Praying for answers = cheating?

[The Sum of Awe]

So you're a believer that the only good education is a vocational one, and not one that includes broadenings one's perspective through the humanities? That is what this amounts to. It's my view that any vocation is enhanced through a broad education which of necessity includes the liberal arts.

BTW, you were deriding the presence of classes in these areas altogether without mentioning degrees programs in them. Getting degrees in them is a different matter, and still has value but at a different level than just exposing everyone to them.

I'm in favor of people broadening their perspective by their own self experience and trial and error rather than hearing the perspectives of other men who had their own perception formed from their own experiences. This is not to say you shouldn't study other philosophies, but I don't find any use in it for a class. It'd be like getting both a GED and a Diploma, utterly pointless and time consuming when it will get you only a couple inches ahead. There are a lot more classes that will benefit you in the future. Instead of wasting time on a class that doesn't improve your success by much, use that time for something that will.

 

[Windwalker]

I'm in favor of people broadening their perspective by their own self experience and trial and error rather than hearing the perspectives of other men who had their own perception formed from their own experiences.

Young people early in their process of maturing are benefitted by having a starting point. Education is not about simply amassing knowledge and saying, "I've got it now!" That's a sign of immaturity. But teaching the rudiments of anything is better than a complete ignorance.

Relate this to music. I am mainly a self taught musician and can pretty much pick up and play any musical instrument I encounter rather quickly. I taught myself piano and have written hundreds of songs, have many copyrights, published albums, perform publically, etc, but I did have a few months of piano lessons when I was five years old that taught me the basics of scales and chords and notes and rhythms. There was a very basic foundation in existence for me to build on. All the rest was as you say, self-experience and trial and error, but I do need to at least learn the basic mechanics of the instrument from others - such as the technique of circular breath on a didgeridoo, how to hold the fingers on a bansuri, hand positions on a tabla, how to cross fingers on scales on keyboards, etc.

But to add something further, even though I did not have formal lessons, I am still part of culture and I in fact hear music all the time. In my own expressions of music, I find on subconscious levels certain things appearing within my own work that are quite similar to things I've hear, even though I was not trying to imitate or reproduce someone else's work. We filter everything we hear and repeat in some form or another what we are exposed to all the time. And that holds for philosophy as well. In fact it's very much like I've explained about music for it comes through on subconscious levels.

But if someone has no foundation for understanding, and this is key, they will in fact simply repeat mindlessly these philosophies that they are inundated with on a daily basis, completely unaware of their influence over them. The truth is education, exposure on the fact of their existence and the nature and teachings of them, makes people aware of them, rather than being ignorant of them and become mere mindless repeaters of them without examination.

I think you are mistaking being taught something with not thinking for yourself.

This is not to say you shouldn't study other philosophies, but I don't find any use in it for a class. It'd be like getting both a GED and a Diploma, utterly pointless and time consuming when it will get you only a couple inches ahead.

And no inches ahead gives you no foundation whatsoever.

There are a lot more classes that will benefit you in the future. Instead of wasting time on a class that doesn't improve your success by much, use that time for something that will.

How are you measuring success? Money?

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Young people early in their process of maturing are benefitted by having a starting point. Education is not about simply amassing knowledge and saying, "I've got it now!" That's a sign of immaturity. But teaching the rudiments of anything is better than a complete ignorance.

It'd be better if a person chose what rudiments to learn on their own and not assigned by professors. A free study at home, without deadlines or being told what to study, with tons of more resources unlimited unlike schools being picky on sources students can use.

Relate this to music. I am mainly a self taught musician and can pretty much pick up and play any musical instrument I encounter rather quickly. I taught myself piano and have written hundreds of songs, have many copyrights, published albums, perform publically, etc, but I did have a few months of piano lessons when I was five years old that taught me the basics of scales and chords and notes and rhythms. There was a very basic foundation in existence for me to build on. All the rest was as you say, self-experience and trial and error, but I do need to at least learn the basic mechanics of the instrument from others - such as the technique of circular breath on a didgeridoo, how to hold the fingers on a bansuri, hand positions on a tabla, how to cross fingers on scales on keyboards, etc.

With this example, what do the basic mechanics of the instruments relate to in philosophy?

But if someone has no foundation for understanding, and this is key, they will in fact simply repeat mindlessly these philosophies that they are inundated with on a daily basis, completely unaware of their influence over them. The truth is education, exposure on the fact of their existence and the nature and teachings of them, makes people aware of them, rather than being ignorant of them and become mere mindless repeaters of them without examination.

And what exactly is wrong with repeating these philosophies? In fact, it's much more valuable to come to a conclusion yourself, even if others have already come to it before, compared to just being told that the conclusion has been come to before.

I think you are mistaking being taught something with not thinking for yourself.

I think you are reading my posts and getting more out of them than what I'm actually saying.

And no inches ahead gives you no foundation whatsoever.

Exactly?

How are you measuring success? Money?

There is more than one thing to be successful in, but money is a major one. Humans have designed a system which makes living a lot more organized and easier compared to primal living, and at the center of that system is (buckle your seat belt) money! Without money, you are no longer a major contributor to this system and either the system kicks you out or you become a leech sucking off of it.

Money, and thus the highest ranking career you care to get, is one of the most important factors for human life. The value of a human's soul is based more off of the amount of money that they own than it does for the personality. Personality without money? Your personality is unlikely to make a print on humanity. Money without personality? It is possible to make a print on humanity, even though it probably wont be a good one.

If you are going to school to raise your reputation for future jobs, I would not recommend taking philosophy. If you are going to school merely just to learn, that's your choice but in my opinion it's a waste of time and money when you could learn just as much or more by buying a few books at Barnes and Nobles and surfing wikipedia for days on end.

 

[idav]

Money, and thus the highest ranking career you care to get, is one of the most important factors for human life. The value of a human's soul is based more off of the amount of money that they own than it does for the personality. Personality without money? Your personality is unlikely to make a print on humanity. Money without personality? It is possible to make a print on humanity, even though it probably wont be a good one.

Sure we get all that but often times we find that money can't really buy happiness can it. Doesn't stop us making a go at it though. Thats why philosophy is important, allows us to think outside the box society would rather us to stay in. I don't want to be in no box Sum.

 

[Windwalker]

It'd be better if a person chose what rudiments to learn on their own and not assigned by professors.

Schools put together a curriculum that they feel best equips their students to handle the real world as effectively as possible. They are drawing off their seasoned experience in order to best guide young minds, who often are just too plain stupid in their youth to know what they will need later in life. That's why you have teachers to guide them.

A free study at home, without deadlines or being told what to study, with tons of more resources unlimited unlike schools being picky on sources students can use.

Designed curriculum. Programs. Processes. Proceedures. They use these because they are proven to be more effective on average than not.

With this example, what do the basic mechanics of the instruments relate to in philosophy?

I explained that in the post. Understanding the basics of how music is structured does not "tell" the musician how to create music. But the musician can draw off the fundamental building blocks he has gained an understanding of to "do his own thing". Without that, the gifted may be at a disadvantage. "I just want to do it myself", often can be the harder path.

And what exactly is wrong with repeating these philosophies?

I qualified that by using the word "mindlessly" repeating things, without having any understanding of what or why we believe and espouse the things we do. "Just because", or "That's just how it is", responses are mindless.

In fact, it's much more valuable to come to a conclusion yourself, even if others have already come to it before, compared to just being told that the conclusion has been come to before.

Well, yes.... but coming to your own conclusion means you have to actually be informed about multiple perspectives. Hence, you expose yourself to those philosophies which inform our culture. Otherwise you're just a robot. And this is why they expose students to these things. To prepare them to not just be mindless robots following whatever the popular talking-heads on the mass media outlets tell us is good and true and valuable.

I think you are reading my posts and getting more out of them than what I'm actually saying.

No, actually you just said it again in the last paragraph. You said it's better to think for yourself than to be told what to believe. And you are equating that with being exposed to different points of view in a philosophy class. You are mistaking being taught something, with them telling what to believe and that you shouldn't think for yourself. I'm correct in what I said.

There is more than one thing to be successful in, but money is a major one. Humans have designed a system which makes living a lot more organized and easier compared to primal living, and at the center of that system is (buckle your seat belt) money!

Yes, this is true. And it's also horribly tragic. You end up having highly successfully and utterly shallow and hollow souls. That's not success, only in gaining the whole world at the expense of any depth of being.

Without money, you are no longer a major contributor to this system and either the system kicks you out or you become a leech sucking off of it.

A contributor of what??? Narcissism? Shallowness? Greed? And besides, why is it if you are not at the top of the earning heap with your masses of gold to tell yourself you're "successful", that this makes someone a leech? That's ridiculous. In fact, there are those whose income is below the poverty line whose soul is like a blazing sun compared to the tiny penlight running on a near-dead single AAA battery of those whole rule empires of gold.

Seriously, money does not save the soul. It can, if it is your god, suck it dry. I judge by the heart, and the 1% at the top of the financial heap, s at the bottom of the humanity heap.

I'm of the view that depth does not need money to be felt and influence the entire world. Truth doesn't need a marketing machine selling to the consumerist-driven masses.

Money, and thus the highest ranking career you care to get, is one of the most important factors for human life.

It is assuredly not. Are you familiar with Maslow's needs hierarchy? Money falls a distant 4th or 5th on the pyramid of human needs. Maslow's hierarchy of needs - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That's something I learned in college, actually.

The value of a human's soul is based more off of the amount of money that they own than it does for the personality. Personality without money? Your personality is unlikely to make a print on humanity. Money without personality? It is possible to make a print on humanity, even though it probably wont be a good one.

We do need money sufficient that we have safety and security. Without those, if you have no physical safety or have to work 16 hours a day, you have little time to spend in self-development. But there are those who make way more than enough to afford these things, and spend their time in self-absorbed distractions from their own soul, which their money buys plenty of ways for that to happen! Of course, they die empty, rather than full.

Again, I disagree that without money you can't make an imprint on the world. Do you have to have a six-figure income in order to genuinely love someone? Isn't that love itself, more than the entire world?

If you are going to school to raise your reputation for future jobs, I would not recommend taking philosophy.

If you're going to school to be successful in life, you need to understand the world, not just your trade or vocation.

If you are going to school merely just to learn, that's your choice but in my opinion it's a waste of time and money when you could learn just as much or more by buying a few books at Barnes and Nobles and surfing wikipedia for days on end.

Well, this does prove a point that Jürgen Habermas made that the role of the intellectual is falling by the wayside by the rise of the unspecialised accessing data on the Internet without the depth of specialized backgrounds. This indicates a deep decline in society, and it will play right into the hands of those at the top of the power structures. Lessening our overall depth will weaken us. Wiki is great, but not a source for genuine understanding. It is not a replacement for an actual education.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Sure we get all that but often times we find that money can't really buy happiness can it. Doesn't stop us making a go at it though. Thats why philosophy is important, allows us to think outside the box society would rather us to stay in. I don't want to be in no box Sum.

I totally do agree, philosophy is important and for some recreational. However why pay thousands of dollars, consume your time that could've been used as a freetime or, even better, a class that will be useful for after college?

If studying philosophy brings someone happy, it still doesn't make sense to pay thousands of dollars for limited research (deadlines, assignments are teacher's choice, limited amount of time, etc.) when, if they are self teaching *buying books of philosophy, surf the web, contemplate and record thoughts to compare it to others' thoughts.

Similar to math and other classes. If math weren't so helpful for a good rep, I can't think of why they would when you can practice at home for free and probably take at most half as long as the class would.

The pace of learning will work out most the time for you if you studied it at home. Comparing it to a class in college; a lesson would either go faster than the class, or it will take longer than the class but that allows you to take your time and study without stress.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Schools put together a curriculum that they feel best equips their students to handle the real world as effectively as possible. They are drawing off their seasoned experience in order to best guide young minds, who often are just too plain stupid in their youth to know what they will need later in life. That's why you have teachers to guide them.

Designed curriculum. Programs. Processes. Proceedures. They use these because they are proven to be more effective on average than not.

Effective for what? Philosophy itself has no more effective way than another, because philosophy doesn't have a common outcome for all philosophies.

I explained that in the post. Understanding the basics of how music is structured does not "tell" the musician how to create music. But the musician can draw off the fundamental building blocks he has gained an understanding of to "do his own thing". Without that, the gifted may be at a disadvantage. "I just want to do it myself", often can be the harder path.

And talent can be achieved in many different ways, including music. If you have a friend that could teach you, then you don't have to pay thousands of dollars for one music class unless you plan on becoming a musician for a company, which doesn't work that way with philosophy since there is no job openings for "philosopher"

I qualified that by using the word "mindlessly" repeating things, without having any understanding of what or why we believe and espouse the things we do. "Just because", or "That's just how it is", responses are mindless.

those sayings are usually from apathetic people who would never have taken the class in the first place. They don't apply here

Well, yes.... but coming to your own conclusion means you have to actually be informed about multiple perspectives. Hence, you expose yourself to those philosophies which inform our culture. Otherwise you're just a robot. And this is why they expose students to these things. To prepare them to not just be mindless robots following whatever the popular talking-heads on the mass media outlets tell us is good and true and valuable.

How would it make you a robot? I'd say the total opposite.

No, actually you just said it again in the last paragraph. You said it's better to think for yourself than to be told what to believe. And you are equating that with being exposed to different points of view in a philosophy class. You are mistaking being taught something, with them telling what to believe and that you shouldn't think for yourself. I'm correct in what I said.

Far from it. I never said any of that, and I know none of that is true. Except for when you say "you said it's better to think for yourself than to be told what to believe", the other stuff I did not say.

Yes, this is true. And it's also horribly tragic. You end up having highly successfully and utterly shallow and hollow souls. That's not success, only in gaining the whole world at the expense of any depth of being.

How is it tragic? There needs to be something that has high, metaphorical value if we want to remain organized. If one does not agree with this, they might as well live in the wilderness.

A contributor of what??? Narcissism? Shallowness? Greed? And besides, why is it if you are not at the top of the earning heap with your masses of gold to tell yourself you're "successful", that this makes someone a leech? That's ridiculous. In fact, there are those whose income is below the poverty line whose soul is like a blazing sun compared to the tiny penlight running on a near-dead single AAA battery of those whole rule empires of gold.

A contributor to every day life. Blow that huge amount of money on a class that wont help you with a career, and the class will only limit your studies to the professor's topic choice and you can't take your time thanks to deadlines.

Honestly, I didn't call all unsuccessful people leeches. I'm mostly talking about the unsuccessful people who get a middle class living by tax money

Seriously, money does not save the soul. It can, if it is your god, suck it dry. I judge by the heart, and the 1% at the top of the financial heap, s at the bottom of the humanity heap.

It is assuredly not. Are you familiar with Maslow's needs hierarchy? Money falls a distant 4th or 5th on the pyramid of human needs. Maslow's hierarchy of needs - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That's something I learned in college, actually.

Somewhat. Comes off to me though that the guy is stating his opinions objectively as if we all have the same goal or needs.


We do need money sufficient that we have safety and security. Without those, if you have no physical safety or have to work 16 hours a day, you have little time to spend in self-development. But there are those who make way more than enough to afford these things, and spend their time in self-absorbed distractions from their own soul, which their money buys plenty of ways for that to happen! Of course, they die empty, rather than full.

Again, I disagree that without money you can't make an imprint on the world. Do you have to have a six-figure income in order to genuinely love someone? Isn't that love itself, more than the entire world?

No, but if you're putting thousands in for a subject that you could easily study on your own, that wont give you much boost anyway, the imprint would not be there or it will be faint.

If you're going to school to be successful in life, you need to understand the world, not just your trade or vocation.

I know that. But as I've said plenty of times over - if a person truly wants to take a philosophy course for better success in life, they are going in the opposite direction. 1) Self study would be a lot more reliable. Why? You choose the topic, you are free from deadlines and stress. Besides, I've heard many say before that school can make your favorite subject dull. 2) You are blowing a ton of money for a class that will get you nowhere career wise.

Well, this does prove a point that Jürgen Habermas made that the role of the intellectual is falling by the wayside by the rise of the unspecialised accessing data on the Internet without the depth of specialized backgrounds. This indicates a deep decline in society, and it will play right into the hands of those at the top of the power structures. Lessening our overall depth will weaken us. Wiki is great, but not a source for genuine understanding. It is not a replacement for an actual education.

Again, you're taking my words a little too extreme. The second thing is - people in past generations thought the same way, but look how far we've gotten.

 

[Blackdog22]

A professor is overseeing the final for his philosophy of religion class. He notices that one of his students has their pen down, they have their hands over their face, and they are not paying attention to the test in any recognizable way. He goes to the student and asks if the student is ok. The student says, "yes sir, I was simply praying to God to help me answer the question". The professor takes the test and rips in half. In horror, the student exclaims, " why did you do that?!" The professor responds that, "asking for help on tests is cheating, and cheating is an automatic zero."

Thoughts? Reactions? Discussion?

Edit: This is a paraphrased example from "A Brief History of the Paradox" by Roy Sorensen

Unless the kid is willing to admit God doesn't exist or that he actually has no connection to God through prayer, I think it is completely reasonable. Asking a supreme being to grant you super powers on a test, and the fact (according to believers) that this actually happens, its reasonable.

If Christians want to admit that prayer really doesn't do anything and is just for reassurance, then that would be a bit different, but would probably cause to much ruckus.

My belief is almost every Christian knows that prayer doesn't do anything through their actions ,and the actions of those around them. If a football player says he thanks God for getting him the win, no one actually takes that seriously, because they know it doesn't mean anything "really". Can you imagine if a God actually granted someone powers, and this was a known fact, how angry people would be about games. It would take the fun out of it. Completely knowing that Peyton Manning was incapable of losing because he had powers and didn't need to train anymore? People with God powers would likely be banned from the sport, yeah it wouldn't it work, but fortunately, through the actions of everyone, including Christians, this doesn't happen.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Theoretically, if the kid were asked if he believed in God, then you'd know for sure. He wouldn't say no (if he does) because that'd be lying and lying is a sin, he wouldn't say yes (if he didn't) because then he did "cheat"

 

[Brickjectivity]

I don't think schools teach Philosophy just for the individual student's sakes. Its to establish a common frame of reference for people to talk about social issues. Yes it benefits individuals but it is aimed at society not individuals only. The colleges have to make sure all students are up to speed.

Still the prof should have warned the students in the course syllabus instead of declaring praying in class to be cheating right then and there.

 

[1137]

I don't think schools teach Philosophy just for the individual student's sakes. Its to establish a common frame of reference for people to talk about social issues. Yes it benefits individuals but it is aimed at society not individuals only. The colleges have to make sure all students are up to speed.

Still the prof should have warned the students in the course syllabus instead of declaring praying in class to be cheating right then and there.

He never said praying was cheating, he said "asking for help is cheating".