That Guy (Philosophy)
We all know that I am “that guy” when it comes to NPR and a whole host and variety of other things. However, day two of the Deductive Logic class, in which we determine that all Logical Proofs are deductive; and in which we learn that inductive is a bad name for non-deductive arguments. What happened, though, is that I am in a class of primarily philosophy majors. Some classes fall under very specific venues and since we also know that the majority of people in the class are there with the intent to take the LSAT, the placement test for Law School, you might get an idea of where this could be going.
What urked me, though, was that we would begin talking about a simple principle and before you knew it, two or three different people would leap into the melee talking about other forms of reasoning and trying to dictate (to the professor) that the class was going to take in the discussion. I took it upon myself to return to the basis of the discussion, deductive arguments, and whether or not they were valid or invalid. I didn’t care, and don’t care (too much), about the nature and tone of other philosophical reasoning, I am in the class to learn about Logic.
Now, as that is said, Philosophy is the study of a way or form of thinking. Logic is an offshoot of that, in that it helps form up specific kinds of arguments. A mathematical proof, and by extension all proofs, are deductive in origin; which really means that deduction takes a series of statements that all point to a specific conclusion. Since we were talking at a very basic level (I love basics) a proof might consist of something like:
All schnauzers are dogs.
All dogs are mammals.
Therefore, all schnauzers are mammals.
This is a valid argument. Because to be a schnauzer means you are a dog. Dogs are definitely held within the classification (general) of mammal, though there are some sub-categories that can be applied as well. Which means the conclussion: Schnauzers are mammals, is true and valid.
What a conversation at this level, very simple, does not (and really should not) encounter is a discussion that jumps into other areas of philosophical study. Yes, some classes are designed to explore the relationship of ideas. However, for most students, this idea should be a new concept and should allow for the group, as a whole, to learn that concept collectively.
Not everyone, based off of the actions of some classmates, would agree with that. They wanted to apply this to the greater subject: philosophy; and how this application might help them deal with the major course of emphasis.
One outcome, though, was a level of disregard by these members of the class for (what I believe was) the majority who were interested in building a solid foundation of understanding for a subject so that as we discuss proofs and other aspects of logic, the outcome is a firm understanding and grasp of the material. This was, in part, done because the professor (did I mention he was rather young???) was able to direct the comments and conversations back to the topic at hand; but also failed in that he allowed some discussion to go on that had nothing to do with the immediate course of study.
As a result, I think I need to name a new class of people. These individuals reminded me of some people I know and giving this class a person’s name might be offensive; but being able to state: Idiot Savant’s; helps to shorted the needed description of what a person really is or is doing (in that context).
Erin tells me that some people take classes (like this) in order to show the world that they know more about the subject matter than everyone else – especially in the philosophy department. This is great. I think you should stand on the shoulder’s of other people who’ve done the same thing and shout out your superiority to the world. Because, truth told, I am in these classes to learn something and if I am making an effort I expect my efforts to be rewarded.
Onward and upward.
John Hattaway | smokingpen | Alicia Grey | Clockwork Princess | Cassandra West
Real Heroes Fly
Comments