In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 146
Online now 430 Record: 7264 (3/12/2012)
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
Hey guys, I am taking Philosophy this semester as one of my final electives. I regret this immensely cuz it sucks and I suck more at it.
I figure there might be a few guys on here who have taking philosophy and can help me quickly with a question on a assignment I am doing.
It has to do with syllogism and testing validity through Venn Diagrams. Anyone an expert in this area?
It's a pretty simple question and all you have to do is a draw a Venn Diagram and see if it is valid.
Post in ITT if you care to help a brother and fellow Wolverine fan out. I will PM the question to you if you care to help.
Thanks in advanced.
Not you have to do BTW. That's what I have to do. Just to clarify.
I have a suspicion about what to do, just want to bounce my answer off someone.
I took philosophy once upon a time, and remember working with Venn Diagrams. I may be a little rusty at it, but I'd be willing to give it a shot.
My roommates a philosophy major here at UM. If you PM me I'll see if he'll have a look at it
I took it P/F and barely mad eit out alive...it would be highly amusing if ur professor posted here
Thanks guys, I'll send both of you a PM with the question.
It's pretty basic philosophy, I just suck at it as I said.
Yeh it was a major choke taking this course, and my family all suggested that i shouldn't take it. I should have listened.
BTW if you guys need clarification because I poorly explained my own thoughts, lemme know. I'll try to clear it up..
Thanks again to both of you.
A^2Wolverines I believe is well versed in the subject.
I shot him a PM lol. Hope he doesn't mind.
I absolutely love philosophy, but definitely understand why it lacks universal appeal.
Lol. Personal library consists of books by Spinoza, Kant, Spencer, Voltaire (more of a political satirist), Goethe, Plato, Bacon, Machiavelli, Schopenhauer, et al. Anyone who has cursory interest? Please consider reading Will Durant's "The Story of Philosophy." Brilliantly written.
Best of luck in your elective :)
Not to Hi-Jack the topic. But i've always been someone who has enjoyed Philosophical discussions and have read a few books on the subject, but greatly greatly lack good reading suggestions.
Already ordered up The Story of Philosophy but just curious if you wouldn't mind naming a few more "Must reads" on the subject.
You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means.
I did a lot of philosophy courses at UM. Of course, that is now ancient history...so I am probably of no practical use to anyone.
That said, if you want useless banter, I'm your guy.
Kant but no Hegel? If you've battled through The Critique of Pure Reason then you definitely should read Hegel's response, The Phenomenology of Spirit. If you don't want to labor through that then check out The Philosophy of Right. Its an easier read but powerful regardless.
"The North shall rise again." General Meyer
Aw man. Although it isn't by any means exhaustive, it is such a delightful springboard, considering he discusses Plato, Aristotle, Bacon, Spinoza, Descartes, Rosseau, Voltaire, Kant, Hegel, Schopenhauer, Spencer (Herbert, of course), Nietzsche, Russell, Croce, Bergson, um Santayana..and from there, depending on their individual views, I set out choosing favorites (personally love Voltaire and Bacon).
It has been, in my experience, a pretty unique introduction. The other "must reads" in my opinion? I'd have to include The Prince (Niccolo Machiavelli), Meditations (Marcus Aurelius), and of course Plato's Republic.
But I think you'll really enjoy reading Durant's contribution. I've read it numerous times simply because of his inspirational writing ability.
I did not read Hegel's response - but am definitely familiar with the title.
Lol @ "battled." Talk about an accurate description. Reading Kant's work is indeed similar to consuming an extremely rich chocolate that should be "experienced" piecemeal.
Will definitely pick up both of your suggestions though.
The issue with a lot of the best modern philosophy is that its historically progressive in nature. In other words it builds on work that came before it and assumes you've already read the preceding work. That makes it hard to just pick up a lot of books.
Some great works that you can read on a stand-alone basis and are enjoyable to the casual reader are:
Nietzsche - Beyond Good and Evil. Just get a compilation like The Portable Nietzsche so you can read more essays if you want, like his works on Greek Tragedy. Nietzsche breaks free from the philosophical methodology of the times, uses the etymology of words to develop his ideas and comes to some very bold conclusions. Wherever you get, make sure its translated by Kaufman. He's the best. The Archie Griffin of translators shall I say?
Karl Marx - Das Kapital. Neoavatara just cringed. You may not like the guy's politics, but his philosophy is spot on. Its hard to disagree with his conclusions even if his remedies were failures.
Hofstadter - Godel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid. This book is brilliant. The guy takes the concept of the infinite in philosophy, art, music and math and meshes them all together then goes forward to explore number theory, the limits of mathematical systems and of the infinite itself. I warn you, though, the book starts out easy and gets harder every chapter. By the end your mind is really working.
Much appreciated, I'll be sure to check out your other recommendations as well . I'll poke you a PM or two during my reading.
This post was edited by theyellowdart 2 years ago
Ha, the Critique definitely was a labor to read through. Every time I think of Kant I can't help but think of the English teacher in Animal House who says something like the following while teaching class, "Oh, who am I kidding, Milton was a terrible bore... even his wife couldn't stand him." I loved how Hegel shredded the Categorical Imperative. The Phenomenology easily is one of the greatest works of philosophical reasoning and ideas of all time and even launched a whole era of followers and responses in its own right, including Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, Spinoza and Marx themselves.
Agree with the recommendations.
Anyone that is remotely interested in our (United States) political lineage should read The Republic (Plato), The Politics (Aristotle), The Prince (Machiavelli), The Great Instauration (Bacon), Two Treatises of Government (Locke), The Spirit of the Laws (Montesquieu), and finally the Declaration of Independence and Federalist Papers.
I like to think these are "must reads" just to be able to fully understand our own form of government and how it originated.
So now you guys are all philosiphizers.
This is Michigan, fergodsakes.
Not sure if this helps, but in Mathematics, a syllogism is when two statements logically allow you to conclude a third. For example, if I tell you that:
1) If it's noon on the last Saturday in November, then I'll watching Michigan football.
2) If I'm watching Michigan football, then I'll be wearing my Michigan gear.
From these two statements, I could create a third...
3. If it's noon on the last Saturday in November, then I'll be wearing my Michigan gear.
For understanding our country's founding, laws and principles I 'd reiterate the Federalist Papers then add Tocqueville's Democracy in America and the minutes from the Constitutional Convention. You'll develop a whole new level of understanding of this country and the brilliance of our forefathers.
This is essentially what I'm doing. But I have to prove if the statements are valid by using a Venn Diagram. I have a decent understanding, but I'm frigged for the exam.
Unlikely. Most philosophy professors are Buckeye fans.
Well, I found this website, which basically walks you through step by step what you are looking for. Basically, from the couple minutes I spent looking at it, you are going to have about 3 terms or ideas you working with, which each get their own circle. You then shade or leave empty each region depending on whether a logical conclusion can be made in that particular area. So I guess your proof comes in your explanation of how you made your decisions about what to shade or not shade? I've never used Venn Diagrams in proofs before, so that's just what I gathered from the article I linked. Good luck.
Also, here's a youtube video I found on the subject...it's pretty dang boring:)
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports