Introduction to Philosophy

[tunde1992]

Have any of you guys ever taken an intro to philosophy class in college? i want to know if this is a good idea before i register for the class

[Kurieuo]

You serious? You're asking at a place like this.
Take the class! It's probably the most important subject you can take.
That is, if you treat it with serious reflection which you'll have to because you're Christian.
And even under a Christian institution, philosophy will be mentally taxing.
But you've got people here you can draw from.

[RickD]

Go for it Tunde!

[Byblos]

First make sure classical philosophy is covered and not just that new age crap. Otherwise I wouldn't bother.

[Kurieuo]

If you can to the subject at a Catholics college then you should be good to go.

[tunde1992]

It's a Community College in California, Looked up some Reviews for the Professor
http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRat ... tid=645265
Mostly great Reviews, But a few people were saying the class was mostly about her beliefs, that she does not teach objectivity , but i tend to take most internet comments lightly.

[Jac3510]

Take the class, but go into it with your guard WAY up. I bet you my bottom dollar that the vast majority of what she is going to tell you is wrong. Talk about it some here. Take one less class than you normally do so that you can spend more time studying the subject. It's a HUGELY important subject, but you need to do it some justice. Do some side reading in the class--anything by Feser is highly recommended.

If nothing else, the class will give you a chance and an excuse to look at things and ask questions that you've never considered before. Just please be careful and don't trust your professor as a guide on this subject. As harsh as it may sound, consider her a devil, an enemy. Someone who raises questions and gives you the wrong answers and it's your job to come up with the right answers.

Good luck!

[tunde1992]

First class was today, it was decent enough, at least at the beginning. the syllabus highlighted the basic topics, one of them though said to understand why the problem of evil presents a challenge to western theology, i personally didn't think it did.
The major topic was epistemology and it very much leaned on skepticism about what people can know ,the class was about a group of 99 or so .about the last hour was talking about dreams ,many of the students sharing their dreams ,with the summary being that we cannot know for sure what is real and not, or about whether our outside world or other people are real ,etc.

what i don't seem to understand is why it feels as if the existence of self, objects, and the outside world must be questioned and be unsure about in order to feel "philosophical" , i refrained from participating at least for today, just to have feel of the class ,and did not want to embarrass myself as i had no formal training on philosophy. decent class overall, i was expecting much worse.
PS : apparently we talk about philosophy of religion closer to the end of the semester, there's a page assigned to paley and dawkins, i thought dawkins was a biologist?

Course objectives/Student Learning Outcomes
As described in the official course objective and outcomes, upon completion of philosophy 70, students will be able to :articulate and critique epistemological theories of rationalism, Empiricism, and Epistemological Synthesis; outline the problem of Evil and examine why it presents a problem to western theology; and appraise an ethical dilemma and design a strategy with which to solve the dilemma

Academic Freedom :

In the interest of Academic Freedom, i generally will not restrict the expression of ideas--or the language used to express those ideas--in the classroom as long as it is pertinent to the learning process and objectives of the course. if you're easily offended by language or by ideas that are in conflict with your personal worldview you may be happier taking this course with another professor. i reserve the right to silence "hate speech" and attacks toward other students.

[theophilus]

one of them though said to understand why the problem of evil presents a challenge to western theology, i personally didn't think it did.

You might have an opportunity to bring up the Bible's explanation for the problem in class discussions about the subject. Nothing happens by chance. God had a purpose in leading you to take the class. Perhaps he wants you to show the other students how the Bible sheds light on philosophical problems.

i refrained from participating at least for today, just to have feel of the class ,and did not want to embarrass myself as i had no formal training on philosophy.

Since it is an introductory class it is likely that the other students don't either. Still, it is usually a good idea to learn something about what others believe before you try to engage them in discussions.

PS : apparently we talk about philosophy of religion closer to the end of the semester, there's a page assigned to paley and dawkins, i thought dawkins was a biologist?

Perhaps he is a biologist but his fame rests on his atheism and his hostility toward God.

[Kurieuo]

*sigh*
Sounds like you'll have a few people doing the class from their IB theory of knowledge.
The topic is one that you must respond to right? Like it isn't just being presumed that the problem of evil presents a challenge to western theology? I mean even if it is, that's not saying it's a nail in the coffin. Indeed, it is a challenge. It's the one Positive Atheism makes. So if you were writing a paper, you could give them what they want eloquently quoting this and that Atheistic philosopher who makes this and that argument. And then, in the second half of your paper you'd just knock em all on the head, using logical arguments and this or that Theistic response.

If you haven't got it, you really should get a copy of Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview by Craig and Moreland. You should think through issues yourself first. Think through challenges. And then if you really feel challenged, take a read of an appropriate chapter in this book. You'll just need a balancing weight. It'll help reduce your personal stress.

First class was today, it was decent enough, at least at the beginning. the syllabus highlighted the basic topics, one of them though said to understand why the problem of evil presents a challenge to western theology, i personally didn't think it did.
The major topic was epistemology and it very much leaned on skepticism about what people can know ,the class was about a group of 99 or so .about the last hour was talking about dreams ,many of the students sharing their dreams ,with the summary being that we cannot know for sure what is real and not, or about whether our outside world or other people are real ,etc.

what i don't seem to understand is why it feels as if the existence of self, objects, and the outside world must be questioned and be unsure about in order to feel "philosophical" , i refrained from participating at least for today, just to have feel of the class ,and did not want to embarrass myself as i had no formal training on philosophy. decent class overall, i was expecting much worse.

I never opened my mouth, unless I had a serious question or probe.
Or, if the class was discussing some units of work, and something I really really had a burning piece to say, I'd speak it or dialogue.
My lecturer though was very understanding and encourages such. Yours is secular and so I'd remain a lot more tight lipped in class.
And then just silently do my work and respond in assignments etc with my opinion.

PS : apparently we talk about philosophy of religion closer to the end of the semester, there's a page assigned to paley and dawkins, i thought dawkins was a biologist?

To me, it doesn't sound like it'll go very deep at all.
Dawkins doesn't do philosophy well at all. He's not respected on either side.
Even calls philosophy stupid. So you might want some of his anti-philosophy quotes.

Course objectives/Student Learning Outcomes
As described in the official course objective and outcomes, upon completion of philosophy 70, students will be able to :articulate and critique epistemological theories of rationalism, Empiricism, and Epistemological Synthesis; outline the problem of Evil and examine why it presents a problem to western theology; and appraise an ethical dilemma and design a strategy with which to solve the dilemma

Do you know if the course was developed by the college, or is it taking it's objectives and learning outcomes from an external programme?
Sounds like a classical brainwash class. You're not going to enjoy it.

Academic Freedom :

In the interest of Academic Freedom, i generally will not restrict the expression of ideas--or the language used to express those ideas--in the classroom as long as it is pertinent to the learning process and objectives of the course. if you're easily offended by language or by ideas that are in conflict with your personal worldview you may be happier taking this course with another professor. i reserve the right to silence "hate speech" and attacks toward other students.

Academic freedom in a cloak.
Free for all except those who truly dare to think differently.

Good luck! Please keep us posted. You'll need a lot of encouragement, because it sounds like much is just going to be assumed. Everyone will just nod and chuckle or the like. BUT, know it's not philosophy being done, but brainwashing. Issues should always be put on the table neutrally and from what you posts it doesn't look that is happening at all.

[tunde1992]

2nd day, Talked about Plato, mostly his theory of forms and such , seemed to be some general confusion, on one note though, there was a very short talk something about string theory proving something about people being one conscious, but i probably misheard. and I'm sure it won't interfere with the class objectively, a few students got confused and might have dismissed Plato's theory of forms as mere sophist talk. she seemed to dismiss the middle ages, made some joke about scripture , and moved to Descartes, emphasizing ,that no one before him had proven the existence of self"

PS : i haven't posted in a few days , wanted to buy her book first.

fakeedit : now I'm confused about her beliefs, i think she's a materialist. I'm not sure. read near the end of her book, the mind-body problem.
"The First Thesis i want to advanced toward "solving the mind body problem " is this : mental phenomena, all of them, whether conscious or unconscious ,visual or auditory, pains tickles, itches,though, indeed all of our mental life, are caused by processes going on in the brain".

her book, Introduction to Philosophy, by Barbara King, goes on into brain processes and such , at the end , it says
"on my view, the mind and body interact, but they are not two different things , since mental phenomena just are features of the brain. one way to characterize this position is to see it as an assertion of both physical ism and mental ism, suppose we define "naive physical ism" to be the view that all that exists in the world are physical particles with their properties and relations. the power of the physical model of reality is so great that it is hard to see how we can seriously challenge naive physical-ism. and let us define "naive mental ism" to be the view that mental phenomena eally exist.she then goes on to say they are perfectly consistent with each other and are both true"

there are also plenty of other interesting things in her book, for example how she says one has to deny God's omnipotence, benevolence or that evil does not exist to solve the problem of evil.















PS : http://thebreezeonline.com/2011/12/07/p ... d-journey/

[Kurieuo]

Get Thomas Nagel's book, Mind and Cosmos.
I'm sure she'll love that.