Ask a Christian philosopher a question

[juvenissun]

Obviously, it has multiple meanings. Physician is one. I dont know where the doctor in PhD originates. But clearly it means something besides physician.

"Doctor" may have a multiple meanings. But you did not even say ONE.
Physician is a doctor. But it does not explain what doctor means. You do not answer a definition by an example.

Is this a philosophical comment? Am I a better philosopher than you are?

 

[juvenissun]

GO TO WIKIPEDIA FOR YOUR ANSWER!


eudaimonia,

Mark

People like you could write that page.
So, I always warn my students about reading it.

 

[Eudaimonist]

People like you could write that page.
So, I always warn my students about reading it.

*facepalm*

Then why are you asking us, if people like me are not capable of writing a decent Facebook entry? You would just be getting the same sort of information.

But I think that you will find in general that Facebook entries are well-written, and Facebook does a great job of adding comments when a claim isn't backed up by a source, for instance. It's a great resource.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

You are wrong. A kidney stone is not a stone.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Obviously, it has multiple meanings. Physician is one. I dont know where the doctor in PhD originates. But clearly it means something besides physician.

The 'Doctor' in PhD comes from 'doctorate', "the highest degree awarded by a graduate school or other approved educational organization" (wikipedia).

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I like to think philosophy must be an important part of it. Since I got the title.

Did you study philosophy for your PhD?

 

[juvenissun]

*facepalm*

Then why are you asking us, if people like me are not capable of writing a decent Facebook entry? You would just be getting the same sort of information.

But I think that you will find in general that Facebook entries are well-written, and Facebook does a great job of adding comments when a claim isn't backed up by a source, for instance. It's a great resource.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Yes, they may be "well written". But mostly, they made many mistakes in the well written articles.
You read them very carefully with a filter of your own.
For example, I don't believe any of those articles explained what is the difference between the "Ph." in Ph.D. and "philosophy".

 

[juvenissun]

The 'Doctor' in PhD comes from 'doctorate', "the highest degree awarded by a graduate school or other approved educational organization" (wikipedia).

Thank you.

A Doctorate of Philosophy.
Very good.

 

[juvenissun]

Did you study philosophy for your PhD?

The thing puzzled me is that I did not.
Why did I get a D. in Ph. ?

This makes me to speculate that philosophy is the essence underlines every Ph.D. So, you may say that every Ph.D. is a philosopher. According to the definition of philosophy, I think it should be true.

 

[Ana the Ist]

People like you could write that page.
So, I always warn my students about reading it.

You're kidding...

....you have students?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Answer the question, if you could.
If you don't, I will ignore you next time.

It's been answered...repeatedly at this point.

Here's a question for yourself...are you trolling? Is that what a PhD does with his time on the internet?

 

[durangodawood]

"Doctor" may have a multiple meanings. But you did not even say ONE.
Physician is a doctor. But it does not explain what doctor means. You do not answer a definition by an example.

Is this a philosophical comment? Am I a better philosopher than you are?

The word doctor, in contemporary english, actually means, specifically: physician. It has other meanings too.

 

[durangodawood]

I like to think philosophy must be an important part of it. Since I got the title.

Yes, it must be disappointing that you are not BOTH a trained philosopher, as well as a trained whatever-your-degree-is-in.

 

[juvenissun]

The word doctor, in contemporary english, actually means, specifically: physician. It has other meanings too.

I think you are right.
Thank you.

 

[juvenissun]

Yes, it must be disappointing that you are not BOTH a trained philosopher, as well as a trained whatever-your-degree-is-in.

That is what I don't agree.
I am trained in philosophy (value, method, logic etc.). Even I did not take a single course in philosophy.
I am not afraid to talk to any so-called trained philosopher on any philosophical issue. The only thing I need is their terminology, a little bit history, and some responding time.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I am trained in philosophy (value, method, logic etc.). Even I did not take a single course in philosophy.

You weren't "trained" that well, if your performance at CF is any indication. You come across as someone who isn't trained at all, even in the self-taught sense.

I am not afraid to talk to any so-called trained philosopher on any philosophical issue. The only thing I need is their terminology, a little bit history, and some responding time.

Anyone can respond to a philosopher, that doesn't make one a philosopher.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[juvenissun]

You weren't "trained" that well, if your performance at CF is any indication. You come across as someone who isn't trained at all, even in the self-taught sense.



Anyone can respond to a philosopher, that doesn't make one a philosopher.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Cheap responses. Shame.

 

[durangodawood]

That is what I don't agree.
I am trained in philosophy (value, method, logic etc.). Even I did not take a single course in philosophy.
I am not afraid to talk to any so-called trained philosopher on any philosophical issue. The only thing I need is their terminology, a little bit history, and some responding time.

People think they can do this because philosophy is conducted in natural language (which they already know) rather than mathematics, or musical notation, or computer code, etc. And also because it concerns human life, which they are living.

The results are typically very shallow, though. I mean, what do you think trained philosophers were doing during the years of their life studying the subject? You seem to ascribe very little value to all that work if you think you can just jump into the discussion at will and operate at their level.

 

[juvenissun]

People think they can do this because philosophy is conducted in natural language (which they already know) rather than mathematics, or musical notation, or computer code, etc. And also because it concerns human life, which they are living.

The results are typically very shallow, though. I mean, what do you think trained philosophers were doing during the years of their life studying the subject? You seem to ascribe very little value to all that work if you think you can just jump into the discussion at will and operate at their level.

In addition to the value, method, and logic, the "formally" trained philosopher learned the history of philosophy and the facilitation of philosophical argument in a hierarchical structured terminology. The most difficult part in communicating to a "philosopher" is not on the content/argument of the issue, but is on the terminology used to express the idea, and the historical background of the issue. I think those two make them stand out as a "formally" trained one. In terms of the intrinsic nature of the issue, I may have an equal understanding, or more understanding then them. My biggest advantage to them is that I know sciences, but they do not.

Most philosophical arguments are crippled without a scientific understanding.

 

[durangodawood]

In addition to the value, method, and logic, the "formally" trained philosopher learned the history of philosophy and the facilitation of philosophical argument in a hierarchical structured terminology. The most difficult part in communicating to a "philosopher" is not on the content/argument of the issue, but is on the terminology used to express the idea, and the historical background of the issue. I think those two make them stand out as a "formally" trained one. In terms of the intrinsic nature of the issue, I may have an equal understanding, or more understanding then them. My biggest advantage to them is that I know sciences, but they do not.

Most philosophical arguments are crippled without a scientific understanding.

I do believe you or I could talk sensibly about most philosophical concepts. But our discussion will typically be rather shallow as we reinvent the wheels for ourselves. Studied philosophers have typically reviewed these topics from multiple angles, and in depth.

When someone offers themselves up as a "philosopher", I expect the depth that you get from real study, and not just native intelligence or training in other fields. Also, I think you might be surprised at how much the typical philosopher has assimilated scientific knowledge and the assumptions that underlie the scientific method.