I don't really have a lot of experience with philosophy since before, and I really don't think it's that interesting. I have a really hard time understanding discussions about whether or not a table exists or not and if we really can trust that 2+2=4. In my mind this isn't something that needs discussion, the table is there, and yes; 2+2=4. Therefore I think it's a real shame that the lecture and seminars were cancelled this week because from my own perspective it would have been good to get another persons view on this, someone who knows the subject far better than myself, and perhaps a few who likes to discuss these types of questions. With that being said, I read some of the other students blog-posts and I will try to sum up the things I found most interesting below.
On pretty much every question, the students which blogs I've visited, have somewhat the same idea about what the answer to the different questions should be. The answers are pretty straightforward describing "sense-data is this...", "a proposition is that...", "by a definite description Russell means..". In my opinion, we have a very direct way to attack the questions by finding the "right" answer, explain it and then move on to the next question. But on the other hand the questions are also pretty direct and you could answer them easy without really stating your own thoughts and beliefs. This is, on the other hand, something I think would have come up on the seminar. I don't think I've learnt nearly as much as I would have if the seminar wouldn't have been cancelled.
Even though I stated that philosophy isn't something that I'm used to I kind of liked the discussion about what knowledge really is. From an early age we're taught to question things and the ability for critical thinking is something that I think is really important. How do we know that what we're learning is true? I liked Johan Bäckman's parallel to the fact that we "...once upon a time accept scientific proof that the earth was flat."
Inga kommentarer:
Skicka en kommentar