“'X-Phi' (Experimental Philosophy) - Exploring the Great Questions in the Lab” plus 3 more |
- 'X-Phi' (Experimental Philosophy) - Exploring the Great Questions in the Lab
- Three-point stance: Chow changing philosophy
- Philosophy is fully self-reflective: Reiman
- Political philosophy
| 'X-Phi' (Experimental Philosophy) - Exploring the Great Questions in the Lab Posted: 23 Aug 2010 09:42 PM PDT 'X-Phi' (Experimental Philosophy) - Exploring the Great Questions in the Lab Traditionally, the discipline of philosophy has been pursued in a chair at a desk. "But recently, 'experimental' philosophers have used surveys, fMRI's, and other tools from psychology, neuroscience, and cognitive science to analyze age-old philosophical problems." Half a dozen professors debate whether x-phi is a promising new approach or a waste of time, money and equipment. New York Times 08/19/10 This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service — if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read our FAQ page at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php | ||
| Three-point stance: Chow changing philosophy Posted: 24 Aug 2010 02:07 AM PDT 1. UCLA offensive coordinator Norm Chow is coaching the "pistol" offense, which on the surface appears to be the biggest change in philosophy in his four decades of coaching. "I never thought myself to be too stubborn that I couldn't change," Chow said. "I think we owe it to our guys to put them in position to be successful. That's what a coach does." Chow will be a much better coach once quarterback Kevin Prince returns to practice. He's been out two weeks with a strained oblique muscle. 2. Texas Tech, Colorado, Louisville, Western Kentucky and I'll bet just about everyone else whose quarterback job is "open" will result in the guy who had the job last season keeping it this season. I get the part about forcing players to compete for jobs. But it's not quite the same as the job being open. The more experienced player gets the job. By the way, none of the above applies to Michigan's Tate Forcier. 3. Watch the return of Baylor junior quarterback Robert Griffin III from the torn ACL he suffered last season. When the season begins, Griffin may not have the same speed and moves he had as a runner before the injury. But as David Ubben blogged Monday, Griffin has completed 75 percent of his passes in two scrimmages. If Griffin develops into a dangerous passer in coach Art Briles' spread offense, and continues to recover his running ability, he'll be a Heisman contender in 2011. This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service — if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read our FAQ page at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php | ||
| Philosophy is fully self-reflective: Reiman Posted: 21 Aug 2010 10:13 AM PDT | "You can't philosophize without reflecting on what you are doing, so philosophizing about philosophizing is part of all philosophizing," Reiman, the professor of American University, told the Mehr News Agency. Following is the text of the interview: Q: Is it morally correct that university professors defend their own viewpoints in class? If your answer is yes, what are the ethical codes for presenting views? A: I think that it is fine for professors to defend their own viewpoints--about the subject of the course--in class. It's inevitable anyway, since a professor cannot help but teach a subject from his (or her) own viewpoint about what's important about it. Even when a professor presents viewpoints different from his own, he will present them from his viewpoint! Thus, it's better that the professor put forth his viewpoint openly and give his reasons for it, than do it subtly without announcing it. The best way to protect students from indoctrination is not by having professors pretend to be neutral, but by making sure that students know when a prof is presenting his own viewpoint, and making sure that courses are taught by a variety of professors representing a variety The most important ethical requirements here are honesty and openness to disagreement. The prof should make it clear that he is putting forth a viewpoint with which other experts disagree. As far as time and other obligations permit, the prof ought to present alternative viewpoints as fairly as possible, and indicate the reasons for those viewpoints. The prof should make it clear that students are entitled to disagree with him. He should not require that students pretend that his viewpoint is the only one, or the obviously true one--though he surely may require that students understand his viewpoint and his reasons for it. Students should understand that disagreement is the motor of intellectual progress. They should be encouraged to challenge the prof's viewpoint. They should feel free to present or endorse alternative viewpoints. But a class is not a political meeting, where everyone has an equal right to voice his opinion. For this same reason, the class should not be used by the professor as a platform for presenting his views about matters outside of the course subject. The prof's job is to teach the subject as he or she best sees fit within the time available, and discussion must be adapted to serve that goal. Q: What is your concept of disengagement in summertime by university teachers? A: Though I take a few months off from teaching in the summer, I never stop being a philosopher. I am always thinking about philosophy, and always reading philosophy, and almost always also writing philosophy. I take a break from teaching because teaching philosophy is an intensely personal activity. I don't teach on TV to faceless students, and I don't teach to enormous lecture halls with hundreds of students. I teach groups of 20 to 30 students, whom, over the course of a semester, I get to know as individuals. We discuss fundamental questions about life and death, sometimes issues that have touched the students' lives directly. If I didn't take a break from such teaching, I would soon burn out and be unable to connect to the students personally. Q: Technology has affected both our lives and knowledge. Do you believe that technology has changed the concept of "moral actor" in ethics? Can we use the Kantian meaning of the concept in ethics now? A: I think that technology increases the range of harm and benefits that our acts can create. It also puts people at a greater distance from the consequences of their actions, and thus may contribute to them being unaware of those consequences. This particularly happens in actions that are the result of large numbers of individuals acting without conscious coordination, e.g., using up natural resources, causing pollution, supporting oppressive regimes, etc. In all these matters, I see no problem using Kanting ethics, though I think that technology places new moral requirements on people, in particular to look harder to see the far-flung consequences of their actions that may in the immediate experience appear to harm no one. Q: Do you believe that philosophy and metaphilosophy are separate from each other? Why? A: The answer to your question is easy: Philosophy is fully self-reflective. You can't philosophize without reflecting on what you are doing, so philosophizing about philosophizing is part of all philosophizing. Jeffrey Reiman is the William Fraser McDowell professor of philosophy at American University in Washington, D.C. Dr. Reiman is the author of In Defense of Political Philosophy, Justice and Modern Moral Philosophy, Critical Moral Liberalism: Theory and Practice. JH/HK This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service — if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read our FAQ page at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php | |
| Posted: 24 Aug 2010 01:43 AM PDT Letter to the Editor Aug. 14, 2010 To the editor: In June, Judge Joseph Charles of New Jersey ruled that a Muslim man married to a Muslim woman could not be charged with spousal rape because, under Muslim law that the man had cited, a wife could not refuse her husband's advances. Fortunately, his ruling was overturned on appeal, and the man now awaits trial for rape. I do not envy the judge his position. He either had to tell a man his religion was invalid in the eyes of the state (violating the First Amendment), or he could have told a woman her husband did not have to treat her like a human being (violating the Fourteenth). We can get up in arms about Sharia law coming to the United States, but I believe that would be missing the point. The point is one which has been trumpeted by the "vast right-wing conspiracy" for years now: America was founded as a Christian nation. This is not to say all of the Founding Fathers were Christians (they weren't), that all of the people were Christians (they weren't by far), that they wanted the state to control or support the church, nor that they should dictate the kind religion people should observe. But the laws of this country, especially the Constitution, were originally based on ideas derived from Christianity, particularly the ideas of the Protestant Reformation. The ideas articulated by men like John Calvin and later clarified by others like Samuel Rutherford and John Locke provided the foundation of the free society America became. The point is not a religion. The point is a political philosophy, and a religious political philosophy (Christian, Muslim or otherwise) is as much a political philosophy as any other. We used to have a rough consensus on the political philosophy on which our governments were based. We no longer do (nor have we had for some time). Perhaps it is high time we had a frank discussion about that political philosophy and exactly what role we want government to play in society. This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service — if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read our FAQ page at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php | ||
| You are subscribed to email updates from Yahoo! News Search Results for Philosophy To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |
No comments:
Post a Comment