Well Aileen, was someone reading ahead in the packet? :P
On another note, I thought it would be interesting to look at some of the contributing factors to decision making, instead of focusing on "Can or Can't", we could focus on what makes us do things, and whether or not those factors are predetermined or not, or even the decisions they lead to.
I like Aileen's idea of sort of going into the metaphysical side of things with the dualism of mind and brain and how our thoughts interact with the environment. I feel like this whole fate thing is sort of wishy-washy touchy-feely and I want to do something that has somethign to do with the world that I can physically see.
I think it would be interesting to discuss laws regarding what can or can not be said ie) hate crime laws etc...Is it just to make a law limiting these things and how do laws like that affect how we live?
I think today's discussion on healthcare was very interesting, but I do like the idea of Naturalized Epistemology. Duality seems like something that would be difficult to take a side on, while we were doing Fatalism, I think it was harder to take a definitive "Side", when there were so many ways to view it. Duality seems like it would have the same issue.
Going off of what Dylan said. That's one of the things that is really interesting about philosophy club, the things we talk about don't necessarily have one side or another. There's a lot of grey area. I really like what Aileen said. I vote for mind/brain
8 comments:
I've got two ideas that we can either embrace or disregard, according to the direction we decide to take.
Do our own thoughts, whether displayed or not, have a physical or ideological effect on our surrounding environment?
Are the brain and the mind two entirely separate entities? Are the interrelated? Can a person heavily utilize one while ignoring the other?
Well Aileen, was someone reading ahead in the packet? :P
On another note, I thought it would be interesting to look at some of the contributing factors to decision making, instead of focusing on "Can or Can't", we could focus on what makes us do things, and whether or not those factors are predetermined or not, or even the decisions they lead to.
I think it will be better to discuss the naturalized epistemology in detail
I like Aileen's idea of sort of going into the metaphysical side of things with the dualism of mind and brain and how our thoughts interact with the environment. I feel like this whole fate thing is sort of wishy-washy touchy-feely and I want to do something that has somethign to do with the world that I can physically see.
Sorry for late response!
I think it would be interesting to discuss laws regarding what can or can not be said ie) hate crime laws etc...Is it just to make a law limiting these things and how do laws like that affect how we live?
I think today's discussion on healthcare was very interesting, but I do like the idea of Naturalized Epistemology. Duality seems like something that would be difficult to take a side on, while we were doing Fatalism, I think it was harder to take a definitive "Side", when there were so many ways to view it. Duality seems like it would have the same issue.
Going off of what Dylan said. That's one of the things that is really interesting about philosophy club, the things we talk about don't necessarily have one side or another. There's a lot of grey area. I really like what Aileen said. I vote for mind/brain
I thinK our new topic should either be time or what else is really out there...
Post a Comment