Husseinisdoingfine

My philosophy class is useless

46 posts in this topic

Greetings forum.

I'm currently in community college, because COVID and I'm not paying 10,000 for university only for the class to be entirely online. I'm taking a philosophy 101 class and my disappointment is immeasurable. It's pointless one on one debates about: Duz Gawd exizt? If so, den why do bad ting happen in de wurld?(the problem of evil)

It's so one dimensional and meaningless, I learn more about philosophy in one Actualized.org video than I did this entire semester, all we're doing is useless pointless back and forths arguing what was the real meaning of text written centuries ago by old dead white men. I love Camus and Knietchzhe, but these Christian theologians I cannot stand.


لا إله إلا الله، وليو رسول الله

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are authentic Christian mystics, just as there are authentic Eastern and Muslim mystics. Don't get lost in the philosophy, which is a mind maze, and instead use it as a lodestone to your inner Self.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I feel you, my philosophy classes back in high school were a nightmare. That kind of philosophy isn't true philosophy, it's just a kind of history class to learn about the different philosophers and their theses.
Like you said, Leo's content is far better cause it gives us tools to grasp the truth for ourselves.

Edited by Erick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 


You are God. You are Love. You are Infinity. You are Leo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean it is only an introductory philosophy class. Most people taking it are likely only there for an easy credit. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

1 hour ago, Husseinisdoingfine said:

 I learn more about philosophy in one Actualized.org video than I did this entire semester,

Hahaha

that’s literally a comment under every video tutorial on youtube for my STEM major! “omggg i learned more here than my entire semester”. I guess for philosophy it isn’t different.

My parents are wasting all their money on me. I told them I wanna drop out and invest money in something more productive but they’re like “uh but iz impurtant chu git a digree”. I also kinda have that mentality though, I’m scared of dropping out?

Edited by blankisomeone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Husseinisdoingfine said:

It's so one dimensional and meaningless, I learn more about philosophy in one Actualized.org video than I did this entire semester, all we're doing is useless pointless back and forths arguing what was the real meaning of text written centuries ago by old dead white men. I love Camus and Knietchzhe, but these Christian theologians I cannot stand.

As long as Philosophy is concerned with the interpretation of the thoughts of dead people, it will never point to true wisdom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I'm also taking a course in philosophy as we speak, and I think it's fascinating to read about how Christianity evolved from the very beginning and its ties to Platonism, Aristotle etc.. Something I find very interesting is how St. Augustin (354-430) introduced the concept of "faith", which is essentially how they started separating God from human experience (traditional monotheism).

St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) made the distinction between dogmatic truths, theological/philosophical truths and scientific truths. He argues that since there are certain aspects of God that you can't have any knowledge about (the "dogmas", like the Holy Trinity), you must have faith in order to believe in it. This is of course the most classic misinterpretation of Jesus' teachings if you're a fan of non-duality.

In non-duality, there is no separation between God and his creation, and the Holy Trinity (the nature of God) can be understood through direct experience. It can also be translated across different metaphysical traditions:

Christianity — the Father + Son + the Holy Ghost.

Hinduism — Brahman + Shiva + Shakti.

Aristotle — "The unmoved mover" + form + matter.

Non-duality — The Absolute + potentiality (emptiness, static being) + actuality (energy, dynamic being) (or The Absolute + the relative).

It's also fun to read about the pre-Socratic philosophers and their version of non-duality (Parmenides, Heraclitus) and similar insights later on (Descartes, Spinoza). Reading about very old philosophers in general is a big mindfuck, because it's so hard to imagine how they truly perceived the world and what they really meant by their theories. There are so many modern presuppositions you have to set aside in order to even begin to sympathize (for example the concept of "substance"). It's impossible in a way, because all of that shapes your perception. It's a great exercise in imagination.

Edited by Carl-Richard

To balance beauty and complexity so perfectly is a divine mystery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

I'm also taking a course in philosophy as we speak, and I think it's fascinating to read about how Christianity evolved from the very beginning and its ties to Platonism, Aristotle etc.. Something I find very interesting is how St. Augustin (354-430) introduced the concept of "faith", which is how they started separating God from humans (traditional monotheism).

St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) made the distinction between dogmatic truths, theological/philosophical truths and scientific truths. He argues that since there are certain aspects of God that you can't have any knowledge about (the dogmas - like the Holy Trinity), you must have faith in order to believe in it. This is of course the most classic misinterpretation of Jesus' teachings if you're a fan of non-duality.

In non-duality, the Holy Trinity (God) can be understood through direct experience. It can also be translated across different metaphysical traditions:

Christianity — the Father + Son + the Holy Ghost.

Hinduism — Brahman + Shiva + Shakti.

Aristotle — "The unmoved mover" + form + matter.

Non-duality — The Absolute + potential (emptiness, static) + actuality (energy, dynamic) (or The Absolute + the relative).

It's also fun to read about the pre-Socratic philosophers and their version of non-duality (Parmenides, Heraclitus) and similar insights later on (Descartes, Spinoza). Reading about very old philosophers in general is a big mindfuck, because it's so hard to imagine how they truly perceived the world and what they really mean by their theories. There are so many modern presuppositions you have to set aside in order to even begin to sympathize (for example the concept of a substance). It's sort of impossible in a way, because all of that shapes your very perception. It's a great exercise in imagination.

pretty interesting, thanks!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Elevated said:

I mean it is only an introductory philosophy class. Most people taking it are likely only there for an easy credit. 

Lol unless if they got that one tryhard professor who intentionally makes his class extra hard cause he’s mad it’s know for being a free credit class

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The non-intro philosophy classes are even dumber. It's just that the dumbness becomes more technical and challenging to comprehend.


You are God. You are Love. You are Infinity. You are Leo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

more technical and challenging to comprehend.

My K-12 schooling years have primed me to confuse technical and challenging, with smart and true.


لا إله إلا الله، وليو رسول الله

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Husseinisdoingfine said:

My K-12 schooling years have primed me to confuse technical and challenging, with smart and true.

That's the whole game of academia: lots of highly technical talk, but very little truth or wisdom. Hence it ends up being so dumb. Because getting the big picture right is way more important than getting the technical minutia right.


You are God. You are Love. You are Infinity. You are Leo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Philosophy is useless, by definition. The usefulness is found in science, which is the pragmatic part of our human epistemology.


If you have no confidence in yourself, you are twice defeated in the race of life. But with confidence you have won, even before you start.” -- Marcus Garvey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gesundheit said:

Philosophy is useless, by definition. The usefulness is found in science, which is the pragmatic part of our human epistemology.

False


You are God. You are Love. You are Infinity. You are Leo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

@Leo Gura ummm, lol?

Philosophy is like the tree trunk of epistemology. Science is the fruit.

Edited by Gesundheit

If you have no confidence in yourself, you are twice defeated in the race of life. But with confidence you have won, even before you start.” -- Marcus Garvey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Gesundheit said:

@Leo Gura ummm, lol?

Philosophy is like the tree trunk of epistemology. Science is the fruit.

Science without philosophy is like a horse without a rider.


To balance beauty and complexity so perfectly is a divine mystery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Science without philosophy is like a horse without a rider.

Science don't need any rider, only to understand and manipulate the materia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

Science don't need any rider, only to understand and manipulate the materia

merlin_146255937_1fd6a1ce-d2ea-4b50-b28e

 


To balance beauty and complexity so perfectly is a divine mystery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Carl-Richard said:

Science without philosophy is like a horse without a rider.

Said the rider or the horse?


If you have no confidence in yourself, you are twice defeated in the race of life. But with confidence you have won, even before you start.” -- Marcus Garvey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now