My Core 10 (Intro to philosophy) class is going QUITE well, thank you very much, as this professor isn't on serious drugs...
But some of the other students are... are.... *sighs*
Example:
Argument: 1. If there is evil in the world, then God (classicly all good, all powerful) does not exist.
2. There is evil in the world.
3. Therefore, God does not exist.
Student: But that's not true!
Professor: Which part?
Student: The first part!
Professor: Why?
Student: (I swear she was whining) Because God does exist!
Way to insult people who disagree with you. I wouldn't say "that's not true because there's no such thing as God" to an argument. That's rude. Not to mention stupid, really, but let's get back to the word rude. You're supposed to say "I believe" before statements about things that cannot be proven. That way you aren't offending anybody. Even if you think you're completely, totally, without-a-doubt correct, you Don't Do It.
Another student, after hearing Aquinas' argument about first causes (every thing that has a cause must be caused by something else, every caused cause can't be its own cause, if you don't have a first cause the whole system collapses, the first cause is god, therefore god exists) kept arguing that it's wrong (factually, not ethically) to call God a cause because even though God caused everything, he's still not a cause. At all. I'm still trying to figure that one out.
But some of the other students are... are.... *sighs*
Example:
Argument: 1. If there is evil in the world, then God (classicly all good, all powerful) does not exist.
2. There is evil in the world.
3. Therefore, God does not exist.
Student: But that's not true!
Professor: Which part?
Student: The first part!
Professor: Why?
Student: (I swear she was whining) Because God does exist!
Way to insult people who disagree with you. I wouldn't say "that's not true because there's no such thing as God" to an argument. That's rude. Not to mention stupid, really, but let's get back to the word rude. You're supposed to say "I believe" before statements about things that cannot be proven. That way you aren't offending anybody. Even if you think you're completely, totally, without-a-doubt correct, you Don't Do It.
Another student, after hearing Aquinas' argument about first causes (every thing that has a cause must be caused by something else, every caused cause can't be its own cause, if you don't have a first cause the whole system collapses, the first cause is god, therefore god exists) kept arguing that it's wrong (factually, not ethically) to call God a cause because even though God caused everything, he's still not a cause. At all. I'm still trying to figure that one out.
no subject
Date: 2004-07-21 07:03 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-07-21 07:15 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-07-21 07:44 am (UTC)...um...?
Is there some kind of not-being-able-to-read-the-dictionary agent in the water these days?
no subject
Date: 2004-07-21 08:04 am (UTC)If evil exists, and we recognise it as evil, then we must recognise its opposite concept, good must exist. Good and evil are a binarism - without one, the other is meaningless. Now I know the argument wasn't saying that *good* doesn't exist, just that God doesn't exist because he's all good (though I would add that that is a very Western perception of God.) I dunno, I haven't formulated this argument very well (but then, I've never taken philosophy, and I'm eating whilst I type.) My basic point is that I don't think you can disprove the existance of God or a god based on the existance of evil. And that's what the girl should have done, instead of countering the argument with an unbacked statement.
no subject
Date: 2004-07-21 08:05 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-07-21 10:13 am (UTC)We're not talking about God here you stupid douche, we're talking about how you would apply different moral theories to the issues at hand. If you can't even handle that simple a concept, don't bother taking a philosophy class! [/bitter rant]
no subject
Date: 2004-07-21 12:21 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-07-21 12:21 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-07-21 12:22 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-07-21 12:22 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-07-21 12:49 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-07-21 03:11 pm (UTC)As it happens, I don't believe in the existance of evil, but that's another kettle of fish entirely *shrugs*
But I do believe in binary opposition, so I believe that without up we can't have down and so on (go, try and imagine understanding the up without having the concept of down.)
no subject
Date: 2004-07-21 04:41 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-07-21 05:08 pm (UTC)Bear in mind that I've never gone anywhere near philosophy, psychology, any of that - history is my social science of choice. What I'm doing here is applying a concept that is used in film theory that I am vaguely aware is used elsewhere (and I can see if fitting elsewhere.)
no subject
Date: 2004-07-21 10:17 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-07-22 03:25 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-07-21 07:03 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-07-21 07:15 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-07-21 07:44 am (UTC)...um...?
Is there some kind of not-being-able-to-read-the-dictionary agent in the water these days?
no subject
Date: 2004-07-21 08:04 am (UTC)If evil exists, and we recognise it as evil, then we must recognise its opposite concept, good must exist. Good and evil are a binarism - without one, the other is meaningless. Now I know the argument wasn't saying that *good* doesn't exist, just that God doesn't exist because he's all good (though I would add that that is a very Western perception of God.) I dunno, I haven't formulated this argument very well (but then, I've never taken philosophy, and I'm eating whilst I type.) My basic point is that I don't think you can disprove the existance of God or a god based on the existance of evil. And that's what the girl should have done, instead of countering the argument with an unbacked statement.
no subject
Date: 2004-07-21 08:05 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-07-21 10:13 am (UTC)We're not talking about God here you stupid douche, we're talking about how you would apply different moral theories to the issues at hand. If you can't even handle that simple a concept, don't bother taking a philosophy class! [/bitter rant]
no subject
Date: 2004-07-21 12:21 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-07-21 12:21 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-07-21 12:22 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-07-21 12:22 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-07-21 12:49 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-07-21 03:11 pm (UTC)As it happens, I don't believe in the existance of evil, but that's another kettle of fish entirely *shrugs*
But I do believe in binary opposition, so I believe that without up we can't have down and so on (go, try and imagine understanding the up without having the concept of down.)
no subject
Date: 2004-07-21 04:41 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-07-21 05:08 pm (UTC)Bear in mind that I've never gone anywhere near philosophy, psychology, any of that - history is my social science of choice. What I'm doing here is applying a concept that is used in film theory that I am vaguely aware is used elsewhere (and I can see if fitting elsewhere.)
no subject
Date: 2004-07-21 10:17 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-07-22 03:25 am (UTC)