just some thoughts that i want to write down before i forget.
- i've forgotten that i'm antisocial. the last little while i've forced myself to be really outgoing (well, "really" compared to what i'm used to) and i've realized how much i miss being by myself. is that bad?
- my dream job: work at the ROM - even though they're as anal as those UTSG dopes (!haha!). just going through the website for the tenth time this week has made me realize how much i love the museum and ancient history (even though it does NOTHING concrete for society except give it that eensy bit more culture. and notions of "culture" and "culturedness" are so superficial). i need to go again (such a nerd, i know)
Sunday, March 04, 2007
the philosophy of religion
One of the classes i'm taking right now - the Philosophy of Religion - has a pretty self-explanatory title - it talks about religion and the philosophical arguments for and against a number of different premises.
I liked this course at first. I was like, "Oh, this'll be so cool cause I'll learn the different philosophical arguments that argue for and confirm what i already believe." Of course, I was prepared to hear the attacks on theism and the nature of God and the immaculate conception and stuff and was actually a little psyched. So we started off with arguments for/against the existence of God and then moved on to the world order and whether God created the earth and then we moved on to evolution. Our current unit is about the existence of evil and what sort of implications that has.
Sounds interesting? It was...at first. Now I just hate the class. Not because it bashes Christianity or anything (i'm quite convinced that my prof is a Christian) but just because the arguments go BACK and FORTH and BACK and FORTH and BACK and FORTH. GOSH. SO BORRINGG. I can't take it anymore. The battle is mainly between christian and atheist philosophers and it always goes back to the existence of God. And it's just, "Uhghhhghghg, not HERE AGAIN?!?!?!?!" And none of the arguments are particularly well put, both share an equal number of disgusting and unconvincing arguments. I have to admit, that i learned a couple of cool facts along the way, but that was near the beginning. This battle is going to go on and on and on. It'll never stop til the world ends. And this class has become so tedious that i had considered dropping it only to realize that the last date to drop a class had passed.
I've come to realize that philosophy in general just doesn't tickle my fancy. I liked it originally in gr.12 but i recall it did get a little boring after a while. All these roundabout, confuzzling arguments are pointless because they just get rebutted back and forth. You can never win an argument because someone'll just respond with something better, in which case, you gotta think even harder. and it's not like you can win someone over to Christ by engaging in philosophical arguments with them (well, maybe you can. but i'd doubt that it would be highly effective). I mean, as far as i know for myself, i haven't been affected in the LEAST in terms of what I believe despite a few very strong arguments from the other side. So if it's the same case for other people, why are philosophers wasting their time?????
So then, my question is this: i'm a self-professed lover of kierkegaard. (not all his stuff, but a great deal) but i hate philosophy. SEE ANY CONFLICTS THERE????? I'm betting that some philosophers would say "yes" and some would say "no". Honestly, the only difference between the two is their lines of reasoning. What a waste of time.
I liked this course at first. I was like, "Oh, this'll be so cool cause I'll learn the different philosophical arguments that argue for and confirm what i already believe." Of course, I was prepared to hear the attacks on theism and the nature of God and the immaculate conception and stuff and was actually a little psyched. So we started off with arguments for/against the existence of God and then moved on to the world order and whether God created the earth and then we moved on to evolution. Our current unit is about the existence of evil and what sort of implications that has.
Sounds interesting? It was...at first. Now I just hate the class. Not because it bashes Christianity or anything (i'm quite convinced that my prof is a Christian) but just because the arguments go BACK and FORTH and BACK and FORTH and BACK and FORTH. GOSH. SO BORRINGG. I can't take it anymore. The battle is mainly between christian and atheist philosophers and it always goes back to the existence of God. And it's just, "Uhghhhghghg, not HERE AGAIN?!?!?!?!" And none of the arguments are particularly well put, both share an equal number of disgusting and unconvincing arguments. I have to admit, that i learned a couple of cool facts along the way, but that was near the beginning. This battle is going to go on and on and on. It'll never stop til the world ends. And this class has become so tedious that i had considered dropping it only to realize that the last date to drop a class had passed.
I've come to realize that philosophy in general just doesn't tickle my fancy. I liked it originally in gr.12 but i recall it did get a little boring after a while. All these roundabout, confuzzling arguments are pointless because they just get rebutted back and forth. You can never win an argument because someone'll just respond with something better, in which case, you gotta think even harder. and it's not like you can win someone over to Christ by engaging in philosophical arguments with them (well, maybe you can. but i'd doubt that it would be highly effective). I mean, as far as i know for myself, i haven't been affected in the LEAST in terms of what I believe despite a few very strong arguments from the other side. So if it's the same case for other people, why are philosophers wasting their time?????
So then, my question is this: i'm a self-professed lover of kierkegaard. (not all his stuff, but a great deal) but i hate philosophy. SEE ANY CONFLICTS THERE????? I'm betting that some philosophers would say "yes" and some would say "no". Honestly, the only difference between the two is their lines of reasoning. What a waste of time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)