Hi, I just started grad school in philosophy, and I've found that nothing I've done in undergrad has truly prepared me for this; specifically, I had a lot of guidance when writing my papers. I was given specific questions that helped me to give the Prof. what he wanted. My philosophy 101 class was taught by a grad student (in the midst of defending his own dissertation) who gave us more material than we could reasonably digest while in our early 20s. When left largely to my own devices, I focused more on the application of the philosophy in politics rather than the semantics, and for the most part, I did well and was happy about it. Now I'm trying to write a paper with the instructions that I discuss the concept of being for 25 pages from Plato's Sophist. I'm not allowed to use outside sources or reference outside of the context of the text or the class. Everyone else in my program seems to know what they're doing. I've talked to my professor and some of my peers at some length (though I was too...

Some time ago, a question was asked: "How do you think technology will affect the teaching and practice of philosophy." The responses, while interesting, were a little too pragmatic. So, I would like to reformulate and ask a parallel question: How do you think technology will affect teaching and learning in the 21st century? Is the technological classroom the next great revolution? Or is it all hype, rhetoric, and advertising spin? Can philosophy help guide us in sorting the useful from the useless, the time wasting, and cost incurring technologies? Plato/Socrates was uncertain about print, Heidegger warned that in asking "the question about technology" that we are on the wrong track ... So, what advice would philosophers give to teachers trying to negotiate the validity of the technological revolution for teaching. George

Do grades during high school and university show the ability of a person to think? Can someone who does not have immaculate grades still be an excellent philosopher? Or is the success of a student in school directly related to their ability to think in a critical way that is required by philosophers?

Which would you recommend to a neophyte of philosophy who has a broad but a very, very superficial understanding (I know a bit about the history and how and why philosophical trends happend since the pre-socratics to contemporary philosophy) of philosophy? A very terse, comprehensive, and detailed book on Kant/Kant's Critique of Pure Reason or the Critique of Pure Reason itself? I hear from many philosophers that Kant is a boring writer with great ideas. Is he boring in the sense that Aristotle is boring to some people in that he is dry and to the point (I do not find that boring at all!)? I would like to read both Pure Reason and an academic's commentary, summary, and analysis of it, but I have time and money for only one. Also, thanks for this website, I've found it very useful!

Have any of you witnessed a student cheating in your very own ethics class? Did you just laugh at the situation? Have students tried to challenge why they were morally right for cheating? If you haven't caught a student cheating, what do you think of the situation in general and how would you react?

Ok,this may sound like a stupid question but I'm just worried about my marks. So,next year I'll be in High School and it will be my first year studying philosophy. All my friends say: " Oh,philosophy it's SO hard!" or "If you don't work a lot you will get negative marks.." and etc,.. I'm just starting to be worried about it. I think it's normal that someone that goes to high school worry about new subjects,difficulty levels,.. But I'm just too worried! I consider myself an inteligent person but I'm afraid of failling Philosophy and it ruins my marks! I think I may be a bit "dumb" or immature to understand all that "complicated thoughts" .Although I have no idea what I'm going to learn lots of people say I need to have a great reasoning and know how to express what I'm thinking. And I think that's the big problem because I think I've got a good reasoning and I'm good at writing (I'm good at English,Portuguese,..) but I'm just bad when I wan't to make another person understand what I'm thinking :S Do...

After researching on what it's like to be a budding PHD hopeful, I'm a little scared at the thought of going for a PHD. Being in debt, along with the high drop rate, is a little intimidating. Combine that with the fact that I might be a nomad if I graduate. What I want is to be able to read cutting edge journals with some ease, and contribute to the discipline by writing in them too. I am aware that I'm able to do this without the paper, but how exactly would I know I'm not a crank? This is why I want the education. Would going for a master's give me the skills to read and write for journals? Is it much harder to read journals or write in journals with just a master's degree? Is that an area that is totally reserved for someone with a PHD (skill wise anyways)? As I've stated before, the road towards a PHD is very intimidating, and it seems there is a lot less to lose if i go for the MA.

I'm interested in starting a phenomenology study group beginning with Husserl. I would want to start with Husserl's _Logical Investigation_s Volumes 1 and 2 but I was wondering if the abridged version "The Shorter Investigations" will be more than enough to understand Husserl. I would like to be able to study other phenomenologists, but if the abridged version will not do, then reading the full volumes will take up the whole time. In short, has anyone read both the abridged and unabridged _Investigations_, and if so, what are your suggestions? Thank you.

Why are parents said to have the right to teach their children whatever they want? What are the underlying philosophical justifications and explanations for this right?

I go to church regularly and say things I don't believe. I justify this by saying that it's necessary to support an institution that I believe does more good than harm and that the usefulness of a statement is more important than its truth. I think my grounds are utilitarian and pragmatic, and do not share the vulnerability, among skeptics, of belief in the statements. I am satisfied with my justification until I am asked to teach a seventh-grade Sunday School class. If I decline I leave it to somebody else, maybe as much a skeptic as I am, to give the support I want given. I can't do that, and don't expect a philosopher to give me a justification for it. If I accept the job I do the things that make me ask for help from a philosopher. My question: How I can avoid harm, and if I can't will I do enough to tip the utilitarian balance and remove me from the church? As I see it, I risk doing three kinds of harm. First, pedagogical harm. I will be teaching credulousness. They can't believe what...