Was what I said wrong? My philosophy professor accused me of

>>16773989

>the fact that you (the student)
>lost your parents (an event you experienced)
>was most likely a traumatic experience for you (literally analyzing your psych)
>the human brain etc. etc. (more of me analyzing your psych

gee idk why theyd think u were psychoanalying him

>>16773989
You literally crossed several lines. You professor was being nice.

>>16773989
Yeah, that was pretty dickish of you, tbqh

>>16773989
Yes and you sound like a moron by your choice of words and the statements you made. The fact that you don't realize the latter in retrospect after someone pointed it out makes you an even bigger moron.

I'm guessing it's an online class? I'm gonna go out on a limb here and assume it is, and guess you would never say that shit in a face to face classroom...

>>16773993
>>16773996
>>16774002
Maybe I really am autistic because I don't think what I said was that bad. They could just ignore what I said and move on.

>>16774004
That's why i'm going to school. To not be a moron.

>>16773989
you were doing the thing you didn't think you were. Also, that's not psychoanalysis. It's just diagnosis.

What you should do is write a draft, then look over the draft before you submit.

>>16774014

frankly i dont think anything you said was bad or even 'that bad'. i mean it was pretentious of you to shut down someones religious views in a fucking philosophy class of all places. you also stated that like its something no ones heard before, when its something extremely common. it was the equivelent of saying 'black isnt really a color' when someone says black is their favorite color.

sure, technically. but we already knew that and its irrelevant so why bring it up?

to your professor:

>Okay, I will refrain from doing it to my classmates in the future. But I think that your need to control every statement made in this class is learned behavior on your part from having an overbearing mother.

by the way your psychoanalysis was pretty moronic so it will fit in for you to say this

File: 1407247249037.jpg (120KB, 640x483px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 640x483px

So I'm into this girl at work, and I'm pretty sure she's into me, and there's pretty much no tension as far as I can tell (I know at least one other coworker knows but she's cool), should I pursue this or do these things always end in misery? I've heard a lot of horror stories about workplace romances but are they really just doomed to fuck everything up in the workplace no matter what? Once again I have no personal reservations about going out with her and we don't really hide the attraction so it should be fine right?

tl;dr - Any anons ever date a girl they work with and live to tell about it?

>>16774074
oh man I meant for this to be a new thread fuck

Shit, someone answer me anyway, and to OP you are definitely psychoanalyzing there' you're assuming WAY too much about someone and speculating on that, even if you throw that little disclaimer at the end it's still just straight up rude if nothing else.

>>16773989
I'm a philosophy grad student.

I'd be interested in seeing more context but I feel like it's mainly a matter of what you're saying being not only speculation but speculation that comes off as a bit insensitive. So, unnecessary, unhelpful, and hurtful. Again, I'd need some more context but, regardless, I'm the type who would just hope that you'd stick to what's philosophically relevant and dock you points otherwise. I can understand why a professor whose more sensitive than I am would say that though. >>16774058
Yeah, if Hume was the issue, it's more important for you to explain why Hume would say sensing ghosts is impossible and that your classmate hasn't shown otherwise. Speculating about why your classmate believes in ghosts is irrelevant. Philosophy isn't about talking about feels.

>>16773989

More than anything, your answer reeks of someone who parrots information and doesn't actually think. You sound v. juvenile.

>>16773989

You pretty much said, "Let me tell you how you REALLY are, chump."

Phrasing is key, it wouldn't have elicited as negative a response if you put it more like, "Maybe this relates to a recent personal trauma, like the loss of a loved one," rather than bluntly declaring it to be such.

The assignment was to post answers to the questions and reply to one post. There was no requirement to relate the reply to philosophy. The objective is to discuss what others think about your answers to the questions.

Any responses were our opinions of what the students wrote. It didn't have to be helpful to the person.

>going to college for philosophy

fucking KEK

>>16773989
>Was what I said wrong?
Yes and no.
>My philosophy professor accused me of trying to psychoanalyze my classmate
You did.

>really not kosher
PROTIP: Your professor is a jew. Walk on eggshells so you don't trip off his inherent persecution complex. Hide your powerlevel if you have one.

>I have no filter, please validate me

>>16774096
Don't feel bad. This is a shit thread anyways.

>>16773989
OK Let's spell it out for you.

It is presumptuous to calim to be able to explain the thinking of someone you barely know.

It is inappropriate to do that in an academic setting, where your personal disagreements are not the subject at hand.

It is patronizing and therefore insulting to act as if you understand someone better than he understands himself.

It is implicitly egotistical and bragging, setting yourself up as smarter than the other student.

All of these things MIGHT be permissible in a private conversation with a close friend, but they are wrong in the public academic setting.

Got it?

File: Laughing-Meme-02.jpg (55KB, 991x902px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 991x902px

>>16774061
>>Okay, I will refrain from doing it to my classmates in the future. But I think that your need to control every statement made in this class is learned behavior on your part from having an overbearing mother.

I admit that I never took a philosophy class (political theory doesn't count,) but how the heck did belief in ghosts come into play? Was this an introduction post or something?

Wow, harsh. You basically diminish their experience in a condescending, presumptuous manner all while calling them stupid for their beliefs and feelings in the face of /your/ "fact" and "opinion" of hormones and how the brain works. If you truly have evidence to your statement, cite it. If your goal is to educate, do it correctly, with consideration to a neutral tone, not an accusatory one. If your goal is to tear someone apart, see >>16773989

>>16773989
Eh, 2 sides to it. No you really shouldn't mention a belief in ghosts or not especially in context of someone's dead parents. It's dickish and unnecessary.

On the other hand the teacher apparently allows the discussion to turn to ghosts and the entire concept behind the marketplace of ideas is that you can say anything that isn't an attack. And you didn't attack.

I have to know more context to make a final call but in general you shouldn't get worked up over this. Academia is a game where your part is to shut up and regurgitate 85% of what you hear. The other 15% is absolutely worth it but don't try to be some martyr over an unneeded response.

>not kosher
Oy Vey!

But frankly I agree with the sentiment, you were psychoanalyzing your classmate, which is a no-no.