Philosophy classes Forum

[jkhalfa]

I took an upper level symbolic logic course and I definitely think it helped me reason better and recognize fallacies immediately. It was probably the hardest class I've ever taken (we started with over 30 people and only 10 took the final), but it was worth it and somehow I miraculously managed an A.

Philosophy is probably the best major for LSAT prep. Lots of reading and following arguments about abstract concepts.

EDIT: I should add that "intro to logic" is usually extremely easy (even at a school with a world-class phil department). If you're looking for a challenge you'll have to do more than just that.

[vtoodler]

Wait.. is "Into to Logic" an informal logic course? That may be helpful. The formal logic you could use effectively on the LSAT would be so basic that it wouldn't be worth taking a whole course just for that.

Look, it's just like law school. It's not learning the stuff, it's applying the stuff. The forms and fallacies are easy to understand in the abstract, but can be very difficult to apply in the concrete--especially the predicate forms and fallacies. Intro to logic is usually the hardest course for any philosophy major.

That's because brains don't work logically. They work by association. So you have to forge logical pathways with practice to think logically in practice.

@manofjustice

What do you mean by "brains work by association?"
How so?

[Dr. Dre]

REMINDER: continental philosophy is TTT

AVOID LIKE THE PLAUGE

[Otunga]

REMINDER: continental philosophy is TTT

AVOID LIKE THE PLAUGE

I thought Nietzsche was interesting but the more analytic moral philosophy I read about, the easier it became to knock down his arguments.

[Dr. Dre]

That bro's work is on par with strange literature. It isn't even real philosophy.

[RobertGolddust]

I suggest you take some philosophy just to be sure that although some claim to know something about something, its basically the case that they don't know as much as they think they know and indeed may know nothing.

In my opinion though a logic class in college is good stuff. Especially the informal logic portion, or inductive reasoning as said in my book. There were a few arguments I encountered that had flaws that were much more tricky and elusive than anything on the LSAT.

[Otunga]

That bro's work is on par with strange literature. It isn't even real philosophy.

Well, I still stand by the fact that it's interesting. Some movie featuring a moral dystopia (or utopia, given an intriguing interpretation) because the society follows Nietzsche's views would be wicked cool. So you're right - I see it as more akin to literature.

[Rollontheground]

I don't think formal logic courses are very helpful for the LSAT. Taking upper level non-logic phil courses is though.

As a philosophy major, I doubt that any philosophy course is an efficient way to get better on the LSAT. They'll give you a little boost, sure, but not as much as devoting significantly less time specifically to studying the LSAT would.

That said, superdingle is probably right about the kind of philosophy courses that will be most helpful: ones that require reading dense argumentative writing and looking for flaws/weaknesses. What little symbolic logic is required for the LSAT is covered in the first two weeks of a decent philosophy course. You don't need practice with 10 inference-long formal logic proofs for the LSAT.

Also a Phil major, now in Grad school for a related topic. The only thing Sym. Logic 101 is going to help you with that you can't do from reading the LRB is learn how to write conditionals with fancy horseshoes instead of arrows, and perhaps be able to articulate the flaws better in an argument. But this isn't necessary. Knowing that an argumentative flaw is of the ad hominem variety does not put you in a better position than someone who calls it "an attack on character rather than the argument." That being said, the analyticity developed in a rigorous philosophy program — especially writing papers — will certainly help in LR and RC.

But take what you want. Education is not a means to an end

[Rollontheground]

That bro's work is on par with strange literature. It isn't even real philosophy.

Well, I still stand by the fact that it's interesting. Some movie featuring a moral dystopia (or utopia, given an intriguing interpretation) because the society follows Nietzsche's views would be wicked cool. So you're right - I see it as more akin to literature.

Ayn Rand?

[Rollontheground]

REMINDER: continental philosophy is TTT

AVOID LIKE THE PLAUGE

Have you read any continental philosophy? And what do you mean by "continental philosophy"?

[Otunga]

That bro's work is on par with strange literature. It isn't even real philosophy.

Well, I still stand by the fact that it's interesting. Some movie featuring a moral dystopia (or utopia, given an intriguing interpretation) because the society follows Nietzsche's views would be wicked cool. So you're right - I see it as more akin to literature.

Ayn Rand?

People just shuddered at the mere mention of that name in my philosophy department.

[Rollontheground]

That bro's work is on par with strange literature. It isn't even real philosophy.

Well, I still stand by the fact that it's interesting. Some movie featuring a moral dystopia (or utopia, given an intriguing interpretation) because the society follows Nietzsche's views would be wicked cool. So you're right - I see it as more akin to literature.

Ayn Rand?

People just shuddered at the mere mention of that name in my philosophy department.

Mine too.

But some of her works exemplify the practical implications of Nietzsche's thought — hence the comment.

[Rollontheground]

Wait.. is "Into to Logic" an informal logic course? That may be helpful. The formal logic you could use effectively on the LSAT would be so basic that it wouldn't be worth taking a whole course just for that.

Look, it's just like law school. It's not learning the stuff, it's applying the stuff. The forms and fallacies are easy to understand in the abstract, but can be very difficult to apply in the concrete--especially the predicate forms and fallacies. Intro to logic is usually the hardest course for any philosophy major.

That's because brains don't work logically. They work by association. So you have to forge logical pathways with practice to think logically in practice.

@manofjustice

What do you mean by "brains work by association?"
How so?

I think he meant "retrieval queues."

[Dr. Dre]

Continental philosophy doesn't involve much argumentation. It's just a bunch of weird shittt that involves the human experience and how we are constantly evolving through our interactions with the world. Those bros think analytic philosophy is too abstract, technical, and always fellatio-ing the natural scientists' doods things.

I've read Nietzche, Heidegger, Rand, Kierkegaard, and holy shittt!!! Don't ever want to read that again.

As for the OP, I'd suggest you read some legit shit: G.E Moore, Wittgenstein, Kripke, Russell, Godel, Ayer
Avoid political philosophy, ethics, moral philosophy—it's all TTT. Not nearly as prestigious as metaphysics, logic, philosophy of physics, philosophy of mathematics, philosophy of mind.


hope THAT fucken helps

[Otunga]

Continental philosophy doesn't involve much argumentation. It's just a bunch of weird shittt that involves the human experience and how we are constantly evolving through our interactions with the world. Those bros think analytic philosophy is too abstract, technical, and always fellatio-ing the natural scientists' doods things.

I've read Nietzche, Heidegger, Rand, Kierkegaard, and holy shittt!!! Don't ever want to read that again.

As for the OP, I'd suggest you read some legit shit: G.E Moore, Wittgenstein, Kripke, Russell, Godel, Ayer
Avoid political philosophy, ethics, moral philosophy—it's all TTT. Not nearly as prestigious as metaphysics, logic, philosophy of physics, philosophy of mathematics, philosophy of mind.


hope THAT fucken helps

Now what you're saying is contentious. Moral philosophy is awesome, and there are many good analytic-style philosophers who write about it.

I will say that an intro to (analytic) metaphysics course is a great foundational course for any philosophy major or somebody remotely interested in it. I took that, phl of math and mind, too. I just like moral philosophy the most.

[Rollontheground]

Continental philosophy doesn't involve much argumentation. It's just a bunch of weird shittt that involves the human experience and how we are constantly evolving through our interactions with the world. Those bros think analytic philosophy is too abstract, technical, and always fellatio-ing the natural scientists' doods things.

I've read Nietzche, Heidegger, Rand, Kierkegaard, and holy shittt!!! Don't ever want to read that again.

As for the OP, I'd suggest you read some legit shit: G.E Moore, Wittgenstein, Kripke, Russell, Godel, Ayer
Avoid political philosophy, ethics, moral philosophy—it's all TTT. Not nearly as prestigious as metaphysics, logic, philosophy of physics, philosophy of mathematics, philosophy of mind.


hope THAT fucken helps

In a way, I can see continental philosophy being viewed as something closer to religion or poetry — Ayer would call them all "misplaced poets," no? However, I'm not sure that philosophy requires argumentation. If your point is about what's TTT for the LSAT, then sure. Agreed. But Continental does seem closer to the etymological definition of philosophy. But I'm honestly not sure if "love of wisdom" is required either.

[clay7676]

Thanks for all the replies guys, I really appreciate it. I went ahead and dropped the Symbolic logic course, and went through with the Introduction to Logic. It's looking like this may be honestly what I needed (though it's only been a week). Although maybe (probably) this stuff just comes naturally to people and is common sense, I've realized going through LSAT materials/beginning this class I was lacking what may seem to be a necessary foundation of what an argument is, whether or not something is an argument, whether it's valid/sound/true, etc. All of which seems like I should know before diving in deep with identifying flaws and being able to reword/ strengthen assumptions, etc. This probably was taught in my LSAT studies, I very well could have skipped it or, I don't know. LoL. But I think it will allow my LR prep to make a lot more sense, and maybe they'll go hand in hand. Hopefully in time, too, this will allow me to take some upper level philosophy courses, as that seems to be very helpful.

Thanks again.

[Otunga]

Thanks for all the replies guys, I really appreciate it. I went ahead and dropped the Symbolic logic course, and went through with the Introduction to Logic. It's looking like this may be honestly what I needed (though it's only been a week). Although maybe (probably) this stuff just comes naturally to people and is common sense, I've realized going through LSAT materials/beginning this class I was lacking what may seem to be a necessary foundation of what an argument is, whether or not something is an argument, whether it's valid/sound/true, etc. All of which seems like I should know before diving in deep with identifying flaws and being able to reword/ strengthen assumptions, etc. This probably was taught in my LSAT studies, I very well could have skipped it or, I don't know. LoL. But I think it will allow my LR prep to make a lot more sense, and maybe they'll go hand in hand. Hopefully in time, too, this will allow me to take some upper level philosophy courses, as that seems to be very helpful.

Thanks again.

Yes. This seems to make sense for you. You can ease into analyzing arguments before you go right into intense LSAT studying.