philosopher said "But ethics is not just emotions: at some point we have to stand above them and critically reflect?"
- Julian Savulescu
Erin Paul
Thought this was interesting!
ReplyDeletehttp://dictionary.reference.com/browse/philosophy?s=t