Welcome to INTJ Forum

This is a community where INTJs can meet others with similar personalities and discuss a wide variety of both serious and casual topics. If you aren't an INTJ, you're welcome to join anyway if you would like to learn more about this personality type or participate in our discussions. Registration is free and will allow you to post messages, see hidden subforums, customize your account and use other features only available to our members.

yes

Members
  • Content count

    4,134
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About yes

  • Rank
    Veteran Member

Personality

  • MBTI
    INxj
  • Enneagram
    1
  • Astrology Sign
    Scropio

Converted

  • Biography
    Middle English yes, yis, Old English gēse (adv. and noun), probably equivalent to gēa ye
  • Location
    NY, NY
  • Occupation
    Word of Affirmation
  • Interests
    Optimism, Cooperation, Positivity, Prog Rock, Nodding
  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

11,650 profile views
  1. That would depend on the individual moral code. What I meant is that morals are usually perceived as coming from an external source. Religion, Justice, the Universe, or whatever else. They could have shades of gray, sure. But that would depend on the particular code in question. They are not all the same. Ethics could have some absolutes, but is generally more of a pragmatic thing; the rules or practices of ethics exist as a means to an end (usually, public and private safety, etc), whereas morals are typically an end in-and-of themselves. I didn't mean that man didn't create the moral system. I meant that the followers of a moral code usually think of it as something higher than themselves, and that cannot be tampered with or modified. It wasn't a comment on the actual origins of the code.
  2. Morality usually implies a higher code--Something is Right/Just or Wrong/Evil as an absolute. It is distinct, and independent of, humanity. Dogmatic. Ethics, on the other hand, is usually based on human affairs, and deal with fairness in human interactions. It is logically derived. Social contract style.
  3. Oh. Then put me down in the "omniscient and infallible" category, please. Thanks!
  4. You're also only looking at about half the possible situations. What about when a person with a firm opinion is actually correct?
  5. I mean, sure, it sounds so simple when you remove all context, right?
  6. Yes. But for what it's worth, ppl with nothing coherent to say have been posting here for quite some time.
  7. A much more practical argument would be that smartphones provide people that make typos, abbreviations, and thoughtless replies the means to participate in online forums more frequently, which they would not do on a desktop.
  8. Certainly. Philosophy classes generally boil down to assigning readings and then discussing those readings in class, much in the same way an art history class might read about and discuss art history. And just as art history students do not learn how to make art, philosophy students are not taught how to do philosophy, but only how to discuss and quote it. When I say that I "studied against the grain", I mean that I often ignored whatever requirements and assignments were set by my professors. I skimmed just about every reading assignment, if I read it at all, and only fully read a couple. Instead of reading, I spent my time focusing on my own theories and curiosities, discussing them with classmates and professors alike, whenever I could. I would participate in class, but usually with ignorance towards the exact content of the reading being discussed, and instead elevating the conversation to a higher, more independent level, or deliberately steering the conversation towards a subject that was relevant to my current interests. My professors were completely aware of what I was doing, of course, but they maintained enough respect for my thoughts, conversation, and arguments that they did not disturb my process. While I was a "trouble" student in some ways, I was also the student that brought thought provoking conversation to class, and continuously demonstrated ability, and they valued that. On one occasion I had to drop a class due to ignoring the given material (75% of which was pure historical data), but still maintained a respectful relationship with the professor (who, by the way, was the chair of the department). I was able to maintain enough respect from the faculty that I was one of the "core" students in the department throughout my entire time there, and on occasion was even invited to their homes for social gatherings. All in all, I got very little of the actual college philosophy, and most of what I learned and developed I could have down elsewhere, but I took good advantage out of being in that environment, which was a plus. My grades, of course, were average at best, but that was something I expected and did not mind. If that's an experience you're willing to spend money on, then go for it. But for full disclosure, I should mention I only went to college after being forced to do so by my parents, so I cannot speak in favor of it for anyone attending college for the sake of career development.
  9. I'm also going to be forward and admit that I plan to re-re-boot it in February with rules of my choosing.
  10. Of course. I agree that posting here is not the greatest use of one's time. But let's not pretend that spending hours, if not days, proving to your professor that you are able to rephrase her/his opinions on Hegel in your own words is a better use of time. The forum, at least, is free of cost.
  11. Have you noticed how you respond to arguments without making any actual points? Just broad generalizations with no support? I'm counting that as a point against collegiate philosophy.
  12. Then you guys are not paying attention to what CO is saying. CO is not saying that modern philosophy has no bearing, he is saying that studying modern philosophy in an academic setting is a poor use of resources. Everything that the modern philosophy department has to offer is available for free or low cost, and at a person's convenience, elsewhere. It simply does not make sense to pay the gratuitous tuition costs when the same education can be achieved by better means and at better rates. Now, yes, philosophy, done properly, does involve critical thinking, and does involve developing tools of understanding, and does involve communication skills--But these are not the primary focus, and often not even a secondary focus, in the typical philosophy program. They can be developed, but almost strictly at the student's discretion. But a student does not need a collegiate atmosphere in order to pursue such focuses; they can be developed in other, often more practical, ways. Most philosophy programs, and this is a flaw with other college programs as well, simply want to get students through the program and out the door. They are not concerned with how well the student actually understands philosophy, or how critically they are able to think, or any such values; they just want the student's money, and want to be done with them as soon as possible. So the education boils down to how well the student can repeat the words used during lectures, and whether their word count is of sufficient length. That is modern collegiate philosophy. It should go without saying that some philosophy programs, or individual professors, out there will show more integrity, and possibly have a program that is worthwhile. But they are the exception, not the rule. And there are people out there that will remark "Oh, he studied philosophy at Rutgers? Schedule and interview!". But most, if not all, of those people are themselves employed in academic philosophy, forming a very closed circle: Your philosophy pedigree is only relevant when staying within academic philosophy. When pursuing any other career, it does not matter where or how you gained your skills and abilities, and as such, whether they came from college or not is irrelevant. And when that's irrelevant, college is not worth the cost. Much better to spend that college time actually studying for that career, and using your spare time to build up your critical thinking. That is the responsible choice.
  13. Yep. To elaborate on this, and what I hinted at before: 95% of philosophy classes are assigned reading, and writing essays in which you tell professors what they want to hear. Don't expect your actual understandings, curiosities, opinions, or valuations to be of any factor whatsoever in your grades. Eh. I wouldn't advocate for this, necessarily. I mean, read them, but take everything with a grain of salt. But focus more on sharpening your own mind and understanding then on memorizing the antics of history's most published philosophers. No, that's definitely not true. This forum does not make for good philosophy conversation. And while I am a pessimist about collegiate philosophy education, at the very least, college will offer you the opportunity to meet others interested in philosophy, who are open to conversation and differing opinions. In and of itself, though, not a sufficient reason to pursue philosophy in college (just don't expect to be able to substitute it with an internet forum). @Continental Op: Sorry, didn't mean to single out your post like that, but you made a lot of points that I thought deserved a response.
  14. I used my philosophy degree to wait on tables and bartend at an Applebee's. Eventually I went on to become a programmer, but I'm not sure how heavily the philosophy degree factored into it. I got a lot out of the philosophy, personally, though I should also mention that I basically studied against the grain. Had I followed instructions and focused on what the professors told me to focus, the education would not have been as beneficial as it was. If you're into law, medicine, or a number of other post-graduate trainings, philosophy tends to be an accepted and appreciated bachelor's degree.
  15. If you're even, don't get a side-by-side. Frozen food is easily stacked/piled on top of each other to save space. Can't (always) do that with fresh.