09-25-2005, 10:21 PM #1
for environmental sciences tomorrow...asked me to reveal my personal philosophy....
what do you guys think??? feel free to critique
Before I expose my thoughts on philosophy and its place in environmental situations, I must confess my faults. I haven't checked out an environmental science book yet, nor have I been paying explicit attention to your fascinating lectures. However, I do remember something about universalists and relativists. Therefore,I will combine these and my prior knowledge of philosophy to represent my personal philosophy.
I label myself as a Platonic theological existentialist who regards the Socratic method as the highest method of obtaining truth. Now I have the duty of balancing these stances into one stable, equilbriumed state of mind. Theology is centered on the belief of a God or diety that may encompass fate or judgement over all his subjects. Existentialists, however, like Nietzche, are most often atheist, and sometimes hedonists. Plato, a universalist, rivals Socrates' belief in relativism. However, I, a supporter, though not a follower, of the Baha'i faith, believe that tolerance and coexistence of even the most polar beliefs can occur.
I hold true that there are a set of rules or guidelines that are the upholders of morality or ethics. These rules are universal and eternal. For example, a lie is always bad. Charity is always good. Now there are situations in which an onlooker may determine that a lie may be acceptable, and charity may be unnecassary or even harmful. However, in the long run, say a millenia, if everyone donated 5% of their income to their poorer brethren, AND everyone abstained from telling even a white lie, the overall state of mankind would be marvelous. I guess you could say that l am more interested in the overall picture. In this light, l could be anticipated to relish the overall state of a certain environment, not the individual specimens. so l'm just gonna hop on the biocentric bandwagon on that one.
l am a huge fan of the Socratic method. The dialogue, I believe, is the only way to fully reveal the truth from within. A "scientist" is needed that has no interest in manipulation of words or ideas, but one that furthers his own agenda by breaking the Big Question into smaller questions. These questions may have nothing to do with the big picture, but in the end reveal some sort of truth when innately connected by the subject. I recently had a Socratic dialogue in which l was asked to define justice, mercy, and equality. The end result? I adopted vegeteranism.
I have also been labelled an anarchist. I do not pledge allegiance to any country; be it the land of my birth, Iraq, or the land of my residency, USA. l find that ever since the birth of modern government, persons in power have been corrupt. A prime example of this is the trial of Socrates. He was sentenced to death for corrupting the youth of Athens. However, in reality, it was Athens, in its campaigns for territory and ill-aquired wealths, that was corrupting the citizens of the state. Socrates was simply questioning Athenians innate beliefs of virtue, ethics, and beauty. Never did he reveal his beliefs or lean one way or the other. This governmental hypocrisy has been evident since the onslaught of democracy, communism, or religious states. And now l'm done ranting about that.....
My thoughts on existentialism or theology are not yet fully developed. However, l am gonna comment on a certain comment that you made. You made a certain remark that humans have a disregard of natural welfare because, according to Guinesses, God gave us dominion over the land, air, and water. However, l challenge your definition of dominion. A king has dominion over his subjects. However, a rightous king would never kill or eat his subjects. Instead, he would make sure that they would prosper and live peaceful, productive lives. Similarly, as humans, God gave us the duty to take care of the Earth he made for us. We should, as believers, keep the planet in a productive, healthy state.
I have revealed the bulk of my beliefs. However, my knowledge of environmental sciences is limited at best. Therefore, l can't give you much concerning by beliefs on it. However, hopefully by the end of the year, l will be able to do so in a more complete manner.
09-25-2005, 10:52 PM #2
It's an interesting read and well written. I don't agree with all of your philosophical ideas, but to each his own. If there is one thing I would change, it's that first paragraph. Your teacher will figure out your shortcomings on his own, there's no need to point them out for him. As evidenced by some of the things you wrote, telling lies, no matter how small, are not part of your morality. That said, do you really need to point out your faults when doing so is not necessary?
One more thing, this essay really doesn't have much to do with environmental concerns at all. But, I don't see how your teacher can really fault you on that, since you acknowledge that and do commit yourself to some half assed doctrine. I'm currently taking an environmental science class as well. Unfortunately I am doing my classes online this semester and that isn't conducive to discussion and it seems like the teacher is more apt to present her side of the story than create an open forum for individual theories.
09-26-2005, 12:13 AM #3
thanx for comments
sux bout ur teacher, i haye those kinds
09-26-2005, 03:11 AM #4
An Environmental Sciences class asked you to "reveal your personal philosophy"?
If so, I think you have done it well. It is not a specific question, and you have given an appropriately ambiguous answer. You touched upon strengths and weaknesses of your own beliefs, as well as pointed out the relevance to the subject matter at hand. At the end, you expressed a desire to incorporate your soon-to-be-acquired knowledge into your personal philosophy (which, I suspect, was the purpose of the assignment).
I wager that this is the type of response that she was looking for. Rather than the typical "I am a Republican" or "I am a Democrat" response that she will largely get. Enjoy having a Prof that relishes discussion and conflict! They are the ones that you learn the most from!
09-26-2005, 03:17 AM #5
BS... ive read that online before...
whered ya get it
09-26-2005, 03:43 AM #6Originally Posted by TIGER909
no offense, but this is a college course and its expected that if you dont have the knowledge for an assignment, you get the knowledge, or at least get enough to be able to make a stand on a "your thoughts" paper. but then its totally fine to say in your closing paragraph that in your limited study on the subject, as your knowledge grows, your view may change. good luck bro.
09-26-2005, 09:22 AM #7Originally Posted by Decadbal
r u kidding? every one of tthose words is mine..tooke me 90 minutes
God...not everyone who bodybuilds is a plagarizing meathead ya know
09-26-2005, 11:00 AM #8
haha, whats more funny... you consider yourself a BBer..ahahah
09-27-2005, 01:46 AM #9Originally Posted by Decadbal
bodybuilds-not bodybuilder never competed yet...but i work hard to build my body....hence bodybuild
09-27-2005, 02:10 AM #10
The whole thing is a contradiction.
09-27-2005, 02:30 AM #11
just curious how
09-27-2005, 03:39 AM #12
Here is a good reason why from Ravi Zacharias
Here is a quick reason why.
When testing truth, philosophers tell us of the two principal tests: Correspondence and Coherence.
Statements must correspond to reality. And all statements collated must cohere.
But before we get upset with such claims, let us remember that it is the very nature of truth--Truth by definition is exclusive. Everything cannot be true. If everything is true, then nothing is false. If nothing is false then it would also be true to say everything is false. We cannot have it both ways. One should not be surprised at the claims of exclusivity. The reality is that even those who deny truth’s exclusivity, in effect, exclude those who do not deny it. The truth quickly emerges. The law of non-contradiction does apply to reality. We mean by that, that two contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense.
To deny the law of non-contradiction is to affirm it at the same time. You may as well talk about a one-ended stick as talk about truth being all-inclusive.
09-27-2005, 04:05 AM #13Originally Posted by books555
The short version of that is, "your philosophy isn't exclusively a christian one, therefore it's wrong".
Sorry, but pseudo-intellectual religious word games, masquerading as philosophy irritate me, that's all.
09-29-2005, 03:37 AM #14Originally Posted by bigJJ
You sound mart, lets talk about it.
09-29-2005, 03:41 AM #15Originally Posted by bigJJ
Sorry but it is a absolute law that applys to all reality. What are psueudo intellectual word games? What is philosophy?
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)