First day back to school.

[Juana]

I'm taking a philosophy of religion class as well atm. My teacher seems like he's pretty hard to troll but I've got a pagan of the TCC variety in my class, too. She should be fun.

What is Religion?

(We said trolling, not "have enlightening conversations" right?)

Discussed this today. The video we watched sort of suggested communism is a religion in some ways (of course, it also referred to capitalism as a failed god as well), so he asked what qualifies as a religion.

[Telarus]

Classic troll question for religion profs:


Why don't Rastafarians get equal treatment under the law as the UDV (ayawaska/DMT-tea using group)?

[Rumckle]

Hah, any low level philosophy courses are easy to troll, in fact, many students seem to troll them accidentally.

The problem with the malevolent God theory in such a course is that most of the arguments start with a premise such as: "God is omnipresent, omniscient and omni-benevolent". (at least it was in the Pil. of Religion course I took)

Precise trolling requires knowledge of the prereqs.

For instance, will people in your class have read Descartes, Spinoza, Thomas of Aquinas, St. Augustine, ect. already?

If it is a low level course I doubt they would have read much, maybe Descartes and some modern shit (such as Dawkins, though maybe Dennett if you are lucky).

[Cain]

Ask them to explain why the Ontological Argument is wrong.

This stumped my A-level philosophy class for weeks, much to the exasperation of my teacher and myself.

Also, buy Vitamin C tablets and throat lozenges - now.  You will get Fresher's Flu and it likely wont be pleasant.  Prepare ahead to minimize damage.

[NWC]

Ask them to explain why the Ontological Argument is wrong.

This stumped my A-level philosophy class for weeks, much to the exasperation of my teacher and myself.

You couldn't just read them Kant's explanation and be done with it?

[Requia ☣]

Ask them to explain why the Ontological Argument is wrong.

This stumped my A-level philosophy class for weeks, much to the exasperation of my teacher and myself.

Also, buy Vitamin C tablets and throat lozenges - now.  You will get Fresher's Flu and it likely wont be pleasant.  Prepare ahead to minimize damage.

What exactly is the ontological argument?  I've read versions of it from a couple different philosophers and I can't tell if its gibberish or I just don't understand their point.

[Triple Zero]

problem I had with trolling Philosophy class was that usually there's not much time (or reason) for discussion.

you can discuss any Philo topic at length, but in the end the class comes down to learning what certain Philosophical thinkers thought and the arguments against those thoughts. discussing it just leads to a slower class with less learning.

concluding, the best way to troll Philosophy class is to ask questions that are directly on topic.

[The Johnny]

Rabidly defend that we are all living in the Matrix. 

[Cain]

You couldn't just read them Kant's explanation and be done with it?

I don't know what happened there, my class was pretty bright, all things considered.  Admittedly this was still at high school rather than college, but even taking that into account, I seemed to get it after a couple of days, and then had to re-argue/explain it to everyone else time and time again, because my teacher was busy trying to fake his county taxation records or something.  As it happens, Kant was one of the criticisms we looked at, but I'm not sure if that was before or after everyone grasped the idea.

What exactly is the ontological argument?  I've read versions of it from a couple different philosophers and I can't tell if its gibberish or I just don't understand their point.

We first studied St Anselm's version of the argument, which was "God is the greatest thing which can be concieved of, nothing which is greater".  Since existence is an attribute of being the greatest possible thing, God must therefore exist.  This is a really brief version of the argument, I should point out.  And yes, the argument is circular logic, which tries to define God into existence.  The fact that the Catholic Church rejected the Ontological Argument, especially after Aquinas and his broadly empirical approach to proving the existence of God, should tell you a lot (ie it was too absurd for even the Middle Ages). 

We also studied a variation of the Liebnizian argument about this being the best of all possible worlds and therefore God must exist, but I don't remember that particular argument in any detail at all, except for it being mind-numbingly stupid.

[Cain]

problem I had with trolling Philosophy class was that usually there's not much time (or reason) for discussion.

you can discuss any Philo topic at length, but in the end the class comes down to learning what certain Philosophical thinkers thought and the arguments against those thoughts. discussing it just leads to a slower class with less learning.

concluding, the best way to troll Philosophy class is to ask questions that are directly on topic.

True. 

Unlike some people here, I contend Philosophy can be useful....because if taught properly, it forces you to engage with the argument of the opposition based both on it's factual accuracy and on it's internal coherency.  Also, it forces you to think about the assumptions implicit in the argument, the a priori and a posteriori core of what the argument actually says about how reality operates, and if you can prove the latter of those two to be wrong....well then, you've just destroyed the opponent's argument.

[NWC]

problem I had with trolling Philosophy class was that usually there's not much time (or reason) for discussion.

you can discuss any Philo topic at length, but in the end the class comes down to learning what certain Philosophical thinkers thought and the arguments against those thoughts. discussing it just leads to a slower class with less learning.

concluding, the best way to troll Philosophy class is to ask questions that are directly on topic.

Agreed.

Just to clarify though, it's normal that it comes down to learning what certain thinkers thought, and where they oppose each other. They've spent their lives debating and reflecting upon a subject that people in an entry level class are just discovering.

Even if they did come up with an incongruity in a well-accepted syllogism or they found a new characteristic of a categorical imperative, it would take years for the idea to be chewed over, reviewed, and accepted.

Unlike some people here, I contend Philosophy can be useful....because if taught properly, it forces you to engage with the argument of the opposition based both on it's factual accuracy and on it's internal coherency.  Also, it forces you to think about the assumptions implicit in the argument, the a priori and a posteriori core of what the argument actually says about how reality operates, and if you can prove the latter of those two to be wrong....well then, you've just destroyed the opponent's argument.

Agreed as well, though I must admit it's not the reason why I chose it for my studies: gotta get a degree in something, might as well choose what I love.


We had a great troll last year now that I think of it, but he didn't do it on purpose. He wasn't fully literate, and he went to all of the classes long enough to ask the teacher "mais c'est quoi le pourquoi du pourquoi???" (but what is the why/because of the why/because?) 7 times in a 2 hour period, and once he had annoyed everyone to the point where the teacher ignored his presence, he stopped showing up. He gave our philosophy department a great inside joke at least.

[Cain]

Well I did it at school because the teacher was legendary, and then it turned out I had something of a knack for it.  But that part is especially useful, when you apply it.

[Cuddlefish]

BTW, I think I accidentally converted an atheist to Discorianism.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

BTW, I think I accidentally converted an atheist to Discorianism.

Ooh, please elaborate when you get the chance.

[Cuddlefish]

BTW, I think I accidentally converted an atheist to Discorianism.

Ooh, please elaborate when you get the chance.

Well, it's a long-ish story.

The first thing our instructor did was go through the roster and have each person answer a few questions, such as why they picked the class and how do we define "religion." Well, the chick behind me seemed like she was on the level, so as people were called on, I'd turn around and tell her if I thought they were agnostic/christian/atheist etc. before they even spoke, just to be funny (Funny thing is, I was correct in almost all of my guesses, which were based on nothing but appearance).

We thought this all was pretty amusing, so I said to her, "Lemme guess, Agnostic?" and she was like: "Nope, Atheist." to which I answered, "I was going to guess that, but I didn't want to insult you." I went on to say to her that Atheism is just as stupid as anything else, because it assumes an absolute based on little to no evidence. I asked her what her upbringing was like, and she told me she was raised catholic, but left the church immediately before her confermation (which was a dumb move. She should got the pay-out from the fam before she bounced).

So, I told her I understood her viewpoint. She was sticking it to her parents by not only denouncing their god, but saying "fuck you" to the entire spectrum of theism. Basically just a rebellious fuck you, with no other real driving factors.

Many peope would have been offended by me making such bold assumptions about someone so shortly after having met them, but she was cool, and played along. It inevitably followed that she asked me what I "beleived" in, so I gave her the best Discordevangelical speil I could come up with on the spot. That night, she friended me on face-book, with a message attached that simply said "Tell me more." So...