"Generally speaking, the errors in religion are dangerous; those in philosophy only ridiculous" - David Hume. Obviously we have to consider who is saying this - David Hume is easily the most famous atheist. Being an Atheist he took a dull view of religion. There is something to be said for this idea though. Countless wars and bloodshed has been spilt over religious differences - they still are, you can't really think of any philosophy which has caused the suffering. Although one must be careful not to allow a philosophy to become your religion. I'd argue, Marx had a philosophy and this philosophy has become a religion for many. Taking this view, maybe this is the difference between philosophy and religion. Religion is dogmatic and doesn't allow room for real discussion, but a philosophy is simply a set of ideas, which are there to be discussed and exchanged. Each person can adhere to his individual philosophy without corrupting another's. This is me just playing with an idea. What do you guys think?

I came across this idea last week that critical thinking is inherent, or innate in humans. The idea is that we are rational animals and that is simply what we are able to do. It is what separates us from animals. I understand that everyone is going to have a different capacity for critical thinking, but it made me think that schools and education shouldn't teach critical thinking itself. I came to the thought that what should be taught is pure knowledge about a subject, because a lack of knowledge and facts are going to be a hindrance to how effectively one is able to critically think about a topic. Just as a doctor can critically think about a surgery, but they couldn't about the engine of a car and vice versa for the mechanic. A common problem we hear today is people are less able to think critically about the world. This would suggest the problem is that we are not teaching children enough knowledge about the world, not that we aren't teaching them to think critically, if critical thinking is innate. What do you guys think? Am I on to something?

The fear which is most commonly cited as being peoples worst is public speaking. Is it yours? Here is Aristotles guide to good Rhetoric: He was fundamentally concerned with the art of persuasion. When you are speaking, you are trying to persuade. There are three divisions of this persuasion. Political (future looking), Legal (past looking) and ceremonial (present looking). There are three things you must do: Logos. This is the logical, rational part of the audience. To appeal to this, you must give your audience as much understanding on the topic as you have. Get them up to speed with as much evidence as you have, then they can start to think. Ethos concerns YOUR reputation. It is about who is speaking to them. Are you trustworthy? Are your motives clear? Why should you be listened too? You are selling yourself to the audience. So sell yourself well. Pathos is the story. It is the emotional connection you can forge between the audience and what you're trying to tell them. You must emotionally connect them to the message, to yourself to properly convince them. He goes as far to say anger is the easiest to elicit. These are all things I am trying to do while making these courses!

Can everyone just give a little introduction to themselves? I can start. Hi, my name is Charles. I started this group because I love philosophy and trying to get better - self improvement. I also wanted find other people like me who I could teach/learn from. I am 21, study philosophy at University. I am from New Zealand. If you guys could do something similar I'd love to get the conversation going!