chaoticpuppet

What kind of philosophy class is it? Is it merely a base philosophy class, such as your standard 'Philosophy 101'? Where you simply cover the basics?

My first philosophy class last year, sucked. It was entitled "Values and Knowledge," most of what we did was cover feminism, how mechanism sucks, and a little bit of chaos theory. Now, understand, I am in no way a feminist and I hate-hate-hate most, if not all, feminist writtings. I have yet to find one that isn't so bitchy and whiny. Another thing, I am a mechanist, I am very much a huge fan of Descartes, it is nearly impossible to be a fan of him and not be a mechanist, unless you merely like to study theories opposite to what you hold. Really, the only thing that I liked about the class was the part on Chaos theory.

My second, third, and fourth philosophy classes, I enjoy much more than my first. They dealt with, 'Epistemology', 'Philosophy and History of Science (Ptolemy to Copernicus)', and 'Philosophy and Tragedy.'

Another reason that contributed to my dislike of my first class is that I pretty much cannot stand the professors teaching style. All the classes were discussion based, and really, it was the students, collectively, lead the discussion, the professor would merely chime in every now and then so as to make sure we where on track. From that class, I remember little about what was covered - which is why you saw me cite my paper for holism.

Its Philosophy 101. By the way, thanks for the information on holism. Its very interesting.

Quote:
Which form? Berkeley's or Russell's?

Berkeley, we haven't talked about Russell yet.

Quote:
Just a point in semantics, first, you might want to define what these thoughts and ideas are. The way you put them implies that thoughts are one thing that are seperate from ideas; which will cause the reader to wonder what the difference is.

Okay, makes sense.

Quote:
What is a mind? Is it physical thing or a concept that holds these ideas and thoughts? If this mind is a physical thing, such as a brain, you could very well have violated idealism; however that may not be the case, if I am right, Russell should be able to help you in stating that minds can be physical objects.

An entity, or an individual. i'm not really sure how to put it. Basically its the part that translates into a human or animal on our wavelength.
Quote:
An obvious question here is, why?

Further, what do you mean by 'wavelength'? Do you mean, that minds, sharing a pattern of thought are more likely to come together and 'create' something? Or do you mean something else?

A lone mind is dormant. All it can do is seek out a wavelength. I mean that the minds collect and form a will, each of the minds remain individual, but they must conform to this collective will.

Quote:
So, this 'wavelength' is something that is outside the minds and posits what will happen if a mind 'decides' to join?

How does this wavelentgh create images, sensations, and rules?

Not exactly, each mind is part of the wavelength, they work together to form make the wavelength's "universe". Its not really a universe though, it all exists within the minds. What we know as the universe is one of the wavelengths. The wavelength is like a mind of its own, but made up of other minds, it has its own thoughts and ideas.

Quote:
When one dies, why does this mean a termination of the mind? If the mind is non-physical can the mind die and if so, how?

This part of the philosophy and the last part are still very much incomplete. Perhaps it would help if I said how I came up with this part. My first idea was the one about the mind moving to another wavelength, but I noticed a big fallacy here, so I made the other one about the mind being destroyed. The fallacy I noticed with the first one was that that would mean that this wavelength is made up of minds that had been on other wavelengths, yet no one has memory of these other "universes". However, now I have the idea that the wavelength can inhibit certain processes within the minds, blocking past memories.

Quote:
I have, pretty much, no idea what to say here, mostly because I have almost no clue what you are trying to say here.

This section is pretty much a few random ideas I had, its probably better to scratch it for now, until I can figure out a little better.

Quote:
Things to remember when making philosophical theories:
-Why, as in, why should it be that way?

Why? I'm not really sure. It just seemed like a possibility, so I continued to develop it.
Quote:
-Define all terms that could possibly be seen as ambiguous, so, in essence, define all terms, except those which are self-evident.

I tried to do that a little more above, especially with 'mind' and 'wavelength'.
Quote:
-How does it happen.

That's a difficult one. I've more of been about how things are, not how they came to be this way. I'll think about it for a while and post when something comes to mind.
Quote:
and finally;
-Why is it advantageous to believe your theory over any other theory.

Well, like most philisophical theories it can't really be proven or disproven, so its hard to say what makes it better than other theories. Its pretty optimistic, and gives the suggestion of other worlds, which is why I like it.