no.. it isn't.. the end result of philosophy is achieving a certain state of knowledge where by external factors don't influence you like it does with other people.. basically you have the capacity to overlook most things that people have a problem of overlooking.. sounds like a journey to sainthood don't you think?
just my two cents anyway.. philosophy majors in the house who would like to clarify this?
I probably had the worst teacher around, so that is part of my bitterness... ;)
What frustrated me was that people worry about stupid crap like "Do other people actually exist?", while others are starving to death in the world. Sainthood would be helping people, not sitting around thinking about inane problems.
(Don't take this as a personal affront, Siuying. I really enjoy your messages and the time you put into your replies. :) )
Indeed, some of the problems in philosophy can seem overly pedantic. Others, however, are quite important.
Take, say, the philosophy of religion which shows - quite clearly - that religious belief is irrational and unjustifyable. If everyone could come to terms with this, then we'd be able to discard of religion entirely.
What would be the result? The artifical distinctions we make between ourselves (i.e. which imaginary entity we worship) would be gone and as a result we would be a lot further along in coming to a truly cosmopolitan understanding. With that, would come an alleviation of - to use your example- all those struggling to deal with famine in the world.
oh no.. i wouldn't have taken it to be personal regardless malakaii..=) it was definitely frustrating and the grade made me bitter too.. i guess that the knowledge i have now is insufficient to understand where their logic comes from.. but yeah i try to make the best out of what i learned through there..
perhaps what rawls is trying to point out is that people will discard their beliefs that god will help them or that he's doing this for a reason thoughts and accept their current situation.. it'll get people to face reality and do something about their famine rather than wasting days holding onto a belief that's questionable itself
Hm... I think that people would do something about their starvation if they could, and maybe it's a faith that things will be better for them in the afterlife (or next life, etc., depending on the religion) that gets them through such trying times.
Believe me, I am not religious in the least, but I am openminded enough to see that dogmatism of either the religious or anti-religious kind does far more harm than good.
Religion provides a hope to people who need it most. Just ask any parent who has ever explained to a child that his dog has gone to "doggie heaven". It's a lot easier to cope with things that way! It's when people start fighting over whose imaginary friend is the best that it makes me sick...
Hm... I think that people would do something about their starvation if they could, and maybe it's a faith that things will be better for them in the afterlife (or next life, etc., depending on the religion) that gets them through such trying times.
Believe me, I am not religious in the least, but I am openminded enough to see that dogmatism of either the religious or anti-religious kind does far more harm than good.
Religion provides a hope to people who need it most. Just ask any parent who has ever explained to a child that his dog has gone to "doggie heaven". It's a lot easier to cope with things that way! It's when people start fighting over whose imaginary friend is the best that it makes me sick...
Ah, but we digress... ;)
The point I was trying to make was in relation to the level of artifical distinction humans draw between themselves (religion, race, province, nation, hemisphere, etc) which are quite clearly inhibiters on the development of cosmopolitanism. Cosmopolitanism being the understanding that we are all citizen's of the world and that famine in Africa is equally as grotesque as famine in our own City.
We need to do away with these artifical distinctions in order to ever make progress in solving real tangible problems in the world.
Which bronze-age myth we adhere to is but one of the many distinctions which ought not be maintained.
On your point about the necessity of religion: You say that its easier to cope of we talk about 'doggie heaven' or 'real heaven.' I fail to see the argument here. Are you saying that, for example, a doctor should tell a patient that she is perfectly fine when - in fact - he knows her to have terminal cancer? It would be far more CONFORTING to say nothing is wrong, however that just isn't true.
I take this to be absurd. In the same way, it is absurd to talk about nonsense when loved-ones pass.
I haven't lived through a portion the horrible things that many people in the world have endured. I agree that religion creates a heck of a lot of problems (probably the lion's share of most interpersonal issues, and definitely unnecessary separations between races and cultures), but there are religious beliefs that are non-violent and non-dogmatic. And there are beliefs that actually stop people from inflicting harm on others. Plus it CAN get people through one hell of a lot of bad stuff. Until you've gone through what people in starving, war-torn, disease-ridden countries have gone through, I don't think you can know the true power of believing that there is a higher meaning to it all. It's fine to call it absurd from our vantage point where we have control over everything in our life, but it's a lot harder to do when you are suffering monumentally at all times.
I do believe, however, that spirituality is a personal matter and that institutionalizing it has caused a lot more problems than it solved...
I don't expect to change your opinion, and that's not what this is about. You, of course, may believe what you wish. And those who wish to peacefully be spiritual should be allowed the same right.
This is a fascinating discussion. I'd like to comment that I don't think there really is a "result" to philosophy. Philosophy in its most literal sense means the "love of wisdom," does it not? How can there be a finite end to wisdom and knowledge? Knowledge is, without a doubt, infinite. I might even say that philosophy is merely a process by which people acquire more knowledge about the world and humans in general. I also believe that the study of philosophy enables people to better understand themselves. As such, I think philosophy encompasses so many various subjects. While I don't hesitate to mention that some branches of philosophy are extremely tedious, some subjects of philosophy, on the other hand, are truly enlightening.
Wow I can't believe I missed this until now. I have been curious about philosophy for quite some time as well, and now am interested even more.
To Argento, I agree that there is no finite end to the acquistion of knowledge and wisdom but I disagree that this trait is limited specifically to philosophy. You saying that actually strengthens a personal belief of mine that university in its entirety helps you learn about life and therefore ourselves at a higher level than is possible through experiences alone. I have not taken any philosophy courses until now as I have been occupied with Science and Psychology courses...which would you recommend?
Awesome Royal Gala. In response to your comment, let me say this. Although it is true that the acquisition of knowledge is not restricted to the domain of philosophy, it must be noted that the the pursuit of knowledge in other areas of mathematics, science, etc. were initiated by philosophy. For example, early Greek philosophers such as Anaximander, Pythagoras, and Democritus were mathematicians and scientists in their own right who endeavoured to solve philosophical questions, such as "What is reality made of?" Anaximander said that the earth is made of air, Pythagoras claimed that the world is made of mathematics, and Democritus is famous for his claim that matter is made up of atoms, a theory that precedes knowledge of 20th century physicists. Aristotle is another one. He was a philosopher, but also a lot of other things. He contributed knowledge to the sciences and also to philosophy. All of this is to say that philosophy brought about new forms of knowledge and new curiosities that came to be the sciences and mathematics of today. Philosophy, at its basic roots, encompasses all areas of knowledge, as it means "love of wisdom."
Yes, university is the place of higher learning. Despite that, I agree that experiences are an important part of learning. Many philosophers often thought about the nature of experience and how it relates to learning. Hume and Locke are two who believed that experiences were the ONLY source of knowledge. Anyway, I'll stop rambling. I'm just fascinated with philosophy.
In terms of what courses, this is my first semester, first year at SFU, so I don't really know which courses are interesting and which are not so interesting. I did take PHIL 110 Logic and Reasoning this semester. It was rather boring but some parts of it were nonetheless alright. I'm taking PHIL 100 Knowledge and Reality next term, so I'm looking forward to that.
Comments
The end result of philosophy is a waste of time thinking and not enough action!
just my two cents anyway..
philosophy majors in the house who would like to clarify this?
What frustrated me was that people worry about stupid crap like "Do other people actually exist?", while others are starving to death in the world. Sainthood would be helping people, not sitting around thinking about inane problems.
(Don't take this as a personal affront, Siuying. I really enjoy your messages and the time you put into your replies. :) )
Take, say, the philosophy of religion which shows - quite clearly - that religious belief is irrational and unjustifyable. If everyone could come to terms with this, then we'd be able to discard of religion entirely.
What would be the result? The artifical distinctions we make between ourselves (i.e. which imaginary entity we worship) would be gone and as a result we would be a lot further along in coming to a truly cosmopolitan understanding. With that, would come an alleviation of - to use your example- all those struggling to deal with famine in the world.
perhaps what rawls is trying to point out is that people will discard their beliefs that god will help them or that he's doing this for a reason thoughts and accept their current situation.. it'll get people to face reality and do something about their famine rather than wasting days holding onto a belief that's questionable itself
Believe me, I am not religious in the least, but I am openminded enough to see that dogmatism of either the religious or anti-religious kind does far more harm than good.
Religion provides a hope to people who need it most. Just ask any parent who has ever explained to a child that his dog has gone to "doggie heaven". It's a lot easier to cope with things that way! It's when people start fighting over whose imaginary friend is the best that it makes me sick...
Ah, but we digress... ;)
The point I was trying to make was in relation to the level of artifical distinction humans draw between themselves (religion, race, province, nation, hemisphere, etc) which are quite clearly inhibiters on the development of cosmopolitanism. Cosmopolitanism being the understanding that we are all citizen's of the world and that famine in Africa is equally as grotesque as famine in our own City.
We need to do away with these artifical distinctions in order to ever make progress in solving real tangible problems in the world.
Which bronze-age myth we adhere to is but one of the many distinctions which ought not be maintained.
On your point about the necessity of religion: You say that its easier to cope of we talk about 'doggie heaven' or 'real heaven.' I fail to see the argument here. Are you saying that, for example, a doctor should tell a patient that she is perfectly fine when - in fact - he knows her to have terminal cancer? It would be far more CONFORTING to say nothing is wrong, however that just isn't true.
I take this to be absurd. In the same way, it is absurd to talk about nonsense when loved-ones pass.
I do believe, however, that spirituality is a personal matter and that institutionalizing it has caused a lot more problems than it solved...
I don't expect to change your opinion, and that's not what this is about. You, of course, may believe what you wish. And those who wish to peacefully be spiritual should be allowed the same right.
To Argento, I agree that there is no finite end to the acquistion of knowledge and wisdom but I disagree that this trait is limited specifically to philosophy. You saying that actually strengthens a personal belief of mine that university in its entirety helps you learn about life and therefore ourselves at a higher level than is possible through experiences alone. I have not taken any philosophy courses until now as I have been occupied with Science and Psychology courses...which would you recommend?
Yes, university is the place of higher learning. Despite that, I agree that experiences are an important part of learning. Many philosophers often thought about the nature of experience and how it relates to learning. Hume and Locke are two who believed that experiences were the ONLY source of knowledge. Anyway, I'll stop rambling. I'm just fascinated with philosophy.
In terms of what courses, this is my first semester, first year at SFU, so I don't really know which courses are interesting and which are not so interesting. I did take PHIL 110 Logic and Reasoning this semester. It was rather boring but some parts of it were nonetheless alright. I'm taking PHIL 100 Knowledge and Reality next term, so I'm looking forward to that.