UnderGround Forums
 

PhilosophyGround >> My professors criticisms-Opinions?


12/20/06 7:36 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Polaris
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 20-Dec-06
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 1022
 
Alright, I took Intro to Philosophy this semester, and professor ripped apart my final paper. I strongly disagree with some of the criticisms he made, and I'm interested to hear some other opinions from you more experienced guys. The paper was supposed to be a profile of a philosopher and an evaluation of their works. I did mine on the Buddha. 1. He wrote that I was supposed to present some of the Buddha's teachings and critically evaluate, but instead I "stated some of his teachings and imposed psychological or scientific interpretations of them." WTF is the difference? How does analyzing the philosophies from a scientific and psychological view point not qualify as "critical evaluation"? 2. He said I was inconsistent. He said sometimes I sounded like a "Buddhist preacher" and other times like a skeptic. Okay, so it's wrong for me to think that there is value in a lot of the Buddhist teachings, but say that the Buddha may very well be a mythological figure? I'm being "inconsistent" by looking at it with an unbiased/objective viewpoint? I have to totally agree or totally disagree? 3. He also got after me because I had both scientific viewpoints, and some metaphysical ones too. Again, I have to totally believe in one viewpoint at the total exclusion of another? I believe science is good, but I by no means believe it holds all the answers or has a monopoly on truth. Now that's being inconsistent?
12/21/06 4:16 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Indrek R.
1 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 21-Dec-06
Member Since: 07/04/2002
Posts: 1495
Hey (1) Since it was a philosphy course he did expect you to evaluate it from a philosophical point of view not psychology/science point of view. Of course assessing the views from psych/science pov qualifies as critical evaluation it is just not something that you were expected to do in the end of a philosophy course. (2)The inconsistency remark I cannot comment until I´ve read your paper myself. (3)He probably wants to say that science is not a business of philosophy and in that specific paper you should have offered your metaphysical pov. There is nothing wrong with interdisciplinary work. But this can happen if you have good grasp of all the areas. For Phil. Intro I guess his priority was probably to get you to understand what philosophy is and how it proceeds. Greets, Indrek
12/21/06 10:55 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Polaris
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 21-Dec-06
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 1024
Indrek, I'll try to post it on here within the next couple days if you wouldn't mind to take a look at it, so you could understand what I'm talking about. It was only 6 pages double spaced (he didn't want anymore), so it's not that long. Anyone elses' opinions would be welcome. 1) I would consider my evaluations to have been philosophical in nature, and that he really exaggerated the amount of scientific and psych. content. BTW-I'm by no means trying to say this paper was flawless, or a philosophical materpiece so I hope it's not coming off that way.
2/5/07 1:25 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
rkjmd
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 05-Feb-07
Member Since: 01/03/2007
Posts: 997
And?

Reply Post

You must log in to post a reply. Click here to login.