Dr. Joseph Shieber was almost like STAR TRACK'S Dr. Spock. They both have a serious matter of fact explanation of logical thinking. I say almost because Dr. Sheiber showed some emotion in emphatic, passionate rises of his voice as he read his carefully worded lectures. In the last lectures his excitement intensified if I am not mistaking. Still he maintained a straight face like a stand up comedian. He had to be aware he was often humorous.
Looking back I should have been prepared for his revelation in the last lecture.
I sped through the course this past week, listening while I was icing my eye lids with cold compresses and later while using warm compresses after surgery for droopy eye lids. The bruising and swelling is disappearing quickly, I am happy to say.
 |
| Reading and contemplating as well as listening and contemplating. |
In my quest seeking a bridge to gap our polarized political discourse, I found little hope as I progressed through the lectures. I continued nevertheless. The conclusion was climatic. An eye opener that burst my dreams. A branch of modern philosophy called epistemology is part of Dr. Shieber's answer to ending fake news and not what I was looking for in strengthening my individual critical thinking. Facebook click bait he says has reduced the support for other media venues. Perhaps Facebook contributes to the quality decline of news media. Most news media no longer conducts rigorous fact checks. An exception is "The New Yorker Magazine". "The New Yorker" is worthy of being reliable because every article and cartoon is checked with the creator as well as extensively researched by a team.
The poor alternative is, according to Dr. Shieber, to put the responsibility of fact checking with the reader. Readers can't reasonably check every story they read. Plus on line fact check sites do not agree and exhibit bias. Meaning my susceptibility to stories that are not extensively fact checked is not my negligence or low intelligence but my human nature. Dr. Shieber lifts a heavy weigh from my guilty feelings on falling for fake news.
 |
| As a painter I do not attempt to reproduce just what my eyes see. I know I am not seeing objects but the light reflected off of them. I believe I am aware and able to express visually energies beyond the light spectrum. I paint the perception and memories that seem to be in my muscles especially the heart. I want to be in tune with the energy of life. Are my paintings about ch'i? The type of energy I paint can be absolute knowledge? Something a camera cannot photograph? Intuitive knowledge? Sometimes paintings flow effortless and I cannot believe I painted my painting. Where do these happy painting experiences come from? Will scientists study body muscles functioning as a sixth scense that can process input separate from the brain? Not possible? Could the understanding of perceptions of painters change the world for the better? Philosophers want to find some knowledge solid as truth but maybe the perception of solidness is a need as opposed to what exists in the physical world? Only human nature is solidly consistent? |
Dr. Joseph Sheiber hopes to inspire others to study further. I recommend THEORIES OF KNOWLEDGE, How to Think about What You Know published just this year. This course is a Great Courses video with a book included. The topic is Philosophy and Intellectual History. The subtopic is Applied Philosophy.
Some of my conservative friends called public education and all higher education a liberal brain washing machine. So I was looking for signs of brain washing propaganda in this Lafayette College Associate Professor's course. I know from previous experience that I do not recognize propaganda that supports my bias. So I invite my moderate and conservative friends to accept my gift of the course so they may inform me on what it is in this course that is brain washing propaganda.
I have two complete identical courses because I was sent two by mistake. So the first person who wants this course, I will be glad to give it absolutely free.
5 comments:
I wonder if it's possible to separate justified belief from true knowledge. It seems to me everybody brings with them how they were raised, what they learned about life, and then they apply it to what comes along. A course like you describe seems it'd have to have a bent toward one set of beliefs or another. I am not familiar with Dr. Sheiber
Rain,
I am puzzled as to how to answer. I can only imagine what a set of beliefs would be. According to "Theaetetus" Plato's Socratic dialogues knowledge is defined as true belief with "logos", the Greek word meaning "a reason" or "an account". Philosphers since Plato have built on Plato with varying and oppossing theoretical systems and methods. Internalism, externalism, foundationalism,coherantism, deductive and inductive reasoning and so on. These systems do not have anything to do with the values and beliefs passed down in families. Sheiber presents a history of these theories. The discoveries of science impact philosophy and how philosophy impacts science. Are you interested in examining the course?
The limits of the Great Courses is no classroom or eoutside classroom dialog.I would love to talk to someone who has familiarity with the course.
Facts are like say that William Barr spoke to the Senate and then quotes of what he said. The rest, the interpretation of whether he lied, whether he was acting as a stooge for Trump, that's all opinion. Most of what Americans get is opinion but they take it as facts.
I don't want to take the course, but when we get together again, we can talk about the ideas. I took philosophy in college and enjoyed it as well as logic. Logic is where you take two facts and draw a conclusion but often the facts don't relate and hence, that is lack of logic
Sure we can talk about some ideas when you get back to Oregon. If after several days and I still have the the course, I will donate it to the Friends of the Library.
Post a Comment