Some students actually find competitive discussions and conflict souncomfortable that they lose interest in the subject matter and in classes.
Most likely because people would rather not let an opinion be the reason they have a lack of friends Having a different opinion from the popular belief, leads to dislike
Additionally, in our tendency to be attached and competitive, relation-ships between people are weakened rather than strengthened
I, myself have had this problem where i have let my opinion of something lead to an argument that gets in between my friends and I. it is never a good thing to do.
When discussing personal attachment in class, I like to use the analogyof packages (gifts) that have nametags attached to them with strings. Hereis a package with a string attached to a paper tag that says ‘‘John’s view’’and over here is a package with a string attached to a tag that is labeled‘‘Ann’s view,’’ and so on for each package. I ask students to imaginepulling out a pair of scissors and cutting all the strings and throwingthe nametags away. At this point we can just examine the packages andnot concern ourselves with whether they ‘‘belong to’’ any particularperson. There is now no ‘‘your view’’ and ‘‘my view,’’ only ‘‘the view thatwe are examining right now.’’ Doing this makes it much easier to changeone’s mind, and to avoid feeling that one has to ‘‘dig in’’ anddefendapersonal position.
I feel like this is a good way to approach opinions in philosophy. Often people offended very quickly by another's own opinions, and not labeling someones opinion as their won provides protection from backlash.
that even the most everyday things lead to problems to whichonly very incomplete answers can be give
There are always unanswered questions in philosophy. And as soon as you answer one question, another arises.
Are good and evil of importance to the universe or only to man?
It does affect the universe as a whole. Such things like natural disasters and other environmental or astronomical aspects have an affect on everything not just man. Like it could be a matter of life or death to everyone and everything.
If the study of philosophy has any value at all for others than students of philosophy, it must be only indirectly, through its effects upon the lives of those who study it.
This is basically saying that if you do not study philosophy, there is no way it can effect you directly. Only a student of philosophy could possible be have a direct connection. This does not make sense to me, like i feel like you can only determine that by examining different people and how they personally connect to philosophy. You can not generalize something like that.
Hence it is difficult for an isolated individual to work himself out of a dependency that has become virtually second-nature to him.
I feel like this is a very generalized statement. Yes some people struggle to get out of that state of dependency but for most people, they strive to break free of that constant hold on their freedom.
The officer says, "Don't argue, just drill!" The tax bureau says, "Don't argue, just pay up!" The clergyman says, "Don't argue, just believe!"
They want you to just follow whatever they say or do. They dont want an arguement because that allows for someone to feel comfortable and speak their mind outside of what everybody else believes and just follows.
It is so comfortable to be dependent.
I can relate to this. Having someone that you can depend on provides a sense of comfort. I think people in today's society get to a place where they cant get out of that comfortable spot due to fear of what they have never known. Someone had always protected them and been there for them, and now they arent used to the independence they were given.
If the conclusion does not follow from the premises, then the argument cannot give you good reasons to accept the conclusion. The argument is bad-even if the premises are true.
So basically if your conclusion does not match up with your reasoning, your argument is immediately assumed as a bad argument.
So inductive arguments cannot guarantee the truth of their con-clusions as deductive arguments can. They can only render their conclusions probable-that is, more likely to be true than not
I feel like many people in today's society follows this type of argument format. A problem that seems to arise from this type of argument is that rather than think there is a likely or probable chance the person making the argument is correct, they automatically assume their conclusion is correct all because they have proof.
Everything depends on the sample. If the sample is large enough and representative enough, we can safely assume that our generalization drawn from the sample is probably an accurate reflection of the whole group of members.
But how do we determine if that sample is a good enough representation of that group? I feel like we should analyze different aspects of the taken sample to assure that based off of the sample size and types of people involved in the sample, we can draw as much of an accurate reflection as possible.
We will then consider two questions closely tied to the practice of philosophy: What is thinking? And what is knowing?
I like how the course centers around these two questions. It gives each lesson a chance to connect with the class' question.
the reading of the day
Is this required to be printed or can we just bring in our computers?
SCHEDULE
Getting an idea of what is to come in the course, allows us as students to be even more prepared for the upcoming classes and topics. It creates a schedule for the class tp follow and be more organized.
deceived me, and it is unwise to trust completely those who have deceived us ev
The author is noting that things are not always what they seem to be based off of a first impression. You may think something appears to be one thing but when looking deeper and examining, it can turn out to be something else.