This article discusses the need for philosophy to be taught in public schooling due to the rise in secularism

Read the Story

Show Top Comments

I was in a philosophy club in high school. I don’t remember the structure of it too well, but it was very accessible, a lot of fun and popular. I believe our teacher would introduce a new philosopher and their kind of claim to fame idea, and then we would all discuss it. I ended up writing my extended essay (International Baccalaureate) on Descartes’ Discourse on Method. High schoolers can totally be introduced to philosophy.

balith

We should start by teaching them symbolic logic and general critical thinking skills as early as possible. Without a firm foundation in both, most philosophy will just go in one ear and out of the other.

ReiverCorrupter

So just what is wrong with secularism exactly?

Evanfury161

General philosophy is secularism.

Strong_Wheel

Art can’t contribute to conversations of morality because only religious paintings have a clear enough message, and young people don’t want to see theatre. That’s two kinds of art, basically everything, so it’s down to philosophy (which includes religion, and Jesus is the son of god).

This is a small sample of the sort of information you’ll get from this “essay” on the importance of philosophy

corrective_action

This article discusses the need for philosophy to be taught in public schooling due to the rise in secularism

Read the Story

Show Top Comments

I was in a philosophy club in high school. I don’t remember the structure of it too well, but it was very accessible, a lot of fun and popular. I believe our teacher would introduce a new philosopher and their kind of claim to fame idea, and then we would all discuss it. I ended up writing my extended essay (International Baccalaureate) on Descartes’ Discourse on Method. High schoolers can totally be introduced to philosophy.

balith

We should start by teaching them symbolic logic and general critical thinking skills as early as possible. Without a firm foundation in both, most philosophy will just go in one ear and out of the other.

ReiverCorrupter

So just what is wrong with secularism exactly?

Evanfury161

General philosophy is secularism.

Strong_Wheel

Art can’t contribute to conversations of morality because only religious paintings have a clear enough message, and young people don’t want to see theatre. That’s two kinds of art, basically everything, so it’s down to philosophy (which includes religion, and Jesus is the son of god).

This is a small sample of the sort of information you’ll get from this “essay” on the importance of philosophy

corrective_action

This article discusses what Taoism may offer as a worldview and argues that its ideas have therapeutic potential for the modern mind.

Read the Story

Show Top Comments

I’m having trouble understanding

> As nature follows the Tao, so too does human activity. The problem, however, is that we humans get in our own way. We interfere with the Tao, the natural way of things, by clinging to our judgments, expectations and desires.

Isn’t “clinging to our judgements, expectations, and desires” a valid expression of human nature and therefore in accordance with the Tao?

theglandcanyon

I have felt this therapeutic effect myself, when I was struggling with life in the past. The problem, as I see it, is that the term “nature” today is overwritten with layers upon layers of meaning and purpose. It’s extremely hard to go “back”, if that’s even a useful metaphor. I believe “the problem” comes down to language as a system that produces meaning. Language is extremely useful for asking questions, but catastrophic for supplying answers. Yet we still seek answers in a conceptual way. And can you blame us? It brought us so far as a society. But that’s not nature. Nature is non-conceptual. For me, this simple thought does the whole trick. Can anyone relate?

philwasalreadytaken

But first we have to consult with ancient Chinese experts to get a proper understanding of Taoism because that Laozu guy was a bit ambiguous at times to say the least.

standardtrickyness1

That desire blocks knowing is a spiritual principle. Some people are so full of appetite and satisfaction of it that they do not know the truth. To me, this is true. They don’t even know the truth of what happens when they only satisfy appetite. The word “desire” can apply to appetites. It also implies sex. When you are wrapped up in the carnal, you can only, to progress, try to deal with your addictions, not with the truth.

I like how the Tao is explained in this article. This is a good post.

peoplewhoare

Just nice dude

tenegileep

Time might not exist, according to physicists and philosophers – but that’s okay

Read the Story

Show Top Comments

But if there’s no time what the fuck is even the period between cause and effect?

AkiWar

I have always wondered how science could ever prove such a thing when the causal requirements of proof necessarily have a temporal element.

357Magnum

I’m getting really annoyed with the low quality posts of both this sub and r/science. Can’t we get proper moderation?

bazkie_bumpercar

Tl;Dr buy my book

XYchromosomedominent

Time is an illusion.

Lunchtime doubly so.

ToGryffindor

Death and Its Concept: Jeff Mason argues that the concept of death has no subjective meaning

Read the Story

Show Top Comments

If Jeff wants to say death has no objective meaning I’d buy that. But subjective meaning is individualistic and it’s not Jeff or anyone else’s place to determine what it is or isn’t on a universal basis. If he wants to say there is no subjective experience that corresponds to death that is at least arguable. But that’s not the same thing.

AllanfromWales1

“It’s false to say that the dead don’t suffer because there is no one to stop suffering” is linguistic trickery.

What’s true is that the suffering caused by a person existing is no longer occuring

libertysailor

I was ready to rip this apart, but by the end I kind of agree. The key to the whole essay (IMO) is:

> However, if death is real, then it is metaphorical even to say that the dead do not suffer, as though something of them remains not to suffer.

If you 100% grok what he’s saying there, the rest logically follows. If you consider that quote nonsense, however, you may as well stop reading there.

ribnag

Perhaps this isnt the place for this but after reading the article i wonder somthing.

Should we be afraid to die? Are you guys worried about dying one day?

brentoid123

I’m wondering what the author thinks of near death experiences, or even psychedelic or transcendent experiences.

It seems like some people think of death as being the same experience as trying to remember before they were born. Where others think of it more like dreaming, where they aren’t in the world anymore but they still experience something.

I’m also trying to make sense of his death has no object bit. It seems death refers to the negation of life, we experience someone as being alive and participating in life with us and then they die and their life it’s effectuations seem to gradually fade. So there is the internal sense of death and the external, and we infer the internal from the external, in the same way we can mirror emotions.

Creative_Major798

Death and Its Concept: Jeff Mason argues that the concept of death has no subjective meaning

Read the Story

Show Top Comments

If Jeff wants to say death has no objective meaning I’d buy that. But subjective meaning is individualistic and it’s not Jeff or anyone else’s place to determine what it is or isn’t on a universal basis. If he wants to say there is no subjective experience that corresponds to death that is at least arguable. But that’s not the same thing.

AllanfromWales1

“It’s false to say that the dead don’t suffer because there is no one to stop suffering” is linguistic trickery.

What’s true is that the suffering caused by a person existing is no longer occuring

libertysailor

I was ready to rip this apart, but by the end I kind of agree. The key to the whole essay (IMO) is:

> However, if death is real, then it is metaphorical even to say that the dead do not suffer, as though something of them remains not to suffer.

If you 100% grok what he’s saying there, the rest logically follows. If you consider that quote nonsense, however, you may as well stop reading there.

ribnag

Perhaps this isnt the place for this but after reading the article i wonder somthing.

Should we be afraid to die? Are you guys worried about dying one day?

brentoid123

I’m wondering what the author thinks of near death experiences, or even psychedelic or transcendent experiences.

It seems like some people think of death as being the same experience as trying to remember before they were born. Where others think of it more like dreaming, where they aren’t in the world anymore but they still experience something.

I’m also trying to make sense of his death has no object bit. It seems death refers to the negation of life, we experience someone as being alive and participating in life with us and then they die and their life it’s effectuations seem to gradually fade. So there is the internal sense of death and the external, and we infer the internal from the external, in the same way we can mirror emotions.

Creative_Major798

Modeling Sex as a Joint Activity

Read the Story

Show Top Comments

Before I read the article I was ready to comment “isn’t sex already modeled as a joint activity?” But then I realized, and the article reinforced, it really is unnecessarily transactional in many cases. Even with monogamous relationships with equal desire, there’s an active/passive assumption. Sex is presented in media as something 1 person chases after and the other *allows* to happen to them. Even in media where gender roles are broken, reversed or irrelevant there’s a chaser and the chased.

Thanks for sharing OP.

Aubdasi

Finally, some material that suggests a change of language usage in order to help pave the way for healthier thinking about something

rockvoid

I understand and appreciate what the post is saying, but I have two related problems with it.

1. Going to the birthday party example, let’s talk about the cake. Well, the subject loves peanut butter, so I think we should get a PB cake. But you are allergic, as are some other friends. We promised we would make this party the best it could be for the subject, and we can’t afford two cakes, so should we get a PB cake?

Now, I think a reasonable person would say ‘let’s make sure everyone has a good time’, or ‘I’ll pitch in enough for a smaller cake others can enjoy.’ But say for a second I am unreasonable, and say we must have that cake and only that cake and refuse to budge. You are now left with a choice- do you pull out of planning, ask me to stop helping you plan, or concede and accept something you are not comfortable with?

I would argue, under the listed framework and in this example, the impulse would be to compromise, and you and I did agree to work together. However, I am being unreasonable and isn’t taking your safety or health seriously, and that’s a problem.

Or put it another way- say you planned to have an open bar, but between the planning and the party you decided, for health reasons, to quit drinking, and alcohol there would be a problem for you. Can you change your mind? You did agree to this, and you want the party to be great, and ultimately this is your problem…

My point, I guess, is that even if you agree in principle, details are often going to come down to consent. We agree to have sex, are you okay with butt stuff? And I okay with spanking? Can my roommate watch? I don’t feel so good, can we please stop? This needs to be a conversation, but it’s understandable that people may have very firm boundaries for how far they are willing to go, and I need you to respect that.

2. In a better world, I think this would be a very well thought out article. My concern, I guess, is that we live in an age where Nuance is often ignored, and the perspective that ‘let’s focus less on consent and more on conversation’ will be grabbed onto by the type of people that are not super jazzed about consent to begin with. That they will argue that ‘this is an agreement, and we both need to comprise’. But the center point between a reasonable barrier and completely unreasonable actions are still unreasonable.

All in all, I think this is a unique perspective, but I fear that embracing it presents some troubling edge cases and deeply damaging sound bites.

corran132

I understand the difference in meaning between a proposal, as opposed to an invitation or request. However, I’m struggling to find some concrete ways in which this could be applied. As others have noted, interactions are far more than words, words are not simply words but are imbued with context. So while interactions can feel transactional, it may not be something that correct word choice could necessarily ameliorate. From my reading anyway.

-little-dorrit-

1) On a scale of 1-10, how tongue in cheek is this article? I genuinely can’t tell by the tone – it seems to be making a very valid point in quite a flippant way.

2) I’m not sure I understand this part:

> the bringing about of the state of affairs at stake (e.g. taking out the trash …) requires the active contribution of one party (the requestee …), but not necessarily a contribution from the other.

So if I ask you to take out the trash and you do it, I have made an “active contribution” by asking you to do it but you haven’t made one by actually doing it?

Edit: bobbypinbobby points out I misread requestee as requester; it makes perfect sense.

ShelfordPrefect

With monism and pluralism, William James applies the pragmatic method and ultimately finds value in both, seeing a unified world of separate but connected parts.

Read the Story

Show Top Comments

Abstract: In lecture 4 of his pragmatism series, William James tackles the issue of “the one and the many” which compares monism and pluralism using the pragmatic method. Obviously both monism and pluralism have a long history of debate and specificity, but James chooses to talk about them more generally.

He starts by acknowledging the importance of this debate for people and the tendency for us to value monism. When someone comes across a unifying monistic theory of the world, it might be an emotionally powerful experience.

He then lists out eight possible consequences that believing in monism can result in: 1. We can talk about the world as a whole 2. There is continuity in terms of space and time 4. Casual unity 5. Genetic unity 6. A unity of human purpose 7. Aesthetic unity (a unity of human history) and 8. The One knower (God or an Absolute).

marineiguana27

How to Do Things with Emotions: Prof. Owen Flanagan

Read the Story

Show Top Comments

Professor Owen Flanagan explains what exactly emotions like anger and shame are and goes on to discuss how cultural differences can inform the study of emotions. Anger as revenge, anger as pain-passing, and instrumental anger are critically discussed. Flanagan then discusses how to use these emotions. Shame is introduced as a cross-culturally an underused emotion. The thesis that shame can be used for the internal development of character traits is advanced by Flanagan.

Owldolf