Philosophical question

Now you have done it, GoNavy.

You have attracted the attention of........................


THE CHAMELEON !!!




You are in for it now, brother.
Think twice, type once.

 

Funny, I feel we do too much.

 

Re: Re: Philosophical question

The old school of social pathology which you talk about was called Positivism. This was the theory of the man who is considered the father of sociology, sociologist, August Comte. Comte coined the word sociology.

Positivism is the view that serious sociological inquiry should not search for ultimate causes from some outside source, but must confine itself to the study of relations of specific measurable facts which were directly accessible to observation.

Modern problems can't be measured in this way. Modern sociologists merely attempt to understand existing social phenomena. There are so many interrelations going on in today’s society that the causes of social ills have become more obscure. Sociology has become interpretative instead of scientific.

Studies of happiness and satisfaction are things that can't be accurately measured, because different people have different degrees of needs and wants, plus with the many different cultures in the world, with their different societal norms and mores, there is even disagreement of what happiness and satisfaction mean. What makes you or me happy or satisfied, doesn't do the same for Osama.

The old "are you happy with your job?" can be useful in discussing the mood of a population, but it cannot offer an explanation. In other words, it is useless in any attempt to solve the problem. A useless measure. Now you might find a study on happiness or satisfaction about specific groups of people like those suffering with cancer or other illness. What were the groups of cancer patients that were happy doing differently then those who were then unhappy, then learn from that. These can be valid because they are limited.

But overall broad claims that "such and such" or "so and so" are the problems, seem to be illogical.

Hence my post that I wrote at 6 o'clock in the morning on Saturday after being up all night.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Philosophical question

This is a good question. No I don't want to be a 70 year old professional student carrying around a cup of coffee on campus trying to impress the young girls with my academic prowess. But I do like school and it has probably saved my life. I was having serious drug and alcohol problems and the structure of college life, the immediate gratification of grades, hanging around people that were trying to improve themselves, and the girls.... Well I got three years clean and sober two weeks before graduation.

Plus I found out I was good at it. It really isn't that hard. If you go to class and turn in your stuff on time, go to office hours, you can't help but learn.

But I have goals professionally that will require further degree's (paper). Plus when you quit you got to start paying back the loans, and you had better have a good job.

So I'm doing my masters in sociology/criminal justice and will either get a complimentary masters in counseling or a PhD. in criminology so I can get a good position in the Department of Corrections in the area of offender rehabilitation.

In hte meantime I am trying to get a job as a Probation and Parole Officer. But things are tight here. So while I wait for things to break on that front I'm cooking at a nice restaurant. $7.50 an hour, it helps.

 

Re: Re: Re: Philosophical question

Okay, first off, I actually agree with your first post. I actually had a thread on here quite a while ago about something similar. Personally, I see EVERYTHING as subjective, whether measurable or not. Objective reality is unknowable.

Second, please don't assume I know nothing about sociology. With a minor in anthro (a major isn't offered, but I've taken enough classes to get one), I know alot more than most people on this board about that subject. It still doesn't qualify me for a job, but I'm not ignorant on the subject either. Most of the historical people in sociology cross over nicely into anthropology.

Third, since you say that sociology is more "interpretive" than scientific, explain how it's different than philosophy? Without the science, it's only based on observations without data to back it up. If that's the case, which I doubt very seriously, then it IS just philosophy. If you agree that social research still consists of data gathering (qualitative or quantitative data), then you should also agree that there's still a great deal of science involved in sociology.

And fourth, going back and reading, my post seems harsh (surprise, surprise...I have a knack for that). I really don't mean it to be. Like I said, I do agree with your original post.

 

Oh yeah, I'm so feared on here! Run for the hills! Turn off the screen and step away from the computer.

Basically, my showing up on a thread usually only means that ithere will be about 3 or 4 more pages of useless argument added. But I guess everybody has to have some sort of talent.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Philosophical question

Let me get this straight, you went to college... so that you would NOT drink!? And I suppose you live next to a strip club so that you won't think about sex...

Seriously - that's a great accomplishment... And if it makes you happy, more power to ya...

Back to the original topic - I agree with you... I don't think anything is absolute.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Philosophical question

And his question confused you how exactly?

 

DO I have this right? North Korea does not have oil. Thus, North Korea is/are better global citizens.

back to you, brad.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Philosophical question

lol I see your point.

I've only been to one college, this one, and though I know from research that drinking by collge students is a serious problem, it doesn't seem to be a problem at our campus. At least I have never seen anybody drunk there. I go to a Historicall Black College, (HBCU) and while the use of marijuana is chronic (pun intended) I haven't seen alcohol to be a problem.

But I didn't go to college to quit drinking, I just found that it seemed to compliment the changes I was trying to make.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Philosophical question

I don't think your posts have been harsh, you have chosen to discuss what sociology is or isn't, and that’s cool. We are learning that there is vast disagreement among sociologists themselves of what their role is. The professor I have now is a fascinating brilliant man. He had four majors as an undergrad and got his PhD. as an Anthropologist. He states the reason he has chosen to focus on sociology, is because he was disillusioned by what he believe anthropology to be about. That is, the study of societies without offering any solutions. He believes that anthropology is the scientific study of society, while sociology is a more comprehensive examination that includes philosophies as well as scientific data, with the goal of offering solutions. A broad look at solving serious problems using all of the techniques that are available. In fact, most of the prominent modern sociologist including Shaw & McKay and their “Social Disorganization Theory, and Park & Burgess with their “Concentric Zone Model” invent their own techniques.

Besides, the input and observations i get from the WERA BBS has become vital to my study on "Deviant Behavior."

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Philosophical question

If you do pay back you loans, your parents will thank you. I'm still paying on $60K of college loans for daughters. Only another 10 years to go. Good luck (no sarcasm intended).

Starting salary in this County (with the second-highest per-capita income in PA) is about double your cook's salary (Tips included). Better hours, but you do have to work in a government office building.

Maybe that cooks pay is not so bad after all.

Don't want to bust your bubble, but I don't buy that crap. Sorry, 35-ish years of dealing with a§§holes does that to me.

Offender's don't rehabilitate. They become repeat offenders. That is a very nice PC term for a§§holes. I deal with people with numerous convictions day in, day out. People that lie to get back on the street to further thier agenda, be it greed for money, power, sexual domination, aggression or dope.

But, offender rehab is a paycheck....

...and I've got to get back to work getting that kiddie rapist back from NJ.

Good luck with your studies.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Philosophical question

Well, this offender rehabilitated himself. I was one DWI away from 5 years of prison. But I interned in a P&P office and saw the disillusionment not just in the officers, but in the offenders as well. What we are doing right now with the custodial monitoring of offender compliance, baby-sitting, hid-and-seek, doesn't work. I am looking big picture of getting in to the upper levels of corrections where I can help formulate a change in these attitudes.

But I have no illusions that the bureaucracy and offender bullshit might get me down, but I’m gonna try. I see myself down the road as probably a professor of Criminal Justice at my Alma Mater. I got an idea that’s where I’ll end up. But I’m gonna enjoy the ride for now.

Being 48 years old, beside the fact that they have both passed on, my parents haven't been part of the financial picture for some time. Heck, I might pass on before I get done with school.

But the main reason I am getting back into racing is to leave these pressures behind. I bought a Champion Dirt Track frame last night. So I’m gonna do Vintage Road Race and Flat Track!

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Philosophical question

Heck, I don't even have to ask myself a question and I confuse me...

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Philosophical question

First, congrats on 158 weeks one day at a time. It is an accomplishment. One day is an accomplishment and that is all each of us get. Keep it up and I hope you get a chance to make a difference in a bunch of peoples lives.

Second, IMHO, you got clean because you were graciously given a moment of clarity and decided you wanted to stop. Again, IMHO, it was not because of the change in your environment or even because you wanted to impress the young, nubile college campus fodder...

 

north korea has at least a formidable army.

back to you old old old man.

 

i wanna see a report card!

 

Formidable as in.... consripts providing lots of cannon fodder, old-style AK-47s, an air defense force that can't train because it can't buy fuel to fly, obsolete/obsolescent Soviet-era T-55 tanks with some T-72's mixed in that proved to be death traps in GW I and GW II, RPGs? You mean that formidable army?

5 points for me.

Granted, they have the advantage of fighting in thier back yard in mountainous country.

1.5 points for you.

Back to you, young-un.

 

If we had to fight Korea, we wouldn't have to fight them on the ground, because we wouldn't be trying to liberate them (Iraq) or repel them (Kuwait, Vietnam). It would be strictly punishment and could be done completely with air power. No need for ground forces. It would be a walk in the park unless China or Russia took sides. Which is a possibility.

 

There would still be a ground fight. The ROK troops would be greatly involved with that.

Them and the US 8th Army. At least I think it's the 8th that is sattioned in S. Korea.