News:

The default theme for this site has been updated. For further information, please take a look at the announcement regarding HAF changing its default theme.

Main Menu

Philosophy...Worthless?

Started by ImpaledSkier, February 13, 2007, 06:38:59 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

ImpaledSkier

So, here I am, currently in my second philosophy course at the wonderful University of St. Thomas, in which my professor likes to start off each class with a prayer from the wonderful Thomas Aquinas, our patron Saint, while I sit there and brace myself for what, to me, is the most boring and useless 65 minutes of my MWF.

For those of you who went to/are going to a tech school, are too young to be in college, or are perhaps too old to remember anything besides slide rules and quill pens, philosophy class is the only class where the professor spends the first week trying to justify the existence of their class. This happened last year, and it repeated itself this year. In no other class does this happen. Biology? No. Chemistry? Ha. English. Nope. History...10 minutes, but we understand. Theology, Nope, people love it. But philosophy...argument after argument. As a student, it's embarassing to be sitting there as the professor desperately tries to reach out to us and hope to see some kind of understanding from our eyes as to why we have to pay $6,000 to the school for 8 credits. The real problem is, I don't understand why I'm there at all.

The first class I took was a class bassed on how to argue. I mean, I bought a book ($11) called, "The Rulebook for Arguments," I thought it might be good. Nope. I was stuck there learning about modus tolens and modus polens and all this other crap that really means nothing. I raised my hand multiple times to an argument that was placed on the board and answered with the correct conclusion based on the premises, and when asked by what rule made the argument sound I said, "It doesn't matter." I firmly believe that too. (C in the class.) This guy was trying to convince us that we needed to know the names, and the classifications of arguments to ever be taken seriously when trying to argue. (I realize this might just have been this professor, but I know others still make you learn the names.) I don't give a damn what an argument is called or the formatting. If the argument is straight forward and logical it does not matter. Thanks for wasting my time. Another point of his was that no where else can we learn how to argue well except in philosophy class. Well, I'm doing it right now, and I could do it in high school. Anyone else written a persuasion paper?

Last year we also "learned" a lot about famous philosophers and what they argued and "proved" in their day. Well, I don't care what they say or how they said it. You cannot prove anything by mixing words around. Sorry. Not possible. You can state the obvious quite clearly, I'll grant that, but you cannot prove anything with words! Thomas Aquinas claims to have proven god. He liked it so much he decided to do it 9 more times. He did not prove anything, and everyone here knows it.

It's not just the theological philosophers, it's everyone. Take Aristotle who is claimed to be the greatest philosopher of all time. Sure his arguments are "sound" and "logic," but you have to grant him so many damn premises that of course he's going to be "right." He also makes up his own words and terms. Neat. There are also many modern philosophers who are doing a lot of "work" with the brain and consciousness. Again, they're not proving anything. Sure, maybe an interesting thought pops up here and there, (Matrix arguments, limited rationality) but they're not doing any of the work. The arguments go back and forth, neither side yeilding or gaining, until science comes along and proves something and then arguments are adjusted. This can be followed throughout history. Hell, the brain was thought to be useless by many societies and the heart was considered to be the source of emotions and rationale. There were good arguments back then that "proved" their point, but yet...still wrong.

Let's do ethics now, since I just started that class 2 weeks ago. Well, his argument for the existence of ethics is that even though science can give us technology, (electricity, carbon fiber, WMDs, advancement with stem cells) it can't tell us how to use it. Fine. Good first week. We can't plug it into the scientific method and get an answer. Got it, great. So where can we get these answers from? Naturally the first person to raise their hand anouced "God" with much pleasure and hubris, but thankfully we moved on and gave the prof the "right" answer of ethics. Ethics is supposed to influence how we govern people based on moral truths and facts. Right then and there it fails, but let's keep going. Ethics is supposed to come to these moral truths and facts somehow...which it won't. It hasn't yet, and the end is not in sight. Too many people have too many different opinions on what is morally responsible and morally atrocious. Infanticide, nuking Iraq, cannibalism...bad right? We can all make arguments for these moral "truths," but we can also argue that they are not bad. Some cases are harder than others, but still. All societies, cultures, cliches, have their own moral truths...what does philosophical ethics do for us? Let us quote past ethical philosophers? That doesn't help. We live in a country that is based on the philosophy of "Everybody being free." (we're really not) China is based on the philosophy of "Everbody is equal" (which they're not). Is philosophical ethics going to solve this? No. We don't live in a perfect rational world. You're wasting my time.

All I ask (modestly) is that all philosophers stop trying to mix words around and go to the lab and actually prove something.

Sorry...long rant...
"Heaven's not a place that you go when you die, it's that moment in life when you actually feel alive. So live for the moment." -The Spill Canvas

User192021

#1
I'm a senior in undergrad school, Criminal Justice major, so have never experienced a philosophy class.  Sounds aggravating.  Especially the part about the professor requiring you to know the name of the argument style you used to support your opinion - what a waste of time indeed.

I find college (well, criminal justice anyway....I suppose majoring in medicine, law, etc.. would be more useful) to be more or less a joke.  The classes at my school are so easy I literally don't even bother to take notes or pay attention.  And trust me, I'm no Einstein.  I guess once you've been in school long enough, you pretty much know what professors are looking for in a paper, essay, etc...  Waste of damn money, time, and energy if you ask me - but I guess you need that piece of paper these days.

McQ

#2
Well, without all those old philosophers, we'd have nothing to argue incessantly about.

Oh, wait. There's religion. Never mind. Yep, philosophy sucks alright.
Elvis didn't do no drugs!
--Penn Jillette

donkeyhoty

#3
Your prof sounds like he's given up, and why do people even bother to take philosophy when their answer for everything is, "God"?

Anyway, regarding ethics, Oppenheimer and his buddies developed the A-bomb in the lab without really giving thought to what the end result was going to be, other than theorizing about the atomosphere igniting or the final yield.  They didn't think about melting homes and bodies, radiation burns and sickness, a black rain, etc.  Only after the bombs were dropped did they start to think about what they had done, with many renouncing the use and development of nuclear weapons.  They just wanted to see if they could build a nuclear bomb.

Quote from: "ImpaledSkier"Ethics is supposed to come to these moral truths and facts somehow
Actually ethics is an examination of how we decided what "moral truths" are.  Its not about right or wrong, but more how and why we decide, individually or collectively, what is right and wrong and the application thereof with different schools of thought, obviously, defining shit differently.  And blah, blah, blah.

Yes, philosophy can go on and on with no answer, but that is one of our(atheists) most important refutations of religion, "There is no answer.  There is no god or gods".

You think ethics is mind numbing, I had a class in aesthetics(philosophy of art).  Try defining what art is.

Also, there was a guy named Tom Dowd, he was a studio engineer/producer for Ray Charles and a bunch of other artists back in the day.  Coincidently, he also worked on the Manhattan Project.  He went into the field of music because after the war he had to go back to grad school(he didn't finish his stuff before the project started).  What they were teaching in grad schools after the war was outdated because much of the Manhattan stuff was still classified.  Dowd was having to do work he knew was wrong in classes that were wrong.  The point is, just because it's science doesn't make it right.  Moreover, there's a whole field called philosophy of science, and forms of logic and reasoning are highly prevalent in the scientific method.

To sum it all up, yes philosophy classes can, and mostly are, boring as hell in college.  Is it worthless?  Well, in what sense are we determining worth?  If you're a scientist you are, hopefully, trying to find out what is true.  This is the same as the philosopher.  And while you both may use logic and reasoning to determine the answer to your hypothesis, the evidence and processes are different.
"Feminism encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians."  - Pat Robertson

ImpaledSkier

#4
QuoteYour prof sounds like he's given up, and why do people even bother to take philosophy when their answer for everything is, "God"?

It's required for graduation here. And my prof's anser isn't necessarily "god" it's the kids in my class. I have a bunch of sophomore and freshmen business majors in my class...that's the norm kind of answer out of them

QuoteThey just wanted to see if they could build a nuclear bomb.

And beat the Germans to it. The world would be vastly different if we lost that little race. But yeah, a few of them had psycotic break downs after they saw the destruction they helped incur.

QuoteThe point is, just because it's science doesn't make it right.

True, I'm not trying to put science on the upper echelon of learning...just a step higher than philosophy.

QuoteWell, in what sense are we determining worth?

Worth: Is philosophy going to change my outlook on my world around me any more than reading a psychology, or chemistry paper is going to?

I'm stating my serious doubts.  
QuoteIf you're a scientist you are, hopefully, trying to find out what is true. This is the same as the philosopher.

Sure, they just can't prove it's true. You can't mix words about and prove anything.

Thanks man...it was a long read.
"Heaven's not a place that you go when you die, it's that moment in life when you actually feel alive. So live for the moment." -The Spill Canvas

donkeyhoty

#5
Quote from: "ImpaledSkier"And beat the Germans to it
Yes, there certainly was some extra motivation for the scientists that had fled germany and other european countries.  Although the germans never even got to the point of a nuclear chain reaction.  They also did not have the full capability of producing a nuclear bomb had they gotten past that first important step.  We barely had enough U-235 and plutonium to make the two deployed bombs and test bomb.  In hindsight, we were the only nation capable of developing a nuclear weapon at that time due to the perfect storm of minds, materiel, and manpower needed.

Quote from: "ImpaledSkier"it's the kids in my class. I have a bunch of sophomore and freshmen business majors in my class
Yeah, I was talking about the kids in reference to god.  And there shouldn't be such a thing as a business major in college, but that's a different topic altogether.  If philosophy is bad, business classes made me want to kill babies.
"Feminism encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians."  - Pat Robertson

ImpaledSkier

#6
QuoteIn hindsight, we were the only nation capable of developing a nuclear weapon at that time due to the perfect storm of minds, materiel, and manpower needed.

That's true, but just yesterday I was watching the history channel and they were saying that if the war went on a few more months the Germans would've regained air superiority with the invention of a couple more planes.

QuoteAnd there shouldn't be such a thing as a business major in college,
Business majors are the new high school grads.

Sadly, I think philosophy is has a good hold in our curriculum because it's the first class that these business majors have to think about.
"Heaven's not a place that you go when you die, it's that moment in life when you actually feel alive. So live for the moment." -The Spill Canvas

donkeyhoty

#7
Quote from: "ImpaledSkier"yesterday I was watching the history channel and they were saying that if the war went on a few more months the Germans would've regained air superiority with the invention of a couple more planes.
Not really, by the end of the war the Germans lacked the capability to do much but prolong the war.  Their production facilities were in shambles(they were putting together Me 262s in forests).  They lacked fuel for planes, tanks, and automobiles.  Even more importantly they lacked competent, experienced pilots as most of the good ones had been killed, wounded, captured by 1945.

Essentially the war was over after D-day.  It established the full 2 front war that the germans couldn't overcome.  Only some poor planning and execution by US and British troops enabled the germans to hold out until April of 45(i.e. Operation Market Garden, and the breakout after D-day).  

After the Battle of the Bulge the Germans were completely spent.  Allowing the Soviets and US/Brits to converge in Germany.  If anything could've ended the war in europe differently it would've been a major success in that battle.  In hindsight, they probably wished they threw that last offensive against the Commies, as any less Soviet territory in Eastern Europe would've been good for a lot of people.

Also, what was the name of the show?  I'd like to see it since the history channel sometimes butchers history and sometimes does a fantastic job.

And any class business majors have to take outside their major is a good thing, even if its basketweaving.
"Feminism encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians."  - Pat Robertson

Kestrel

#8
Quote from: "ImpaledSkier"Philosophy...Worthless?
Ironically, a philosophical question.  :lol:
The thing that I call living is just being satisfied, with knowing I've got no one left to blame. - Gordon Lightfoot

McQ

#9
Oh, Oppenheimer and the gang knew what they were doing alright. Read the book, "The Making of the Atomic Bomb" by Richard Rhodes. It earned the Pulitzer Prize for non-fiction. Astonishing book. Oppenheimer recruited heavily for the Manhattan Project, and even prior to it, they knew the devastation of both a runaway fission reaction and the use of an atomic bomb.

They did not know exactly what yield would produce what level of destruction, but they knew the consequences all along the way.

The Germans did have the capability, means and equipment to build an atomic device as well, but they were stymied along the way (thankfully) by the allies, who kept them from getting enough heavy water to utilize in making bombs. 1942 and 1943, the allies kept either stealing the heavy water produced at the Vemork plant or destroying it through sabotage.
Elvis didn't do no drugs!
--Penn Jillette

donkeyhoty

#10
Yes they knew of the consequences of a nuclear device, but they chose to proceed anyway.  Its just an applied ethical question.  And there were plenty of people working on the project that didn't actually know what the were working towards, Tom Dowd for one and most everyone at Oak Ridge.  Even Leo Szilard, who campaigned for the development a nuke, didn't actually want it used.  The a-bomb is the most interesting test case of ethics.  Was it right to build one?  Was it right to use one? What circumstances would make it right to use one?, etc.

And no, the germans did not have the capability to build an atomic device.  The heavy water problem is only one of the reasons why they couldn't.  They had to rely on occupied territory for much of the supplies had they been able to get past the nuclear chain reaction phase.  When the bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki the captured german scientists didn't believe anyone was capable of creating a nuclear bomb as they had concentrated solely on nuclear energy production(and they didn't even get close to that either).  They were also were unaware(or unwilling) of how to calculate critical mass, or even what "plutonium" exactly was.  Those facts taken along with Heisenberg's contention that he and the other scientists were not interested in actually building a bomb even if they figured out how to build one show the german a-bomb project to be wholly unachievable.
"Feminism encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians."  - Pat Robertson

McQ

#11
Quote from: "donkeyhoty"Yes they knew of the consequences of a nuclear device, but they chose to proceed anyway.  Its just an applied ethical question.  And there were plenty of people working on the project that didn't actually know what the were working towards, Tom Dowd for one and most everyone at Oak Ridge.  Even Leo Szilard, who campaigned for the development a nuke, didn't actually want it used.  The a-bomb is the most interesting test case of ethics.  Was it right to build one?  Was it right to use one? What circumstances would make it right to use one?, etc.

And no, the germans did not have the capability to build an atomic device.  The heavy water problem is only one of the reasons why they couldn't.  They had to rely on occupied territory for much of the supplies had they been able to get past the nuclear chain reaction phase.  When the bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki the captured german scientists didn't believe anyone was capable of creating a nuclear bomb as they had concentrated solely on nuclear energy production(and they didn't even get close to that either).  They were also were unaware(or unwilling) of how to calculate critical mass, or even what "plutonium" exactly was.  Those facts taken along with Heisenberg's contention that he and the other scientists were not interested in actually building a bomb even if they figured out how to build one show the german a-bomb project to be wholly unachievable.

donkeyhoty, I'm genuinely interested in where you get that information on Germany not being able to build a bomb. Can you give me any references? I had been under the impression, from both the previously mentioned "biography" of the atomic bomb, and it's follow up book, "Dark Sun", that Germany simply ran out of time and resources (due to the turn of the tide in the war), but did have the ability to build a bomb. They were years behind the U.S., but my understanding is they were on track.

They knew very well about uranium and plutonium, and early on (even before the U.S. entered in the war), they were trying to work with uranium 235. Werner Heisenberg told the German government that the Americans were trying to use plutonium to possibly build a nuclear weapon.

Heisenberg had also accurately calculated critical mass for a bomb in 1939 as well. However, the Germans thought they needed much more uranium 235 than they could ever produce, so that's when they decided that any future in nuclear fission would have to be with plutonium (which they could make from the conversion of uranium in a reactor). The Germans even managed to produce fission, albeit only in a lab.

It's a confusing history, in part because so many people who participated in the programs were not at liberty to divulge their participation, and many of them skewed their roles in it. Heisenberg's take on the German program has been called into question ever since the end of the war, too. Neils Bohr would have nothing to do with him after they met secretly during the war, and felt that Heisenberg underportrayed his role in the German program. Heisenberg himself always said that although he knew how to build an atomic bomb, he steered the German government into concentrating on nuclear power instead. The debate may never be quelled there.

But there is no doubt that they had the knowledge to build atomic weapons. They simply lacked the time to finish, and Hitler was consumed with other programs, and felt that they couldn't rely on getting a nuclear weapon in a short time frame (he was right about that).

Additionally, I think the person most responsible for the production and subsequent proliferation of nuclear weapons Edward Teller. Atomic weapons became vastly more destructive under his guidance with the creation of the thermonuclear weapon. My opinion of Teller, after studying these projects, is that he was a megalomaniac/genius, who was given far too much leeway.
Elvis didn't do no drugs!
--Penn Jillette

donkeyhoty

#12
The problems with Heisenberg are many, including what he really knew and when.  Did he really sabotage the effort, or did he just not know as much as he figured out after hearing of the Hiroshima bomb?  Also, maybe the germans weren't smart enough to get the job done, and came up with the self-sabotage story to separate themselves from the nazis, who knows?
Heisenberg "correctly" determined how much u-235 was needed for critical mass after hearing about the first bomb along with the other scientists begin held at Farm Hall.  Whether he really knew what was needed for critical mass early in the war will never be fully known.  

The germans never surpassed what the US effort had done by 1942.  Even though Otto Hahn had discovered nuclear fission at the end of 1938 they never got to the chain reaction phase for whatever reason, be it sabotage, not enough brainpower, no will to do so, whatever.  They started a few years before the US effort, and were way behind by the time strategic bombing was taking its toll on Nazi production facilities.  The most important thing to look at though is the Manhattan project itself.  Even with the massive facilities at Oak Ridge and in Washington we barely had enough U-235 and plutonium.  The germans never had the capability for this type of production even at their highest point.

some books:
Nazi Science: Myth, Truth, and the German Atomic Bomb

Heisenberg's War: The Secret History of the German Bomb

Hitler's Uranium Club: The Secret Recordings at Farm Hall

German National Socialism and the Quest for Nuclear Power, 1939-1949
"Feminism encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians."  - Pat Robertson

McQ

#13
Donkeyhoty, thanks for those book references. They are now on my immediate "must read" list. I realized we have also just hijacked the Philosophy thread. LOL! I love this history and would enjoy continuing it. Let's see if laetusatheos will allow us to move it into its own History thread.
Elvis didn't do no drugs!
--Penn Jillette

Amor Fati

#14
Damn it, I have to do this yet again!



Indisputable fact of history #1:  every major branch of science was birthed in philosophy.  

Indisputable fact of history #2:  the validity of the scientific method itself rests on centuries of philosophical debate on the nature of the universe (materialism/naturalism), and the nature of knowledge and 'proof' (empiricism).  Without this foundation, science is nothing more than snake oil.

Philosophy is priceless in these regards.  


The irony is apparently lost on the OP regarding his statement that "Another point of his was that no where else can we learn how to argue well except in philosophy class. Well, I'm doing it right now, and I could do it in high school. Anyone else written a persuasion paper?"