Philosophy is nothing but personal ideology/propaganda

agrote,

I speak of essays whose title might contain the the words "discuss", or "critically examine", or where the expectancy of such is implied.
E.g. (off the top of my head)

" The child is the father of the man". Discuss with respect to Freuds concept of psychosexual development.

Here the thesis stage would be to expound on Freuds theory and show how it related to adult "personality types". The antithesis might be to present evidence that Freudian "personality types" did not yield to psychometric measurement, and that other developmental theories were more fruitful in this respect. The synthesis might be to applaud Frauds theory not so much for its explanatory adequacy but for its creation of a unique universe of discourse with respect to psychopathology within which both patients and therapists could communicate...a dialogue facilitator...a semantic field.... any vehicle for empathy being better than none....and Freud perhaps being better than most.

The more general point is of course that "synthesis" is at the level of nonjudgemental observation of "consensual reality" within a social zeitgeist. It is a move from the particular to the general, and from fragmentation to holism.

0 Replies

Quote:

Here the thesis stage would be to expound on Freuds theory and show how it related to adult "personality types". The antithesis might be to present evidence that Freudian "personality types" did not yield to psychometric measurement, and that other developmental theories were more fruitful in this respect. The synthesis might be to applaud Frauds theory not so much for its explanatory adequacy but for its creation of a unique universe of discourse with respect to psychopathology within which both patients and therapists could communicate...a dialogue facilitator...a semantic field.... any vehicle for empathy being better than none....and Freud perhaps being better than most.

The more general point is of course that "synthesis" is at the level of nonjudgemental observation of "consensual reality" within a social zeitgeist. It is a move from the particular to the general, and from fragmentation to holism.

but fresco in another post you said there is no objective reality
so do these thesis and antithesis which forms this synthesis exist in some objective reality ie is does/did Freud exist in some objective reality from which you are discusing his theory or is Frued just a fiction of your non-dualistic mind-but then it would be non-dualitic as there would be Freud and the mind observing him
and if there is no objective reality then what are these other minds which can form a consensus about consensus about reality if they dont exist in objective reality where do they exist
and who are you debateing with on this thread if there is no objective reality i mean where is nightrider and agrote then if not in an objective reality

0 Replies

Quote:

" The child is the father of the man". Discuss with respect to Freuds concept of psychosexual development.

If I were to write that essay, I would first outline Freud's concept of psychosexual development, then explain what is meant by "The child is the father of the man", and then consider whether it is consistent with freud's theory. I would present arguments for and against "the child being the father of the man", or for and against an interpretation of Freud that implies that, and I would consider each argument in turn. I would try to reach a definite conclusion about where I stand on the matter - even if the definite conclusion is, "we cannot be certain whether blah blah blah".

What's wrong with that?

0 Replies

Nothing wrong with that except that as a former tutor for the OU I can assure you its not worth more than C (satisfactory). To really score, your own views on the question are not worth that much as opposed to a creative transcendence of the question. The question is rhetorical. It is one of many which could test your understanding of Freud's theory. The talented student is the one who can appreciate Freuds achievement and shortcomings in the wider context.

0 Replies

I see. Well, I prefer to try and find answers to non-rhetorical questions. Showing my understanding of a subject matter is important for assessment, but although I am a student, assessment is not the only goal I have in mind. I want to try and get to the bottom of things. E.g. I care about whether or not male children really do have sexual feelings for their mothers, and fears of castration. And I'd like to know whether Freudian slips really do give insights into the unconscious, or whether they are just meaningless accidents. Freud has been very influential, and many people probably find psychoanalysis quite rewarding, but that's all very obvious and irrelevant to me.

I want to know what's true. I know that you don't feel the same way, and that you disagree with my realist tendencies. But you wouldn't want to mark me down for that, would you? That wouldn't be impartial... you'd be imposing your own views about truth and reality on your student. And your views on those things are by no means uncontroversial. There are plenty of naive realists and correspondence theorists around who might side with me.

0 Replies

Yes, but if you take Fresco's class you must at least demonstrate to him your understanding of his theoretical offering. You can't refuse to make that demonstration because you can identify theorists who disagree with him. I can't think of any theories that are not controversial to some degree. You don't have to agree, but you must demonstrate your understanding of what it is you disagree with.

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

Yes, but if you take Fresco's class you must at least demonstrate to him your understanding of his theoretical offering. You can't refuse to make that demonstration because you can identify theorists who disagree with him. I can't think of any theories that are not controversial to some degree. You don't have to agree, but you must demonstrate your understanding of what it is you disagree with.

Oh I agree with you there. I just meant that fresco's preferred format for a critical essay seemed biased toward his 'nondualism' or whatever it's called. Obviously if I were to write an essay about fresco's theories, I'd need to show my understanding of them. But if I were to write an essay about freud, or anything at all, I don't see why I would need to follow fresco's idea of 'antithesis-->synthesis', which seems (though I may have misunderstood it) to be a product of his attitudes about truth and realism, which I do not share.

And of course controversy does not imply falsehood. But if my interpretation of fresco's ideas about good critical essays and 'talented' students is correct, then I don't think those ideas are shared by all professors and tutors of philosophy. If his criteria for a good essay are a product of his controversial philosophical beliefs, this is significant because it means that he is not impartial when he marks essays. Fresco might give my hypothetical essay on Freud a C (if it were in the format that I outlined), but my actual grades tend to be better than that... the staff in my department seem happy with the format I use.

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

I can't think of any theories that are not controversial to some degree.

In order for the statement "I can't think of any theories that are not controversial to some degree" to be true, it should also be the case the all theories have controversy.

If all theories have controversy then you are not simply relying on the logical fallacy argumentum ad populum?

0 Replies

agrote,

I doubt whether you are going to find "truth" (of a secular nature at least), but the attempt should certainly be a valuable experience

From a personal development point of view, my understanding of "essay technique" came long before an understanding of "non-dualism". That stemmed from encountering the work of Piaget whilst simultaneously studying atomic physics, but remained in embrionic form for many years.
until I read more widely in philosophy. With hindsight I can now summarize one form of "good essay technique" as "Hegelian", and also with hindsight I classify Hegelian dialectic as "non-dualistic".

BTW, one of my new second year level OU mature students complained to central office when I gave him a C+ for an essay similar to the format you described.(He was used to B and above) They told me I had been over generous and marked him down to a D.

There is nothing wrong in establishing a rapport with your assessors, but in the long run, it may be more beneficial to you to establish a rapport with "yourself". Having now discussed these issues you may have more food for thought on that issue.

0 Replies

agrote wrote:

Obviously if I were to write an essay about fresco's theories, I'd need to show my understanding of them.

I cannot in principle see why you would need to show your understanding of them if they are not understandable.

I am not saying this is the case here, and thus I digress, however I would have no trouble citing sources in which presumed authorities put forward any number of theories which were in essence not only false but simply not understandable, theological theories come to mind.

Can you understand something in this context if it's patently false but one is not aware of that fact and/or does not want to believe this to be the case, if so what exactly would one be understanding?

0 Replies

Chumly,

You make sense but perhaps miss the point about what makes for a "talented" student. It is certainly not one (like our beloved Dean) who claims celebrated writers are "meaningless", nor is it one who merely assesses a theory with respect to his own views. It is one who can contrast a theory with its competitors thereby placing it within a context of paradigmatic development of the subject and accounting for the (limited) successes and failures which brought it to prominence originally.

0 Replies

Chumly, I don't understand what could be a theory that is not understandable if SOMEONE understands it. There's a lot in mathematics that I cannot understand, due to my limitations, but I do not for that reason consider those aspects of math not understandable per se.

BTW, my phrase, ""I can't think of any theories that are not controversial to some degree" referred to what I see to be the situation GENERALLY (and subjectively I confess), not the case UNIVERSALLY.

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

Can a theory that is false even if believed to be true be understood?

Yes, I think so. If you know what the world would be like if a theory were true, then you undestand the theory. The theory doesn't actually need to be true.

0 Replies

You would be lacking the rigors of scientific discipline due to no empirical results, so how precisely can you presuppose "If you know what the world would be like if a theory were true"?

0 Replies

Why would you need empirical results to understand a theory? Surely you only need empirical results for the purposes of testing a theory?

I'm not presupposing what you quoted. What I said was a conditional 'if...then' statement. If [you know what the world would be like if theory X were true], then [you understand theory X]. I claim that this conditional is true regardless of whether theory X is true.

So I'm not presupposing that you know what the world would be like if theory X were true. If I presupposed that, I'd have to say that you understand every theory.

0 Replies

agrote wrote:

Why would you need empirical results to understand a theory?

Because if a theory is false, and yet as discussed you are not aware of this falseness, you tell me precisely what it would be that you would be understanding.

agrote wrote:

Surely you only need empirical results for the purposes of testing a theory?

See above.

agrote wrote:

I'm not presupposing what you quoted.

Yes you are because "if" can be equated with "presuppose".

Definitions applicable to this context:
presuppose - take for granted or as a given; suppose beforehand
if - on the condition that, a possibility, condition, or stipulation

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

agrote wrote:
Why would you need empirical results to understand a theory?
Because if a theory is false, and yet as discussed you are not aware of this falseness, you tell me precisely what it would be that you would be understanding.

You would be understanding a concept, or a hypothesis.

Or perhaps you would be understanding something that is true: "If Theory X were true, then Y is what the world would be like." Such a proposition can be true even if theory X is false. Perhaps you're right, and one can only understand what is true*, but that still allows us to understand true propositions about what the world would be like if a (false) theory were true. And I think that basically amounts to understanding the theory itself.

*I don't think you are right, though. I don't see why one can only understand what is true - you haven't given a reason for this.

Quote:

agrote wrote:
I'm not presupposing what you quoted.
Yes you are because "if" can be equated with "presuppose".

Definitions applicable to this context:
presuppose - take for granted or as a given; suppose beforehand
if - on the condition that, a possibility, condition, or stipulation

Okay, I see what you're saying. But I see those as two slightly different meanings. I'm not asking you to take it for granted that you know what the world would be like if some false theory were true. I suppose the only thing I want you to take for granted is that this is possible... it is possible to know what the world would be like if a false theory were true.

So what I am presupposing is: "it is possible to know what the world would be like if a false theory were true". That is a possibility, though it might never be an actuality (and therefore I don't want to presuppose that it ever is). It's a possibility, and if it were the case(hypothetically speaking), by my definition you would understand a false theory.

So it is possible to understand a false theory.

0 Replies

I've always felt that if there is no basis for factuality there can be no understanding. Here is the wiki definition of understanding:

Quote:

Understanding is a psychological process related to an abstract or physical object, such as, person, situation, or message whereby one is able to think about it and use concepts to deal adequately with that object

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Understanding

In my books a false understanding is no more an understanding than a false positive is a positive.

Quote:

False positive: A result that is erroneously positive when a situation is normal. An example of a false positive: a particular test designed to detect cancer of the toenail is positive but the person does not have toenail cancer

http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=3377

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

In my books a false understanding is no more an understanding than a false positive is a positive.

Okay. I still disagree, but supposing you're right, we can still understand true facts about the meanings or consequences of theories. For example, even though intelligent design is (I will assume, for the sake of argument) a false theory, it is still true that the world would be a different place if intelligent design were true. So there are facts about what the world would be like if intelligent design were true. Since these facts are true, by your definition we can understand them.

So we can understand what the world would be like if intelligent design were true. In my books, that is tantamount to understanding the (false) theory of intelligent design.

0 Replies

Philosophy is nothing but personal ideology/propaganda

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know