hi there, does anyone has a good method to learn phil100w better? i really can't find a right way to do that, even writing a phil paper....my prof is Peter Horban, he is good speecher, but i am so frightened about his exam....
What is Phil100 exactly? It it symbolic logic you're having trouble with or something else? I did two logic courses with Horban and he is tough but he's also (big surprise) extremely reasonable, so his classes are far from impossible.
I had the same prof long ago for the same course. I think the course was fun. The assigned readings normally takes repetition before you fully grasp/follow what the philosopher is saying word for word. At the point their essays become more engaging. Otherwise there's the TA to guide you or tell you what kind of dope, for example, a particular philosopher was smoking while writing the essay.
An understanding of what every philosopher stands for or their specific point of views regarding a subject will help out on the exams. Also, being very specific with what you want to say is necessary.
Ugh, knowledge and reality? I hated that damn course. Ask your TA for help and do the readings. The concepts in that course are confusing as hell and is really hard to grasp. But I really don't think there is any real "advice" to understand the course better. Good luck!
dude this class is easy, i got a decent grade and i didnt open the textbook all you have to do is write good essays what i suggest is write your essay ahead of time, than go and get the prof and ta to read and improve it, even go to those 1 on 1 peer educator guys to look over it
What's the paper topic about? I'm sure it's not too bad.
Two important things to remember when writing a phil paper is that it is not a summary and not a personal reflection of what you read. Just write whatever arguments the philosopher is proposing, give some examples, and then critically assess them.
the topic is about whether we should arbitrate between positions one might take in responce to a philosophical question
unfortunately, my first draft is terrible....:embarassed:
It's not so much "should," but whether or not you think it is "possible" to arbitrate between positions. I find that you have to be particularly articulate when it comes to this (and probably all phil) class.
Do you mean "terrible" as in "below satisfactory"? Because "satisfactory" doesn't mean it's bad.
This essay basically only required you to listen and take notes during the first few classes. You don't really even need to get into the text yet...which is probably the more difficult part. So if you're already struggling with the very fundamentals, I don't know what to say. o__O
Comments
If there's something specific you don't understand, you can get your TA to explain it to you. That's their job.
You can always ask here too..
An understanding of what every philosopher stands for or their specific point of views regarding a subject will help out on the exams. Also, being very specific with what you want to say is necessary.
all you have to do is write good essays
what i suggest is write your essay ahead of time, than go and get the prof and ta to read and improve it, even go to those 1 on 1 peer educator guys to look over it
dont bother memorizing all the tiny details, just memorize how the paradigms work
Two important things to remember when writing a phil paper is that it is not a summary and not a personal reflection of what you read. Just write whatever arguments the philosopher is proposing, give some examples, and then critically assess them.
unfortunately, my first draft is terrible....:embarassed:
Do you mean "terrible" as in "below satisfactory"? Because "satisfactory" doesn't mean it's bad.
This essay basically only required you to listen and take notes during the first few classes. You don't really even need to get into the text yet...which is probably the more difficult part. So if you're already struggling with the very fundamentals, I don't know what to say. o__O