The Epitome of my Philosophy Class

[Benpercent]

Strange. If Kant never argues for the existence of duties, then why does he talk about them at all to begin with? Your instructor unintentionally implies that he is begging the question:

That is, he argues that if we have duties, they are based in our shared ability to reason. [....] Kant is interested in explaining a common and widespread sense of morality, part of which is a sense of duty, and he doesn't ever take time out to argue that there is such a thing as morality or duties.

In other words, he is arguing based on an assumption. Why does your instructor view Kant as the greatest philosopher ever, if he places the most important parts of his system in a logical fallacy? People cannot act on an arbitrary "If".

[KevinDW78]

Why does your instructor view Kant as the greatest philosopher ever, if he places the most important parts of his system in a logical fallacy?

My response is simply, "Who cares?" I'll spend the rest of my life making a lot of money through the productivity of my mind whereas he can spend his living in a dilapidated apartment contemplating pink elephants.

Furthermore when he says:

I very seriously doubt you've ever read anything by Kant.

That is just an incorrect assumption which he starts out with as an attempt to discredit me publically. I HAVE read several things by Kant. I had to earlier in the semester for my ethics class as well.

Edited July 31, 2008 by KevinDW78

[KurtColville]

Strange. If Kant never argues for the existence of duties, then why does he talk about them at all to begin with? Your instructor unintentionally implies that he is begging the question:

In other words, he is arguing based on an assumption. Why does your instructor view Kant as the greatest philosopher ever, if he places the most important parts of his system in a logical fallacy? People cannot act on an arbitrary "If".

I expect that Kant uses this tactic all over the place, but this just screams that he views his philosophy as a way to trick people into assigning validity to the arbitrary. He's counting on people omitting the question, "Is it true?"

[eriatarka]

My response is simply, "Who cares?" I'll spend the rest of my life making a lot of money through the productivity of my mind whereas he can spend his living in a dilapidated apartment contemplating pink elephants.

I imagine most people smart enough to be a professor at a decent university could have made as much money as you if theyd really wanted to - comments like this smack of bitterness.

[Tenure]

Wait wait wait...

Kant never argued for the existence of duties [...] He thinks there are duties

So Kant's philosophy boils down to an immature joke: I'm not saying your mum's a fat cow, I'm just saying your mum is 300lb and some people, I'm not saying I would, but some people might call her obese and a disgusting heap of flab. Why is that?

Kant is interested in explaining a common and widespread sense of morality, part of which is a sense of duty, and he doesn't ever take time out to argue that there is such a thing as morality or duties.

He's interesting because he claims the man-made as being metaphysical, then?

I think he's just trying to hide in a hole, by claiming that Kant was simply an innocent observor, describing what was and what its implications were, whereas instead, Kant's real objective, as he stated himself, was to give this phenomena - Duty - a proper moral and philosophical basis, one which would save the role of faith from the enemy of the Enlightenment (and more fundamentally, REASON!).

[Qwertz]

I imagine most people smart enough to be a professor at a decent university could have made as much money as you if theyd really wanted to - comments like this smack of bitterness.

Comments like this smack of unfortunate naivité about liberal academia. In this case, however, the instructor at issue is not smart enough to be a professor at a decent university. He is smart enough to be an adjunct instructor at a state university. But no matter. Kevin's comment is merely an application of the principle "let reality be the final arbiter of truth" to the facts of this situation.

~Q

[~Sophia~]

I imagine most people smart enough to be a professor at a decent university could have made as much money as you if theyd really wanted to ...

I judge a lot of my past college professors as people who could not hack it in the real world. Not only that - creating wealth is often a skill in itself. Even though intelligence and knowledge are positively correlated with wealth - that relationship is not that of causation. A lot of very smart people are not worth much.

[brian0918]

KevinDW78: Can we have his email address?

(I'm reminded of this comic. Quite a fitting title given the subject at hand.)

Edited August 1, 2008 by brian0918

[eriatarka]

I judge a lot of my past college professors as people who could not hack it in the real world.

No offence, but you may not be in a position to make that judgement since professors at good universities will generally have been hired for their research credentials rather than their teaching skills. Teaching undergrads is a burden n many cases - some people do enjoy it, but its rarely the main focus of their work. Unless you actually read their professional publications and have enough knowledge of the field to evaluate them then your judgement about their credentials is uninformed - undergrad teaching is probably the least important thing when it comes to assessing a professors merits (at the top uiniversities anyway, I imagine liberal arts colleges are different since theyre less research focused afaik).

Not only that - creating wealth is often a skill in itself. Even though intelligence and knowledge are positively correlated with wealth - that relationship is not that of causation. A lot of very smart people are not worth much.

Money isnt everything. Most people choose the academic life because their primary concern is doing interesting work, even if that pays less than the corporate world.

Edited August 1, 2008 by eriatarka

[KevinDW78]

Wanna know the funniest outcome of this whole semester? He just posted the grades for the discussion board aspect of the class and I got a 16 out of 10! He actually gave me extra credit! Now I think we can conclude one of three things from this. Either 1.) he wanted to show me he had no hard feelings after all our spirited exchanges, or 2.) He doesn't have the values to do what he was entrusted to do - be an "instructor" (in the liberal, mainstream philosophy definition). or 3.) Deep down, he senses that I may be right about a lot of things, but can't admit it to himself or anyone else.

You probably arent in a position to make that judgement since professors at good universities will generally have been hired for their research credentials rather than their teaching skills.

Your prattiness has been made clear, but as I have said over and over and over in this thread and others, and as Qwertz even pointed out to you, this is NOT a professor. It is a grad student serving as instrcutor.

Edited August 1, 2008 by KevinDW78

[eriatarka]

Your prattiness has been made clear, but as I have said over and over and over in this thread and others, and as Qwertz even pointed out to you, this is NOT a professor. It is a grad student serving as instrcutor.

I was responding to Sophie's comment not yours.

But even if he's a grad student the same applies - his main concern is going to be his research, with teaching just something he does either because its required by the college, or for extra income. You should be thankful that he's willing to spend extra time giving you so much individual attention despite your rudeness - I'd probably have stopped replying to you after about your 2nd email. He even gave you an opportunity to come meet him to discuss things face-to-face, which is a lot more than you seem to deserve.

Edited August 1, 2008 by eriatarka

[KevinDW78]

But even if he's a grad student the same applies - his main concern is going to be his research, with teaching just something he does either because its required by the college, or for extra income. You should be thankful that he's willing to spend extra time giving you so much individual attention despite your rudeness - I'd probably have stopped replying to you after about your 2nd email. He even gave you an opportunity to come meet him to discuss things face-to-face, which is a lot more than you seem to deserve.

[DavidOdden]

But even if he's a grad student the same applies - his main concern is going to be his research, with teaching just something he does either because its required by the college, or for extra income. You should be thankful that he's willing to spend extra time giving you so much individual attention despite your rudeness - I'd probably have stopped replying to you after about your 2nd email.

Grad students are often the worst instructors, in part because of their lack of technical competence and in part because of their lack of pedagogical competence. Any GTAs out there, of course I don't mean you. It is very clear from his responses that he functions at the lowest possible level of pedagogical competence. Typically, such incompetence reflects a parallel incompetence in the subject matter itself -- the guy simply does not understand philosophy as a subject matter well enough to sell the product.

It may well be that he has no intention of going into teaching as a profession, and he simply plans to become one of those thousands of cabbies with a PhD in philosophy. Since the guy did accept a teaching position (and it is not mandatory to teach, in order to get a degree), he has an actual duty to do what he's paid to do -- teach. That means spending time explaining stuff to students. However, his use of extra time was clearly off the clock, since he actually did not teach any of the subject matter of the course, as judged from the extracts that we saw here.

It is unimportant in this context what the guy's main interest is. My opinion, based on the evidence that I have seen, is that the guy is probably of marginal technical competence and unquestionably of sub-marginal pedagogical competence. Now of course newbies can improve, so I would not condemn him forever, but at the moment, he needs some basic training in teaching philosophy, because he totally screwed up a number of teaching moments.

[KevinDW78]

Agreed. Especially when so many members of this forum (who by all rights should have far less qualifications than he as far as philosophy is concerned) are able to pick apart his arguments left and right. That alone should tell you something about his merits.

[themadkat]

Agreed. Especially when so many members of this forum (who by all rights should have far less qualifications than he as far as philosophy is concerned) are able to pick apart his arguments left and right. That alone should tell you something about his merits.

Considering that I am about to be a TA within the next couple years (I don't have to teach my first year because of a fellowship), I think this thread is great. I look at it as a "what not to do" of TAing. Granted, I will be teaching bio/anthropology and not philosophy, but to some degree teaching is teaching. Also I don't know why everyone hates on teaching undergrads so much. I'm excited to be teaching undergrads and look at that as every bit as important as my future research.

[Publius]

I'm assuming there are some college grads on this board, so there should be plenty of forum members here who have taken a college philosophy course. Was it a different experience than this one? Was the (likely) non-Objectivist instructor competent? Was Kant explained to your satisfaction?

Kevin, if you're really that upset about this guy, print off some copies of his postings and submit them to the chair of the philosophy dpmt. You probably will come off as an intelligent and industrious, the kind of student the head of the dpmt. may find value in spending an hour or so delving into the finer points of Kant. Or you can stomp away in a huff and continue playing the role of misunderstood philosophy genius. Your choice.

[DavidOdden]

Kevin, if you're really that upset about this guy, print off some copies of his postings and submit them to the chair of the philosophy dpmt.

I think you completely misunderstand the situation, but of course Kevin can say whether he is really that upset. You seems to be the one who is really upset, because this tender young philosophy newbie totally schooled the supposedly wiser instructor. In this situation, the proper response is to be baffled at the poor quality of instruction, and it's only after you've seen a repeated pattern of such incompetence, especially flaming lack of thought, that it becomes reasonable to act all jaded. It's not Kevin's job to teach that boy philosophy, it's supposed to be the other way around. And it is most certainly not his job to engage in a pointless crusade against the Department of Philosophy. If I were in his shoes and were committed to majoring in philosophy, I would consider investing time in a letter to the chair, but otherwise it would be silly waste of time. Remember, there is a difference between the answer to the question "Philosophy: Who Needs It?" and "Minor Academic Philosophy Department: Who Needs It?".

One thing that you seem not to have yet understood is that intellectually speaking, Kant is actually of no importance and therefore it is not necessary to understand him (an impossibility, of course).

[KevinDW78]

Kevin can say whether he is really that upset

Lol of course I'm not upset. I'm amused! I'm not a complete idiot, ya know. I knew exactly what was coming when I decided to take this course. I knew I would have one of two options - either suspend my mind and regurgitate mindless prattle like all the other students and get an A having felt it to be utterly unearned, OR - Do exatly what I have done - challenge everything, be argumentative, accept NOTHING the instructor says from Appeal to Authority, and STILL get an A because I'm not an idiot but MORE IMPORTANTLY - I have EARNED this A as opposed to had I chosen the alternative.

[adrock3215]

One thing that you seem not to have yet understood is that intellectually speaking, Kant is actually of no importance and therefore it is not necessary to understand him (an impossibility, of course).

What? To the extent Kant has had an influence in a particular intellectual area, he may be a good starting point, or at least a reference. For instance, his influence on the visual and literary arts is tremendous, and it can be quite helpful to read the Critique of Judgement in an effort to understand the subsequent spread of art as form.

[DavidOdden]

What? To the extent Kant has had an influence in a particular intellectual area, he may be a good starting point, or at least a reference. For instance, his influence on the visual and literary arts is tremendous, and it can be quite helpful to read the Critique of Judgement in an effort to understand the subsequent spread of art as form.

How is this evidence of his intellectual relevance. Social influence and intellectual importance are two completely different things.

[adrock3215]

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).

He sounds almost exactly like Jaspers here.

How is this evidence of his intellectual relevance. Social influence and intellectual importance are two completely different things.

By intellectual relevance I suppose you to mean "contribution to man's understanding of truth"?

[KevinDW78]

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).

Qwertz labeled this elloquently - philosophy is "intellectual masturbation"

[DavidOdden]

By intellectual relevance I suppose you to mean "contribution to man's understanding of truth"?

I would have used the word "reality", because I find second-order metaphors to be loathsome.

[adrock3215]

I would have used the word "reality", because I find second-order metaphors to be loathsome.

Fair enough. I also take it that 'intellectual relevance' and 'intellectual importance' are synonymous, since you've used the two interchangeably?

[themadkat]

I'm assuming there are some college grads on this board, so there should be plenty of forum members here who have taken a college philosophy course. Was it a different experience than this one? Was the (likely) non-Objectivist instructor competent? Was Kant explained to your satisfaction?

I took quite a few college philosophy courses, earning myself a minor in moral philosophy. They were a much more positive experience for me than Kevin's experiences here. Even in classes where it was clear the instructor disagreed with me (my Love and Friendship professor was openly consequentialist, as was I'd say upwards of half our department) it was always respectful. My Philosophy of Science course was great and had only 6 people in it, plus the professor's huge friendly dog that always laid down near me I'm so glad I took that, because especially with the type of graduate study I'm undertaking in the department I'm taking it in, philosophical battles are going to be huge and my findings will mean nothing if I can't defend their relevance through philosophy (mostly epistemology).

All in all, my undergraduate philosophy experience was a good one.