Philosophy

[P.E.N.G.U.I.N.]

Hey all. I really want to learn as much about philosophy I possibly can before I ever set foot in a college classroom...which is 3 years off for me...So, I was wondering, could anyone who is very knowledgeable on the subject teach me anything?

Thanks much,

Jake

P.E.N.G.U.I.N. Reviewed by P.E.N.G.U.I.N. on 04-12-2006. Philosophy Hey all. I really want to learn as much about philosophy I possibly can before I ever set foot in a college classroom...which is 3 years off for me...So, I was wondering, could anyone who is very knowledgeable on the subject teach me anything? Thanks much, Jake Rating: 5

[friendowl]

if a tree fell in the forest and there was no one around would it make a noise

[P.E.N.G.U.I.N.]

Yes it would, Friendowl. Noise is caused by the vibration of anything longitudinally. Shake your hand back and forth really hard but in a large arc. You just made a deafening noise even though you couldn't hear it. So, if a tree falls down and it vibrates from the impact which vibrates the air around it, it makes a sound. Even if there was no one there to hear it.

[mrdevious]

You should learn the following terms. I'd elaborate, but I have a paper to write and my stomach is feeling really sick right now. all these will be in your course, and you can probably find info on them through www.Wikipedia.org or you can google it:

Terms:

- A Priori

- A Posteriori

- Necessary Contingent

- Philistine

Logical Fallacies:

- Strawman fallacy

- Begging the question

- Modus ponens

- Modus Tollens

- Ad Hominum

- Appeal to Authority

- (false) Dilema arguments

- Irrelevant reason

- Appeal to Ignorance

Nature of Knowledge:

- Empiricism

- Rationalism

- Capacity Knowledge

- Propositional Knowledge

- Aristotelian Physics

- Correspondance Theory

- Coherence Theory

- Objective Theory

- Gettier Paradox

- Teleology

- Analytic statements

- Synthetic Statements (you will be required to understand the analytic-synthetic distinctions)

Nature of Mind:

- Descartes theory of mind-body dualism (and dualistic interactionism)

- Solipsism

- Occasionalism

- Leibniz theory of mind-body paralelysm

- epiphenominalism

- Idealism

- Eliminative Materialism

- Identity Theory

- Behaviorism

- Methodological and Philisophical Behaviorism


Ethics

- Emotivism

- Ethical Nonobjectivism

- Ethical Intuitionism

- Utilitarianism

- Cultural relativism

- Normative Ethical Theories

- Meta-ethical Theories

- Empiracle Subjectionist Theories

- Non-Cognitivist Theories

- Deontology (branch of normative ethical theory)

- Ethical Egoism

[CocaCola]

Live life and learn from it... how is that for philosophy.

[Polymirize]

Logical Fallacies:

Dude, modus ponens and modus tollens aren't fallacies, they're two of the most basic forms of valid logic. I think you're confusing "affirming the antecedent" and "denying the consequent" for "denying the antecedent" and "affirming the consequent".

Modus Ponens
If A then B
A
Therefore B

Modus Tollens
If A then B
~B (not B)
Therefore ~A

A Fallacy along these lines would be either:
A->B, B, therefore A
Or A->B, ~A, therefore ~B

On another note, which I'm surely guilty of now as well, way to overemphasize syntax instead of semantics...

Penguin, if you want to learn, try a more directed question... :thumbsup:

[F L E S H]

Read, read, read. If ou wanna learn about philosophy, read philosophers, it's that simple.

Plato, Aristotle, Socrates, Hume, Locke, Bentham, Voltaire, Kant, Schlegel, Hegel, Kant, Spinoza, Nietsche..... There are many more, but the key to philosophy is reading. And not just philosphers, but also other literature of the same period, for example, you'll get so much more out of German philosophy if you read Goethe, Nietsche writes about Greek Tragedy, etc. etc.

[sm0k1t]

like flesh said you have to read but be sure to understand what you read

comprehension is the key!

[PureEvil760]

Well if you need help I'm friends with a phd philosophy teacher.

[mrdevious]

Dude, modus ponens and modus tollens aren't fallacies, they're two of the most basic forms of valid logic. I think you're confusing "affirming the antecedent" and "denying the consequent" for "denying the antecedent" and "affirming the consequent".

Modus Ponens
If A then B
A
Therefore B

Modus Tollens
If A then B
~B (not B)
Therefore ~A

I could be wrong on that, but I thought they were fallacies. I remember Modus Ponens being:

If A, then B.
therfore, if B then A.

ah hell I don't know anymore, I hated my philosophy course anyway.