Philosophy Now Forum

I find it interesting how the religious experience varies according to who you listen to. For example, growing up as a Catholic in primary school we wer strongly dissuaded from questioning. It was as if "this is the truth...your little brains cannot handle any alternative explanation of the universe." In my Catholic secondary school, it was a little better - we were encouraged to question established truth, but in the end our enquiries were met with an implacable wall of centuries -old dogma: questions such as, "why does God allow such suffering? " were countered swiftly with killer lines such as, "God's work is mysterious." This was hugely frustrating for me. I think things may be different now, and that there is not the same self-righteousness and paranoia in Catholic schools. The burden of proof has shifted back to the Church. Perhaps they have been burdened for the first time in history. The result is a more comfortable environment for the teaching of philosophy in Ireland, one where all viewpoints are listened to and respected.

Pffff!!

The answer is easy, your god has allowed us to grow wise and intelligent, and able to help ourselves. Why would anyone help lazy and stupid people?

He once interacted too much with mankind and that resulted in the great flood, and he wowed never to harm mankind ever again, well, it's maybe there the intervention stopped.

Very simple!

aiddon wrote:I find it interesting how the religious experience varies according to who you listen to. For example, growing up as a Catholic in primary school we wer strongly dissuaded from questioning. It was as if "this is the truth...your little brains cannot handle any alternative explanation of the universe." In my Catholic secondary school, it was a little better - we were encouraged to question established truth, but in the end our enquiries were met with an implacable wall of centuries -old dogma: questions such as, "why does God allow such suffering? " were countered swiftly with killer lines such as, "God's work is mysterious." This was hugely frustrating for me. I think things may be different now, and that there is not the same self-righteousness and paranoia in Catholic schools. The burden of proof has shifted back to the Church. Perhaps they have been burdened for the first time in history. The result is a more comfortable environment for the teaching of philosophy in Ireland, one where all viewpoints are listened to and respected.

In Religion there is little room for thinking, except at the top, and then only to think of better ways to dominate and subjugate the masses and keep them ignorant.

HexHammer wrote:Pffff!!

The answer is easy, your god has allowed us to grow wise and intelligent, and able to help ourselves. Why would anyone help lazy and stupid people?

He once interacted too much with mankind and that resulted in the great flood, and he wowed never to harm mankind ever again, well, it's maybe there the intervention stopped.

Very simple!

This is wrong on so many levels.
If people were lazy and stupid and god did not help them, how would they become wise and intelligent?

God interacted with man till they left the garden and drifted away from God, so God destroyed most of humanity because God was not interacting with them. after the flood God interacted with man even more till Jesus, and then the interaction seemed to be less, unless you know what to look for.

thedoc wrote:If people were lazy and stupid and god did not help them, how would they become wise and intelligent?

LOL? How does people now a days become wise and intelligent? ..pulling wisdom and intellect out their asses? ..no?

thedoc wrote: God interacted with man till they left the garden and drifted away from God, so God destroyed most of humanity because God was not interacting with them. after the flood God interacted with man even more till Jesus, and then the interaction seemed to be less, unless you know what to look for.

To kill a person is usually to interact, even the word interact would suggest so, the story of Noah would suggest so, do you even know what you are saying youelf?

The story of Noah suggested that one man, Noah, was interacting with God and the rest of humanity was not. So God destroyed everyone but Noah and his family. To kill a person is to interact at that moment, but that does not indicate any interaction before that act.

The Voice of Time wrote:

marjoramblues wrote:Voice:

Showing movies still means you are gonna be engaging with them, but you'll have a place to engage from, a mutual experience to talk about, and not the psychological/emotional distance that random history produce.

Showing entire movies in a classroom situation would take up far too much time. Perhaps suggested clips to look at via youtube.

Aye, I thought about that as well, .... But likely, yes, showing the whole movie at once could be too much movie and too little to the point of the philosophical material, so one would have to find the best combinations.

Yes, I knew you would already have considered all options
I think that clips can be used like quotes from a novel or a philosopher's grand theory - as a taster to provoke, promote, produce thought. Jumpstart the brain. Also, important is how a teacher might present any synopses and performances.

For example: the 'Catalogue Aria' from Mozart's Don Giovanni - which, if any, would attract teenagers: The Don's taking of any female in a skirt; the fat in winter, the slim in summer, the old one just to add to his list...

Synopses:

1. http://www.metoperafamily.org/metopera/ ... n-giovanni

In the morning, Giovanni and Leporello encounter one of Giovanni’s former conquests, Donna Elvira, who is devastated by his betrayal. Leporello tells her she is neither the first nor the last woman to fall victim to Giovanni and shows her his catalogue with the name of every woman Giovanni has seduced

2. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... d=15828636

The next morning, Giovanni and Leporello stumble across Donna Elvira, another one of Giovanni's conquests. She's tracked him down to insist that he live up to his romantic promises of true love and fidelity. To demonstrate why that's not likely to happen, Leporello reads her an exhaustive list of the Don's former lovers, in the well-known "Catalogue Aria." While Giovanni tries to make a clean getaway, Elvira, too, swears vengeance.

Performances:

1. Traditional stage version - 8 mins - Madamina, il catalogo e' questo (Allen, Te Kanawa)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fccdGBi9JUs

2. Novel: Animation of the Catalogue Aria (5.36) incl mobile phone nos, geography and art
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6saKjs_12M

Philosophy:

1. Søren Kierkegaard’s Interpretation of Mozart’s Opera Don Giovanni :
An Appraisal and Theological Response
by Dr. David Naugle
42 pages
http://www.sorenkierkegaard.nl/artikele ... ovanni.pdf

2. classroom discussion of how to judge a scoundrel; inevitably religion included. The Don goes to Hell

thedoc wrote:The story of Noah suggested that one man, Noah, was interacting with God and the rest of humanity was not. So God destroyed everyone but Noah and his family. To kill a person is to interact at that moment, but that does not indicate any interaction before that act.

1) if person A talks to person B, it's interaction.

2) if person A beats up person B, it's interaction.

3) if person A shoots person B, it's interaction.

4) if person A floods the room person B is in, it's interaction.

Ergo, if god floods the world and wants to kill off the entire human race, it's interaction with all humans.

aiddon wrote:I find it interesting how the religious experience varies according to who you listen to. For example, growing up as a Catholic in primary school we wer strongly dissuaded from questioning. It was as if "this is the truth...your little brains cannot handle any alternative explanation of the universe." In my Catholic secondary school, it was a little better - we were encouraged to question established truth, but in the end our enquiries were met with an implacable wall of centuries -old dogma: questions such as, "why does God allow such suffering? " were countered swiftly with killer lines such as, "God's work is mysterious." This was hugely frustrating for me. I think things may be different now, and that there is not the same self-righteousness and paranoia in Catholic schools. The burden of proof has shifted back to the Church. Perhaps they have been burdened for the first time in history. The result is a more comfortable environment for the teaching of philosophy in Ireland, one where all viewpoints are listened to and respected.

Ah, you opened the floodgates...
Hope you have a classroom strategy

aiddon wrote:I find it interesting how the religious experience varies according to who you listen to.

A man was drowning.
A ship came along.
They said, "We'll save you."
But the man replied,
"No, God will save me!"
Another ship came along.
They said, "We'll save you."
The man replied.
"No, God will save me!"
The man ended up drowning.
He asked God in heaven,
"Why didn't you save me?"
God replies,
"I sent you two ships, dumbass."

From: http://www.englishforums.com/English/Ra ... p/post.htm

marjoramblues wrote:

aiddon wrote:I find it interesting how the religious experience varies according to who you listen to. For example, growing up as a Catholic in primary school we wer strongly dissuaded from questioning. It was as if "this is the truth...your little brains cannot handle any alternative explanation of the universe." In my Catholic secondary school, it was a little better - we were encouraged to question established truth, but in the end our enquiries were met with an implacable wall of centuries -old dogma: questions such as, "why does God allow such suffering? " were countered swiftly with killer lines such as, "God's work is mysterious." This was hugely frustrating for me. I think things may be different now, and that there is not the same self-righteousness and paranoia in Catholic schools. The burden of proof has shifted back to the Church. Perhaps they have been burdened for the first time in history. The result is a more comfortable environment for the teaching of philosophy in Ireland, one where all viewpoints are listened to and respected.

Ah, you opened the floodgates...
Hope you have a classroom strategy

I’d like to get this back to addressing a Christian or Catholic environment rather than the generic “religion” as some have done.

It may well “open the floodgates”, but the search for truth isn’t always easy. However, it does make for a fun journey. I’ll admit that there are plenty of anti-intellectual fundies out there who would not allow for critical evaluation of anything biblical to their ultimate detriment. I have no problem pointing out stupid things said by some claiming to represent Christianity and will go so far as to ridicule certain of the more comical characters.

MMasz wrote:I’d like to get this back to addressing a Christian or Catholic environment rather than the generic “religion” as some have done.

It may well “open the floodgates”, but the search for truth isn’t always easy. However, it does make for a fun journey. I’ll admit that there are plenty of anti-intellectual fundies out there who would not allow for critical evaluation of anything biblical to their ultimate detriment. I have no problem pointing out stupid things said by some claiming to represent Christianity and will go so far as to ridicule certain of the more comical characters.

Mike, now a man's political persuasion is his own business, so I am pointing this out just as a matter of some irony. Please feel free to disagree. I recall that you are broadly sympathethic to the Tea Party movement, a movement somewhat notorious for their intolerance on a wide range of issues. They have also ben accused of being anti-intellectual, and a dangerous breed of right wing Christianity. Now, this may all be a media witch-hunt, and not being an American, I may be completely misinformed. However, if there is truth to some of this, then I think you may find it very challenging to remain objective in the teaching of philosophy. Now, as I said, it is near impossible to be purely objective, but given that the Tea Party has taken such a hard line on topics such as abortion, economics and religion, then anyone coming from that stable, as it were, would have difficulty in presenting philosophical ideas on these issues to children. I don't doubt for one second your ability or enthusiasm for the subject, but can you see the paradox?

Again, feel free to shoot me down...so to speak.

aiddon wrote:

MMasz wrote:I’d like to get this back to addressing a Christian or Catholic environment rather than the generic “religion” as some have done.

It may well “open the floodgates”, but the search for truth isn’t always easy. However, it does make for a fun journey. I’ll admit that there are plenty of anti-intellectual fundies out there who would not allow for critical evaluation of anything biblical to their ultimate detriment. I have no problem pointing out stupid things said by some claiming to represent Christianity and will go so far as to ridicule certain of the more comical characters.

Mike, now a man's political persuasion is his own business, so I am pointing this out just as a matter of some irony. Please feel free to disagree. I recall that you are broadly sympathethic to the Tea Party movement, a movement somewhat notorious for their intolerance on a wide range of issues. They have also ben accused of being anti-intellectual, and a dangerous breed of right wing Christianity. Now, this may all be a media witch-hunt, and not being an American, I may be completely misinformed. However, if there is truth to some of this, then I think you may find it very challenging to remain objective in the teaching of philosophy. Now, as I said, it is near impossible to be purely objective, but given that the Tea Party has taken such a hard line on topics such as abortion, economics and religion, then anyone coming from that stable, as it were, would have difficulty in presenting philosophical ideas on these issues to children. I don't doubt for one second your ability or enthusiasm for the subject, but can you see the paradox?

Again, feel free to shoot me down...so to speak.

Since you are not American you are subject to our media's created caricature of the TEA Party bogeyman. If you were to look, you would find material friendly to the TEA party which is really a loosely bound coalition. I’m not a member, so I won’t defend all their positions. As a new quasi-political party, they have some growing pains to go through and better define which issues they will focus on. Those will likely be: government growth, tax policies and entitlements as the common denominator. Social issues will likely get buried.

I’m teaching from a secular text and right now we’re going through Hume’s Dialogues on Natural Religion. We will be also be reading Plato’s Euthyphro and some other readings. The BIble stuff they get in other classes.

Re: VoT's idea of using films to introduce philosophy.

It's obviously unfeasible to show two hour films during school-time so why not set them as homework?

"For homework I want you to watch The Matrix and whilst you do consider what it is proposing with respect to mind and perception or robotics, morality and artificial intelligence, etc". Would certainly have liked this as my homework. Then in the actual lesson one could lead the discussion and introduce Descartes demon and Putnam's brain-in-a-vat. I'm sure it would pique their interest to find that it's been thought of before in Philosophy.

I'd also help out the English dept and instead of 'Blade Runner' use the original Phillip K Dick novel, "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" as the C21st student appear to have a problem with the concentration required to read. Same sort of homework question tho'.

Arising_uk wrote:Re: VoT's idea of using films to introduce philosophy.

It's obviously unfeasible to show two hour films during school-time so why not set them as homework?

That could work, and could be a good solution, but could also take too much focus on the length of the film instead of the parts in question, and so the homework might be about a specific length of the film, and a question or two to be pondered over in hindsight of watching that part, for then to have a full expression and historical comparison and detailing in class.