Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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
Thank you.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?
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?
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.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.
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.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?
Of course; a good philosopher would explore all the major variations on the theme.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?
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.
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.
There are many different meaningful ways to think about vegetarianism - biological, agrarian, ecological, economical, philosophical, moral, psychological.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.
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.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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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?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?
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?
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?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?
If thats where biology training would lead, then perhaps scientific knowledge is actually a hindrance to deep discussion of certain philosophical issues.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.
Here's one reason - they might not like the idea of eating dead animals.No need for a few, just one would be good for discussion. Of course, we like to see the one which is more philosophical.
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?Or I can change the question to: What is the philosophical meaning of being a vegetarian?
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?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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?