Philosophy Grad Student AMA

Don't ask me about global warming dutch fag.

Which fast food place do you work at? Think you might be able to make assistant manager in five years?

Are you eating from the trashcan of ideology?

How are you planning to deconstruct that loan?

If you weren't in grad school where would you be working?

I really don't know why you would go to college for philosophy.

You can read philosophy books without going, you can get other people's opinions/interpretations with going, so why go?

I could go right now and easily find 100 free philosophy books online and read them all. If I wasn't sure about somthing there's plenty of places online where people discuss philosophy.

I'm a grad student. I get my food payed for.

Without going*

I'm debt free.

>You can read philosophy books without going, you can get other people's opinions/interpretations with going, so why go?
The problem with self-teaching philosophy is that most people only read philosophers they already agree with. They avoid other opinions. Plus more complex ideas are harder to get on ones own and having a relevant scholar helps.

Probably finance or law.

So are you hoping to teach it one day ?

Yeah. If I can ever get a position.

What's you opinion on Fayerabend?

**Feyerabend
I'm tired

>payed
I see the american education system hasn't improved.

Never studied him. Don't have an opinion.

Who is your favorite?

Thanks

lelelel

Is Zizek the ultimate sound bite philopher?

It can happen user, but the job market is hot garbage. I graduated my Philosophy PhD this past spring, and started a TT position this fall at a decent state university. I didn't even go to a top 40 program.

Hopefully you've started professionalizing yourself with conference, publishing (or working towards it) and getting some advisers outside of your committee to work with you. Also be a good teacher.

You want to go to college for philosophy because you want to try to solve philosophical problems. You can actually make progress on things, but the problems become so narrow that people outside of the field can't really understand exactly what you're doing. But that's any field. Someone with a Biology PhD, for example, might make progress on a specific type of protein that's related to a very specific area. It's good work, but not something that will make headlines.

Which way does the water flow when you flush the toilet?

How would you get into law without law school?

Probably hume.

Yes.

Don't you mean which way does the shart flow in the mart.

Would have gone to law school

How is any philosophy that denies absolution or objectivity not just the philosopher's personal rationalization of existence, aka, anecdotal evidence?

Nihilism can be worded any way you like, but it's still nihilism.

There's relativism. Also even if you accept objectivity you still have to find out what's objective which is no easy task.

*SNIFF* PURE IDEOLOGY AND SO ON AND SO ON

But what about global warming?

I'm currently majoring in chemistry with a minor in philosophy (want to bump it up to a major if possible). What moral systems do you ascribe to? What do you think of modified divine command theory, and Alvin Plantiga in general?

When did you realize Philosophy was a spook?

Was Sartre a commie or a red pill? And what was up with his relationship with Simone de Beauvoir?

Also, why doesn't anyone know how to pronounce Nietzsche?

>that graphic
>implying you must date women your own age
Hahaha, maxi cuck

Amas are supposed to be from someone rare.

I could go to tumblr if I wanted to read shit from a worthless sub phd degree holder.

How accurate is this?

It's accurate in the sense that it's a good and funny caricature, but technically unfair to either side (as good caricatures are).

100% fact based

What do you work on (direction, topic and results ideally)?
How much mathematics do you know?
How much formal logic do you know, and do you use it in your daily work?
Are there any of the problems of philosophy which you feel fairly certain of your answer to?

Not accurate in the slightest. Only the left side exists.

>What moral systems do you ascribe to?
I'm a moral relativist. Although I hold the view it's best to get people to believe morality is objective.

>What moral systems do you ascribe to? What do you think of modified divine command theory, and Alvin Plantiga in general?
Not my specialty don't know

Sartre was a cuck.

Bit disappointed tbqh senpai. What is your specialty? Plantinga is supposedly the best defender of Christendom in modern analytical philosophy, utilizing a free will defense as the Christian answer to the problem of moral evil. Modified divine command theory is a modern answer to Plato's euthyphro dilemma, grounding objective morality in the (unchanging) nature of God.

Dude fucking answer . Fucking niggers posting "hurr durr i am x ama", and then just leaves.

>What do you work on (direction, topic and results ideally)?
Determinism. I focus primarily on the epistemology of free-will.

>mathematics
Calculus 1 is my highest math

>formal logic
I know up to an advanced undergraduate level. I don't really use formal logic that much.

>Are there any of the problems of philosophy which you feel fairly certain of your answer to?
No.

free will doesn't really solve the problem of evil.

Can you solve the trolly problem for me?

Is it a trolly of peace?

But what about it? You are trying to kill us all ;_;

...

No because yesterday on the Biology PhD AMA there was some dutch fag trying to argue against man-made climate change.

I know what you meant. It was a joke.

The trolly problem for me is a mute one.

Free will doesn't exist.

Please elaborate, my prof mentioned that free will doesn't explain natural evil (earthquakes, famine etc.) without accepting a garden of Eden type story, but left it at that. What about moral evil however?

If I remember correctly, the argument is structured such that our world is the best of all possible worlds, with first order goods such as pleasure and leisure, first order evils such as suffering and pain, second order goods such as the virtues, second order evils such as the vices, and the third order good of free will.

Argument being that without second and first order evils, second and third order goods would not be possible to actualize as we overcome first and second order evils. Thoughts?

Exactly. Also even if it did it would solve the problem of evil.

Stephan Law gives the argument. Imagine an all-evil god. One could say that the all evil god should just create as much suffering as possible and to do this denying us choice would be the best way to do it.

But in our lives what are worst things that happen to us? Horrible acts committed on us by other people. For example many people say that having a spouse cheat on them hurts more than having them raped. Therefore the all evil god gives us free-will because it allows us to commit these sort of more harmful actions.

I like the idea of "if you want to create an apple pie from scrath, you have to invent the universe first". Generally I believe there's no good nor evil, only the movement of causality.

See

Why is continental philosophy so fucking marxist?

Zizek is fucking retarded.

Holy shit I can't believe people still listen to this nonsensical ramblings.

>Philosophy
D R O P P E D
R
O
P
P
E
D

But then you could argue that destruction fill a purpose of creating growth on which life grows more beautiyfull than before. Like desert fires in Australia. If you prevented those everybody would starve to death.

how will you feed yourself after school?

Much thanks.

So if I'm following the argument correctly;
One, you agree with the proposition that free will does not exist (though I suppose we haven't defined free will)

Second, if free will DID exist, it would not be a solution the existence of evil because free will enables the capacity for humans to hurt one another? (Second order evil)

I thiiink Plantiga just says that free will, and human choice is so valuable that it makes it worth it. So Stephen Law is essentially calling into question the status of free will as a third order good (if it exists at all).

What arguments do you use to support the proposition that free will doesn't exist?

I've just started reading Husserl and I don't understand any of it. Help me

...

Too hard for you mate ?

Do you recognize the jew as the root cause of the destruction of modern civilization?

Has anything useful happened in philosophic thought since the 1920s?

I'm not memeing here. I'm just concerned with the emphasis placed on post-structuralism that every philosophy, political theory, and WGSS major drones on and on about like it's the only way to view the world.

Basically, can you find a way to kill the influence Weber and Foucault so we can get to something more concrete to focus on rather than "social relations" and how they mean we have to act in a collectivist fashion.

Could you explain to me, in the simplest terms as possible, what does "logically follows" mean?

Why did Freud wants to fuck his mom?