| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Tom Trelogan
Forum Admin
1368 Posts |
 Posted - May 14 2010 : 1:01:29 PM
|
Here's the place for all your general questions and thoughts about the course: - Questions or thoughts about the syllabus or the course requirements in general.
- Questions or thoughts about the three questions we're going to be focusing on this semester.
- Questions or thoughts about the things I've said on the wiki about the three basic skills.
- Questions or thoughts about the things I've said on the wiki about what's involved in really doing philosophy.
- Any other questions or thoughts you have about the course itself.
Just click on "Reply to Topic" below and jump right in. |
|
|
Joseph Haag
Moderator
172 Posts |
|
|
Tom Trelogan
Forum Admin
1368 Posts |
Posted - May 17 2010 : 07:00:24 AM
|
Wiki pages aren't all that short! In general, Web pages don't seem to have ends except in the sense that one could eventually run out of disk space on the server! So I can't plead inadequate space.
The fact is that I haven't a clue how to specify exactly what makes a question a philosophical question. The question "What's a philosophical question?" is itself a philosophical question -- a really interesting one! -- to which I don't have the answer!
If philosophy had a subject matter that were specifically its own such that all philosophical questions all had to do with things within that subject matter and no philosophical questions had to do with anything else, that would give us a way of defining philosophical questions. If philosophy had methods that were specifically its own such that all philosophical questions could, in principle, be settled by means of the use of those methods and no non-philosophical questions could, in principle, be settled by means of the use of those methods, then that would give us a way of defining philosophical questions.
But does philosophy have a subject-matter that's specifically its own? I don't think so. I think it's possible to ask philosophical questions about anything and everything. And are there specifically philosophical methods? Again, I don't think so. Lots of philosophers have thought that there might be, but nothing has emerged in the way of consensus about what they are.
Perhaps if we could specify all the methods of settling questions that are non-philosophical methods, then we could say that philosophical questions are just all the questions that can't be settled by means of any of those methods, but for a variety of reasons this doesn't look very promising either, so I really don't know what to say. |
 |
|
|
Joseph Haag
Moderator
172 Posts |
|
|
Tom Trelogan
Forum Admin
1368 Posts |
Posted - May 17 2010 : 10:06:18 AM
|
I'm not sure I've ever really understood that distinction of Aristotle's. Whatever it's supposed to be, exactly, I think there's a counterpart of it in Plato that we'll no doubt be talking about before too long, namely the distinction between "things in the realm of becoming" (things we can see with our eyes, touch with our hands, and so on), and the "real realities" (the things we can only grasp with our mind). Are you thinking that we might be able to make use of this distinction to say just what makes a question a philosophical question?
While you're thinking about that, could you run down the place in the Metaphysics where Aristotle makes that distinction? Folks might be interested in being able to check it out for themselves.
By the way, folks: Joe and I have already gotten going on what I'd call a really big question about the course! Ordinary, everyday questions about the course -- really prosaic questions -- are more than welcome in this thread, too! |
|
|
|
Andrew Koziuk
Apprentice
34 Posts |
|
|
Tom Trelogan
Forum Admin
1368 Posts |
Posted - May 17 2010 : 12:40:41 PM
|
| Just two substantial contributions altogether to the discussions of this week's lectures will do the trick! You could do this in a number of different ways. Both contributions could be contributions to the discussion of the lecture on "How to Read Philosophy I & II," for example, or you could make one contribution to the discussion of that lecture and one to the discussion of the lecture on "How to Read Plato." I leave it to you how to distribute your contributions. But in the Reading Room, just two substantial contributions altogether this week will meet the minimum requirement. Of course, you can always do more.... |
|
|
|
Carissa Schneider
Newcomer
2 Posts |
Posted - May 17 2010 : 1:26:09 PM
|
I have a question about the journal:
Are we to write in here any thoughts that we have, or are you going to give a question that we are going to have to answer? And if it is just us having to write down our thoughts about things how often to we have to do that? Thanks |
|
|
|
Joseph Haag
Moderator
172 Posts |
Posted - May 17 2010 : 1:33:30 PM
|
Carissa, first of all, there won't be specific questions that you have to answer in your journal. The journal is really there to give you a chance to meditate on the readings and write down your personal thoughts about them or questions you might have about them. It also gives you a chance to look at what other people are writing and join the discussion by posting in people's discussion pages.
If you want to see an example of some journal entries and discussions take a look at Tom Trelogan's journal and his discussion page. I'd also advise you to take a look at my journal.
I'd also advise you and everyone else to join the discussions on either of those journals!
As for how often you need to make entries in your journal, the minimum is two substantial entries per week. |
Edited by - Joseph Haag on May 17 2010 1:34:30 PM |
|
|
|
Cassie Vrooman
Apprentice
32 Posts |
|
|
Tom Trelogan
Forum Admin
1368 Posts |
Posted - May 18 2010 : 07:38:55 AM
|
Those are really great questions, Cassie!
The standard view, I think, is as follows. A great many philosophical questions do have to do with normative matters. Ethics, aesthetics, social and political philosophy -- axiology (value theory) in general -- are all first and foremost areas of normative inquiry, and many (if not all) of the questions that philosophers ask in those areas of inquiry are normative questions. But there are also a great many philosophical questions that are not normative questions -- most notably, perhaps, the questions that are pursued in logic, metaphysics, epistemology (theory of knowledge), philosophy of science, and philosophy of mathematics.
I'm assuming here, of course, that we'd agree as to what the difference between normative and non-normative questions amounts to. I'd say that normative questions have to do with value in one way or or another, for example: with what's good, what's right, what's beautiful, what's fine, what's hot. They all have to do with the categories of the desirable and the undesirable in one way or another. Non-normative questions, on the other hand, include both questions about what simply is the case (contingent matters of fact) and questions about what is necessarily the case. I'm also assuming that we'd agree that empirical questions are the very same things as questions concerning contingent matters of fact. So if empirical questions are not philosophical questions, then every philosophical questions is either a normative question or a non-empirical non-normative question.
My answer to the first of your questions is then this: no, empirical questions cannot become philosophical questions, but questions of either of these two kinds can, I think, be mistaken for one another. I'll give you two examples from the general ballpark of metaphysics: (1) the question of whether or not there is a life after death seems to many to be a purely empirical question, but I think, in fact, that the real question here has always been the (non-normative) philosophical question as to whether or not there can be such a thing as life after death, or more precisely: the real question here is the (non-normative) philosophical question: "What is death?"; (2) the question whether time had a beginning or not used to seem (prior to the advent of non-classical physics) to be a purely (non-normative) philosophical question (and that implies: not an empirical question), but now it appears to be an empirical question belonging to physics to which the answer is, simply, "yes."
What do you think? And first of all, are we on the same page as to how to distinguish between normative and non-normative questions?
|
|
|
|
Andrew Koziuk
Apprentice
34 Posts |
Posted - May 18 2010 : 11:30:03 AM
|
| I was just curious what the password is to make comments on the lectures in the reading room. When I click on the discussion link it tells me to click the edit link and then asks for a password. Am I doing this right? Thank you! |
|
|
|
Joseph Haag
Moderator
172 Posts |
Posted - May 18 2010 : 11:59:15 AM
|
Andrew, I'm not aware of any password that is needed to make comments in the reading room. Typically, all you have to do is click on the wiki page you want to see ("Apology," in this case,) then click on the "discuss" link in the upper right-hand corner. Then click "Edit" in the upper right-hand corner of that page. You should then be able to add your own comments, but beware: you must put your name in the space that says "author" at the bottom of the page. If you don't put your name down, what you write won't be saved to the wiki. Also, you must remember to sign your name and date at the bottom of your post (the tutorial will show you exactly to do that) by clicking on the little pencil icon in the upper right-hand corner.
I apologize if that wasn't crystal-clear. I would advise you and everyone else to read through the tutorial on how to use the wiki for clearer directions.
[Note from Tom: read on.... Sorry, Andrew. There was a password on the first lecture's Discussion page! -TT] |
|
|
|
Tom Trelogan
Forum Admin
1368 Posts |
Posted - May 18 2010 : 12:07:37 PM
|
| Oops. Note the "typically" in Joe's response, Andrew! My guess is that you were trying to comment on the first lecture ("On How to Read Philosophy I and II"). I had accidentally password-protected the editing window on the Discussion page for that particular lecture. The password protection is gone now. Give it another try. |
|
|
|
Joseph Haag
Moderator
172 Posts |
Posted - May 18 2010 : 12:16:11 PM
|
| I apologize for my misinformation. |
|
|
|
Cassie Vrooman
Apprentice
32 Posts |
Posted - May 18 2010 : 12:16:44 PM
|
We are on the same page as to how to distinguish between normative and non-normative questions, your explanation on that was very helpful.
Given your examples of both normative and non-normative philosophical questions, I am led to believe that philosophical questions are a matter of opinion rather than fact. Am I correct in this assumption? |
|
|
|
Tom Trelogan
Forum Admin
1368 Posts |
Posted - May 18 2010 : 12:26:56 PM
|
| I'm the one who needs to apologize, Joe! The information you gave Andrew was perfectly correct. Typically, no password is needed to edit any of the discussion pages, and none should be needed. I'm the one who screwed up here. |
|
|
|
Tom Trelogan
Forum Admin
1368 Posts |
Posted - May 18 2010 : 12:34:32 PM
|
Cassie, not everything that doesn't have to do with contingent matters of fact is a matter of opinion. The usual view here is simply mistaken. It's not a contingent matter of fact that 2 + 2 = 4. That's a necessary truth, and as such, what the sum of 2 and 2 is, is certainly not a matter of opinion. Furthermore, I don't think that philosophical questions have to do with matters of opinion any more than mathematical questions do. I don't even think normative questions have to do with matters of opinion.
Opinions can differ about anything, of course (they can differ about purely contingent matters of fact), but to say of something that it's a matter of opinion is to say that there's no way of determining the truth about it, and I think that the truth can be determined in all of the areas about which we're talking -- albeit not always in the same way. The methods of the empirical sciences, for example, are completely useless in mathematics unless we're interested merely in discovering patterns that might eventually be understood by more rigorous mathematical methods. They're also completely useless in philosophy. But that doesn't imply that philosophical questions are questions about matters of opinion any more than it implies that mathematical questions are questions about matters of opinion. |
|
|
|
Cassie Vrooman
Apprentice
32 Posts |
Posted - May 18 2010 : 9:15:21 PM
|
| When I posted to the discussion my name and the date and time of post did not show up under my post. What do I need to do to make sure that happens? |
|
|
|
Joseph Haag
Moderator
172 Posts |
Posted - May 18 2010 : 9:32:49 PM
|
| I assume you're asking about the wiki. If so, look for a little icon in the upper right hand corner that bears a picture of a pencil and a clock. |
|
|
|
Cassie Vrooman
Apprentice
32 Posts |
Posted - May 18 2010 : 10:31:19 PM
|
| Got it! Thank you, Joseph! |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Questions and Thoughts About the Course
