Ask a Christian philosopher a question

[Ana the Ist]

No, it doesn't, as has been explained to you dozens of times in this thread. No one who gives someone a Ph.D. in Geology does so because they think that someone understands philosophy.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Before we jump to conclusions about his ability to be a philosopher, perhaps we should ask ourselves if he's ever worked as a geologist....or just thought about working as a geologist lol.

*rimshot

 

[durangodawood]

I can not come with one right off my head. Use the one brought up by Furiousxxx:Is killing always wrong?

If a biologist thought that human is only an evolved animal, then kill a human is probably not that much different from killing a monkey. Is it wrong to kill a monkey without a good reason? How about kill a chicken? Or, how about kill a cabbage?

See how much biology would be involved in the issue? Could a "formally" trained philosopher handle this issue along this particular context? When terminating a life, should we only worry about human life, but not other forms of life?

Thank you.
Thats all I need to know.

 

[juvenissun]

Before we jump to conclusions about his ability to be a philosopher, perhaps we should ask ourselves if he's ever worked as a geologist....or just thought about working as a geologist lol.

*rimshot

Do you know how does a geologist work?
I don't think so.
If I read a geological article, am I working in geology?

Is my response philosophical enough?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Do you know how does a geologist work?
I don't think so.
If I read a geological article, am I working in geology?

Is my response philosophical enough?

Vague doesn't equal philosophical...and my comment was a reference to a joke amongst philosophers. Clearly you didn't get it.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

compare two persons:

A: A Ph.D. in science, with a little philosophy understanding.
B: A Ph.D. in philosophy, with a little scientific understanding.

Who can make a better argument on some (or most) philosophical issues?

I am not sure person B will always be the one.

I'm certain B wil not always be the one. But that's a red herring. You already showed that you don't really know how much science is required for large parts of philosophy, which is sufficient to falsify your previous claim. I wasn't making any larger claims about science & philosophy, beyond that, in my - admittedly limited - experience, qualified philosophers tend to know more science than qualified scientists do philosophy (because in general, science has a greater part in philosophy than philosophy does in science). YMMV.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

If a biologist thought that human is only an evolved animal, then kill a human is probably not that much different from killing a monkey. Is it wrong to kill a monkey without a good reason? How about kill a chicken? Or, how about kill a cabbage?

See how much biology would be involved in the issue?

Very little. You don't need to be a biologist to make a general distinction between animals and plants, whether an animal seems similar to us, or how you regard humans in relation to other animals from a moral or value perspective.

Could a "formally" trained philosopher handle this issue along this particular context? When terminating a life, should we only worry about human life, but not other forms of life?

Of course; a good philosopher would explore all the major variations on the theme.

 

[juvenissun]

I'm certain B wil not always be the one. But that's a red herring. You already showed that you don't really know how much science is required for large parts of philosophy, which is sufficient to falsify your previous claim. I wasn't making any larger claims about science & philosophy, beyond that, in my - admittedly limited - experience, qualified philosophers tend to know more science than qualified scientists do philosophy (because in general, science has a greater part in philosophy than philosophy does in science). YMMV.

Show me requirement of science courses in any department of philosophy. It is absolutely MINIMUM, most likely, NONE.
That is why I always feel strange about the talks among philosophers. It has everything, but the meat.
Trained philosophers feel the heat in their lacking of scientific knowledge. That is why they desperately want to catch up AFTER graduation. How do that do that? They watch programs in discovery channels.

 

[juvenissun]

Very little. You don't need to be a biologist to make a general distinction between animals and plants, whether an animal seems similar to us, or how you regard humans in relation to other animals from a moral or value perspective.
Of course; a good philosopher would explore all the major variations on the theme.

I like to know what is the philosophical views or arguments about vegetarianism?
I believe that they do not and will not look this question form the views of biology.
Is it meaningful to consider this question from a biological point of view? Ultimately, the nature of this question IS biological.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I like to know what is the philosophical views or arguments about vegetarianism?
I believe that they do not and will not look this question form the views of biology.
Is it meaningful to consider this question from a biological point of view? Ultimately, the nature of this question IS biological.

There are many different meaningful ways to think about vegetarianism - biological, agrarian, ecological, economical, philosophical, moral, psychological.

Philosophy is the study of the general and fundamental nature of reality, existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. If you want a philosophical view, ask a philosopher a philosophical question about it, or make a philosophical statement about it. If you want a biological view of it, ask a biologist a biological question or make a biological statement about it.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Show me requirement of science courses in any department of philosophy. It is absolutely MINIMUM, most likely, NONE.
That is why I always feel strange about the talks among philosophers. It has everything, but the meat.
Trained philosophers feel the heat in their lacking of scientific knowledge. That is why they desperately want to catch up AFTER graduation. How do that do that? They watch programs in discovery channels.

It's a shame that the philosophers you've talked with have had such poor training. As I said, I only speak from my own experience of talking to philosophers and the little study of philosophy and the great philosophers that I've been involved with; I don't see how you can follow Hume or Russell, for example, without some basic science. Science and philosophy are interdependent in so many ways - see Philosophy and Science for an overview.

 

[juvenissun]

There are many different meaningful ways to think about vegetarianism - biological, agrarian, ecological, economical, philosophical, moral, psychological.

Philosophy is the study of the general and fundamental nature of reality, existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. If you want a philosophical view, ask a philosopher a philosophical question about it, or make a philosophical statement about it. If you want a biological view of it, ask a biologist a biological question or make a biological statement about it.

What is the meaning of being a vegetarian?
Could this be a philosophical question?
I don't think a "formally" trained philosopher would like to deal with this question. It might be too hard for him.

 

[juvenissun]

It's a shame that the philosophers you've talked with have had such poor training. As I said, I only speak from my own experience of talking to philosophers and the little study of philosophy and the great philosophers that I've been involved with; I don't see how you can follow Hume or Russell, for example, without some basic science. Science and philosophy are interdependent in so many ways - see Philosophy and Science for an overview.

I agree.

What I am questioning is the current normal curriculum for a Ph.D. in philosophy. I don't think there is a science course in there. But it seems they could understand Russell's idea well.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

What is the meaning of being a vegetarian?
Could this be a philosophical question?
I don't think a "formally" trained philosopher would like to deal with this question. It might be too hard for him.

The meaning is that vegetarians don't eat meat. Why should a trained or qualified philosopher have any more difficulty with that than anyone else?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

What I am questioning is the current normal curriculum for a Ph.D. in philosophy.

I don't know. I also don't know why you seem so exercised about this. You're not upset that having a Ph.D. in geology doesn't make you a philosopher, are you?

 

[juvenissun]

I don't know. I also don't know why you seem so exercised about this. You're not upset that having a Ph.D. in geology doesn't make you a philosopher, are you?

I am not upset. The discussion leads me to this question. It seems the current Ph.D. program in philosophy is very very weak in science.

If this is true, then I can see why is a science degree called a Ph.D.
To study science is a better way to understand philosophy.

 

[juvenissun]

The meaning is that vegetarians don't eat meat. Why should a trained or qualified philosopher have any more difficulty with that than anyone else?

What you said is a definition or a description. It is not a meaning.
(is this comment philosophical?)
A philosophical answer may look like: a person s a vegetarian because ... which means ...

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

What you said is a definition or a description. It is not a meaning.
(is this comment philosophical?)
A philosophical answer may look like: a person s a vegetarian because ... which means ...

Ah - are you asking what reasons individuals have for being vegetarian? I don't know for sure, but I can make a few suggestions. Why? where are going with this?

 

[juvenissun]

Ah - are you asking what reasons individuals have for being vegetarian? I don't know for sure, but I can make a few suggestions. Why? where are going with this?

No need for a few, just one would be good for discussion. Of course, we like to see the one which is more philosophical.

Or I can change the question to: What is the philosophical meaning of being a vegetarian?
Still, it could have several philosophical answers. But the point is: Biology WILL be an important part in the argument. And a newly graduated philosopher may not be able to handle it.

 

[durangodawood]

If a biologist thought that human is only an evolved animal, then kill a human is probably not that much different from killing a monkey.

If thats where biology training would lead, then perhaps scientific knowledge is actually a hindrance to deep discussion of certain philosophical issues.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

No need for a few, just one would be good for discussion. Of course, we like to see the one which is more philosophical.

Here's one reason - they might not like the idea of eating dead animals.

Or I can change the question to: What is the philosophical meaning of being a vegetarian?

Being a vegetarian means not eating meat. What philosophical side of that do you want to discuss - the aesthetics? the morals & ethics? the logic? the politics? the epistemology?

Still, it could have several philosophical answers. But the point is: Biology WILL be an important part in the argument. And a newly graduated philosopher may not be able to handle it.

There's all kinds of stuff new graduates can't handle; experience is important too. So anyway, what philosophical answer to that question do you think has biology as an important part in the argument?