Give me a grade

[CaptainHaplo]

Undersea - I am going to offer one last piece of advice, along with some encouragement. First - it seems the Prof. understands you more than you think, your really "ahead" - aka the elevator - vs the rest, but he needs you to establish the curriculum foundation. Work with him - his statement indicates he is willing to let you fairly. That should lighten your mind considerably.

Now - to the advice. Whatever the assignment, make the commitment to go back over it after your done with 2 specific goals in mind. The first, and most critical goal is to look back at the questions that were asked, and in reading your responses, determine if it is CLEAR whether your answer was a yes or a no to each question. If you can't find those answers clearly - aka spelled out - then you need to redo it so that you can. Second, limit yourself to no more than 5% over on the words. If they say 500 words, then you can get away with a max 525, to complete the last thought. If you can't get it under that, then you need to find another way to convey your thoughts, or change the points.

This episode is a great learning opportunity for you. Let me see if I can help you on the "tangents" bit. You are now in college. You mentioned that this was alot like the Marines. In many ways your right. Every student in that class has completed "basic" in a sense, each of you have the foundation already. He doesn't want you to explain the foundation - he wants you to build on it as he teaches you to. Just like when a platoon gets a few new bald heads from Ellis, there is an expectation that you already know some things. Go from that point. Don't explain what you already "know" - don't build the foundation all over again. In essence, don't go through "basic" again every time.

Remember the difference between when you were fresh out of your initial training and hit your first assignment? Then compare that to when you were years in, comfortable and established. Right now your in that initial phase, everything needs to be crystal clear. But that is making you lose the focus. So always - ALWAYS go back and look at the original assignment and then at your work and verify you answered every point put to you, even if you didn't do them each as clearly as you would have liked. Remember, your not in a debate with this, he wants to see you understand the lessons and the process, he isn't keeping score on whether you "win" an arguement.

The situation looks 110% better.

He gave you a second shot, which means we can't use the opposite politics stance.

He's already come BETTER THAN half way for you.
Now it's your responsability to show him a return on his investment.
You can do it. And I'm confident that you can do it well.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by NeonSamurai

I pretty much agree with what has been said by Sky, August, Hap, etc.

You are going to have to learn how to work from within the system and stop trying to break out into directions that you want to go or hold personal interest to you. I know it's hard, I often face the same problems of staying on the topic. University (especially undergrad university) is all about rote learning and regurgitation of that learning, and you have to learn how to supply what the profs want if you want to do well.

I know you have a rebellious streak, probably because you know you are smarter than most other people you encounter or deal with. I think you like playing with, toying, and testing others to see how they measure up (and to stave off boredom). But that sort of behavior only harms you in the end. You gotta play the game if you are going to get anywhere. No matter how much you dislike it, and no matter how stupid the system is.

I also have to agree with Sky's assessment of you being locked in your own world view. But then again who isn't. Almost everyone is locked in their own world view which from their perspective seems right, but if taken from a broader scope is deeply flawed. It is very hard to be truly open minded, to really consider the arguments of others and honestly weigh them against your own. You need to break free of that, and stop trying to direct every paper deep into the realms of your own knowledge and beliefs.

If you want to crusade, do it here, or join a debate club or something where you are more free to express yourself (though a good debater can hold any position, even those they fundamentally disagree with). Class assignments and papers are not the place.

Good sound advice

Cooperate and graduate

Don't fight the system. The key objective of college is to expose your brain to other ways of thinking. Just because someone disagrees with you does not mean they are wrong.

Many people enter college thinking they understand everything, but end up leaving college knowing what they don't know.

Good luck with this.

[TarJak]

Originally Posted by Platapus

Many people enter college thinking they understand everything, but end up leaving college knowing what they don't know.

Sounds a lot like life in general. I've spent the last 45 years trying to gain an understanding what I don't yet know; I doubt it will be finished by the time I kark it. One thing I do know is that I won't be karking it at the hands (or mouth) of a crocodile. Or alligator for that matter.

You've got yourself some good advice and a great opportunity to work with your prof to get a much better outcome than if you just sat back and said "Oh well I failed."

Grasp this opportunity with both hands and give it a good shake and you may find that your professor may be one of your greatest benefactors and supporters rather than your greatest enemy.

I won't go into details but I have had several similar circumstances in both learning and work life and finding out that the guy you thought was trying to kill you was really trying to rescue you from yourself.

[Platapus]

I am finishing up my doctorate and all I can think of is "man, there is a cubic butt-load of stuff I still don't understand about my area!"

Life was a lot easier when I was getting my Bachelor's degree.

Originally Posted by Platapus

I am finishing up my doctorate and all I can think of is "man, there is a cubic butt-load of stuff I still don't understand about my area!"

THAT, is a very good sign.

The more one knows about a subject,
the more one realizes how much they don't know.

Knowledge opens doors, revealing yet more doors with secrets to be revealed.

The day we run out of doors, is the day they plant us.

[NeonSamurai]

Its also a sign of growing up. I always laugh when listening to 15-25 year olds talk. Think they know everything, so sure about themselves and their opinions. Always right and never wrong. Too bad what they know hardly amounts to a thimbleful, and most of it is wrong or shallow at best. But it's not their fault, we were all like that

[UnderseaLcpl]

Ah, even more good advice, though some of it is a bit late in coming. I submitted my paper based on Kant's theory like three hours ago. I guess we'll see how it turns out.

I had a fairly difficult time of it. I usually have an easy time writing things, but I had to struggle to find the words with this essay. Kant's philosophy is regarded more as a landmark in ethical philosophy than a practicable theory, even the text says so. As such, it was like the whole paper was a lie. I thought about posting it for review, but I'm almost ashamed of it. It is disjointed, self-contradictory, and generally rubbish. In a word, it is pure BS. I still think I have a problem with my mindset, and that is why this is so difficult for me.

I generally regard anything that is not an irreducible concept as being wrong, at least in this field. I may not know what is right, but I know logical dodgeball when I see it, as I have engaged in it a few times myself (I usually end up getting hit and learning a lesson), if that makes any sense. In this case, however, I feel like I have sacrificed my integrity for the promise of a reward. Ironic, considering this is an ethics course.

Anyhow, thanks for all the good advice, perspectives, occasional joke, and the cat. There are papers yet to come, and even if I screwed this one up I can still pass. I just hope it isn't like this for too much longer. I'd rather be proven wrong than simply told that I am wrong, and here, at least, I have been proven wrong......concerning protocol, of course.

I have only one more thing that I'd like to address..........

Originally Posted by NeonSamurai

I think you like playing with, toying, and testing others to see how they measure up (and to stave off boredom).

This worries me. There have been times when I've been told that I appear condescending, but I don't try to manipulate people like that. I fear that I may be doing it inadvertently. I tease people from time to time, and I enjoy a lively discussion, but it is not my wish to be manipulative or condescending. I try not to judge people too harshly. I've been the idiot enough times in my life to understand how people can get muddled up without having a personal fault. Heck, just look at this thread.

One thing I can say for sure is that I am not concerned with how others measure up, save for in the occasional friendly challenge. One can hardly be a proponent of an individualistic system without having faith in the individual, yes? I think most people are smarter than most people give them credit for, and I have detailed reasons for that belief, though I will not discuss them at length here.

[NeonSamurai]

I don't think you do it from a malicious, manipulative, or self superior stance (though some may perceive it that way). But I do think you do a bit of it. Lots of intelligent people like to do that (I know I certainly do), as we like to gauge who we are talking to, to see if they are worth really talking to or engaging with. Some of it is done just for fun (verbal sparring and nudging), other times cause we may find the topic of conversation dull or uninteresting (I for one can not stand idle chatter).

Anyhow I think it does express itself in your academic writing from what little I have seen of it. I tend to get the impression that you think the assignments beneath your intellect and not worthy of your time and energy. Which is a partial reason as to why you sidetrack.


As to the last bit, I have to say I, in general, do not have much faith in the individual (and especially the individual amongst a group), particularly when they start blindly spout party/faith/ism rhetoric with out the slightest bit of thought behind it. My experience has taught me repeatedly that most people prefer not to have to think (or do as little thinking as is possible), and as a (constantly) thinking person I do not much care for brainless reflexive behavior. But I am also convinced that most of the species is utterly nuts.

[TarJak]

If you subscribe to Dr. Martha Stout's theories, then 4%, (that's 1 in 25), of the population are sociopaths so having faith in the individual is statistically dangerous.

That statistic in itself makes ethics quite an interesting field. On the whole the problem with ethics are that for some they are not even an issue and for others they are what they live by. Everyone else is arrayed across the spectrum and for every one person's ethical dilema is another person's no brainer.

Unfortunately a lot of ethics has gotten caught up in social ettiquette which depending on the society and community you live in will be different again.

[Torvald Von Mansee]

Originally Posted by Snestorm

There is nothing wrong with your paper.
You fulfilled the assignemrnt, and therefor (derfor) deserves a passing grade, at minimum.

The only one who failed this assignement is your prof.
He asked for answers based on personal perspective (opimions / values / stances), which means your answers can NOT be wrong. They are YOUR perspective, which is what he asked for.

You may have "failed" because your answer was based on What You Think, as opposed to How You Feel about the issues. Beware this Left Oriented prof. Your abilty to criticaly alalyse issues makes him nervouse (nervøs), and he will do his best to assure your failure.

A change of profs is recommended.

I remember I once got a B in a class for which I should have got an A for what boiled down to my not be left wing enough for the prof, which is pretty amazing as I can be pretty damn left wing. I made sure I never had another class with him. I suppose I could have raised a stink about it, but it wasn't worth it.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by Torvald Von Mansee

I could have raised a stink about it, but it wasn't worth it.

Already learned that one the hard way
-----------------------------------------------------

I finished the revised paper and earned a "B", which I suppose is not so bad. How I got a "B" on a Frankenstein of a paper stiched together from bits I copied out of the text eludes me, but it worked. Now we move on to theories of social justice and economic distribution, which is going to be a real pain in the butt for me because the text bashes libertarianism at every turn. Take the following, for example:

Imagine, for example, that having purchased the forest in which I occasionally stroll, the new owner bars my access to it. It would seem that my freedom has been reduced because I can no longer ramble where I wish. BUt libertarians deny that this is a restriction of my liberty. My liberty is restricted if and only if someone violates my Lockean rights, which no one has done. Suppose that I go for a hike in the forest anyway. If the sherriff's deputies arrest me, they prevent me from doing what I want to do. But according to libertarianism, they do not restrict my liberty, nor do they coerce me. Why not? Because my hiking in the woods violates the landowner's rights.

Here libertarians seem driven to an unfamiliar use of familiar terminology, but they have no choice. They cannot admit that abridging the landowner's freedom to do as he wants with his property would expand my freedom. If they did, their theory would be in jepoardy. They would have to acknowledge that restricting the liberty or property rights of some could enhance the liberty of others.

Is it just me, or does this seem like absolute nonsense to anyone else? I ask because this may be another case where I need some perspective. It seems to me as if the authors completely misinterpret libertariansim, which has never advocated maximum freedom at all costs, whilst simultaneously undermining basic human rights in an attempt to sap libertarianism's defenses. After all, let's say we did let the little bastard go hiking in the woods because we don't respect property rights. What's to stop someone from hiking through his home and collecting his valuables?

The whole point of libertariansim, Nozick's theory, and the assorted offshoots is that there is a system by which minimal restriction of liberty can maximise ethicality and social justice, but the text later pits liberty against utilitarianism, claiming that they cannot coexist. If I had the time to type other examples I would, but one of my favorites is the text's critique of what libertarians would do with a homeless man. According to the text, it is ethical for a libertarian to leave a man to starve to death. I don't think anyone would consider that to be ethical, though libertarians may not consider it to be unethical. For all you know, the man may take the money you saved him or gave him to push or buy drugs. Maybe he'll spend it on booze and die faster. The judgement, and the consequences thereof, are left to the individual.

Libertarianism may not be a perfect system of ethics or social justice, but as I argued in my paper, it is the baseline for determining ethicality, and because of its honesty, is the only true theory of ethics. I think that's a reasonable perspective.

Originally Posted by NeonSamurai

As to the last bit, I have to say I, in general, do not have much faith in the individual (and especially the individual amongst a group), particularly when they start blindly spout party/faith/ism rhetoric with out the slightest bit of thought behind it. My experience has taught me repeatedly that most people prefer not to have to think (or do as little thinking as is possible), and as a (constantly) thinking person I do not much care for brainless reflexive behavior. But I am also convinced that most of the species is utterly nuts.

A little pessimistic for my taste, but I do agree with your observations about people in groups (None of us is as dumb as all of us) and people preferring to do as little thinking as possible, for the most part. The trick, though, is to refrain from systems that encourages such things. If people don't have a legion of people who promise them things to fall back on, they will have to think for themselves, and I do have faith in the intelligence, morality, and resourcefulness of most people. You just gotta be on guard for the bad ones.

And yes, we are all nuts.

[August]

Yeah it does sound like bull. I suppose under that theory laws against homicide restricts ones freedom to murder right?

[Tchocky]

Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl

Libertarianism may not be a perfect system of ethics or social justice, but as I argued in my paper, it is the baseline for determining ethicality, and because of its honesty, is the only true theory of ethics. I think that's a reasonable perspective.

Dropped in to see how it turned out for you (glad), and saw this paragraph. You may want to leave yourself some wiggle room here, especially if you disagree strongly with the premise of the base text (and, in fairness, the forest story is loopy). Get your argument against the premise together, because it looks pretty convincing from what I see here. A phrase like "the only true theory" can inadvertently colour the surrounding text, and give you another hurdle to get over with the professor.

Example from this morning. I got chewed out by an instructor for a procedure that I thought was fine, and I wasn't taking any sort of criticism on board. Afterwards, I was leaving and another instructor catches my elbow, he says "I agree with you, I think even he would agree with you after a proper conversation, but you'll never convince him arguing like that"

[UnderseaLcpl]

Good observation, Tchocky. I must remember that one.

edit

Originally Posted by August

Yeah it does sound like bull. I suppose under that theory laws against homicide restricts ones freedom to murder right?

That's kind of what I was getting at. The argument presented against the theory is taken from the assumption that libertarians value liberty above everything else, so they're hypocritical if they support any restriction of freedom. I'm just concerned that there is some sort of philosophical basis for this reasoning that I don't understand or am blind to.