University students demand philosophers such as Plato and Kant are removed from syllabus because the

[Moonglow]

No, I never brought up politics.

I love how some of you guys are having a circle jerk with each other with rep points in here... I hope you don't think that validates your point.

The politics of the situation presented itself with the OP for those to slow to understand that the philosophies the students are demanding to have tossed out, most especially Plato, are guiding principles of western civilization.

*****CHUCKLE*****

The college is not about western society..

 

[Lewdog]

No, the OP never brought up different types of governments, you did. We were trying to have a discussion about philosophy but using examples to validate our points... you made it political and compared a philosophy directly with a form of government. Why can't we discuss the issue without muddying it up?

Plato works cover the founding idea of the republic. If you don't understand that then perhaps you should reread Plato or go back to a college willing to teach Plato. You can attempt to say that philosophy is a separate identity but it still comprises the foundation of the government that built up from it.

Do you wish us to study Egyptian philosophy and thereby have a more African orientation to what we believe so we can enslave the minorities while we build godlike dynasties and pyramids? How about we base our beliefs on the teachings of Sun Tzu instead so we can become more a martial nation? I would mention Nietzsche but he's white and we've already had one white society push a few of his beliefs. Then there is always those semantic whites with their teachings of Muhammad. One should choose carefully what one wishes to throw out because one might get exactly what one wishes for and doesn't desire.

*****CHUCKLE*****

Again... why do I have to keep pointing this out? The governments are founded on principles based on philosophies but they are NOT equal to those governments. Why do you want to keep derailing the discussion to move it to governments? If you want to talk about the correlations between philosophies to governments how about you start a thread about that?

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Last I checked London was still part of western civilization.

How do you learn and understand the founding principles of your own society/government unless you study the philosophies that formulated their creation?

If you want to say utilitarianism is what's best of society then the needs/will of the many outweigh the needs/will of the few.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[Moonglow]

View attachment 106025

Last I checked London was still part of western civilization.

How do you learn and understand the founding principles of your own society/government unless you study the philosophies that formulated their creation?

If you want to say utilitarianism is what's best of society then the needs/will of the many outweigh the needs/will of the few.

*****CHUCKLE*****

Now tell me the name of the college and let us know what it has to do with western society...

 

[Lewdog]

View attachment 106025

Last I checked London was still part of western civilization.

How do you learn and understand the founding principles of your own society/government unless you study the philosophies that formulated their creation?

If you want to say utilitarianism is what's best of society then the needs/will of the many outweigh the needs/will of the few.

*****CHUCKLE*****

I NEVER said that it was the best for society... in fact I've said several times in this thread the best philosophy is a mix between Kantian and Utilitarianism. But you keep strumming that harp.

 

[theHawk]

I've had to study a lot of Kant the last couple semesters... and I have to say that I don't agree with his position. I don't think that people should always do the things that follow the rules despite what the results might be. I'm more of a Utilitarian as I believe a person should make the decision that benefits the larger number of people.

What about forcing others to benefit the larger number of people? Are you good with that?

Well the best philosophy is a mix of the two... but if I had to choose between the two, yes, I think a decision must be made that benefits the greater number of people the greatest. I'm not ok with everyone suffering in order to keep just a few from suffering. You don't drive a car off a cliff carrying 4 people to keep from running over one person walking across the street.

So, you're against allowing people who identify as the opposite sex the use of the bathrooms they identify with? Consider this. Transgendered individuals born male who identify female are a significant minority in this country and to allow them to use the women's restroom does harm to a larger segment of the population than holding them to their born gender. You don't open women to sexual predators to allow a tiny minority a minor convenience.

No, because there is no sense of the larger masses getting a greater good in that notion. What is letting transgendered people use to the bathroom of their identified gender going to do to hurt the other people? In Europe there is unisex bathrooms all over the place. Hell in college, for me back in the 90's at a public university, we had unisex bathrooms. So your argument doesn't fit the narrative.

There are not "unisex" bathrooms "all over the place" in Europe.
I can't recall ever seeing one.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Now tell me the name of the college and let us know what it has to do with western society...

I don't care if it is a college for Orient and African studies. They can consider their courses on Plato and Kants part of their mandatory liberal arts education about the society that they do reside in.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[Lewdog]

I've had to study a lot of Kant the last couple semesters... and I have to say that I don't agree with his position. I don't think that people should always do the things that follow the rules despite what the results might be. I'm more of a Utilitarian as I believe a person should make the decision that benefits the larger number of people.

What about forcing others to benefit the larger number of people? Are you good with that?

Well the best philosophy is a mix of the two... but if I had to choose between the two, yes, I think a decision must be made that benefits the greater number of people the greatest. I'm not ok with everyone suffering in order to keep just a few from suffering. You don't drive a car off a cliff carrying 4 people to keep from running over one person walking across the street.

So, you're against allowing people who identify as the opposite sex the use of the bathrooms they identify with? Consider this. Transgendered individuals born male who identify female are a significant minority in this country and to allow them to use the women's restroom does harm to a larger segment of the population than holding them to their born gender. You don't open women to sexual predators to allow a tiny minority a minor convenience.

No, because there is no sense of the larger masses getting a greater good in that notion. What is letting transgendered people use to the bathroom of their identified gender going to do to hurt the other people? In Europe there is unisex bathrooms all over the place. Hell in college, for me back in the 90's at a public university, we had unisex bathrooms. So your argument doesn't fit the narrative.

There are not "unisex" bathrooms "all over the place" in Europe.
I can't recall ever seeing one.

Really? They have they have them right there in Berlin. Sounds like you have what many would call tunnel-vision.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

I NEVER said that it was the best for society... in fact I've said several times in this thread the best philosophy is a mix between Kantian and Utilitarianism. But you keep strumming that harp.

Then you'll agree that a republic, which Plato wrote about in his philosophies, is a better form of government than a democracy..... BTW Just so you know and understand the Republic spoke last November.

*****HAPPY SMILE*****

 

[Lewdog]

I NEVER said that it was the best for society... in fact I've said several times in this thread the best philosophy is a mix between Kantian and Utilitarianism. But you keep strumming that harp.

Then you'll agree that a republic, which Plato wrote about, is a better form of government than a democracy..... BTW Just so you know and understand the Republic spoke last November.

*****HAPPY SMILE*****

No, I don't like the Electoral college. I don't like the fact that one person's vote in one state can be worth so much more than another person's vote in another. The way things are currently weighted are way out of proportion. The best way in my opinion would be to weigh things out, with electoral votes given out based on a percentage of the popular vote in each state, and not on an all for one basis.

 

[jillian]

University students demand philosophers such as Plato and Kant are removed from syllabus because they are white

They are said to be the founding fathers of Western philosophy, whose ideas underpin civilised society.


But students at a prestigious London university are demanding that figures such as Plato, Descartes and Immanuel Kant should be largely dropped from the curriculum because they are white.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Like it's being said snowflakes are getting way out of hand on their idiotic bs reasons to take parts of our history away,, and some things should just be left alone.

you believe every bit of trash ....

as long as it[s delusional BS you're right there.

 

[koshergrl]

Yank all federal funding from all colleges and universities.

NOW.

Donald Trump has called for the Department of Education to be eliminated — here's how he could legally do it

 

[Damaged Eagle]

No, I don't like the Electoral college. I don't like the fact that one person's vote in one state can be worth so much more than another person's vote in another. The way things are currently weighted are way out of proportion. The best way in my opinion would be to weigh things out, with electoral votes given out based on a percentage of the popular vote in each state, and not on an all for one basis.

Then let us do the same with all those pressing progressive issues also and let the will of the people determine what is right for the society in which they live.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[Lewdog]

No, I don't like the Electoral college. I don't like the fact that one person's vote in one state can be worth so much more than another person's vote in another. The way things are currently weighted are way out of proportion. The best way in my opinion would be to weigh things out, with electoral votes given out based on a percentage of the popular vote in each state, and not on an all for one basis.

View attachment 106038

Then let us do the same with all those pressing progressive issues also and let the will of the people determine what is right for the society in which they live.

*****CHUCKLE*****

I have no clue what point you are getting at. Progressive issues? We have no choice in what is going to go on now with the representatives that have already been voted into their positions.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

I have no clue what point you are getting at. Progressive issues?

I don't believe you. I think you do.

We have no choice in what is going to go on now with the representatives that have already been voted into their positions.

That's why they can be voted in or out of office.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[Lewdog]

I have no clue what point you are getting at. Progressive issues?

I don't believe you. I think you do.

We have no choice in what is going to go on now with the representatives that have already been voted into their positions.

View attachment 106043

That's why they can be voted in or out of office.

*****CHUCKLE*****

Sure they can, but to be quite honest, and you can't deny this, many areas are and will ALWAYS be the same political party. You will almost NEVER find a Democratic Senator from Ky. That is the same in many other areas as well.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

This thread is in dire need of something inspirational.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Sure they can, but to be quite honest, and you can't deny this, many areas are and will ALWAYS be the same political party. You will almost NEVER find a Democratic Senator from Ky. That is the same in many other areas as well.

No I don't

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[PoliticalChic]

University students demand philosophers such as Plato and Kant are removed from syllabus because they are white

They are said to be the founding fathers of Western philosophy, whose ideas underpin civilised society.


But students at a prestigious London university are demanding that figures such as Plato, Descartes and Immanuel Kant should be largely dropped from the curriculum because they are white.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Like it's being said snowflakes are getting way out of hand on their idiotic bs reasons to take parts of our history away,, and some things should just be left alone.

And more of the same....

1. " Compare the humanists' hunger for learning with the resentment of a Columbia University undergraduate, who had been required by the school's core curriculum to study Mozart. She happens to be black, but her views are widely shared, to borrow a phrase, "across gender, sexuality, race and class."

2. "Why did I have to listen in music humanities to this Mozart?" she groused in a discussion of the curriculum reported by David Denby in "Great Books," his 1997 account of re-enrolling in Columbia's core curriculum. "My problem with the core is that it upholds the premises of white supremacy and racism. It's a racist core. Who is this Mozart, this Haydn, these superior white men? There are no women, no people of color." These are not the idiosyncratic thoughts of one disgruntled student; they represent the dominant ideology in the humanities today.

a. "Is Schuman content with a situation in which a Columbia student rails against having been asked merely to listen to Mozart because Mozart is a dead white male? Where might that student have picked up that attitude if not from the academy and its offshoots? Whiteness studies, black studies, feminist studies, and queer studies are not a fever dream of the “neocons.” For decades now, students have been taught to search for an echo of their own “voices” in the books they read and to reject those works that they believe “exclude” them, a remarkably narrow approach to the arts... Why not revel in the far more eloquent and surprising “voices” of Dreiser, Beerbohm, or Wells, for example, whose understanding of human passions and ability to craft sentences of stunning beauty and precision far outstrip our own?." http://www.city-journal.org/2014/eon0113hm.html

3. In 2011, the University of California at Los Angeles wrecked its English major. Such a development may seem insignificant, compared with, say, the federal takeover of health care. It is not. What happened at UCLA is part of a momentous shift that bears on our relationship to the past—and to civilization itself.

4. Until 2011, students majoring in English at UCLA had to take one course in Chaucer, two in Shakespeare, and one in Milton —the cornerstones of English literature. Following a revolt of the junior faculty, however, during which it was announced that Shakespeare was part of the "Empire," UCLA junked these individual author requirements.

5. It replaced them with a mandate that all English majors take a total of three courses in the following four areas: Gender, Race, Ethnicity, Disability and Sexuality Studies; Imperial, Transnational, and Postcolonial Studies; genre studies, interdisciplinary studies, and critical theory; or creative writing." http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304858104579264321265378790

 

[Picaro]

Kant should be removed because he was an idiot and his philosophy blown apart before his body went cold. The only reason he's still being touted is because a bunch of stoners and hippies think he was 'great'.

Kant was a kunt.

The distinction between the noumenal and the phenomenal is entirely bogus.

I have a link somewhere to an excellent deconstruction of just how inane Kant's logic was. I'll try and find it, if you like.