Dr. Orrick's Philosophy Rap

[iHaveEyedeas]

Cool teacher, but very simple rhymes.

[pytis]

I cannot understand how someone who studies philosophy would not give a small shit about checking his facts and actually seeing how evolution works, a man of science could in no way deny such logic in the evolutionary process.

[bodhidharma78]

did he just denounce evolution?

[VerbalMechanics]

Weltanschauung

[CodacMoments]

Great Books was my favorite class. . .many great professors, but he was one of the top. If anyone is in one of his classes tell him "Bruffman" says hello.

[QrtrHrseLvr13]

He spoke at our school yesterday and rapped for us, I had to look it up :)

[AdamGodfrey]

@QrtrHrseLvr13 did he mention that it was on youtube? he didnt realize that i was filming but did approve keeping it up.

[tommyglow]

love u x

[8ball3rz]

Lol...shwong

[QxHuMptYxQ]

a Valcans shwong? what? lol.. he said shwong:)

[crashmidget15]

Seems like a cool teacher

[Zachdudeio2]

hahaha hell yeah

[eddiehatred]

This guy seems like he'd be an absolutely amazing teacher to have. Any educator that would go to that extent to get a point across has true passion for teaching, and making learning fun. The world needs more of this, and less out of touch, in it for the money educators.

[damianpiton]

this guys is asome, gives hope to the educational institutions...

jonathan

ecuador

[MaxJustMax]

Possibly one of the best things on youtube.

[elbanydaer]

Love it!

[k0n14k]

could someone post the text, it is hard to hear some things for me?

[sekouche]

Hheheheheheh Philosophy seeks to answer the questions of life and existence in general and seeksd to answer all this questions in a fundamenal way .i.e. a world view and further asa social view. While I do think that Popper is a victim of his own empiricism, thus a thinking nit-picker and nothing more

[zero42087]

nice dude. niceee

[LakshanW]

awesome dude!

[cyphi1]

nice flow....

[jgonsalk]

I think we were descended not just from primates but ultimately from this big tub of goo that drifted in the ocean. It's not romantic but it makes more sense than some dude that worked hard to six days, had a rest and then disappeared forever only dropping by to get us to kill his son and drop off a rulebook on a mountain.

[NewSeattle]

That's awesome. Respect.

[jeremiahpwns]

Oh my word, reason 2028 why Boyce is the college for me.

[appleapple1982]

got more skills then michael jordan

[ukfano3]

Dr. Orrick is the man. I miss Southern.

[zempopo]

Er does it bother anybody here that Dr. Orrick's "philosophy" rap espouses Creationism? I mean, I know this is America, but if Orrick finds it "unlikely" that mankind evolved from ameobas, he's going to struggle with a lot of modern philosophy. He seems like a nice fellow, but he should be at a pulpit, not in a classroom.

[RPer8]

I believe that the professor would question your intent here. Philosophy is the study where all things including presuppositions can be questioned. Science is not. Science begins with presuppositions, and the popular school of PHI today begins with the presupposition of uniformitarianism. However, if there is even a slight possibility that all things have not remained uniform within the supposed past 4 billion years of earth's history, then the claims of "modern science" have no basis.

[jimsyjampots]

I don't see how your argument counters that of zempopo. As a student of Philosophy, I'd also disagree with your definition of it - it's not exactly a study where all things including presuppositions can be questions, as a study which challenges presumption and dogma. Also, I have to say that I disagree with your implicit criticism of "modern science" - scientists like being proved wrong. Like Philosophers, they are merely trying to find a purer base for knowledge.

[RPer8]

Zempopo and I dialogued further on this. We came to some agreement. If I recall, we did both agree that philosophy is the foundation for all other studies. This would be our primary disagreeement. If scientists like being proved wrong, they would be philosophers first and scientists second. Science in this age assumes all is matter. Philosophy makes no presumptions about this, but works to make these assumptions known. It also goes further working in the bounds of reason to evaluate what is real

[Johnnystitches13]

*ahem* scientists LOVE to be proven wrong. For no conclusions drawn in science prove anything 100%. So they are scientists first and philosophers second if they have time for it. One of the important basis' of the empirical scientific method is to find data that DISPROVES your theory or hypothesis before finding anything that supports it.

[RPer8]

In general scientists today embrace the dogma of empiricism and material monism. They may seek to find counter arguments to their specific theories, but generally look down upon any questioning of their dogmatics. If they loved to be wrong, they would not only be willing but "love" to test this structure according to the laws of thought.

[jgonsalk]

Well, what is now called science used to be called philosophy in case you didn't know.

And yes, I agree with you whole heartedly. That's Popper's theory you talking about there. Good stuff.

[RPer8]

Sorry jimsy. I didn't ever get the msg on your comment. Johnnystitches13 had a similar reply to yours that you may look at for my thoughts. Philiosophy begins with the laws of thought. Any other study that attempts to start with other presuppositions is not philosophy. Reason is the starting point because it cannot be questioned, but is that which must be presupposed in order to question.

[Johnnystitches13]

Ah, I somewhat see where you are coming from. Just a quick thought though on monism. Is not Thought in itself simply the movement of molecules and atoms? So in that respect is it wrong to believe that everything, including thought and all of its subsequent creations, derive from a single source? Are we not all just molecules moving from one concentration gradient to the next?

[RPer8]

Can thought be reduced to a material explanation? If all is matter then thinking is motion of atoms in the brain.

Two things are identical if their properties are identical. Motion of atoms has the property up/down, fast/slow, straight/curved

Thought has the property of true/false

Can true and false be reduced to up/down, fast/slow, straight/curved?

If thinking cannot be understood in terms of matter (motion of atoms in the brain), then it is not the case that all is matter.

[Johnnystitches13]

How is thought only so black and white?

[RPer8]

Is there anything that is clear? If there is anything that is clear, thought would have to be clear as a means to understand what is clear.

[Johnnystitches13]

then how can thought be categorized as true/false?

[RPer8]

because of the assumption that some things are clear. If nothing is clear, then no distinction is clear. If no distinction is clear then there is no distinction possible between a and non-a, being and non-being, true and false, good or evil.

Some things must be clear...

[GothamDetective]

"False" is simply a label we place on an idea that ultimately conflicts with the laws of logic. "That man is a park bench" is a "false" statement only if the terms utilized carry the same meaning that they usually do. A man, defined in the sense that we understand what he is, cannot be a bench. It is illogical.

[RPer8]

I am not sure if you are intending to disagree with me. It seems that you agree. One clarification: The laws of thought are not conventional, but inescapable and self-attesting. To undermine them is to create disharmony within oneself; it is to contradict the essence of man as rational and to give up meaning. "False" is a word that is ascribed to the that which is meaningless. The word can be changed to "grue" but the falsity of a statement remains meaningless & reality stands as absolute.

[GothamDetective]

I was actually respectfully disagreeing. You differentiate between the properties of thought and motion of atoms in the brain by pointing out that the former is classified by its "true" or "false" properties, while the latter is classified by its property of motion. I was pointing out that I do not believe thoughts themselves can be true or false since they are in fact only molecular, rather, only our undertanding of specific terms seems to carry the potential to be "false".

[RPer8]

The context helps, and thank you for your amiableness. Is what you are saying T? You seem to believe so by asserting so. You believe there is an actual state which corresponds to the quals which you ascribe to it in its being T. Thoughts are said to be T or F based upon their corrspndnce to reality. To hold thghts as molecular is to hold an assumptn which can be tested. My relevant concern is that you state we can only evaluate terms, when in fact this itsf is a eval of metaphyscal reality.

[GothamDetective]

Hm... I see now the confusion. I think I can assume that our primary disagreement will rest on the concept of assumptions themselves. You seemed to be assuming that thoughts can be more than molecular so you met that end by seeing their "true" or "false" nature as objective.(?) I am asserting that because scientifically there is enough explanation already for what thoughts really are that therefore the terms T&F are actualll simple labels we place on illogical ideas.

[RPer8]

Forgive my bluntness. The limited characters require it. Your claim appears to be self-referentially absurd. You are free to assert that T&F are conventions, but does that not then make your claim itself a convention? And it seems that you have infused your science with assumptions of empiricism. Where there are logical gaps, science cannot be made to fill in. Please spell out for me why you believe "scientifically there is enough explanation for what thoughts" are. PM me if necessary. Thanks.

[GothamDetective]

Through this discussion my opinion has changed due to the extra thought I put into it in order to reply to you. I'm not quite sure about this anymore so I'm not qualified to submit a worth-while opinion. I'm not sure you're right but I'm not sure I am either. My apologies.

[RPer8]

There is no apology needed. Your thoughtfulness and concern for consistency is worth more than any mere words. I believe there is an argument to show that the mind is not the brain and I would be happy to share it with you for your critique. This would be well suited for the current state of the discussion. I hope to discuss more if/when you are open to it.

[RPer8]

Hey Gotham. I'd be glad to hear what your thoughts are on this topic as of late. Cheers.

[gunsparky]

I'm impressed. Nice way to get across a what some consider a very try topic.

Go to the top of the class and stay there.

[Ryherd]

We all know Orrick is brilliant, but this is amazing. He should put this on his next CD.

[infernalnuisance]

Hahaha. That's amazing. I'm hopefully going to Boyce College next fall...this makes me want to even more. =]

[KingOfTheBritains]

what school is this?

[simononona]

The man is a genius!

[KingOfTheBritains]

that was fantastic, utterly fantastic.

[Beeza2996]

fucking hilarious!

[eyethesuicide]

I like the lyrics... I'd rather read it on a paper, rather than hear it in... rap form

[DCAPWON]

Thas dope. I like this dude. He didn't flip many styles but he had funny punch lines and intelligent words. Now all he's gotta work on is his breath control. Big ups and much respect 2 this Professor (and tha guy who was smart enough 2 record it on his camera phone).

[elcat9091]

that was very good, surprisingly good and better than most rap songs. lots of effort into that. :)

[coltraneburrito]

Can somebody get the Lyrics to this and post them here.

[thinedd]

That's what I call an awesome professor. Great guy!

[JefferyHunt]

He is an Awesome Professor. I had him for English.

[lisafeder]

I wish my professor was this good. I fall asleep so many times in philosophy class. Good job!

[greenteachai]

dude. he used to be my pastor.

[christiansis62]

Amazing!!!

[HoosierPastor]

Seriously awesome!

[BroChris225]

That's awesome.  I wish I could go to Boyce just so I could take one of his classes.

[preacherkidd]

I was there that day and I have to say, that was the best thing I'd ever seen done at Boyce, especially by a professor.

[phatalbert1000]

Dr. Orrick is the greatest!

[daywalt95]

I have a whole new respect for Dr. Orrick now!

[pojergrizzlybear]

that was incredible

[daustinkratzer2007]

Instant YouTube classic!