Skip to main content

Home/ Philosophy for teens/ Group items tagged subjectivity

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
Daryl Bambic

Dangerously Irrelevant | Ruminations on technology, leadership and the future... - 0 views

dangerouslyirrelevant.org

objectivity subjectivity

shared by Daryl Bambic on 27 Sep 10 - Cached
  • "The learning of a dead subject requires a technical act of carving the knowledge into teachable bites so that they can be fed to the students one at a time by a teacher, and this leads straight into the traditional paraphernalia of curriculum, hierarchy, and control." The standards movement also narrows the curriculum immensely and in its comprehensive inclusion of benchmarks that need to be taught eliminates an infinite number of types of learning to occur or subjects to be examined.
  • I simply cannot escape the question: Why that millionth in particular?" Seymour Papert (1993)
  • "The planning of new educational systems...must not start with the question, 'What should someone learn,' but the question, 'What kind of things and people might learners want to be in contact with in order to learn?'" Ivan Illich (1970)
  • ...2 more annotations...
  • "The capability of banking education to minimize or annul the students' creative power and to stimulate their credulity serves the interests of the oppressors, who care neither to have the world revealed nor to see it transformed." Paulo Freire (1970)
  • The truth is we have internalized this struggle between subjective values and objective assessment.
Daryl Bambic

Mutable Morality, Not Subjective Morality. Moral Pluralism, Not Moral Relativism. - 0 views

www.patheos.com/...pluralism-not-moral-relativism

morality

shared by Daryl Bambic on 18 Feb 15 - No Cached
  • ointing out but wrongly calling “subjectivity”.To say that not only do moralities change but that they should and that even good moralities may not be permanently and at all times good is not to say that morality is subjective
  • Morality, even if mutable, need not be just a matter of arbitrary feelings or tastes that admit of no argument for persuading those who happen to feel differently.
  • good moral judgments
  • ...20 more annotations...
  • some important extent context
  • dependent.
  • change with different circumstances.  
  • valid measures of human flourishing.
  • broadly definable human goods
  • ntellectual power,
  • ocial organization and cohesion, artistic prowess, physical health, athletic prowess, aesthetic sensitivity and complexity, technological capability, technological achievement, emotional satisfaction, pleasure, political efficiency, virtues,
  • moral pluralism, not relativism.
  • Moral pluralism acknowledges that differing moralities, which in particulars may formally contradict each other, can each be ethically approvable given variations in circumstances or given their respective abilities to meet certain thresholds of valuable contribution to life.
    • Daryl Bambic
      Daryl Bambic on 18 Feb 15
       
      Moral pluralism allows for cross cultural (different) standards of morality.
  • Moral relativism would allow for no cross-cultural assessments but would say that the only standard a morality has or needs is the endorsement of a particular individual or culture
  • ocial scientist’s perspecti
  • hilosophical,
  • hat values are best and what moral codes best realize them.
  • onstitute human flourishing and happiness.
  • if we have enough historical understandin
  • Old Testament morality
  • as in its own time the best and most progressive advance for the people who adopted it
  • ays it failed a
  • dismiss the Old Testament as irrelevant to a contemporary context.
  • t is also wholly unpersuasive to claim, as some try, that God’s values have always been the same even as he has given his people moral codes that fit their times or their understanding at each of their stages
mariakanarakis

An Introduction to the Orthodox Christian Understanding of Free Will - 0 views

orthodoxyinfo.org/AzkoulFreeWill.htm

orthodox greek christianity christian understanding will fate philosophy religion

shared by mariakanarakis on 10 May 12 - No Cached
  • Some have said that man is a machine, who must follow the laws ofhis nature; therefore, he is  neither free to choose between good and evil (whatever they are) nor even between things. Even if he could overcome the laws of nature, he would, as some ancient Greeks said, be subject to "fate" (moira, eir mene) whose decisions must be fulfilled. Thus, choice is a delusion.
  • "predestination," that is, before the creation of the world, God decided who would live with Him forever, and those who would dwell in penal fire for eternity
    • mariakanarakis
      mariakanarakis on 10 May 12
       
      Predestination= fate, destiny When they say God decided who would live, they mean go to heaven, and those who would dwell in penal Fire are the ones who go to hell
  • predestination
  • ...21 more annotations...
  • Materialists have postulated that man is a soulless machine and subject to the laws of nature.  Freedom is an illusion. We eat what we eat, think what we think, live as we live, according to the iron laws of the universe.
    • mariakanarakis
      mariakanarakis on 10 May 12
       
      By laws of nature they mean: not choosing between good and evil
  • The 18th century philosopher, Immanuel Kant, said that not only must we believe that man is free, but also he has an immortal soul, and that God exists. The idea of freedom cannot exist without the idea of God and immortality. Without such beliefs, the happy life and civilization are impossible.
    • mariakanarakis
      mariakanarakis on 10 May 12
       
      This is the opposite side of the materialist's one.
  • In the words of Nicholas Berdayaev, "Man is an enigmatic  being because he is not the product of natural processes, but is the child of freedom which  springs from the abyss of non-being. "
  • Man possesses a divine element within him and, therefore, he is free, with the power to create beauty, to do good, to love justice. Certainly, man's body is controlled by the strictures of time and space, but his spirit is free to transcend all the laws of his finite nature. His spirit takes him where his body cannot go.
  • What does the Orthodox Church teach about free will? None of the above. She has never been concerned about the so-called discoveries of human reason. Rather she trusts the sacred Scriptures and her holy Fathers.
  • We are limited -- - not  paralyzed --- by our nature, the force of circumstance, the laws of Nature.
  • free will does not mean the ability to do whatever we want.
  • we are restricted by the passions. The passions limit the scope of our choices.
  • Freedom involves deliberation. Ignorance is an excuse only for them who have no ability or opportunity to learn
  • Augustine of Hippo taught that
  • there are matters entirely beyond our control, such as those things which God has  reserved for Himself only God has autarkeia or is self-sufficient, absolutely independent; only God is autexousios or complete "self-authority", "self-power", without any authority over Him.
  • How does the Church define "free will"?
  • two meanings
  • It is the  ability to choose between good and evil and between one thing and another. In every choice  there is the risk of sin, unless we call upon the Grace of God to aid« us.
  • our choices always involve  the power to choose between good and evil.
  • our liberty is restricted by ignorance.
  • impossible for us to choose between good and evil and, therefore, to take any part in our salvation
  • "original sin"
  • The liberty of Christians differs from the liberty of the unbeliever, he who is outside the influence of God's saving Grace.
  • choice depends upon knowledge; and upon the knowledge of God's Revelation, which presents the greatest number of choices.
  • with the knowledge of God comes the knowledge of the good and, by implication, the knowledge of evil; and, consequently, the possibility to choose between them. Without that knowledge and the choices that result from them, we are left with no explanation for human existence except fate or predestination, some unknown destiny. Understanding  ourselves this way, is to deprive human choice and action of all meaning Worse, if there were a  God, we would need to blame him for all evil. Not even the devil, if one existed! , could be held  responsible for his conduct.
    • mariakanarakis
      mariakanarakis on 10 May 12
       
      FINAL conclusion
  • mariakanarakis on 10 May 12
     
    An Introduction to the Orthodox Christian understanding of free will
Daryl Bambic

The Internet Classics Archive | Gorgias by Plato - 0 views

classics.mit.edu/...gorgias.html

gorgias

shared by Daryl Bambic on 09 Feb 14 - Cached
  • prolixity of speech
    • Daryl Bambic
      Daryl Bambic on 09 Feb 14
       
      Prolixity: taking too many words to say something, too much blah blah blah
    • Daryl Bambic
      Daryl Bambic on 09 Feb 14
       
      Definition:  using too many words to say something when it could have been said simpler and clearer.
  • Then, when the rhetorician is more persuasive than the physician, the ignorant is more persuasive with the ignorant than he who has knowledge?-is not that the inference?
  • gain the ears of the multitude on any subject, and this not by instruction but by persuasion?
  • ...17 more annotations...
  • does he really know anything of what is good and evil, base or honourable, just or unjust
  • he rhetorician need not know the truth about things
  • You say that you can make any man, who will learn of you, a rhetorician
  • rhetorician must either know the nature of the just and unjust already, or he must be taught by you.
  • that is not to be laid to the charge of his teacher, who is not to be banished, but the wrong-doer himself who made a bad use of his rhetoric-he is to be banished-was not that said?
  • that the rhetorician might make a bad use of rhetoric I noted with surprise the inconsistency into which you had fallen;
  • this habit I sum up under the word "flattery"
  • Soc. Will you understand my answer? Rhetoric, according to my view, is the ghost or counterfeit of a part of politics
  • assume the existence of bodies and of souls?
  • good condition o
  • only in appearance?
  • The soul and body being two,
  • art of politics attending on the soul; and another art attending on the body,
  • hat there are these four arts, two attending on the body and two on the soul for their highest good;
  • flattery knowing, or rather guessing their natures, has distributed herself into four shams or simulations of them; she puts on the likeness of some one or other of them, and pretends to be that which she simulates, and having no regard for men's highest interests, is ever making pleasure the bait of the unwary, and deceiving them into the belief that she is of the highest value to them.
  • the physician would be starved to death.
  • s the natural difference between the rhetorician and the sophist, but by reason of their near connection, they are apt to be jumbled up together; neither do they know what to make of themselves, nor do other men know what to make of them
Daryl Bambic

Purdue OWL - 0 views

owl.english.purdue.edu/...724

papers paper argumentative

shared by Daryl Bambic on 20 May 15 - No Cached
  • A thesis is not an announcement of the subject:
  • A thesis is not a title
  • thesis is not a statement of absolute fact:
  • ...12 more annotations...
  • our main idea/claim/refutation/problem-solution expressed in a single sentence or a combination of sentences.
  • Try to be as specific as possible (without providing too much detail)
  • Induction is the type of reasoning that moves from specific facts to a general conclusion. When you use induction in your paper, you will state your thesis (which is actually the conclusion you have come to after looking at all the facts) and then support your thesis with the facts.
    • Daryl Bambic
      Daryl Bambic on 20 May 15
       
      Replace 'facts' with reasoning and logic for a philosophy paper.  
  • general premises and move to a specific conclusion
  • syllogistic reasoning (the syllogism)
  • Major premise Minor premise Conclusion
  • relationship of the two premises lead, logically, to the conclusion.
  • If you disagree with either of these premises, the conclusion is invalid.
  • So the unstated premise is “Only rich people have plasma TVs.
  • may also call for action
  • The preacher's maxim is one of the most effective formulas to follow for argument papers: Tell what you're going to tell them (introduction). Tell them (body). Tell them what you told them (conclusion).
Chrissy Le

CONS - Euthanasia - 5 views

www.buzzle.com/...os-and-cons-of-euthanasia.html

euthanasia cons pros debate morals

shared by Chrissy Le on 20 Nov 10 - Cached
  • Chrissy Le on 20 Nov 10
     
    Euthanasia is to end one's life, the purpose being, to end pain and suffering. The decision is made by the individual himself/herself or the family members if that individual is not capable to make the decision. The site I have given looks at the pros and cons of euthanasia, but my focus' are the cons. I found these arguments to be very valid and ones that I have not yet thought of.
  • mira ahmad on 23 Nov 10
     
    Chrissy! I find this link helpful because it gives clear and precise arguments that are for and against euthanasia. It's a simple and easy way to get more arguments for our subject! (They obviously need more research and depth though).
  • Catherine Delisle on 24 Nov 10
     
    This link is very helpful for both the for and against sides of euthanasia. It contains a lot of information that can be useful for both sides. The only bad aspect of this website is it's credibility.
sara tsapekis

Do euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide violate the Hippocratic Oath? - Euthanasia... - 2 views

euthanasia.procon.org/view.answers.php

shared by sara tsapekis on 23 Nov 10 - No Cached
  • Hippocratic Oath:
    • sara tsapekis
      sara tsapekis on 23 Nov 10
       
      The Hippocratic Oath is an oath taken by doctors taken for them to swear that they will practice medicine ethically.
  • I will do no harm
    • sara tsapekis
      sara tsapekis on 23 Nov 10
       
      Some may say euthanasia violates the oath especially due to this sentence. Some think that euthanasia causes harm to the person because it is killing them, while others believe that in certain situations, not performing euthanasia is harming the individual.
  • sara tsapekis on 23 Nov 10
     
    This site includes text from the Hippocratic Oath and famous quotes talking about whether euthanasia violates this oath or not. The Hippocratic Oath is relevant to euthanasia because all doctors take this oath and a certain amount of them perform euthanasia. Some people think it violates the oath because of the aspects the oath contains, which opposes the whole concept of euthanasia. Of course, others think otherwise. Quotes from well known educators, lawyers etc. express their position.
  • ...1 more comment...
  • Daryl Bambic on 24 Nov 10
     
    Excellent site Sara.
  • mira ahmad on 24 Nov 10
     
    Sara! I like this site a lot. Firstly, I wasn't aware about the Hippocratic Oath, so I was really enlightened while reading this information. And your right, the hippocratic oath has a lot to do with euthanasia (and assisted suicide). In addition to this, clear arguments that are for and against euthanasia are in this site which help enlarge my ideas.
  • Catherine Delisle on 24 Nov 10
     
    Sara, this is a great web site that explains the justice side of euthanasia and the moral aspects of it. Doctors do go against the Hippocratic Oath, which is a great point. I wasn't aware that this oath existed, but it enlightened my idea about the justice aspect of this subject. This makes a great argument.
1 - 7 of 7
Showing 20▼ items per page