/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.11974121]

>sign up for philosophy class to pad credit hours this semester for aidbux
>felt somewhat confident about the first exam we had, as I read the texts and generalized the content well in my notes
>comes back and the grade kicks me in the dick
>professor complains about the lack of depth/specific examples from the text in my essays
>looks at me like I'm a retard ever since
>second exam is coming back and I've made a lot of the same mistakes in my notes, review
>leave out most of the specific examples in favor of clearly defined concepts that are outlined in the texts

How do I avoid the pitfall of trying to generalize concepts from these philosophical texts too far? I'm a STEMlet bloomer and I don't want to fail one of the only non-major classes I get to take. I'm re-reading meditations by Descartes and three dialogues by Berkeley, taking new notes, studying videos, etc, but I'm pretty sure I'm going to get destroyed with his questions again.

Tfw sperg without anyone to discuss these texts with, which I think is the largest problem.

[Anonymous No.11974221]

>>11974121
Study harder.

[Anonymous No.11974222]

Read slower. And philosophy is hard to cram for so you need at least overnight to write something in my experience.

Will you be reading Russell, Hume or any non-dualists?

[Anonymous No.11974242]

>STEMlet
read Wittgenstein

[Anonymous No.11974258]

he wants you to memorize long passages, quote them verbatim, then give a wishy washy interpretation of them without making any commitment on anything. this is why the humanities hasn't achieved anything since 200 BC btw.

[Anonymous No.11974285]

Don't generalize. Memorize some of the most important arguments given by each author and reflect upon them. Think very deeply on how everything they say fits together according to their perspective, and imagine what they must've believed in, based upon what you've read.

One of my study techniques is to copy important quotes that describe key concepts, and to add my relatively free, liberal interpretation of those passages below them. I know that I can always have my own beliefs on the matter of each subject, but I never attempt to impose them upon my reading of any philosopher.

[Anonymous No.11974316]

>>11974222
Yes, Hume is next (human understanding and treatise of human nature) and the final text is Russell (problems of philosophy). The exam itself is on Thursday, going to do another 4-5 hours tonight of notes/review and then a few hours tomorrow while I write a paper or two for other classes.

>>11974258
>this is why the humanities hasn't achieved anything since 200 BC btw.
Delet dis. Everything else you said is pretty true.

>>11974285
>Memorize some of the most important arguments given by each author and reflect upon them.
See, my go to is to do exactly as you've said and distill the essence of the text down until I have a simple, objective representation of what is presented in the text without any input from myself. Or so I think, at least.

It's the foundation of what we're taught in-major and what you learn on your own as well; evaluate, apply, simplify, repeat until exhaustion. I'd think that would appeal to a Cartesian viewpoint given his hardon for the foundational/infallible position.

[Anonymous No.11974360]

>>11974121
>>11974316
go to office hours, they're a great underused resource.
>>professor complains about the lack of depth/specific examples from the text in my essays
basically he wants you to say what you think (the concepts/distilled bits) and then say what made you think that way (the specific lines/quotes) as your evidence.
you can argue whichever way you want, you just have to be able to support it with the text.
what sorts of questions is he asking? give us some examples, and also give your answer.

[Anonymous No.11974385]

>>11974316
>do another 4-5 hours tonight of notes/review
If this is how much you need to do then maybe you should drop the class. Never had below a B in a philosophy course and I never did more than an hour of studying which was really just me reading my notes to myself and skimming the book.

[Anonymous No.11974403]

You can always reduce a philosopher down to a pithy summary for simplicity's sake but the larger argument isn't a much of points written haphazardly, but each is written with the next in mind and the prior argument has to be made for the later argument to make sense. I hope this makes sense, but try to read every argument they make as necessary, and try to understand how they jump from one argument to the next. I wish I could help you but I'm very weak in Cartesian and Berkeley's philosophy.

[Anonymous No.11974412]

>>11974385
hes a stemlord, while you were reading as a kid he was playing video games or building gay electronic shit with his mom's boyfriend. guy probably hasn't cracked 300 books total.

[Anonymous No.11974449]

>>11974412
>building gay electronic shit with his mom's boyfriend

[Anonymous No.11974462]

>>11974360
>office hours
He doesn't offer them, as he has too many students. He has a TA or something that handles review sessions, one of which I'm going to attend tomorrow evening.

Let me find the last exam prompts somewhere.

>>11974385
>4-5 hours of notes/review is unreasonable for nearly 200 pages of text (two texts from Plato, two texts mentioned here, and some excerpts from the bibliographies)
Also can't drop the class now, as it would be a W (fucking my GPA/aid).

>>11974403
Must not be articulating what I'm doing well at all. I'm not boiling it down to nothing, but instead following one infallible position with another until the entire argument is represented in a somewhat strict proof.

>>11974412
Read hundreds of technical books and hundreds of zero value schlock books, but only the bare minimum in the humanities. Thought this was going to more analytical, as in pure logic based instead of what it has turned out to be.

[Anonymous No.11974468]

>>11974121
>philosophy class
oh thats goo-
>reading past the neo-platonics/church fathers
Thats your mistake. You are taking a class about mental masturbation, a land of pseuds by pseuds all competing to create the most outlandish idea that they all know only exists in their minds. Real philosophy ended circa 500AD, and that is a generous date.

[Anonymous No.11974513]

>>11974468
t. boomer

[Anonymous No.11974522]

>>11974462
>Let me find the last exam prompts somewhere.

Post em, I read an intro class worthy level of all the names listed
>Descartes
>Berkeley
>Hume
>Russell

[Anonymous No.11974753]

Post the passages as well if the questions are based off them.

"Describe Russell's hungry cat example Russell and the point he uses it to make."
"b.Reconstruct the argument Berkeley makes in the following passage (with much argument reconstruction;"
then probably some personal questions like "what's your view of the self" "what is a self's nature"

hurry up op I only have the next 5 hours

[Anonymous No.11975455]

Fuck you OP, I wanted to answer your questions and you leave me intellectually starved in the dirt like the dog you are. I am shriveled of soulful capacity and it's all your fault, and you got away with it, you knew you could, it was within your potentiality, you monkey-baboon male, you cretinous vilifiable pumpkin, ye gods what dastards doth our host command?

[Anonymous No.11975485]

>>11974121
ask more questions in class. You should be able to see the limitations of concepts, which is part of what you should be directly citing. What is Descartes's project, and in what ways does it succeed and fail, according to (probably) whatever criteria the class is following. I'm sure there is a kind of theme, even if it's a survey course. A major mistake is assuming you have something new to say as a person in a class you readily admit to have no experience in, as that's the best way to sound off your own limited understanding of extremely dense stuff.

FYI People complaining in this thread probably haven't taken many philosophy classes, or are mad because they took criticism once and are actually very vulnerable little men. Citing from the text is actually very easy thing that millions of college students fuck up constantly and it actually matters quite a bit to the legibility of your argument.

[Anonymous No.11975509]

>>11974121
post paper

[Anonymous No.11975515]

>>11974462
philosophers can't into logic anon, that's called pure mathematics.

[Anonymous No.11975723]

>>11974242
This.

[Anonymous No.11975725]

>>11974121
>>11975509

This, OP. Post paper, and let us give it a go.

[Anonymous No.11975894]

>>11974513

[Anonymous No.11975907]

>>11974121
Phil grad student here. Would like to help if possible, and as others said post questions if you want help.

I dont know what you mean by generalise concepts. You should use the examples to understand the concepts. That is, you need to philosophise with examples (and start, first, with their examples).

[Anonymous No.11976942]

>>11975515
Analytical philosophy begs to differ, which is our professor's specialty. Hence why I thought it'd be the focus of the beginning of the class instead of just throwing us into it (which has resulted in a pretty silent discussion group so far).

>>11975455
>>11974753
>>11975509
>>11975725
Sorry family, my tethered connection cut out last night. I live in the middle of nowhere for the moment and I just got to campus. Looking through his blackboard dumps, he doesn't actually list the exam prompts. But I can post some of the daily prompts if that interests you (going to do it regardless just to get it out there, today's at least). Have about an hour to shitpost before I have to walk over to class.

Prompt for today (starts at page 78 in the third dialogue, after "methinks I apprehend your meaning"):
>Explain how these topics figure in the final debates between Hylas and Philonous.
>A cherry:
The ideal of 'nothing' cannot be sensed. A cherry, being sensible (mind dependent), would be defined, generally speaking, as something sensible with the following qualities: soft, moist, red, and tart. If you were to strip away these qualities, it renders the cherry's existence null. Further, these notions of sensible qualities being perceived by sensory organs is itself reality to Philonous (the immaterialist); 'reality is nothing abstracted from those sensations' -> reality is the sensory experience as the mind independent nature of materialism would remove the possibility of ideation being an extension of God (?).

>Time and eternity:
Being that God is eternal, and the account of creation follows Moses' words in Genesis, a literal creation of matter cannot be said to have occurred. Change is an imperfection, and God being an infinite/perfect substance cannot said to be anything less; thus, this perception of things coming into being is a limitation of the imperfect receiver/spirit (finite beings) and not something contrary to the eternal/unchanging nature of the infinite substance (God).

>A "twofold state of things."
This is the final case made for immaterialism, the archetypal and the eternal. It unifies two positions: common sense of reality (sensible things are reality), and the philosophic (objects of sense are ideas in the mind, thus mind-dependent). This also preserves the "chain" of God being central to a mind-dependent universe. As opposed to a sceptic/atheist/agnostic viewpoint of materialism (mind-independence).

This is all I have so far, retyping my notes to review after class/tonight at the moment.

[Anonymous No.11976980]

I love when STEMmies who have been told how smart they are their whole lives take an undergrad philosophy course that shows them they have no idea how to think abstractly. Good on you for taking the lesson with humility.

Here's a great guide for undergrads: http://www.jimpryor.net/teaching/guidelines/writing.html

Talking it out is a good idea. If there's not enough time in class, go bother your prof during office hours. They actually love that.

[Anonymous No.11978158]

Tfw brainlet status killed the thread.

>>11976980
Thanks, I'll check it out.

[Anonymous No.11978714]

>>11974462
>no office hours
What kind of BS is this? You could have a thousand students and it wouldn't matter because nobody goes to office hours except a few freaked out bugmen before the tests. I think you should recheck the syllabus.

>>11974385
Yeah, I'm not sure why people say phil is hard. I sometimes wrote my papers the morning before they were due.
t. Physics major, Philosophy minor

[Anonymous No.11978983]

>>11976942
where is the fucking paper faggot. the one the prof didn't like