Why There's No Just War, according to my damn phil. prof.

[Lord Terrible]

[quote="Martin Blank";p="328526"][quote="Lord Terrible";p="327877"]Errrrr...

None I know of. Which eliminates the motivation of gaining support...[/quote]
Bosnia, Kosovo, Somalia, Iraq, Haiti, Sudan, and Afghanistan don't ring any bells?[/quote]I'm sure they have bells in some of those countries, so why not ring them

I only saw Bowling for Columbine about this, so I wouldn't be qualified to argue with ppl..

[Imperator Severn]

I only saw Bowling for Columbine about this, so I wouldn't be qualified to argue with ppl..

Bowling for Columbine is what is known as a heavily biased and unreliable source. You might as well read the Klan newsletter to educate yourself on History.

[Lord Terrible]

Heheheh... Once, in a history paper, a girl had the subject of German Prosectuion of Jews during WW2. Her conclusion was that no jews had been killed, it was all filthy lies

She should have double-checked her sources... She got all of her info from nazi web pages

[Deacon]

[quote="mrchapel";p="328595"]I see the point of philosophy as "asking questions society already has acceptable answers to."[/quote]
Heh...I like that

[mrchapel]

[quote="SomGuy";p="328738"]Philosphy is just finding out for yourself what you think about life so you can act according to your own idea of what is right and wrong.[/quote]
Thats just ethics

[Jeneye]

Hmmmm

I always thought philosophy wasn't about being right or wrong, but being able to prove your opinions. The ultimate bs class of all time.

The whole thing is the definition of just, just means:

just1 ( P ) Pronunciation Key (jst)
adj.
Honorable and fair in one's dealings and actions: a just ruler. See Synonyms at fair1.
Consistent with what is morally right; righteous: a just cause.
Properly due or merited: just deserts.
Law. Valid within the law; lawful: just claims.
Suitable or proper in nature; fitting: a just touch of solemnity.
Based on fact or sound reason; well-founded: a just appraisal.

from dictionary.com

Of course war is not just because of your prof's definitions of what is moral, what is valid in his own interpretation of the law, he believes his views are well founded, and based on reason.

To counterargue, what are everyone's reasons on why war is not just, including well founded reasonable beliefs supported by your own definitions of the moral code?

To conclude, life is not fair, or just. Of course war is not just, at least one person always suffers, but yeah right like life is just, life is just the opposite and you just have to live with it.

[genericdefect]

-Rigidly coherentist ethical positions in the classical tradition lead invariably to contradiction and bizarre outcomes. All experience supports this hypothesis.

-Personally, me killing people is bad when I do not desire to kill other people, or at least those other particular people.

-Don't challenge your professor intellectually. You have nothing to gain by it. Almost no university is overly fixated on undergrads as their core mission..(research baby!) and your professor has tenure regardless. Ask very particular questions instead - but don't play "stump the guy with the PhD." The person may be useful to you later. If it is a professor that likes to think, especially given to tangential, on-the-spot thinking (my favorite) just throw out an idea or position with a "what about" or "what are your opinions on" tacked on. No matter how smart or how right you are, you're gonna annoy people if you start out with "I believe X and this why." As Plato said,"[Nothing is less persuasive than arguement.] which is pretty silly since he adopts inducive arguement as the core philosophic mode of logical constructions.

[StruckingFuggle]

Actually, he has neither tenure nor a PhD.

[genericdefect]

The point of studying philosophy in the classical sense is not that one develops a freeform understanding of the universe, nor the right thing to believe, nor simply the rhetorical skills to "ground" any proposition in a vast morass of other propositions. Knowledge about all of those things will come indirectly from study of people who have delilberately or accidentally utilized them. But that isn't what philosophy classes are about.

The point of taking classical studies formally, in an authoritative pedagogical setting, is that many students study the same body of works. This yeilds the net effect of everyone having a greater understanding of what the heck anybody is saying or writing to them when discussing a cosmological or rhetorical nuance. If they have a common body of language, this opens new possibilities for exploration. You just have to visit a major library to see the vast number of volumes that have never been perused critically, or are written in homage to the primary works to see this. The didactic languages are invention, perhaps even a discovery, but they are all still highly subject to majoritarian principles in their acceptance.

Another strange thing about the library is that there is no word to encompass what doesn't classify as fiction. How then is it so easy (or is it?) to decide if a work concerns fiction or not? And why are works on philosophy, philodoxy, morality, and ethics classified outside of the fiction shelves?

Your prof also seems to cite a fair number of his sources. If your studies are of systems of authoritative inductive claims, simply note them in the authority fetishing fashion if you are so hung up on your notion of facts.

[StruckingFuggle]

genericdefect, you have no idea what the hell either you or me are talking about... I'm not sure which.

[Azurain]

[quote="StruckingFuggle";p="334591"]genericdefect, you have no idea what the hell either you or me are talking about... I'm not sure which.[/quote]

That was the most succinct-yet-polite newbie knockdown I've ever seen...

genericdefect, from what I can tell, StruckingFuggle's problem with the philosophy class is that the prof. focuses primarily upon sources that are outside of what would be expected in such a class, and seem to be chosen simply because they support and reaffirm the proffessor's preconceived philosophical notions. So now instead of having an interesting class where he learned about some interesting and fundamental philosophical ideas, he got a narrow view on a few points which he was expected to agree with or be called incorrect. If he attends a higher level philosophy course of which this one is a prerequisite, he will now be sorely behind on many of the major ideas and philosophers which his prof. only gave lip service to.

I'm fairly sure that we're aware of the point of studying philosophy...

Of course, all of that said, from your posts you seem to be a very well-spoken and intelligent n00b, so I hope you'll stick around. But no more lectures : ).

-- Chris

[genericdefect]

SF - You issued a single proposition in your one line response: "GD you have no idea about X, or possibly Y. - You didn't bother to ground it by refering to another proposition ala: GD you have no idea about X (or Y) because you do not appreciate that X is a product of (Z), and (Z) is inherently or contingently sufficient and necessary. This is what the sophists taught.

Clearly, and commendably, you have learned to throw off these artificial constraints in your knowledge acquiring mechanisms in your philosophic studies. If you were hung up on defending your methods, you'd have to defend yourself from the claim that you were adapting the language of categorical imperatives directly to epistemological claims though.

To a person that is much convinced of the utility of these dialectical methods, the feeling that another ought to understand them before dismissing them is strong. But they are pedants of the worst sort usually.

Azu - I do not fathom how seniority, or any other outside credential or other extremely tangential state of affairs has any bearing on the soundness, perspicacity or timeliness of any argument or thesis, particularly this one. Perhaps you would care to explain your proscription?

Perhaps I am ill informed of a multitude of unspoken directives on modes of discourse. I took this particular forum to be freeform in the mode of the expression of one's own opinions - to that extent I merely write in an unburdened mode that bows to the necessity of brevity, but less so than in speech. I am still working on refining this technique.

[Shyknight]

genericdefect, do you realize that by conversing in such a highly academic and erudite manner, you risk being misunderstood by and even offending the denizens of this online community? Your 'dialectical method', while eloquent, is difficult to follow at times and might convey to the reader that you believe yourself to be the only vessel of enlightened civilization in this world of grunting barbarians, or that your feces have no odor. Personally, it perturbs me for deep-seated psychological reasons I am powerless to explain.

Do you also realize that while your vocabulary and general level of education is more developed than that of most people who frequent these forums, I still have genitalia much larger than yours?

Regarding the original subject of discussion, I can only say that a direct confrontation with this professor will most likely end in failure and may even have further negative consequences. If I was in such a position I would attempt a friendly dialog and discuss the benefits of educating objectively rather than from one's own thoughts and experiences, which are unreliable at best. However, you must not be too unforgiving of him, for as can be witnessed above it is sometimes difficult to restrain oneself from voicing an opinion.