Philosophy Issue

[white_wolf]

Hey everyone, I'm new to the forums. I have a brief story to share.

I help run the Philosophy Club at my university. It took some time to make it official, but we did it. Weekly meetings consisted of coffee, tea, and various topics. From Plato to Krishnamurti, Buddhist Philosophy to current events, and rants on heated modern debates (Abortion, education, etc.) the atmosphere of the club was intellectual and welcoming.

This is where things got ugly.

The advisor from the Philosophy Dept. came to us, and told us that what we were doing was a 'free for all', with no grounds in Philosophy, which was based on facts backed up by points, and had nothing to do with opinions. What we were doing was too loose, too liberal, too immature. What Philosophy Club meant was a studious, supplementary classroom environment, in which students discussed topics from their courses. Meaning: Hegel, Kant, Aristotle, etc were discussed. Your basic textbook Philosophy.

As you can imagine, everyone was turned off by this, and the club soon reached a schism. Nobody wanted an after school class.

My point in bringing this up is not my disgust for what the Faculty (Or at least the advisor) thinks about Philosophy. Philosophy means, 'the love of wisdom'. Wisdom can be obtained through various mediums, including reading philosophers. But that doesn't leave out art, metaphors, poetry and just about every other form of expression! (The discussion of poetry and various fictitious works were also called non-philosophical.)

My question is: Can't Philosophy be discovered in a poem? In a metaphor? A story? Haven't some of the greatest works of fiction also been the greatest works of wisdom?

And . . .

Is there something wrong with having an open, less formalized discussion of philosophy, in which views are openly shared, debated and expressed among students? Can't the topics extend beyond the classroom? The philosophers of their time had insights, and we too can do the same. Have we forgotten the true meaning and become lost in dusty books? Philosophy is not to rekindle the death of old thought, but to birth a new generation of intellect, creativity and wisdom. A symbiosis must be reached between the two: From old though to new thought. From old leaves to new branches.

What are everyone's views on this?

 

[Revasser]

I tend to agree, white_wolf. It's sometimes said that the more educated a person becomes in a particular field of knowledge, the less open they become to new ideas within the scope of that field.

Someone, perhaps like that advisor of yours, who has spent a lifetime being educated and educating others in the field of "Philosophy" may be very set in their ways and feel strongly that the way they were taught to do things is the only right way. They are essentially closed to new ideas and sometimes outright hostile to them.

To limit "Philosophy" to the study of the thoughts of "the old masters" is, in my opinion, to stagnate it and reduce it to mere memorisation and regurgitation. Learning about some of the major influential philosophers in important, to be sure, but it must also be more than that. If you make "Philosophy" all about memorisation and analysation of the thoughts of a handful of people, what's the point? If you aren't going in with the objective of learning about different ways to think and see the world and also to express, discuss and debate those views and your own, to really test them and understand them, I think Philosophy becomes a worthless endeavour.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Hey everyone, I'm new to the forums. I have a brief story to share.

I help run the Philosophy Club at my university. It took some time to make it official, but we did it. Weekly meetings consisted of coffee, tea, and various topics. From Plato to Krishnamurti, Buddhist Philosophy to current events, and rants on heated modern debates (Abortion, education, etc.) the atmosphere of the club was intellectual and welcoming.

This is where things got ugly.

The advisor from the Philosophy Dept. came to us, and told us that what we were doing was a 'free for all', with no grounds in Philosophy, which was based on facts backed up by points, and had nothing to do with opinions. What we were doing was too loose, too liberal, too immature. What Philosophy Club meant was a studious, supplementary classroom environment, in which students discussed topics from their courses. Meaning: Hegel, Kant, Aristotle, etc were discussed. Your basic textbook Philosophy.

As you can imagine, everyone was turned off by this, and the club soon reached a schism. Nobody wanted an after school class.

My point in bringing this up is not my disgust for what the Faculty (Or at least the advisor) thinks about Philosophy. Philosophy means, 'the love of wisdom'. Wisdom can be obtained through various mediums, including reading philosophers. But that doesn't leave out art, metaphors, poetry and just about every other form of expression! (The discussion of poetry and various fictitious works were also called non-philosophical.)

My question is: Can't Philosophy be discovered in a poem? In a metaphor? A story? Haven't some of the greatest works of fiction also been the greatest works of wisdom?

And . . .

Is there something wrong with having an open, less formalized discussion of philosophy, in which views are openly shared, debated and expressed among students? Can't the topics extend beyond the classroom? The philosophers of their time had insights, and we too can do the same. Have we forgotten the true meaning and become lost in dusty books? Philosophy is not to rekindle the death of old thought, but to birth a new generation of intellect, creativity and wisdom. A symbiosis must be reached between the two: From old though to new thought. From old leaves to new branches.

What are everyone's views on this?

Do you even have a middle finger?I God gave you that thing for a reason! You're supposed to use it when buttholes like this cut you off in traffic and say crap like this!

In the immortal words of the Cynic Teles:

"But just as Diogenes, when someone was shoving him and twisting his neck when he was indesposed, did not submit but instead showed the fellow his penis, and says, 'My dear sir, stand here in front of me and shove on this."

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Hiya white_wolf, Don't sweat it, the "advisor" evidently has the understanding of a carrot, left out in the hot sun, for several weeks. It might have been fun if you had all burst out laughing at the person and then pelted them with potato chips.

You know, if you wanted to have some real fun with this, you should write a letter to the Head of the Department outlining your experience and the end result of the advisor's comments. No doubt, they would be greatly impressed. I am sure Socrates would have had other ideas about a "free for all" atmosphere.

I agree with this post on all counts. What the advisor did is a complete outrage and not in the spirit of education at all.

You should certainly tell the department head and other leaders on campus. This advisor should get his a$$ served to him on a plate.

Pelt him with potatoe chips, tar and feather him, feed him to the wolves! :verymad:

:149: *Angellous morphes into a rabid werewolf and hunts this evil pest, longing for his blood!* :149:

Here we apply the Bible verse: "Arise Peter, kill and eat." :162:

 

[michel]

I too agree with the others; there is philosophy in everything in life. The path to wisdom is a very long and slow one, because, to learn, you need to make mistakes.

 

[Scarlett Wampus]

"But just as Diogenes, when someone was shoving him and twisting his neck when he was indesposed, did not submit but instead showed the fellow his penis, and says, 'My dear sir, stand here in front of me and shove on this."

Hahah.

Whitewolf a philosophy society/club that discusses Hegel, Kant, Aristotle, etc. is worthy of its title, but the strict relation to academic study sounds untenable for a student run society. As far as my university was concerned, the management of these societies/clubs was entirely in the hands of the students so whatever they deemed appropriate, was appropriate.

The Philosophy Society at my University was started (for the nth time) by a student who every week would put up flyers all over campus with provocative quotes from various philosophers to attract interest. The Society itself boiled down to meeting up every Wednesday night in a large pub on Campus where people could (probably illegally) play whatever music they could garner enough consent to get heard. To start off people who wanted to would do a spot of public speaking, either drawing from some work of Philosophy (or whatever) they liked or their own work. People heckled them, which was perfect because it got everyone arguing and thinking, but sometimes the shouting was too much and people just folded unable to continue! After that came hours of discussion over games of Pool before things moved on into various mini-parties at people's personal boudoirs, where people would pour over books and argue (at my place at least. Ok, to be honest there was a lot of other stuff going on too, but we also read books to each other). Rather than distance themselves from it members of the faculty would sometimes come along, probably to bathe in the light of their adoring fans. There was such a diversity of students from different disciplines. Other than bewildered Philosophy students there were mostly English, Religious Studies, Theatre and Physics students. Oh, I loved it! What went on was so funny, and yet, what was discussed would sometimes require long silences where people would just have to sit/stand and think. Complaints about how often people took to play a game of Pool were common!

 

[evearael]

Tell your advisor to read The Art of Rhetoric and that you are putting its principles into play.

 

[Darkdale]

What are everyone's views on this?

I agree with your philosophy advisor/professor. I used to attend philosophy club meetings and we talked about all kinds of ideas... but it wasn't a philosophy club. It was a social club... a club for talking about ideas and beliefs and feelings. It wasn't philosophy. A more honest name for the club, for people just interested in talking about intellectual stuff, would be the "Free-Thinkers Club". Don't call it a philosophy club if you aren't going to do philosophy.

I too agree with the others; there is philosophy in everything in life. The path to wisdom is a very long and slow one, because, to learn, you need to make mistakes.

Michael, you obviously haven't studied philosophy. Philosophy have very little to do with "wisdom". It's the stuff that "wisdom" is often based on, but wisdom isn't a requirement of good philosophy.

 

[white_wolf]

Thanks everyone for the feedback.

I maintain, too, however, that Philosophy isn't just old philosophers.

Philosophy have very little to do with "wisdom". It's the stuff that "wisdom" is often based on, but wisdom isn't a requirement of good philosophy.

I'm going to have to disagree with you here. Philosophy literally means the "The Love of Wisdom". That's rather open-ended if you ask me. There are many paths to wisdom, there are many ways to define what wisdom is based upon our own experiences. Philosophers are essential study to Philosophy, as they are Philosophy's history, but they alone do not build the cornerstone of this subject. The first stone laid is timeless, and that is within our minds. Our interrogation, our intrigue, our desire to understand, to know. The Philosophers didn't start that. It's a human condition.

Oh, I loved it! What went on was so funny, and yet, what was discussed would sometimes require long silences where people would just have to sit/stand and think. Complaints about how often people took to play a game of Pool were common!

That sounds amazing, Scarlett! I would've loved to be there. Hehe . . . The club I've helped run is very small, but our numbers are growing slowly. We hold our meetings every monday and wednesday. Wednesdays have greater turnouts. Usually we use the Philosophy Department's empty rooms: A small office or the Meeting Room with a big table. We make ourselves some tea or coffee from the teacher's lounge, have a seat, and I generally hand out quotes and subjects to speak about. It's very laid back and relaxed, though sometimes the conversations can get heated and quite passionate. I'm looking forward to the continual growth of the club, even if we do have to change our title (As the Professor told us.) The details are being worked out with the Student Assembly that runs the clubs . . . I informed them about this issue . . . Hopefully we will win our right to Philosophize as we have been doing.

 

[Ody]

My question is: Can't Philosophy be discovered in a poem? In a metaphor? A story? Haven't some of the greatest works of fiction also been the greatest works of wisdom?

thus spoke zarathustra ring a bell?

 

[white_wolf]

thus spoke zarathustra ring a bell?

Afraid not, but I'll look it up!

 

[Darkdale]

I'm going to have to disagree with you here. Philosophy literally means the "The Love of Wisdom". That's rather open-ended if you ask me. There are many paths to wisdom, there are many ways to define what wisdom is based upon our own experiences. Philosophers are essential study to Philosophy, as they are Philosophy's history, but they alone do not build the cornerstone of this subject. The first stone laid is timeless, and that is within our minds. Our interrogation, our intrigue, our desire to understand, to know. The Philosophers didn't start that. It's a human condition.

That's fine, but philosophy isn't really an open-ended "thing". It's ethics, metaphysics, epistemology, aesthetics, and so forth. Philosophy has nothing to do with wisdom. It is all about understanding. If you want wisdom and catchy phrases, go study Eastern "philosophy". But if you want a study of the understanding, then study Western Philosophy. I have a lot of respect for people that are actually curious about themselves and about the world. I love to hear people like you show a curiosity. That’s great, but philosophy is much more important than swinging ideas back and forth. It’s far more difficult and requires a great deal of work.

 

[mr.guy]

That's fine, but philosophy isn't really an open-ended "thing". It's ethics, metaphysics, epistemology, aesthetics, and so forth.

You've confused definitive philosophy with cirriculum.

Philosophy has nothing to do with wisdom. It is all about understanding.

How is wisdom necessarily devoid of understanding?

If you want wisdom and catchy phrases, go study Eastern "philosophy". But if you want a study of the understanding, then study Western Philosophy.

"I think therefore I am". The precursive apologistics and disclaimers of this "discourse" take alot of the bite out of this one.
Pretty catchy, though.

 

[Sunstone]

The word "philosophy" has more than one meaning. This seems to be a debate, White Wolf, over whether your club has a right to use a common meaning of "philosophy" to describe itself.

Hypothetically, I'd say you have as much right to call yourselves a "philosophy club" as anyone has a right to describe the interaction of two people as "the chemistry between them", despite that a professional chemist would not describe her profession as dealing with "the chemistry between people."

On the other hand, if your club is sponsored by the Philosophy Department, then don't you think the Department has some legitimate say in what kind of club it sponsors?

Perhaps the solution here is for your club to find a new sponsor?

 

[Darkdale]

You've confused definitive philosophy with cirriculum.

lol Not at all. Most people just confuse philosophy with thinking. There is more to philosophy than simply thinking about stuff.

How is wisdom necessarily devoid of understanding?

Wisdom isn't devoid of understanding, it just isn't dependant upon it. Wisdom is subjective and dependant upon specific ends. Understanding requires knowledge of more than one fact and how those facts relate to one another.

"I think therefore I am". The precursive apologistics and disclaimers of this "discourse" take alot of the bite out of this one.
Pretty catchy, though.

The "I think therefore I am" hypothesis is predicated upon an attempt at non-contradiction. Descartes figured that because it would be a contradiction for something to both be able to think and not exist, that thinking was proof of existence. Such a hypothesis is indeed an important (though somewhat redundant) part of western philosophy.

 

[white_wolf]

The word "philosophy" has more than one meaning. This seems to be a debate, White Wolf, over whether your club has a right to use a common meaning of "philosophy" to describe itself.

Hypothetically, I'd say you have as much right to call yourselves a "philosophy club" as anyone has a right to describe the interaction of two people as "the chemistry between them", despite that a professional chemist would not describe her profession as dealing with "the chemistry between people."

On the other hand, if your club is sponsored by the Philosophy Department, then don't you think the Department has some legitimate say in what kind of club it sponsors?

Perhaps the solution here is for your club to find a new sponsor?

Well, that's the thing. We aren't funded by the Philosophy Department. We're funded by "SGA", the student government body. We are a student activity, not faculty. An advisor is needed for a club, but the one that was originally chosen is against what we are doing. We're attempting to come to some common agreement, but if he won't, then we will hopefully elect a new advisor. . . If any other philosophy professor agrees with us, that is.

That's fine, but philosophy isn't really an open-ended "thing". It's ethics, metaphysics, epistemology, aesthetics, and so forth. Philosophy has nothing to do with wisdom. It is all about understanding. If you want wisdom and catchy phrases, go study Eastern "philosophy". But if you want a study of the understanding, then study Western Philosophy. I have a lot of respect for people that are actually curious about themselves and about the world. I love to hear people like you show a curiosity. That’s great, but philosophy is much more important than swinging ideas back and forth. It’s far more difficult and requires a great deal of work.

Again, this is just the Western approach to Philosophy. We aren't looking to develop a new treatise or meditation on the nature of the world, we just want to discuss philosophically. It isn't 'just throwing about ideas'. There is quite alot of insight and understanding in open discussion.

The regurgitation of old thought will hardly bring about new ideas and insights. What it will collect, however, is dusty minds. Dusty minds in dusty books.

A gathering, lively and open, dynamic and unrestricted by formality, will naturally thrive, for the individuals who create such a meeting will find discipline does not lie in suppression, but in the strictless flow of passion. The passion to understand, to seek, to inquire. Then, the gathering becomes a communion of energy, high spirits and lively intellect. The tree of knowledge is not bound by shadow, and thus thrives in the light of the sun, bearing great fruit.

Does everyone get what I'm saying? It does seem like this is quite the debate, doesn't it?

 

[Darkdale]

Again, this is just the Western approach to Philosophy. We aren't looking to develop a new treatise or meditation on the nature of the world, we just want to discuss philosophically. It isn't 'just throwing about ideas'. There is quite alot of insight and understanding in open discussion.

Well, why not just call it an open discussion group?

The regurgitation of old thought will hardly bring about new ideas and insights. What it will collect, however, is dusty minds. Dusty minds in dusty books.

I'm a big fan of new attempts at philosophy, but it's all too easy to fall into the anything goes rattling off of nonsense. I get bored listening to people wax philosophically "for fun" - it's so meaningless and inane 99% of the time. I understand where you are coming from - and if you find your group interesting, then more power to you. I just think your philosophy advisor has every right and reason to set a high standard for you guys. Maybe you should just get a different advisor.

 

[Sunstone]

Formal philosophy is a bit like chess: It's been around a long time, it has a set of established rules by which you play (e.g. with few exceptions, "moves" are to be firmly grounded in logic and reason), it takes a long time and a lot of practice to master, there are standard "openings" (e.g. The Ontological Argument for the Existence of Deity), and a minor change in reasoning can have logical implications that create a "whole new game". But, by far, the most important of these characteristics is that each premise (or conclusion) must be firmly established in logic and reason. That's the case with formal philosophy, but it's not the case with street philosophy. In street philosophy, it's perfectly OK to base your conclusions on how you feel about something, on guesses, on hunches, on mystical insights, on evidence available only to you, on faith, and so forth. In my experience, a formal philosophical conversation is often about as lively as a chess match. Lots of long pauses for weighty consideration between "moves". Street philosophy, on the other hand, is much more lively. I'd say that if you want to keep your club lively enough to attract many new members, you should definitely go with street philosophy.

 

[Darkdale]

Formal philosophy is a bit like chess: It's been around a long time, it has a set of established rules by which you play (e.g. with few exceptions, "moves" are to be firmly grounded in logic and reason), it takes a long time and a lot of practice to master, there are standard "openings" (e.g. The Ontological Argument for the Existence of Deity), and a minor change in reasoning can have logical implications that create a "whole new game". But, by far, the most important of these characteristics is that each premise (or conclusion) must be firmly established in logic and reason.

That's the best way I've heard it put in a long t.... well, ever. Very well said.

That's the case with formal philosophy, but it's not the case with street philosophy. In street philosophy, it's perfectly OK to base your conclusions on how you feel about something, on guesses, on hunches, on mystical insights, on evidence available only to you, on faith, and so forth. In my experience, a formal philosophical conversation is often about as lively as a chess match. Lots of long pauses for weighty consideration between "moves". Street philosophy, on the other hand, is much more lively. I'd say that if you want to keep your club lively enough to attract many new members, you should definitely go with street philosophy.

"street philosophy" isn't academic. Not quite sure the university is the best place for "street" philosophy. However, it does make for better conversation and it can open up unique ideas. Fantastic post though. Not much left to say after that.

 

[1nharmony]

Perhaps the club could adopt a new title.
The Not-So-Philosophical Club
The Politically Incorrect Philosophy Club
The Club for the Philosophy-Challenged
The Alternative Philosophy Club
The Philosophy-for-the-Open-Minded Club

Of course, there's still the difficult issue of an advisor.......:bonk: