Chris's first post

[Chris had a technical issue, so I've transcribed his first post here. --Dr. V.]

In the reading, Baker described the things that make up philosophy.  From metaphysics to axiology, everything was generally outlined.  With that said, Baker went further to describe what makes up philosophy: the structure of arguments and proofs to support such.  This is what I found most interesting since I have heard the same things said in the general public speaking classes that most everyone is required to take. Surprisingly enough to me, it seems that philosophy has an enormous effect in our society, though some may see it as something of an archaic art.  I took this realization and gave it some thought.  Whenever I personally hear the word "philosophy," my mind immediately goes to a place filled with scrolls, marble pillars and dead Greeks.  I can only assume that many people are the same in this affliation, leading to philosophy's undeserved dubbing as a useless art.

I think the reason so many people have trouble with the idea of philosophical thought as a means of progress is due to the ambiguity that it is based in since the definition of philosophy itself is a philosophical debate.  I find that living and thinking in grey areas is  far more difficult that doing so in terms of black and white.  When decisions have to be made with only defined outcomes the answers come more easily than those made in a clouded situation. For exmaple, it would be easier to make the moral decision to take the life of someone deemed evil who has no record of doing any good deed than to do so for a person who has been known to do both good and evil.  At what point does the good outweigh the bad and vice versa? That decision is difficult to make and many people are not partial to difficulty.