Up@dawn 2.0

Thursday, November 7, 2013

Philosoraptors 11/6

Yesterday Dr. Oliver sat in on our group's discussion and we debated the question of "Can anyone be a philosopher?" which then turned into the debate between what makes a good philosopher and a bad one. It was an interesting debate and I believe I was the only one who didn't agree. Then we heard the other group having an excited discussion about off-brand candy bars and I think they concluded that there was no such thing. Don't forget about the Lyceum on Friday at 5:00 pm in the COE! I think it will be interesting and I'm going to try to be there (given I don't get called into work). I hope you all have a wonderful rest of the week/weekend! See you Monday!


  1. I would agree that everyone can be a philosopher.

  2. It sounds like I missed an interesting discussion. How...saddening.

    FQ (PB pg. 169): What philosophical parallel between Kierkegaard and Socrates?
    Socrates believed that people assumed to have knowledge and then do not continue to seek it, and Kierkegaard believed that people assume to be Christians without bothering with becoming a Christian.

    DQ: What do you believe is the fundamental reason behind why Communism, as outlined by Marx, cannot succeed? (Based simply on the philosophy itself without citing any historical examples.)

    1. Forgot my link to the book Animal Farm by George Orwell, which is all analogous to Bolshevik Revolution and Stalin's Russia. It applies because we were talking about communism. http://www.amazon.com/Animal-Farm-George-Orwell/dp/0451526341

  3. FQ: Which philosopher went by numerous aliases, such as Johannes de Silentio and Victor Eremita, when he published his works as a means of getting the reader to become more invested in the character's opinion and side? (pg. 155)
    - Kierkegaard

    DQ: Marx presented the idea that the working class (proletariat) was "destined" to take over, even if it meant violent bloodshed and revolution, and that they should unite to overthrown capitalism, since they "had nothing to lose but their chains." Is this necessarily a true sentiment? Would they have more to lose than just their jobs and livelihood?

  4. FQ: Who wrote a margin of hope? Irving Howe (AP 215)

    DQ:Are critics necessary to better something? If there were no critics would people in a certain entertainment or public relations field, still try to better their show or profession? Do you think it is as difficult to critic something as it would be to actually do the performance?

    Link: Heres an interesting video of why criticism is important in our culture.