Want a little help

[speed]

Karl Popper and falsificationism
Thomas Kuhn and relativism in science
the problem of induction
Bas van Fraassen's constructive empiricism
realism vs. anti-realism in science
Aristotle's physics
the concepts of natural and unnatural in moral philosophy
religion as a foundation for ethical systems

just a few topics I've written about. All of them are far more interesting to me than what's usually discussed in this forum. Maybe you wouldn't find those topics interesting but I don't really give a shit. Does that suffice?

They sound wonderful; now, why dont you post about them?

 

[derek]

^I agree. Don't visit the forum if you find it boring. Whining about it it pathetic, unless your willing to change it.

I, for one, like the forum the way it is. If you feel the need to be a elitist smart ass, then by all means - leave.

 

[Cythraul]

I don't mean to come across as elitist. I just find different things interesting. Anyway, I'll probably post about some of this stuff at some point.

 

[derek]

^Fair enough. Post some of that stuff, I liked the look of your list...I'll do some reading and see what happens. Anyways, all the best.

 

[speed]

Well it is obvious you are a very intelligent individual Cythraul. I just dont understand why you never create or bring up any ideas of your own. I suppose you are on your way to being a professor--criticizing for a living.

I for one wouldnt mind reading or learning about many of the things posted, as their rather obscure nature naturally prohibits my interest to seek them out.

 

[Cythraul]

I just dont understand why you never create or bring up any ideas of your own.

Honestly, it never crossed my mind. That's something that I should work on because most of the time I just look for logical inconsistencies, which is fun but it can make one's thinking a bit stagnant I guess.

 

[Demiurge]

Most essays they set in undergrad philosophy are entirely bland, so I dunno if posting them here will really be to much benefit. I wish you all the best, though.

The line between graduate and undergraduate becomes blurred. A lot of classes were cross-listed, I recall. Another thing is that I was never in a philosophy class that didn't give a lot of latitude regarding what to write about. In grad and undergrad alike, there were a list of topic suggestions, but students were free to pick topics not on the list, too, if they wanted. Integrating something not covered in the given course at all wasn't frowned upon, either. In other words, we'd read a text and write about it, but not any aspect in particular. This is strictly personal experience, of course, so take it for what it is.

My advice is to pick professors carefully. The value of a class is mostly dependent on the professor's methodology and requirements. After all, the text is always there for you. I was very rigorous about selecting courses.

 

[speed]

Honestly, it never crossed my mind. That's something that I should work on because most of the time I just look for logical inconsistencies, which is fun but it can make one's thinking a bit stagnant I guess.

Well you have a gift for picking out such inconsistencies. I've been proved quite illogical a number of times by you.

And I know how fun it can be. Personally I once took a class in grad school where I played devils advocate for some of the most ridiculous ideas just to see if anyone could form a coherent logical argument to defeat me, and no one could. It was funny to see everyone get all emotional about the homeless or, strip clubs, or the poor. Of course we werent making logical philosophical arguments, but more ethical, political, and social justice arguments.

 

[speed]

The line between graduate and undergraduate becomes blurred. A lot of classes were cross-listed, I recall. Another thing is that I was never in a philosophy class that didn't give a lot of latitude regarding what to write about. In grad and undergrad alike, there were a list of topic suggestions, but students were free to pick topics not on the list, too, if they wanted. Integrating something not covered in the given course at all wasn't frowned upon, either. In other words, we'd read a text and write about it, but not any aspect in particular. This is strictly personal experience, of course, so take it for what it is.

My advice is to pick professors carefully. The value of a class is mostly dependent on the professor's methodology and requirements. After all, the text is always there for you. I was very rigorous about selecting courses.

That is the case in any college program. The class with the best content or subject can be completely ruined by a professor. I always selected my courses based on the professor; when I failed to, I got burned.

Apart from the discipline one learns in college, I dont find it necessary to take a class to understand somthing unless one is in engineering or the hard sciences( and even these classes the prof's really dont teach--but force one to learn the material on their own). But this could be more of a personal quirk on my part. Anyone else feel this way?