Week 3-- I Kant believe I was able to comprehend most of this lesson! lol

Thank you for the encouragement last week Prof. Foster! I definitely relied on it when I started reading this week!!

So this week was definitely a challenge and that is a conservative statement. In addition to learning about new philosophers and their contributions to the discipline of philosophy we had to read and interpret what at times seemed to be unintelligible language. I had to read the material several times in order to understand it, but I must say that the book was correct when it read that if we were able to understand Kant's material we would be rewarded by having done something that to many was very difficult.

I found it interesting to see that even philosophers (who are expected to be objective) still find a way to bend their discipline to conform with their own religious beliefs, as did Berkeley to align with christianity. Despite whatever great contributions he might have offered philosophy all of his contributions must be held to the strictest level of skepticism.

I must add that at first I found the material to be lacking a relation to what I thought philosophy should be about; I thought who cares about the spatial and temporal relation that objects have in our minds? But after having some time to reflect, I noticed that the material had more to do with my philosophy (and why I might take a certain position) in regard to important subjects, than where a "book is located in my room"

After reading this material it is clear why a law school admissions team may prefer a student take a philosophy class over a law class. The law school can always teach you the law but you have to already come in knowing how to "think" or at least understand your own pattern of logic.

Also, I wonder if privately judges consider themselves philosophers or interpreters.