Computer generated transcript

Warning!
The following transcript was generated automatically from the content and has not been checked or corrected manually.

special. Okay, so the recording should have started. I'm just going to leave the call now, and I'll just pass the people on the chart to make sure they come. But good luck for the lecture. I'm sure it's going to go absolutely fantastically. And don't forget to put your feedback form in. Perfect. Thank you so much. No worries. OK, good luck. Bye. Hi. You get for the presentation. I'm sorry. Don't worry about it. People are gonna start in about maybe seven or eight minutes just to give people a chance to come into the cool. All right. Hi. I'm going to give it another couple of minutes just to see if anyone else comes in. I think, uh, we're gonna get started about by the past, okay? So high. I think we're gonna make a start now, unless any of you know anyone else who's gonna be coming to this lecture and you think it's worth waiting another minute or so. But if not, I'm just I'm going to get started. So my name is Alex. I was in HPR last year. I'm assuming that kidneys uh, visit my well and I'm gonna talk to you a bit about the philosophy essay and from experience. Um, I thought it would be best for me to cover a little bit of kind of boiling down some of the knowledge that you may need for these essays. I've had a look at your essay topics as well. You're two possible essays for this year, so go through a bit of morality and ethics. That's a very, very big kind of subject. And as you may have noticed, there's not. There's not that much specific teaching about specific ethicists, because that's not, in my opinion, really what they're looking for in this essay, uh, and then go through a bit of phenomenology because I do know that that's a that is what a lot of people can find to be a very hard topic in h p. L. Uh, I think it might be worth going through a few of the basic concepts that I mean. It is just my personal opinion. I think you might need for this essay and boiling them down to be as simple as possible, because you can get really hard if you get bogged down in the details and then I just have some personal tips for how to write a philosophy essay, Really from experience. I was working on mine at this time last year, and I was going like, crazy. Uh, and then I'll just have some time for you to ask me any questions that you want. Really? Uh, yeah, So let's get started. So as I said, I've had a look at your two different essay topics this year, so I'm just going to start with question one in a bit about. Well, question one isn't going to be really about specific knowledge that I think you need for this question, because I think it's a very, very broad question. I mean, that's the point of it. You could really take any kind of stance on this And the second question phenomenology. We're going to talk a bit about phenomenology and specifically about the parts of phenomenology that have to do with being and the experience of the world in a way that involves other people as well, which is what I think is relevant to medicine and will be relevant to this particular question as it is about contemporary medicines. So this is going to be our session structure today. I do apologize for my slides. I'm not very good at making power points, but I've done my best. Um, so we're gonna talk a bit about morality, and then we're gonna move on to phenomenology. We're going to talk about some a couple of the concepts the Heidegger brings up about phenomenology and a couple of the concepts that sandwich talks about and then just some essay tips. I have so subjective morality. One thing that I do think is important to keep in mind. Always because my main advice when it comes to writing this philosophy, essay and writing any philosophy essay is to simplify things in your mind. You can be a very daunting concept to write a philosophy, esa especially coming from medicine of all places. So I do think it's important to just remember when you're feeling overwhelmed to just go back to the basic concepts that you've started from so subjective Morality, I think, is kind of a redundant term. Really, Because if you think about the meaning, the definition of ethics versus morality, so ethics is largely they used interchangeably. Yes, colloquially. But philosophically speaking, ethics would be more of a system of moral beliefs, and it would be a system that has been built through models but exist that guides a group or a society. It's a widely accepted kind of thing. Wild morality is one's personal judgment and views about what they believe is right or wrong. So our morality in any given concept can be in line with the ethics of the society we live in. It can be opposing. We can believe that something is immoral. When our society does not. We can. There's also the gradients of how immoral we believe that is. We can believe that something is moral when our society states it's unethical. So that would be one of the things to consider the fact that Brady, when thinking about subjectivity versus objectivity, is it morality inherently subjective. But that would be an argument for you to choose to make or choose to argue against, really in this kind of essay. And I think the main way to simplify the concept. This this massive, massive concept of this essay, which is subjective moral judgments and answer really trying to answer the question in very few words of is there an inherent ethical system within human nature isn't. There is. Well, I think you you would have covered this in your ethics teaching, but I think it's the rate of guide. Geez, that can really help us here. So I'd like to remind it to you as an interesting kind of landmark to use when trying to boil down your essay and find what your argument is. So just a reminder. The ring of guy, geez is hypothetical scenario that Plato is faced with in the Republic. And what she's asked is basically, what if a man was given a ring that made him invisible and that meant that it would never, ever be consequences for his actions. And I believe that if you you've been in the class, I think you've both done it already. Uh, Greg, if it's still Greg would have asked the question. Well, did you think that morality is inherent to human nature or doing choose to be moral? And that's the question that this kind of paradigm mosques, which is quite a funny one, I think I was trying to find a good picture golden for this, but I wasn't able to, but it's a good way to think about to start asking those questions Really a good way to think about what do I think? Do I think that morality is human nature? Do I think that it's something that we display because we grow up in specific societies and we know that there will be consequences to our actions if we act in a way that is against the ethics of that society and you start from there? I think this is a good essay in the sense of it forces you to boil it down to not what other people have said about what morality is, but to try to understand what you want your own argument to be and doing your research to see if someone agrees with you and what their ideas were and how you can grow from these ideas. Some of your own, uh and honestly, my best suggestion for this essay, I do think it would. It will be very hard to do. I think it's a big, big subject, but to start with really is figure out what your stance on it is. We're not very often asked as medical students what exactly we believe about something in the sense of. There's always a information to come by. There's always something to refer back to you, which is what I think could be the main challenge here, because you do have things to refer to. But the purpose of this essay is not to say what Plato said about whether or not moral judgment. A moral judgment can be subjective. It's not just about that. It's using Cueto, too frame urine argument or using count or rolls because I would recommend if you choose, as I say, looking into some more contemporary moral philosophers as well. Uh, just don't try to get more done with too many, uh, moral philosophers. Just try and find the ones that actually talk about the specific ethical question that you're thinking about and that agree with you. That's always good. Uh and yeah, that's that really is what my ethics advice boils down to, Really. It's a massive, massive subject, and there's so many different approaches you can take to this question. But remember, you're just trying to answer a question with your own argument, and there will be people regardless of what your argument is, who support that argument. Yeah, it's not much for this one, unfortunately, but I did think that it might be useful to focus on phenomenology, considering how difficult people find it in HPI else. So once again, my philosophy remains. When in doubt, just try to simplify it in your mind when you feel like there's just too much information and too many sentences in whichever book about philosophy you're reading, just try to simplify what is the argument here? So in phenomenology, boiling it down to the simplest of terms and not bringing in the senses and all of the other aspects of phenomenology phenomenology is the philosophy have been, and it it helps sometimes to remember, uh, when you're going through trying to find all these arguments and all of these different philosophers and all of them seem to have a different perception of what phenomenology is. And I think the second part is what is important medicine, especially in the sense of why is it important in medicine? With regards to this question, phenomenology is always all about being, and a lot of phenomenology is about the the individuals experience of being versus the group's experience of being about understanding other people's experience of being considering that medicine is a profession where we have to really, really consider people's experience of being every day. I do believe the phenomenon which is very relevant, and I think that it'll be, I think, maybe even quite nice and might help you in the future to think about the ways in which phenomenal you can be used in your temporary practice so bit about flight ago. I do enjoy his moral philosophy. I find that he is one of the clearer ones when it comes to what he thinks about phenomenology and what he thinks about being so. The two states that he described that I believe a relevant overall in medicine and what you're going to have to do is first of all his overall definition of being. So he defines as design being there for being in the world. And if you think about does a nice being, they're just being just existing. Essentially. And then, as he was trying to unlock what design meant, he came up with various divisions. If you do you want to read Heidegger, there will be Division one division to like, I think, this Division three as well. It's a lot of different ways that he analyze this being. But I think the one that's relevant here and the one that will be relevant to you is Division one, which describes that the basic existential state of dozen is being in the world and this state has three different characteristics. It split into three different levels of being types of being. So the first one is being in. Being in is the principal that we exist within something that were inextricably linked to the to something we don't exist in a vacuum. The consciousness is not solitary. Eventually, which does go quite directly against the cards idea of the only thing you can prove exists is your unconsciousness. But I personally believe that this is a better argument. You can go either way. Really. The second characteristic of Division One is in the world, implying that that which we are inextricably linked to in being in is the world the world being everything around us, the existence of other consciousnesses are the consciousness of themselves, and then the last division of this is world. Essentially, what does he mean by world? So that's not just the physical world, not the physical. It's not the physical sense of a world. It's not even the physical sense of a consciousness. It's really in a world of ideas. We don't exist in a vacuum. That's the way I like to think of it, because otherwise I think it can get quite complicated. We exist within something. We exist somewhere where there are other ideas. There are other aspects outside of ourselves that we interact with. And that brings us to mid sign, which is another conclusion that highlighter makes. I like to translate. Translate is being with essentially, and it's about this relationship about how we interact with this world that were were inextricably linked to. And he states that mid sign is the A priori is the basic state of dozen that we cannot exist and are being cannot exist without this capital W world, and it can't exist without capital O others. So he argues that Darcy needs the others in order to experience and interact with. So once again, he goes quite directly against the fact that some the claim that you're gonna improve your unconsciousness. He claims that for our being for our consciousness to exist, other consciousness nous consciousnesses must exist as well. And the others in this case aunt. He defines him as not any group that the self is separate from, but that the others are all the consciousnesses that exist and share the world. This world that he talks of, So the dozen can itself be another bit complicated there. But just remember that it's not separated, really, So the conclusion here is that consciousnesses share this world, and our experience of being is there for a social one. So we're able to experience loneliness and the culture in which we belong are smaller. Mid sign, if you will, can affect our sense of being so you can see how social influences can really come into medicine. Quite a lot. Our own preconceived notions, the culture that we grew up in, are all things that we have to consider an everyday communication with patient's. And I I don't think we often think about how philosophical that is, really and exactly, Sarge, I also had two different concepts about the self that I think irrelevant. There is a third, but I really don't think it will be needed. In this essay. You can read up on him more as well. And I will. I do have a recommendation about where you can read up on philosophers in a way that is a bit more streamlined and gives you definitions for your essays. Uh, so I'll tell you that in my essay tips. So the first day that Sandra describes is being for itself. So being for itself is the observer, the observers completely focused outside of themselves. It's focused solely on Axion. It's focused solely on the external world. There is no chance for introspection when one is being for itself, the way I like to think of it, and an example that I quite enjoy about one skin. The relevance of it in medicine, which is a it's sad kind of way to minimize these subjects. But I do have to make the argument for it is basically when we think about the kind of communication that a doctor has for the patient. God, I think, is the basis of being for itself in medicine. So when doctors talking to a patient, they have to solely be outside of themselves. They were encouraged to take our own identity out of the equation in the sense of we. It's not an equal exchange of information. We are asking questions, and we're so focused on thinking about what the next question is and acting and remembering what these symptoms indicate. So we're really, completely and utterly being for itself. Ironically, considering that you do for others and that it's being for itself is outside of itself. But essentially, yeah, that's what we're trying to do. We're trying to be completely in this state of existence because there's no space for introspection when it comes to this kind of thing. There's no space for introspection. You're parking your patient in the sense of introspection, not thinking about the things that you're doing and what you're gonna ask the patient expert thinking about yourself and your perception of yourself. We're completely externalized beings in that situation. And then there's being for others, which is the observed, which is realizing that as you are being observant, you are also the observed, meaning that there's another person in front of you who is observing you and essentially start describes the state of being for others as one where the individual realizes they're being observed and starts to view themselves through the eyes of others, and this forces them to look inside themselves. And it's He describes it somewhat, not exactly violent process, but very unpleasant process of being forced to look inside yourself and consider how you view through the eyes of others and balance the way in which you are seen by the others. So the way you are objectively observed as opposed to the way you subjectively see yourself and this, according to him, makes the inherent state of being one of shame, as being for others creates an internal struggle between the objective you and that. Yeah, and that of the self. Essentially. And this is what he claims This internal struggle is what he claims is something that everyone's fighting against phenomena. Logically, I think his claim is over time, basically, But you have to whenever you're forced to become the observed. You stopped to consider this kind of relationship, and you start to consider yourself as both an objective and subjective being, Uh, that's it for phenomenology. I really do hope this helps offer a bit more clarity to you. I try to really boil down the concept of phenomenology that I do think are important and try to make them really as open as possible as well. Because I do think that it's something that is, I think, starting from a good basic understanding without getting to lock down in just a very, very specific, massive paragraphs that these men wrote to try to explain. These concepts can allow you to replace them in a context that will allow you to form your own argument, as opposed to just trying so deeply to understand exactly what specific situations of being for others off, for example. Uh, some essay tips and tricks. So research. Very important. In my opinion, I like it. But I sometimes tend to feel that if I spend, for example, a week just doing research, when I have an essay, I start to feel nervous. I start to feel like I should be doing something else. But I really do think that in this particular essay, it's really very important to have done a lot of studying a lot of research before you start writing because it's important to have an idea of what your argument is. And the more you read, the more you'll have a deeper argument and you come to enrich it. Really. And speaking for myself, I found it was actually quite upsetting when I was halfway through an essay, for example, specifically a philosophical essay, and I was reading something that I was trying to reference. And then suddenly there was a whole other dimension to my argument that I hadn't thought of that was actually really helpful. Start. Do you think that it's important to get a solid amount of research done before you even start with this essay? Have a sit down. Have a think of what do you believe your argument is, even if you can't come up with that? If you can't come up with what your main arguments going to be, go back and do some reading. Do some research of the basic things that are in your reading list as well. Just hiding a start Plato and try and threw them. See you read an argument. Do you agree with this? Do you not agree with this? If you do agree, you know which direction to head. If you don't agree, you also which direction to head. You also know which direction to head and the and also keep track of your sources because it is. You can get very overwhelming if it's the last bit of your essay that you have to do. And then suddenly you have to track down all of the sources that you need to find a definition and started to tie the definition to your text, for example. And yeah, always that. Remember what your argument is always. Just go back and try to think What was my main argument? Why did I start writing this paragraph? Because it's a lot of concepts and you can get really confusing. And I do think that for some reason, philosophy is writing a philosophy essay specifically can be very, very daunting just as a concept because it's philosophy. So remembering what your argument is why you arrived at this point in your writing is really important, and it will help you to just reorient yourselves and find your goal again. Really. And to that, also, I would suggest making up very good. That's a plan. So the way I did my essay plan, the way I would recommend well, the way I like to do my essay plan, and I don't know if that works for you or not. But I would suggest that you figure out what your central argument, what your central concept and argument is and then figure out this little size of s a two or three philosophical concepts or arguments that you're going to use to support it. Because it does depend how much you wanna say about each thing. But I think two or three is as much as you can really do. Well, actually, going into depth and yeah, simplify. Just try to simplify it in your mind and your essay doesn't have to be jogging. I'm sure you've had your session. Now if I read correctly, you had it two days ago, the guidance session for the essay. And I'm sure that they said that as well. By promise, it doesn't have to sound as complex and fancy as some of the essays that we will read. Sound. It's okay if you just make a solid argument and you right as you would normally right academically. The argument is what counts. Uh, yeah. Go about your admit. I'm sorry. I will. I do keep saying this. I know, but I think it's a hard essay, too. It's hard to say not to write necessarily, but it's a hard essay to get out of your head or because it is somewhat daunting. Yeah, and also I haven't added this hair. But if you need to understand any philosophical concept, or if you need to understand the definition of something like that, I would suggest in your research, looking through encyclopedias on online. Specifically, I like to use the Stanford Encyclopedia philosophy, which is called Plato, but that's a personal preference. Uh, but do you try and look for specific definitions and analyses for the things that you're trying to say? Because if you're trying for a definition of dozen, for example, it might be easier to not read or love Hi Dada, as opposed to trying to just boil it down and understand it from the analysis of idea himself. Uh, that makes us if you feel like reading high together, I would highly encourage it. It's it's quite fun. I enjoyed it, but you don't have to, and you don't have to get overwhelmed and nervous because it's two weeks from now and the deadlines around the corner and you really, really need a definition of design and you're just scrolling through a massive book. So that's kind of all I had to say. And I do encourage you to ask me any questions. Please. I'm here. I have this knowledge. There's not much I can do it at any more back in medicines, so yeah. Any questions? Um, you know how you were just talking about definitions and stuff? Yeah. If you were to, like, reference them in your essay, would you reference, um, say like, the encyclopedia or whatever secondary source you used to find them? Or would you try to find the reference like within high diggers original work? See, I would say I referenced them from the encyclopedia as well, and I don't think they mind it very much as long as it's essentially not, you know, Wikipedia or something, as long as it's an actually accredited kind of unsightly. But if you're just trying to find a boiled down definition of what something means as opposed to make a whole argument from it because if, for example, you're basing an argument and have to explain dozen, it is better to have a definition to have a source from the actual book because, you know it's no. It's more than just the description of what it means. But if you're just trying to define something, I would say that it's just fine to to quote an encyclopedia, essentially. All right, thank you. That's hopeful. Uh, are there any things that Greg's tends to pick up on things to improve? So I was. I was expecting Greg to be very, very tough on his marking. I didn't think he was as tough as I was expecting, but I would say the one thing I got comments on really on this essay was essentially when an argument is underdeveloped. That's why my suggestion is always don't have too many arguments in your essay because it's a very small essay by philosophy standards. And I think his pet peeve is basically starting a thread and not completing it or not really embellishing on it or not embellishing, not really growing from it as much as you should not really exploring it sufficiently. So I would say, if you are going to bring up a term if you're going to bring up a concept, it shouldn't just be a small paragraph. It shouldn't just be because you want to talk about that a little bit, but also, you want to come back to a different argument. You can reference it within an argument, but always, always just don't have how faked arguments. Really? That's not a great word. But just I know what you want to talk about. And I don't think that you need to cut down on something that is exploring the argument further. So I from my own essay, I I actually chose the terminology for my essay. Uh, it was a different question than you guys have. Um, so I mean, I'm sorry. I'm gonna try and find something. So I got my feedback was that I got a bit too bogged down on the specifics of definitions. Essentially, I spent too much time in my essay defining a concept as opposed to then making my argument for it. It's important to define your concept, but then you shouldn't take it. As for granted that someone will make the connection between the example you've put and the concept you've defined because they really want you to make that connection within the essay, basically do they want you to explain to them why you think this is relevant. Does that make sense? I hope it does. So I think I'm probably gonna do, um, like the moral subjectivity one. Um, I know you did phenomenology, but for that would do you think it's more important to just obviously have the definition of, um, like, whatever argument? But instead of getting too bogged down with, like, the specifics of the framework, just looking at the theory a bit more holistically. See, I would say that trying to look at it holistically might be very overwhelming for you because there's so much it's it's a massive question. I was I was reading and I was thinking, Oh, my God, because it's it's it could be the entirety of ethics or it could be as narrow as you make it. I would say, Choose once kind of strand of the moral argument. So do you, for example, if you think that that can be subjectivity in a moral judgment, choose one specific definition of that one specific strand of that. So, for example, if you say that they can't be some subjectivity in a moral judgment, one kind of opinion would be that there is no inherent moral system that every single human being has within themselves because that would like then be defined because, you know, you can say that everyone has their own moral system. But there's no inherent, let's say, ethical system. There's no one ethical truth. If anyone can be already subjective, you get me. So just try to focus your argument and then try and find ethicists to make similar arguments to yours so you can enrich yours and not exactly use them, but kind of show that you have read up on this. Obviously show that you know, that there is this kind of evidence. Make defend your argument. Essentially. So you're not answering the whole question. You're just answering a part of the question, essentially, essentially, yes, I think it's a massive question. That's the thing. You can't answer all of it. You have to choose. First of all, you have to choose a side. I think I'm gonna kind of link this to the question the daisy sent, Which is how much did you come to a conclusion at the end of your essay? And basically, if I picked a side so with the the ethics I said, I'm gonna go back to the actual questions, actually, Sorry, so I can look at them myself. So with the first with moral judgment, I'm not sure there's a massive question. So how what exactly could it mean to claim the moral judgment? Chances about subjective? It could mean one of a million things. You have to choose what you think it could mean and then argue for that. And when it comes to whether or not you should argue for or against it. So the first one asked you, How might one argue against this claim? I don't know how I would define that as whether it actually wants you to present both sides or whether it wants you to either say, Oh, no moral judgments are subjective or if it wants you to say no, I argue against this claim. Um, yeah, because I can't I can't quite tell that either, because it says argue against. So are you essentially supposed to propose one argument against and then explore that in different ways? Or I'm quite confused by by this question, actually. And Daisy, I would say I came to a conclusion in my essay just to come back to that because I we have. I've done philosophy a bit before, and what I was taught was always have an argument in mind in the sense of I mean, Greg doesn't agree with that. So that's my own personal preference, because we did look at an essay in our practice session. Whatever the preparatory, I don't know what it's called session last year, and that didn't come to a conclusion. And I thought that meant yes, it was bad. But it turns out it doesn't but essentially the way that I would you a philosophy essay and the way that I do think might be a way to consider it is you need to have an opinion which is once again very hard. I think it's very It's the worst daunting part of this. You need to have an opinion of your own, which is not something that will really get encouraged to have in medicine, in my opinion. So you need to have something you can't essentially just present. Oh, this is the one side. This is the other side could go either way. So I think, Yeah, I'm not sure about this first essay. I think you can try to do it one or another way. I think if you try to just present one argument of yes or no, you then have to. This second question might be hinted like, Oh, maybe you should also present some arguments against this and show why you can defeat those arguments. Okay? Or it might just be way up both sides and come to some kind of conclusion. I think you can choose to go about it either way. I mean, I don't know how else it would be. The second one, I think, is quite clear. Cut that you need to have some kind of confusion in the sense you need to be making some kind of argument. If any of you are considering the second one, Um, does that kind of cover your question? Daisy? I know I went on quite a few tangents about whether or not you should pick a side. Okay, so you're thinking of doing the first as well? Yeah, it's It's a tricky one. I will say. Okay, I'm really glad that that I can't visit because it's a big one. Yeah, I think it's Yeah. The philosophy s is quite quite a daunting bit of this, this course. Um come, But I do think it's It's okay. It's gonna be okay. I promise it'll be fine. I'm gonna go to the final side as well, because do you feel free to email me questions? Like, I'm happy to answer any questions that you have about this or about your course in general or anything. Um, and there's a feedback form that I'm supposed to send you, which I will now, because I will forget about it after I can see that Xerava is typing. I'm ready for your question if you still have one. Mhm. But yeah, that's it's It's an interesting one. This is a don't Don't be too scared of it. I know it's a scary one, but you survived Caribbean, so you can do this. God was helpful. Where you, uh do you feel in the feedback if you have a minute? Uh, just so I can see how I did. And I think they for the whole thing as well. Um, yeah. It's nice talking to you all. Good luck on your essay and good luck this year. Enjoy it. It's It's been one of my best years in uni so far. Honestly, so have a fun time, right. Bye. Thank you so much for your help.