University Of Belgrade Faculty Of Philosophy Puns

Hey! I know nothing about life today in Serbia. That’s why I ask. I’ve always been curious about life there. I don’t know, it is just such an interesting country to me. Would love to revisit soon.

Anyway, yeah, how’s public education there? how’s uni? what about the Filosofka Fakulteta (do forgive me if I wrote it wrong, please!)

Thank you.

Edit: Ok haha, it’s actually Filozofska* Edit: Nope, it’s Filozofski Fakultet... soz

"Study. Read. Watch YouTube debates with the leading apologists. Listen to quality podcasts. Enroll in MOOCs (massively open online courses). If you haven’t read their books already, I’d start with the Four Horsemen and Michael Shermer (I suggest beginning with Harris and Shermer and ending with Dawkins and Dennett). From there, read select Platonic dialogues (the Republic, the Apology, the Euthyphro, the Gorgias) and move to key works by Nietzsche (The Dawn, Thus Spoke Zarathustra: A Book for All and for None, Beyond Good and Evil, On The Genealogy of Morality, Twilight of the Idols, and The Antichrist).

To prevent doxastic closure it’s also important to read the work of noted apologists. The only two I’d suggest are Alvin Plantinga and William Lane Craig, though I’d urge you not to buy their books; their projects don’t need your support. If you must buy one of their books buy it used and support a local bookstore, this way the author doesn’t receive any royalties."

Hi Reddit, i would to know how hard it is to find a job once you finish at this uni :O or if you know any one who finished this uni with masters... please let me know how the experience has been post uni. Thanks.

Part one: Conflict of the faculties

I am thinking of articles like the one posted recently, how "philosophy could be making you depressed" or how a bunch of psychologists come together to say that, " Reasoning supports utilitarian resolution and deontology is motivated by emotions " (there is a more nuanced thread about this in askphilosophy) in comparison to Zizek's critique of the "new" APA guidelines.

I am also thinking about how Zen/karmic/self-help psychological-philosophies fit neatly into this capitalist cost-benefit analysis when it comes to our interpersonal relationships, compared to "the philosopher's" ' *almost endless* capability to, lets say, 'absorb conflict' / or give the benefit of the doubt to even the wildest assertions... or even a step forward than that, this kantian ethic of treating others as ends in themselves.

I saw a post on /r/ science where Psychologists are saying that DEplatforming people is good for societal collective mental health... another post about how being a devil's advocate is actually a form of "toxicity" ..... whereas the strategy of the philosophers, on the other hand, is to give the side you disagree with as much benefit of the doubt as possible before you show that they are ultimately wrong in their assertions.... Philosophers are always open to playing with dangerous ideas, and are more likely to defend an agora-like public sphere.... meanwhile, psychologists tell us to cut these people/world views that "do not serve us" out from our lives. (side note: do all my ideas have to serve me?)

For the Hegelian philosopher, Conflict is a ritualistic offering to the possibility of actualizing a public good. For the American psychological association, you need to manage your emotions efficiently so that you can mentally survive/thrive... a much more individualistic? endeavor.

PS: side but related question: is my belief in socialism a psychological "limiting narrative" when it comes to my relationship with making more profits / exploiting surplus labor in our capitalist system?

PPS: In Witches, Terrorists, and the Biopolitics of the Camp (2018), Cynthia Barounis explains how an ‘aective turn’ perhaps asks us to supplement “our paranoid models with reparative ones” (217) before concluding that “Sometimes what looks like paranoia may simply be a matter of having learned to see wh

The text of the email sent to parents: Dear University of Oregon community,

Thank you for your ongoing efforts to protect yourselves and others against COVID-19 as we all came back together for fall term.

The university is closely monitoring the worldwide increase in COVID-19 cases and the emergence of the Omicron variant. Public health experts continue to stress that vaccines are the most powerful tool for protecting health and reducing serious illness from COVID-19. This is encouraging given the highly vaccinated status on our campus and other, existing mitigation steps. Recent scientific data overwhelmingly supports the effectiveness of booster shots.

Due to the expected spread of the Omicron variant, Oregon Public Health officials are urging everyone to get their COVID-19 booster vaccination as soon as they are eligible. Per Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines, individuals 16 and older should get their booster six months after receiving a second dose of Pfizer or Moderna vaccine and two months after getting the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.

In support of this public health guidance and to protect our community, the UO will require all students, faculty, and staff to receive a COVID-19 booster as soon as they are eligible, upon final review of existing research and government guidance. Details about the deadlines, uploading records, and process for this requirement will be announced as soon as they are finalized.

We encourage all who are eligible to add getting their booster shot to their winter break to-do list.

You can do so by attending a public vaccination clinic, working with your medical provider, or working to get an appointment with a local pharmacy. To learn more about boosters and the Lane County Public Health drop-in clinics that are now available visit the COVID-19 Resources website.

With more than 95 percent of students, faculty, and staff currently vaccinated, we have helped to keep our campus and community healthy. Boosters are the next step in the evolving public health strategy in which we have adapted and responded as a community during the pandemic. During winter term, we will also continue to rely on our layered health strategies such as wearing masks, testing protocols, and conducting case management.

Again, thank you for your vigilance and resilience. I know the uncertainty and anxiety caused by the pandemic is wearing on us all. I hope that you are able to take some time in the coming weeks for re

Saw this on /r/science and thought it was applicable to this sub.

https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/713744

“If you go into medical schools, you’ll see that Indians, South Asians are now rising stars. In medicine, they’re sort of the new Jews, I guess, but these diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives are poisoning the scientific establishment and the medical establishment now,” said Wax, who is Jewish.

Source -: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/penn-law-rebukes-professor-said-us-better-fewer-asians-rcna10905

Part one: Conflict of the faculties

I am thinking of articles like the one posted recently, how "philosophy could be making you depressed" or how a bunch of psychologists come together to say that, " Reasoning supports utilitarian resolution and deontology is motivated by emotions " (there is a more nuanced thread about this in askphilosophy) in comparison to Zizek's critique of the "new" APA guidelines.

I am also thinking about how Zen/karmic/self-help psychological-philosophies fit neatly into this capitalist cost-benefit analysis when it comes to our interpersonal relationships, compared to "the philosopher's" ' *almost endless* capability to, lets say, 'absorb conflict' / or give the benefit of the doubt to even the wildest assertions... or even a step forward than that, this kantian ethic of treating others as ends in themselves.

I saw a post on /r/ science where Psychologists are saying that DEplatforming people is good for societal collective mental health... another post about how being a devil's advocate is actually a form of "toxicity" ..... whereas the strategy of the philosophers, on the other hand, is to give the side you disagree with as much benefit of the doubt as possible before you show that they are ultimately wrong in their assertions.... Philosophers are always open to playing with dangerous ideas, and are more likely to defend an agora-like public sphere.... meanwhile, psychologists tell us to cut these people/world views that "do not serve us" out from our lives. (side note: do all my ideas have to serve me?)

For the Hegelian philosopher, Conflict is a ritualistic offering to the possibility of actualizing a public good. For the American psychological association, you need to manage your emotions efficiently so that you can mentally survive/thrive... a much more individualistic? endeavor.

PS: side but related question: is my belief in socialism a psychological "limiting narrative" when it comes to my relationship with making more profits / exploiting surplus labor in our capitalist system?

PPS: In Witches, Terrorists, and the Biopolitics of the Camp (2018), Cynthia Barounis explains how an ‘aective turn’ perhaps asks us to supplement “our paranoid models with reparative ones” (217) before concluding that “Sometimes what looks like paranoia may simply be a matter of having learned to see wha

Part one: Conflict of the faculties

I am thinking of articles like the one posted recently, how "philosophy could be making you depressed" or how a bunch of psychologists come together to say that, " Reasoning supports utilitarian resolution and deontology is motivated by emotions " (there is a more nuanced thread about this in askphilosophy) in comparison to Zizek's critique of the "new" APA guidelines.

I am also thinking about how Zen/karmic/self-help psychological-philosophies fit neatly into this capitalist cost-benefit analysis when it comes to our interpersonal relationships, compared to "the philosopher's" ' *almost endless* capability to, lets say, 'absorb conflict' / or give the benefit of the doubt to even the wildest assertions... or even a step forward than that, this kantian ethic of treating others as ends in themselves.

I saw a post on /r/ science where Psychologists are saying that DEplatforming people is good for societal collective mental health... another post about how being a devil's advocate is actually a form of "toxicity" ..... whereas the strategy of the philosophers, on the other hand, is to give the side you disagree with as much benefit of the doubt as possible before you show that they are ultimately wrong in their assertions.... Philosophers are always open to playing with dangerous ideas, and are more likely to defend an agora-like public sphere.... meanwhile, psychologists tell us to cut these people/world views that "do not serve us" out from our lives. (side note: do all my ideas have to serve me?)

For the Hegelian philosopher, Conflict is a ritualistic offering to the possibility of actualizing a public good. For the American psychological association, you need to manage your emotions efficiently so that you can mentally survive/thrive... a much more individualistic? endeavor.

PS: side but related question: is my belief in socialism a psychological "limiting narrative" when it comes to my relationship with making more profits / exploiting surplus labor in our capitalist system?

PPS: In Witches, Terrorists, and the Biopolitics of the Camp (2018), Cynthia Barounis explains how an ‘aective turn’ perhaps asks us to supplement “our paranoid models with reparative ones” (217) before concluding that “Sometimes what looks like paranoia may simply be a matter of having learned to see