NEW Welcome Ad
Collapse
Leader
Collapse
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Harvard course on moral philosophy available to all
Collapse
300x250 Mobile
Collapse
X
-
Harvard course on moral philosophy available to all
Hatred never ceases by hatred, but by love alone is healed.
Happiness never decreases by being shared. -- Buddhist quotation
A soft answer turneth away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger. -- Proverbs 15:1
Tags: None
-
-
Originally posted by SRT936 View PostInterestingly enough, much of what Dr. Sandel preaches is in direct opposition to the majority of the viewpoints you put forward on these boards, Rubyrose.
No GOOD teacher preaches anything.
Dr. Sandel doesn't put forward any specific moral framework as "the best" or "the only righteous" one.
He asks questions. He pushes people to think past their own immediate assumptions. He encourages people to go beyond a knee-jerk response to any situation based on what they grew up with or what is popular among the people who surround you.
And guess what? That is precisely what I did when I was teaching.
I have news for you. Getting people to question their most cherished beliefs -- which is what Dr. Sandel's class offers -- is very much in line with my own philosophy -- or rather, pedagogy, which is a fancy word for the philosophy that undergirds one's practice as an educator.
I don't tell people what to think here, though many if not most assume that I do. I simply present a point of view that is vastly different from what the majority here hold dear. I don't expect anyone to agree with me. I do point to fallacious reasoning -- another practice that fits very well within Dr. Sandel's approach to teaching. But when I do that, more often than not the participants whose reasoning process is being challenged end up engaging in personal attacks, rather than addressing the faulty logic.
My own moral philosophy derives from the American Pragmatists, exemplified by John Dewey, C.S. Pierce, and Richard Rorty. I do not know enough about Dr. Sandel to know what his own leanings are in that regard. However, the class isn't about getting students to adapt his preferences, but rather getting them to think by discussing moral choices in the context of moral philosophy, applying, for example, the differences between an existentialist, a pragmatist, a utilitarian, and so forth, in the process of developing an answer.
If my philosophical preferences are different from Dr. Sandel's, there is nothing to be troubled about. Reasonable people often disagree. It is often in the process of rationally discussing our differences that new ideas may emerge that neither side considered before.
But when the discourse descends into expressions of hostility toward one or more participants in the discussion, there is nothing positive to be gained. I am sure Dr. Sandel will agree with me 100% on that!
Now, perhaps you could explain to me why you believe that what I say here is opposite to what you understand Dr. Sandel to believe.
Very often I find that in these forums, what people think I've said or believe comes out convoluted and nowhere near recognizable to me. Sometimes that is due to my not having made myself clear. But often it is due to people applying stereotypes and assumptions about me that have no basis in reality.
Incidentally, you might want to edit your sig a bit. You mean "bear" not "bare." Normally I don't bother correcting people, but if it's in a signature the error gets repeated every time you post. No intent to embarrass you -- as I age I find myself making errors like that myself.Last edited by rubyrose; 09-28-2009, 06:26 PM.Hatred never ceases by hatred, but by love alone is healed.
Happiness never decreases by being shared. -- Buddhist quotation
A soft answer turneth away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger. -- Proverbs 15:1
Comment
-
Originally posted by rubyrose View PostNow, perhaps you could explain to me why you believe that what I say here is opposite to what you understand Dr. Sandel to believe.
Originally posted by rubyrose View PostIncidentally, you might want to edit your sig a bit. You mean "bear" not "bare." Normally I don't bother correcting people, but if it's in a signature the error gets repeated every time you post. No intent to embarrass you -- as I age I find myself making errors like that myself.\
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by rubyrose View PostDr. Sandel doesn't preach. He teaches. There's a huge difference............
It's a lot like these forums.
I wonder if that Hawvud professor that teed off on that cop took his course?
If he did, I wonder what his grade was.
I have to admit though. He makes me jealous. I wish I could get paid a handsome salary with benefits conducting BS sessions.Last edited by JPR; 09-29-2009, 03:22 AM.Jubilant Patriotic Republican
America gave Obama the benefit of the doubt when they elected him. Obama is now giving America the doubt of the benefit of his governance......Change you can bereave in!..JPR
Comment
-
Originally posted by rubyrose View PostI have news for you. Getting people to question their most cherished beliefs -- which is what Dr. Sandel's class offers -- is very much in line with my own philosophy -- or rather, pedagogy, which is a fancy word for the philosophy that undergirds one's practice as an educator.
The original is a shining example. You assume that people differ from your uber-liberal ideology because they haven't taken the time to rationalize what they believe. Let's be clear, babies are liberal. It takes no thought whatsoever to be a liberal. Liberalism is the natural state before man experiences life and consequences, rationalizes his thoughts and developes his personal character to be a better person. Liberalism makes demands from others while you wallow around in your selfish flesh.
Comment
-
Originally posted by SRT936 View PostMore often than not, you espouse very liberal ideals. A key element of Dr. Sandel's philosophy, communitarianism, finds that the liberal ideals are, to quote the good doctor, "are ontologically and epistemologicaly incoherent."
You have taken a stereotypical label and applied it to me.
Communitarianism still maintains many aspects of liberalism. But it is nonetheless a very different perspective on politics and moral philosophy from both liberalism and socialism; and it is particularly antithetical to Marxism. I discuss the differences in a chapter of my dissertation. If you care to read that, I can give you (privately) a link to its location on the internet.
The philosophers I named above are founders of communitarianism. They stand in direct contrast to neo-liberalism, which is the philosophical ground of libertarianism.
I hate to correct you, but you are wrong. The original Greek word used in the proverb directly translates to "bare" as in to expose meaning directly to expose your shield to the enemy. It does not mean to carry or lift your shield as we would think in modern English. Actually, a more correct translation of the Greek phrase would read, "I will always bare my shield toward the enemy." but the way it is in my signature is how it is most often quoted today, especially in law enforcement circles. I may edit it to a more correct translation, but the meaning will remain the same.
****
Addendum:
Even within Pragmatism (which has, for the most part, peculiarly American origins), there are many differences. I don't adhere to any single perspective within that arena, and I have many questions about all of them.
My political philosophy is constantly evolving. For instance, there WAS a time when I was anti-authority (and by extension anti-cop). That has changed dramatically in recent years and I frequently spar with some of my liberal friends over that.
I also reject the individualism within certain orientations to feminism, though I do proudly take the title of feminist. There are at least 4-6 philosophical orientations within feminism, one of which is liberal feminism, which emphasizes individual freedom over responsibility to others.
If you care to explore it, one easy-to-read book is Carol Gilligan's "In a Different Voice," which discusses the differences between the ethic of justice and the ethic of care. She ascribes gender differences to those orientations. I do not.
Communitarianism has more in common with the ethic of care as opposed to the ethic of justice.Last edited by rubyrose; 09-29-2009, 12:00 PM.Hatred never ceases by hatred, but by love alone is healed.
Happiness never decreases by being shared. -- Buddhist quotation
A soft answer turneth away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger. -- Proverbs 15:1
Comment
-
Originally posted by JasperST View PostThe irony here is that you're one of the most stubborn narrow minded people I've seen on the internet. You try to cloak it in intellectualism and lofty jargon and think you'll get away with it because people are too dumb to know better.
The original is a shining example. You assume that people differ from your uber-liberal ideology because they haven't taken the time to rationalize what they believe. Let's be clear, babies are liberal. It takes no thought whatsoever to be a liberal. Liberalism is the natural state before man experiences life and consequences, rationalizes his thoughts and developes his personal character to be a better person. Liberalism makes demands from others while you wallow around in your selfish flesh.
Just as I predicted. A personal attack rather than engaging in thoughtful, intelligent discussion.
As for stubbornness and close-mindedness, please tell me which conservatives here have been open to differences of opinion on politics, other than very minor ones? The board here is about 95% conservative, and of those about 90% solid, unrelenting, close-minded -- like you.
As for selfishness, there is nothing more selfish than the radical individualism of conservatism. Which, btw, is philosophically grounded in Classical Liberalism.
And actually, I am not a liberal. But this board constructs a radically bifurcated world, dividing conservatism (good) vs. liberalism (evil -- not just bad, evil), as if those were the only ways of looking at the world.
There are more things in the world than are dreamt of in your philosophy, Jasper.Last edited by rubyrose; 09-29-2009, 11:37 AM.Hatred never ceases by hatred, but by love alone is healed.
Happiness never decreases by being shared. -- Buddhist quotation
A soft answer turneth away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger. -- Proverbs 15:1
Comment
-
Originally posted by rubyrose View PostWell well well.
Just as I predicted. A personal attack rather than engaging in thoughtful, intelligent discussion.
As for stubbornness and close-mindedness, please tell me which conservatives here have been open to differences of opinion on politics, other than very minor ones? The board here is about 95% conservative, and of those about 90% solid, unrelenting, close-minded -- like you.
As for selfishness, there is nothing more selfish than the radical individualism of conservatism. Which, btw, is philosophically grounded in Classical Liberalism.
And actually, I am not a liberal. But this board constructs a radically bifurcated world, dividing conservatism (good) vs. liberalism (evil -- not just bad, evil), as if those were the only ways of looking at the world.
There are more things in the world than are dreamt of in your philosophy, Jasper.
Comment
-
Originally posted by rubyrose View PostAhh, just as I thought. You assume because some of the things I say fall under liberalism that therefore I am a liberal.\
Comment
-
Many of these issues were addressed in the first year of law school, for the purpose of forcing people to analyze problems that are fraught with emotion and to get them to understand why they have the reactions that they do.Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. -- Aldous Huxley
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity. -- Albert Einstein
Comment
-
Originally posted by JasperST View PostLiberalism is the natural state before man experiences life and consequences, rationalizes his thoughts and developes his personal character to be a better person. Liberalism makes demands from others while you wallow around in your selfish flesh.
Do you have any sort of source on this definition of liberalism or is this a JasperSt original?"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.â€
— John Stuart Mill
Comment
-
Originally posted by Citizen85 View PostWhat
Do you have any sort of source on this definition of liberalism or is this a JasperSt original?
That's why young adults are overwhelmingly liberal, they haven't been on their own for long and haven't formulated why they believe what they do. Some grow into adulthood dependent on others and see government as their surrogate parent and see it in terms of what they can get from it. The fact that the source of the funding comes from the life energy of others doesn't disturb them, they see it as a right as a citizen. That's why I say it's selfish.
Comment
MR300x250 Tablet
Collapse
What's Going On
Collapse
There are currently 2613 users online. 146 members and 2467 guests.
Most users ever online was 158,966 at 05:57 AM on 01-16-2021.
Tag Cloud
Collapse
Welcome Ad
Collapse
Comment