Here are the URLs I have received for student blogs from PHL201 "Overview of Philosophy" at the Pennsylvania College of Art & Design:
Tiffany Anderson's http:/tiffanyatPCAD.blogspot.com
Alyssa Bristol's http://introtophilosophyalykbri.blogspot.com
Sarah Combs', http://brainmeanderings.blogspot.com
Matthew Doyle's http://findphilosophy.blogspot.com
Nicole Ferree's http://nfphilosophy.blogspot.comChad Hake's http://chadhakephilosophy.blogspot.comTiara Iandiorio's http://tphiloblog.blogspot.com
Robert Kelser's http://philth-osophy.blogspot.com
Keith Kreisel's http://philasophia.blogspot.com
Heather Lennon's http://lastAtempt.blogspot.com
Brittany Luckey's http://blockoffyo.blogspot.com
Jordan Martin's http://JordanWMartinPhilosophy.blogspot.com
Ismael Padilla's http://numbphilosophy.blogspot.com
Jospeh Palumbo's http://paljos.blogspot.com
Heather Rohrman's http://HeathersPhilosophyBlogs.blogspot.com
JiNa Song's http://sjn-Philosaphy.blogspot.com
Briget Stanley's http://sakurakaijuu.blogspot.com
Colin Zerbe's http://untitled123465.blogspot.com
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
Some Issues to Consider
In our class session on Thursday 4 October 2007, I asked for a listing of the most important matters we should examine in the next two weeks.
The answers included:
considering opinions on the "multiverse" versus the "universe"
going over stuff
reviewing terms
examining different schools of thought
considering whether thoughts exist, what deja vu is
discuss philosophers
discuss the concept of "facts"
discuss the distinction between eastern and Western philosophies
The first is a matter of cosmology, an example of a problem of metaphysics. Any questions surrounding the ultimate nature of reality fall into this category.
"Examining different schools of thought" is certainly a traditional way of approaching an overview to philosophy. Any given school of philosophy or individual philosopher's examination includes some degree of consideration of every major field of philosophy: epistemology, logic, axiology, and metaphysics; however, each school or philosopher places a different emphasis on these fields. For example, Socrates was very strong in the examination of ethics and epistemology; he employed the rules of logic, but was not particularly engaged in the study of logic; he was very little interested in metaphysics. Spinoza, by contrast, was much interested in metaphysics, but rather less in the other areas. Kant planned to give an even treatment to all of the areas. His specialty in a way was logic, but he is famous for his "Critique of Pure Reason", which is both epistemology and metaphysics.
Discussing philosophers and the difference between Eastern and Western philosophies, also, is traditional in a overview course. It's useful to the formulation of our own philosophies to consider those of others. We will devote some effort to this in the second half of the course.
The answers included:
considering opinions on the "multiverse" versus the "universe"
going over stuff
reviewing terms
examining different schools of thought
considering whether thoughts exist, what deja vu is
discuss philosophers
discuss the concept of "facts"
discuss the distinction between eastern and Western philosophies
The first is a matter of cosmology, an example of a problem of metaphysics. Any questions surrounding the ultimate nature of reality fall into this category.
"Examining different schools of thought" is certainly a traditional way of approaching an overview to philosophy. Any given school of philosophy or individual philosopher's examination includes some degree of consideration of every major field of philosophy: epistemology, logic, axiology, and metaphysics; however, each school or philosopher places a different emphasis on these fields. For example, Socrates was very strong in the examination of ethics and epistemology; he employed the rules of logic, but was not particularly engaged in the study of logic; he was very little interested in metaphysics. Spinoza, by contrast, was much interested in metaphysics, but rather less in the other areas. Kant planned to give an even treatment to all of the areas. His specialty in a way was logic, but he is famous for his "Critique of Pure Reason", which is both epistemology and metaphysics.
Discussing philosophers and the difference between Eastern and Western philosophies, also, is traditional in a overview course. It's useful to the formulation of our own philosophies to consider those of others. We will devote some effort to this in the second half of the course.
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
11 ix 07: Patriot Day
Well, we are a week into "Overview of Philosophy", and so far I am pleased with the progress of the course. Unusually for me, I have chosen not to require any texts for this course. Instead, the students are asked to contemplate and research on their own, with minimal reference to existing schools of thought (unless individual students happen to be participants in some school or other).
What I find excellent about these classes is that most of the students are engaged. I am striving mightily -- I don't know how much the students grasp the strain I am experiencing -- NOT to give answers, although surely we are at a point in the process where I could give answers, and perfectly good ones, too. Rather, I hope to be a light guide to the students' own discovery and organization.
I must resign myself in this to the notion that we will not "cover" much. But in respect of gaining technical skills and experience in thinking clearly, so far this course is promising.
Our first class sessions have been spent in the business of defining philosophy as a subject field. "What is philosophy?" I asked. "What will we be studying in this course?" The basic answer we reached for that is that philosophy is the business of asking questions -- but the questions philosophy raises are of a special sort. Questions may be "philosophical", that is, those raised in a philosophical context, or "non-philosophical".
I asked students to prepare lists of philosophical questions. We then examined these questions, first, to determine whether we agreed generally as to the sort of questions which are "philosophical", and second, to determine what commonalities those questions demonstrate. We considered both philosophical questions and "non-philosophical questions".
Non-philosophical questions, we concluded, are those which admit to answers, even if we do not know the answers ourselves. Furthermore, the answers of non-philosophical questions are fact.
Philosophical questions point to further questions, because the answers one gains to philosophical questions are "debatable", founded in values and principles, not always in observed phenomena...
So, we find that philosophy is "about" philosophical questioning, and philosophical questioning is questioning which leads to further questioning. But what is the "point" of this? Why engage in philosophy? Where does philosophy lead?
These are the questions we must engage next.
What I find excellent about these classes is that most of the students are engaged. I am striving mightily -- I don't know how much the students grasp the strain I am experiencing -- NOT to give answers, although surely we are at a point in the process where I could give answers, and perfectly good ones, too. Rather, I hope to be a light guide to the students' own discovery and organization.
I must resign myself in this to the notion that we will not "cover" much. But in respect of gaining technical skills and experience in thinking clearly, so far this course is promising.
Our first class sessions have been spent in the business of defining philosophy as a subject field. "What is philosophy?" I asked. "What will we be studying in this course?" The basic answer we reached for that is that philosophy is the business of asking questions -- but the questions philosophy raises are of a special sort. Questions may be "philosophical", that is, those raised in a philosophical context, or "non-philosophical".
I asked students to prepare lists of philosophical questions. We then examined these questions, first, to determine whether we agreed generally as to the sort of questions which are "philosophical", and second, to determine what commonalities those questions demonstrate. We considered both philosophical questions and "non-philosophical questions".
Non-philosophical questions, we concluded, are those which admit to answers, even if we do not know the answers ourselves. Furthermore, the answers of non-philosophical questions are fact.
Philosophical questions point to further questions, because the answers one gains to philosophical questions are "debatable", founded in values and principles, not always in observed phenomena...
So, we find that philosophy is "about" philosophical questioning, and philosophical questioning is questioning which leads to further questioning. But what is the "point" of this? Why engage in philosophy? Where does philosophy lead?
These are the questions we must engage next.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)