Hello All :)
Well, welcome to the blog for PHL100Y1, hosted by...well, me. Basically, what I hope to do here is to generate a bit of informal discussion about what we're looking at in class, and to get you guys to try out some different approaches to the material we're covering. I really want you to get as much out of this material as you can - because trust me, it's a luxury to be able to take the time to think about this stuff. You lucky people. So, for example, we can use the blog to relate the ideas we'll be discussing to what's actually going on in your own lives (not that you have to disclose any secrets/potentially incriminating information), what's going on in your friends' lives (we swear we won't tell - and no real names necessary), or what's going on in this crazy world we live in. No need to be afraid - you can be as personal or as impersonal as you want. What I'm asking from you is to interact with our readings in the most "authentic" way possible - that means talking about any ideas, feelings, brilliant philosophical insights, etc. that came to you in lectures, tutorials, or during your readings.
Also, if you come across an article, website, or blog posting that you find relevant or useful to the course, please post it and we'll check it out.
For example:
Seeing as going back to class in January can, let's face it, be pretty depressing, even to the most dedicated philosophy students among us, I thought I'd start you off with a few fun links and then a few (yawn) useful ones (but trust me, you'll thank me later).
For those of you who'd like to try your hand at an argument with Socrates, you can do so here. If that's not your speed, perhaps you'd be interested in checking out a smart faux-Philosophy Lexicon for entertainment purposes only - that means do not use for your essays ;)
If you've been spending the past few months trying to figure out how philosophers can twist the English language around in such a way that you no longer recognize it, you might be interested in this Non-Philosopher's Guide to Philosophical Terms. Along the same lines is a very well-done site relating the Causes of Death of Famous Philosophers.
And last but not least, if you haven't heard Monty Python's Philosopher's Drinking Song, what are you waiting for? Trust me when I say that if you decide to go on in philosophy, it will come up in conversation again and again...and again. So it's a good idea to know what it's all about (take it from one who knows - the smile & nod will only get you so far). For the hard-core Python fans among you who are so inclined, you can watch it performed live here - but a brief warning, it doesn't get good until about halfway through, so try to fast-forward if you can. The lyrics can be found here - you probably won't be able to hear them very well on the mp3.
Of course, you are by no means required to visit any of these sites...but they might be useful for impressing friends and enemies with a philosophical bent.
On to a few "useful" links now:
For those of you who aren't familiar with it, the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy is a really great resource - and here is their article on Hume, which might come in handy when it comes to exam time.
Also, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is very good for clearing up any uncertainties or details relating to a philosopher or a particular concept.
Another good outline of Hume dealing specifically with the work we're reading is available here.
Okay, that's it for now. I will be posting a handout relating to the past week's lectures, but that won't be up until Tuesday or Wednesday, so check back then. I'll also have a few starter questions to get some conversations going based on what comes up in Monday's tutorial.
So until then, play safe, and have fun. Any questions/comments just email me at clara.venice@gmail.com.
Clara
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
hey guys!
im starting off the comments...i thought id pose a questiong that came up after tutorial in my head. so with hume and his whole test for meaningfulness, he would claim God is nonsense because you cant reduce your idea of him to a simple impression that you have had of him - only a less exagerrated version of the qualities you believe him to have. but many people would argue that their impression of nature and design in nature is what causes them to believe in God. so is there some test for the validity of impressions in Hume's theory, would that impression count?
If I try and follow that chain of logic, I can't get it to work. If I was to look at the natural world in it's entirety I might come to the conclusion that for instance, I likely could not have created it, and given the resources of my fellow humans, they most likely couldn't have either. I think this line of thinking could account for many aspects of the idea of God, such as God as a sustainer, God as an orderer, etc.
That being said, God would be classified as something that creates, something that sustains, plus a lot more characteristics we've added on. God as a whole would be a compounded idea, and wouldn't fit the criteria for Hume's meaningful ideas. I doubt that you could trace God back to any one of those characteristics alone and still call the being or whatever it would be 'God'. We'd only be left with the idea of something other than us that created the world, or something else that is keeping us alive. Not necessarily a divine being, just something other than us.
Does that follow what you were trying to ask, or am I totally off the mark? I've been wrong before, and wouldn't put it past me now.
OK, so now I know that my gmail account is also my google account. Anyway, following up on what Safa said, I think there's a lot of variations in what God is, but the God that Hume attacks is the Christian God, the "I'm a guy who makes decisions and does stuff and creates thinks and knows everything" kind of God. Like, Descartes' God. That God, the Biblical God and so forth, seems to be an exaggerated person.
But yes, truly, there is more than one way of conceiving God - and looking around you and finding that the world is orderly seems to me to be a reasonable "hunch" that a lot of people have. It's just sort of when you give God these personified traits that Hume would have argued is just a blown-up figment of a person's imagination, and not a very convincing one.
(just my stupid opinion, don't read too much into it)
hey guys!
i posted that, forgot i posted it and then realized today that i posted something:) i actually like the answers i got. that even by looking at the grand design of the universe you still cant come to the religious God that is described. nice!
Post a Comment