Philosophy to me is about asking questions which have no obvious answer, and which you can entertain yourself with for hours, by argueing with yourself. If you find an answer, its a bonus. if you dont, your probably infinetly smarter for what you have just discovered is not the answer.
What i’m looking forward to in this subject is the emphasis on Truth. What is truth. It is usually accepted that a statement can be true or false. My name is Damian. True. But, do I actually have a name? Do I exist? If I don’t exist, can I possibly have a name?
According to the chap on the right, Associate Proffessor David Elliott (Department Head, Philosophy and Classics), there are three lots of three in Philosophy:
What is the nature of reality? (Metaphysics)
What (and how) can I know? (Epistemology)
What should I do or how should I live? (Moral and political philosophy)
- Makes the obvious problematic
- Informational Chaos
- Presentation of an overal vision/perspective
3 Practical Inferences:
- One should never assume anything is obvious–or at least always be careful about what assumptions one is making.
- Develop the strongest, most coherent argument that you can.
- Try to see the “big picture”, how your argument relates to other issues arguments/counterarguments of other philosophers.
We will use these three lots of three to try to understand a phillosopher called Rene Descartes:
“The two most widely known of Descartes’ philosophical ideas are those of a method of hyperbolic doubt, and the argument that, though he may doubt, he cannot doubt that he exists”
“He resolves to trust only that which is clearly and distinctly seen to be beyond any doubt. In this manner, Descartes peels away the layers of beliefs and opinions that clouded his view of the truth. But, very little remains, only the simple fact of doubting itself, and the inescapable inference that something exists doubting, namely Descartes himself.”
Read more of the above about Descartes at http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/d/descarte.htm