The Epitome of my Philosophy Class

[KevinDW78]

For those of you who have been following my threads on the absurdity I encounter in my college philosophy course, I wanted to relay what I consider to be what the entire semester has been leading up to. It has become clear to me that the professor probably masturbates to etchings of Immanual Kant every night. He even sent out a classwide email recently letting us know we'll need to give ourselves adequate time during the last two weeks to study Kant becauce "Kant may very well be the greatest philosopher to have ever lived!" Luckily, according to the syllabus, we are only obligated to make 32 discussion board postings and I completed all of mine already. Moreover, out of all our assignments, the lowest score gets dropped and since I have gotten full credit on all my assignments this semester, I don't have to do the final assignment essay on Kant. So, I am under no obligation to do jack squat with Kant in this course! (THANK GOD!) Anyway, Just out of cursiosity, I just looked to see what kind of discussions are going on and couldn't help but laugh when I saw this topic the instructor had posted:

It worries me deeply to see that many of you can't provide a substantive answer for the origin of your duties. For the most part, the answers have been to the effect that it is what you've been taught. This means that, for the most part, you all are just following blindly, blithely accepting the things you're taught. Do you see the danger in that? What are the dangers? Can you give historical examples? What about recent examples? Do you really think it is a good idea to blindly follow what you've been taught because not doing so makes you feel guilty? Do you see the danger in that? You're trading your mind, your very ability to think and reason, because you don't want to disappoint your parents, or yourselves, or .... You're trading your reason for comfort, and that should make you very uncomfortable.

I love [read: sarcasm] how the instructor has just accepted Kantianism as a valid and rational philosophy as a given - we clearly are just supposed to accept that and not challenge Kant.

Edited July 25, 2008 by KevinDW78

[nochrieaz]

The guy is basically saying "Don't expose to me the essence of what I am advocating. Help me pretend that duty-oriented ethics is the just as respectable as value-oriented ethics by giving it your 'consent'"

Like John Galt explained, some times the best way to defeat evil is to comply with it fully.

The quote you provided would be funny if you hadn't informed me that he is putting over this trick on young, impressionable minds who won't know that all of his empty rhetoric about independent thought is just that; rhetoric.

[fletch]

I know you have no requirement to do so, but have you considered posting a response to your professor anyway? If for no other reason than to not leave the impression that by your silence you agree with his statement or have no compelling argument against it.

[KevinDW78]

I did respond. I felt it was my duty (teehee) to not let it go unchallenegd:

The answer to this question is incredibly simple. Asking someone to explain the origin of their duties is like asking someone to explain why humans can breathe underwater. It's impossible to explain because no such thing exists. Kant certainly didn't provide evidence that they do. The whole amusing thing about Kant is that to this day, philosophers still have to try and figure out what the heck he was talking about because his writings are so incoherent.

Two students actually responded to my post agreeing with me, however their reasoning was idiotic and still showed they don't have a clue what they are really talking about. Oh well. This semester is over next week and then I'll be free from absurdity!

[Qwertz]

Until your next obnoxious gen-ed course, anyway.

~Q

[DavidOdden]

I did respond. I felt it was my duty (teehee) to not let it go unchallenegd:

There are certain things about the instructor's post which I could agree with (depending on the relationship of those statements to other statements and and facts about the class). For instance there is an correct observation inside of the complaint "It worries me deeply to see that many of you can't provide a substantive answer for the origin of your duties. For the most part, the answers have been to the effect that it is what you've been taught. This means that, for the most part, you all are just following blindly, blithely accepting the things you're taught." I think his hyperbolic "deep worry" is either a sign of his dishonesty or his impotence -- the unwillingness to look at the source of one's moral intuitions is a well-known fact, something that has to be combatted by substituting intuition with reason. We all know this, so stop pretending like the students are crypto-Nazis simply because they need to get more into the habit of actually using reason. It's a problem that should be solved, and supposedly the point of the class is to solve it (rather than exacerbate it).

But let's look at his conduct. He engages in the most venial of pedagogical-intellectual sins, posing the unanswered rhetorical question. Do I see the danger in accepting what I have been taught? Well, no, sir, I don't, since I have been taught by truthful people who haven't been lying to me. My math classes were all taught by very competent people who I trust, and I have no reason to question the Pythagorean theory, nor do I have any reason to dispute the claim that the diameter of a circle is pi*r^2. My history teachers were also very reliable, and I have no reason to reject the claim that the United States used to be a bunch of English colonies, and that we fought a war of independence at the end of the 18th century. Are you implying that these are lies which should be questioned?

What are the dangers of advocating epistemological nihilism? Can you give historical examples? What about recent examples? Do you really think it is a good idea to blindly question everything that you know? How about the danger of refusing to address a serious challenge to your position? When a student bests you at your own game and challenges one of your fundamental assumptions, exposing the arbitrariness of youe enterprise, the proper response is a resoinding public admission of defeat -- "Well played, sir! You have learned your lesson! My error was in presupposing yet not defending this notion of 'duty'. It seems I have tasted the whole worm, and I shall now leave by the town drain".

[KevinDW78]

Until your next obnoxious gen-ed course, anyway.

Not really. My last gen ed is this fall and it's "Film and the Law" - a night class where we spend three hours every week watching a courtroom drama film and annalyze it. After that I'm done! Just architecture for the rest of school!

[Qwertz]

Ruh roh.

Do share that one when it rolls around. My undergraduate degree is in film production, and I'm currently in my last year of law school.

<grin>

~Q

[KevinDW78]

My undergraduate degree is in film production, and I'm currently in my last year of law school.

That's an interesting combination. Sounds like this course ir right up your alley lol.

[KevinDW78]

LOL This was my instructor's response:

Let me point out four things that might help (I don't mean they'll help you, but maybe they'll help the rest of the class see through your nonsense). First, it's unclear what you mean by 'existence'. If you mean that duties are not perceivable entities and that they don't "exist" in that sense, well, then, duh. If you mean that the concept 'duty' is empty of content, that it has no meaning, then you need an argument to explain why it is that so many people think they in fact have certain duties. And just saying, "they don't exist" isn't an argument. Moreover, that you refuse to recognize duties (or that anyone would refuse to recognize duties) doesn't in any way show that duties don't exist. Again, you need an argument.

Secondly, it's truly unfortunate that you seem disposed to approach philosophical questions with such arrogance. Your disposition is preventing you from thinking, and that's too bad.

Thirdly, if you think Kant is incoherent, then you don't understand Kant, which is, again, evidence that you refuse to think about these problems.

Finally, Kant never argues for the conclusion that duties "exist" (again, it's not at all clear what you could mean by that), so why would you think that he needed to provide evidence that they do? What could evidence for that conclusion even look like? Again, your arrogance and disposition to refuse to think about what you say is coming through in your assertions. It's clear from what you write that not only do you not think about the philosophical issues, but that, in fact, you refuse to think about what you say.

I am convinced now that this instructor is just an immature, arrogant, snot who throws a temper tantrum like a 4 year old whenever he doesn't get his way. So I am not even sure if I should dignify this nonsense with a response.

Edited July 27, 2008 by KevinDW78

[KevinDW78]

I am currently drafting my final response for this entire course. Here is what I have so far. I would greatly appreciate any corrections or additions as I want this final argument to be very concise and irrefutable.

Kant’s entire philosophy is based on his concept of duty, so I am not sure how you can assert that Kant didn’t conclude that they exist. It’s a major premise of his! Furthermore, I cannot prove a negative. I can’t prove that duties don’t exist anymore than I can prove that Santa Clause doesn’t exist. The burden of proof is on Kant to prove that they do exist since all his logic is based on their existence! That is the equivalent of me forming an entire argument on the premise of pink elephants, and having someone say “pink elephants don’t exist” and me retorting with “you can’t just say pink elephants don’t exist, you have to provide an argument.” Furthermore you comment that, “First, it's unclear what you mean by 'existence'. If you mean that duties are not perceivable entities and that they don't ‘exist’ in that sense, well, then, duh.” This is just an immature attempt at making my argument appear weak by asserting that I might be arguing something that by general accounts would be considered absurd. You know very well that is not what I was arguing, and you are doing nothing but attempting to insult my intelligence to others in the class by suggesting that I was. Stop context-dropping. My argument is clearly on the subject of the Kantian concept of “duty” (and I reiterated so in my responses to the other students who replied to me). Furthermore you accuse me of being “arrogant” yet the root of this accusation is because I am refusing to blindly accept what is being spoon-fed to me. If someone presents me an argument that says the logical equivalent of 2+2=5 and I refuse to accept that and call it nonsense, that doesn’t make me “arrogant” or “refusing to think” because I won’t accept that 2+2=5. You have already stated that you personally feel Kant is “the greatest philosopher of all time” so it’s clear that you personally feel that his philosophy is valid and all the rest aren’t. You are now attempting to force that opinion on the rest of us. That I consider arrogant. Since when is philosophy a settled matter and everything Kant is right and everything not Kant is wrong? Just because I won’t accept Kant as a valid philosophy even though you have already personally decided that he is does not make me “arrogant” or “refusing to think”. Quite the contrary – it makes you dogmatic! You are doing exactly what you have attacked the students for all semester long. But now that we get to your personal pet philosopher, you somehow are now justified at being dogmatic whereas anyone who doesn’t accept unproven premises as given is “arrogant”. Do you not see the conflict of interest here? The very fact that I am writing this now proves that I am “thinking”, however, you seem to be arguing that the definition of “thinking” is agreeing with an unproven theory that you personally ascribe to. No, sir; It is not.

On a side note - I just became a patron member of OO.net

Edited July 27, 2008 by KevinDW78

[eriatarka]

Why are you assuming your professor is a Kantian? Teaching philosophy to undergraduates mainly involves presenting the work of philosophers in a forceful way and trying to get them to think about it, perhaps by being provocative. It doesnt mean that the professor agrees with Kant or that he's trying to convert' you or anything, he probably just wants you to understand the material, engage with it, and perhaps come up with good arguments against it. You should check his professional research interests - chances are he wont even be a Kant scholar (although I may be wrong). I'd be pretty irritated by the tone of your emails if I was your tutor (although we're only seeing one side of the argument here and I dont know what hes actually like in class etc) .

Edited July 27, 2008 by eriatarka

[gags]

Wow! You touched a nerve. This guy is a real twit and a pretty poor example of an instructor.

My understanding of Kant's concept of duty is that he believed people should act not according to their selfish desire for personal gain, but out of a sense of duty based on his twisted version of morality and the Categorical Imperative. You started out this thread by posting a quote from the psuedo-instructor stating that he was disappointed because people weren't thinking enough in coming up with an answer for the origin of our duties. Then he claims that Kant never argued for the conclusion that duties "exist" while also launching into an imature tirade wherein he attacks you for thinking too much.

I'd ask for a refund of your tuition for this class.

[DavidOdden]

I am convinced now that this instructor is just an immature, arrogant, snot who throws a temper tantrum like a 4 year old whenever he doesn't get his way. So I am not even sure if I should dignify this nonsense with a response.

I gotta say, he is acting surprisingly unprofessionally and incompetently.

[KevinDW78]

Why are you assuming your professor is a Kantian?

Note my quote in my draft response. He has already told the entire class that Kant is "the greatest philsoohper to have ever lived" I don't think I am too far off by assuming that he is a Kantian.

The more I think about it (teehee) and allow myself to cool down, I am thinking I should just drop it. The semester is over. There is nothing to gain by continuing this argument. The final is this week and it's multiple choice (which means it has to be objectively graded). My grade in the couse is bound by the formula in the syllabus so I am getting an A whether he likes it or not (I know it will just kill him to do so).

I also just realized this fallacy:

If you mean that the concept 'duty' is empty of content, that it has no meaning, then you need an argument to explain why it is that so many people think they in fact have certain duties.

I don't care if one person or one billion people believe in Santa Clause - that doesn't make it true and someone would still have the burden of proof to prove Santa Clause exists.

Edited July 27, 2008 by KevinDW78

[Qwertz]

Claus. Before you send it off, make sure it's Claus. Because Clause will get you in trouble.

I had a very different experience with philosophy professors than you have had. All of them admitted that they didn't like Rand (for various reasons), but none were ever so childish as this one as to attack a student. A simple "That's interesting, now let's move on and discuss..." sufficed.

At least he's not marking you down. Though, according to his philosophy, I don't know how he could justify it.

I think this class is a good example of one where you can only try to be content with paying for the course credit, rather than for the 'education.'

~Q

[KevinDW78]

I think this class is a good example of one where you can only try to be content with paying for the course credit, rather than for the 'education.'

Yup. I had no interest in the course (which is why I have been so argumentative all semester). All I wanted was the credit fulfilling my Humanities Gen. Ed. requirement.

[DavidOdden]

I don't care if one person or one billion people believe in Santa Clause - that doesn't make it true and someone would still have the burden of proof to prove Santa Clause exists.

Indeed, that was a rather incompetent argument of his. The burden of proof is to demonstrate, if he wishes to claim that, that duties exist (not that Kant claimed there are duties, but that there actually are duties), in other words, he needs to have an ontology for "duty". He needs an argument that shows that acceptance of ideas is proof of their truth, and he needs to reconcile that position with the horrors of Nazi German and Islam. Just saying "you need to argue against duty" does not prove that duties exist -- he needs an argument. His arrogant dismissal of critical thinking would be unsurprising for a neophyte taking their first undergrad philosophy class, but for someone supposedly advanced enough to be in charge of a class, well, that is really quite surprising.

Finally, if duties do not exist (and clearly he has a very limited awareness of the concept "existence"), then it makes no sense to talk about them because you'd be talking about nothing. He has a duty to argue that his understanding of duty is correct.

[Thales]

LOL This was my instructor's response:

I am convinced now that this instructor is just an immature, arrogant, snot who throws a temper tantrum like a 4 year old whenever he doesn't get his way. So I am not even sure if I should dignify this nonsense with a response.

Whoa, he has a bad temperament for a professor, or is he just an instructor?

You're doing a great job, Kevin!

I am currently drafting my final response for this entire course. Here is what I have so far. I would greatly appreciate any corrections or additions as I want this final argument to be very concise and irrefutable.

On a side note - I just became a patron member of OO.net

I'm not analyzing for content here, but I do have one grammatical recommendation, break that up into several paragraphs. It'll be easier to digest that way.

Although, I don't know that I'd get into a flame war with my instructor. It may not work out well for your grades!

Edited July 28, 2008 by Thales

[KevinDW78]

Although, I don't know that I'd get into a flame war with my instructor. It may not work out well for your grades!

Pro: The course is graded objectively according to the formula in the sullabus and the ifnal is multiple choice. So unless he is going to cheat and ignore all my grades from the semester (in which case I would raise holy hell with the school) he is forced to give me an A already.

Pro: It would prove I am "thinking" contrary to his ranting absurdity.

Pro: I could point out blatant logical fallacies (such as I noted above) which would by all rights make any college philosophy instructor embarrassed to have used.

Con: I have nothing more to prove to him or anyone else on this matter.

For that last reason I have decided to just drop the issue and put this whole semester behind me.

[gags]

I think you made a good choice. There really isn't anything to be gained by getting into another battle with someone like this instructor. You certainly aren't going to change his mind, and he might be able to do something underhanded that impacts your grade. When they hand out the instructor evaluations, I would give it to him with both barrels. I'd also make the point that you received an A in the class, so this isn't an evaluation tainted by sour grapes over a poor grade.

[KevinDW78]

I JUST couldn't let it go. I felt I simply had to defend myself. However, I decided to take an emotional breath and compose a very calm, considerate, and level-headed response:

I have spent several days now contemplating if I wanted to respond to this reply. While I do not wish to elevate the dialogue, I do feel there are a few points I should make. Perhaps you were employing a reverse-psychology technique to engage my thinking further on the issue, and if that’s the case then I can accept that. I disagree that one can be accused of “refusing to think” or being “arrogant” simply because they approach theory from a skeptical viewpoint and require premises to be firmly established and not be blindly accepted without proof; that’s an Argument from Authority. Yet that is exactly what I feel I am being asked to do. I recognize that you hold Kant in high regards as a philosopher. Well, I believe I am entitled to disagree with that without having personal attacks leveled at me in a public manner such as this. I may on occasion take a curt, conversational writing style, but I do not believe that warrants being regarded in this manner. Specifically, if I am going to be presented by my instructor with a philosopher who is asserting things which I fail to see evidence for, then I believe I am justified in pointing out that those premises have not been established. You made the argument that I, “need an argument to explain why it is that so many people think they in fact have certain duties.” But this is the fallacy of Appeal to Popularity, and I am surprised that you would offer it. It is irrelevant if one person or one billion people believe in Kant’s concepts of duty, that doesn’t mean it’s true. The burden of proof is on them to show that it does. I simply do not recognize that a valid argument has been made to support it. For now, I am willing to excuse the other comments that were made that I feel were inappropriate and unwarranted. But it would be an incorrect assumption to believe that I am somehow new to the material in this course and that I haven’t already thought about and reached my own conclusions on the subject matter long before this course began. It would be rather silly to expect me to do otherwise. I recognize that as an instructor in a survey course, you would wish to explore ideas that to most students are new contemplations. However, unless you intended for us not to draw any conclusions from this course, there will always be another philosophy course who would demand the same “openness” of thought. Eventually, I would think you would wish students to actually make a conclusion. If not in this course, then the next instructor would have the same objections.

[KevinDW78]

ok I PROMISE this won't last much longer (the course discussion board get's shut down for the semester tomorrow).

This is the intructor's response:

I too won't elevate the negative aspects of the dialogue, except to say that my last post was pedagogically motivated.

I do, however, want to respond to two points you made. First, you write, "if I am going to be presented by my instructor with a philosopher who is asserting things which I fail to see evidence for, then I believe I am justified in pointing out that those premises have not been established." There are two problems here. First, Kant never argues for what you take him to be arguing for, so pointing out the fact that certain premises have not been established is a demonstration that you're either not doing the reading or have misunderstood the reading. So when you decide to point out that Kant is missing something that isn't an aspect of his discussion and then proceed to dismiss his discussion of morality because of your misunderstanding, all the while presuming you do understand Kant, I've got to do something to get your attention. Second, and this is a general point not specifically related to Kant, if you fail to see evidence for something that someone else does seem to see evidence for (as well as many other people), it might be an indication that you're missing something, not the other way around. This suggestion is especially germane in this context: it would be like telling your calculus teacher that because you don't see the evidential basis for accepting integral calculus, your not going to do the assignment.

The second point you make is to dismiss my suggestion that you need an argument to explain why it is that so many people think they have certain duties by suggesting that I've committed some sort of fallacy. To help you see the problem with that suggestion, let me use a non-philosophical example. The sciences are in the business of explanation, and generally the things they're interested in explaining are observable phenomena. So, for example, there was a time when scientists were seeking an explanation for why we see ourselves in mirrors. Now, they might have dismissed the need for such an explanation by saying, "Well, you see, there really is nothing in the mirror, everyone just thinks they see themselves in the mirror. Now that you all know that you're not really in the mirror, you don't need an explanation." As you might imagine, such a response wouldn't receive much critical acclaim.

The point of explanation is not to deny the phenomena in question and then proceed to dismiss the need for any explanation; no, the point of explanation is to explain. Similarly, most people seem to think they have certain duties, indeed, most people take it for granted that they have certain duties, and to explain the origin of those duties by denying that there are duties is tantamount to explaining why you see yourself in the mirror by denying that you are in the mirror. So, you see, there's not any appeal to the populous as a means of justifying some position, which is what would be needed to commit the fallacy, rather, the appeal to the populous is an attempt to get you to see that you have utterly failed to offer an explanation. What we're after in this course is explanation of philosophical phenomena---much as the chemist is interested in explanation of chemical phenomena---and simply dismissing the phenomena with a skeptical wave of the hand is to ignore what the entire course is designed to get you, and everyone else, to think about.

Now, of course, if I showed up in a chemistry class and proceeded to publicly dismiss my instructor's attempt to get me to think about Bohr's model of hydrogen on the basis that it's mistaken, then it seems I could legitimately be charged of two things. First, it shows that with respect to Bohr's model, I'm refusing to think. Second, if I refused to think upon the model on the basis that I already knew better, I think you could legitimately say that I was acting arrogantly.

As I said at the very beginning of the course, there are two things I do not accept, dogmatism and relativism (which is the most frequently appealed to form of skepticism), and I don't accept them because they prevent you from thinking. I recognized early in the course that you are under the impression that you've thought enough about these issues and that you have reached conclusions regarding many philosophical questions. That's unfortunate. Philosophy is about thinking anew about difficult concepts, and to think you, or anyone, can, or ought, reach substantive philosophical conclusions is to misconceive what the subject is all about (which, by the way, is another of Ayn Rand's problems).

Oh, and one more thing. I don't hold Kant in particularly high regard (at least not in any higher regard than any of the other philosophers we looked at this semester). I think he got quite a few things wrong, but that he got things wrong doesn't serve as a reason to dismiss him as incoherent. Instead, that he got things wrong serves as a reason to continue to explore the ideas he pondered.

You are clearly an intelligent student, and you'll of course do well in my course. The problem is not that you're not smart, nor is the problem that you don't make relevant points, you do. The problem is that you've consistently refused to think about the things I've tried to get you to think about.

I just posted this response. Thanks goes to Thomas M. Miovas, Jr. for his very easy to understand summaries of Kant's nonsense from an earlier thread of mine.

I'm not sure why you keep saying Kant didn't conclude that duties exist when his entire Categorical Imperative is based on it. So I will attempt to clarify. Kant's concept of "duty" is adherence to the Categorical Imperative. But that results in an adherence to a contradiction - which is what I mean when I argue that it "doesn't exist"; because I do not recognize one being able to to adhere to something that cannot exist (i.e. a contradiction). The reason the C.I. is a contradiction is that it doesn't recognize that man is an end in himself - he is an individual. Suggesting that a moral "imperative" has to be related to everyone else in the universe is contradictory to a factual nature. For example, if a man was stranded on a desert island, Kant's entire theory disappears because there is nobody else around to consider. This is why I view the theory as "non-existent". Kant tried to fabricate one giant Appeal to Popularity by saying, "if everyone does this, then it makes it real" (and by being accepted by the philosophical community, that is precisely what he was able to accomplish.) I view that as one giant fraud. A man doesn’t instinctively know what to do himself much less what 6 billion other people ought to do. It’s taking one giant subjective argument and forcing it to masquerade as an objective “universal” by imposing it on the populous.

Kant's concept of duty aside, I would like to specifically address the concept of "thinking" in regards to Kant. I view that as a conflict. I view Kant as the suspension of thinking. How do I arrive at that? Because Kant argued that we don't actually perceive reality - that we just experience phenomena. That is the fraud of his entire philosophy. If concepts are not based on observable reality, then the concepts are meaningless. Applied to his concept of “duty” it’s the equivalent of saying all cramsemums ought to smickle. If you can’t have an observable reality as to what “cramsemums” and “smickles” are, then the concept is meaningless. This is why I consider Kantianism to be the suspension of thinking. I don’t care what cramsemums are and I don’t care what smickles are. Likewise, if someone says 2+2=5 and I refuse to contemplate that 2+2 does equal 5, then don’t consider that refusing to think – I consider it refusing to not think. Moreover, if Kant wants to assert that if I have this (##) and I add it to this (##) that it doesn’t really equal this (####) and instead I am just observing a “phenomena” of (####) then I don’t consider it arrogant to be confident that that is nonsensical and “incoherent” to argue anything on top of.

[brian0918]

This is a very strange man. He rejects relativism, but then goes on to say that the point of philosophy is not to come to any hard conclusions, but to simply read up on everyone and then say "I agree with Kant on X, but disagree with him on Y. I agree with Locke on A, but disagree with him on B, etc". He is teaching people to have their conclusions ahead of time (whether they be based on emotions, or whatever is most convenient), and then pick and choose different verses from different philosophers as they need to justify those conclusions, much like a Christian picks and chooses from the Bible as they need to justify their actions - all while ignoring the contradictory verses in the rest of the Bible. Only a relativist could take such a stance.

Edited July 29, 2008 by brian0918

[KevinDW78]

is THAT what he was saying? lol thanks - I honestly couldn't even tell! It all just sounded like he was blathering on about something but couldn't make it out (how Kantian of him!) lol

Does anybody have a reponse to his "problem" with Ayn Rand?

Edited July 29, 2008 by KevinDW78