The next meeting of FAHE will be at Wilmington College this June.
As it so happens, I've recently relocated to Wilmington, OH. I'm not currently teaching, but I look forward to seeing F/friends if time allows.
I've only just found John Fitzgerald's blog, but this post in particular may be of interest to those reading this blog:
On Being a Quaker and a Philosopher.
Tuesday, May 15, 2012
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
Visualizing a Healthy Planet
Modern Quakers don’t talk a lot about faith and hope, but they are an important part of our relationship to the earth and to God. Seeing the world through spiritual eyes requires that we see the kingdom of heaven both as not yet and as already here. For centuries the populations of two of the largest nations on Earth, India and China, remained trapped in abject poverty and showed no signs of progress. But in the last twenty years both these nations have experienced a huge shift which has lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty. When people rise out of poverty they have fewer children and they use resources more efficiently. When we visualize a healthy planet I think we want to visualize good lives for all Earth’s people. Visualize all the world’s poor finding productive jobs and being able to live decent, comfortable lives.
With the Cold War over, only the United States remains fully militarized. We spend as much on war and preparations for war as the rest of the world combined. If this changed, it would mean a huge transfer of resources towards constructive activity. At the moment about half of America’s engineers are employed designing weapons. Visualize all those engineers working steadily away at making little improvements in solar panels, electric cars, commuter trains, etc.
And we should not be afraid to dream big dreams. Imagine the Sahara Desert covered with a solar energy grid supplying the energy needs of both Europe and Africa. Imagine huge wind farms on the great plains of Siberia supplying clean energy to China and Russia. A healthy planet does not require that people go back to living in the Stone Age. The way humans live on this planet now is not sustainable. But that is because we believe we must live with war and with a huge gap between rich and poor. A world of peace and social justice would be a world of small families living in modest comfort. Such a world is not impossible in the least. It is a dream we must dream with all the passion and the faith we can muster to make it real.
The prophets of Israel looked and saw a spiritual picture of how God’s world could and would be. They visualized “every man neath his vine and fig tree” beating swords into ploughshares. Faith and hope tap into the power of God and make visions real.
With the Cold War over, only the United States remains fully militarized. We spend as much on war and preparations for war as the rest of the world combined. If this changed, it would mean a huge transfer of resources towards constructive activity. At the moment about half of America’s engineers are employed designing weapons. Visualize all those engineers working steadily away at making little improvements in solar panels, electric cars, commuter trains, etc.
And we should not be afraid to dream big dreams. Imagine the Sahara Desert covered with a solar energy grid supplying the energy needs of both Europe and Africa. Imagine huge wind farms on the great plains of Siberia supplying clean energy to China and Russia. A healthy planet does not require that people go back to living in the Stone Age. The way humans live on this planet now is not sustainable. But that is because we believe we must live with war and with a huge gap between rich and poor. A world of peace and social justice would be a world of small families living in modest comfort. Such a world is not impossible in the least. It is a dream we must dream with all the passion and the faith we can muster to make it real.
The prophets of Israel looked and saw a spiritual picture of how God’s world could and would be. They visualized “every man neath his vine and fig tree” beating swords into ploughshares. Faith and hope tap into the power of God and make visions real.
Monday, January 24, 2011
A Short History of the Protestant Reformation
Human beings are evil. Everything we do is evil. Any appearance of humans seemingly doing good things is an illusion. When a person seems to be doing something good it is actually God who is doing the good act. The person remains completely evil. There is no such thing as free will which would allow people to choose to do good or choose to do evil. We are all evil and have no choice about it. Since everyone is evil without a single ounce of goodness, justice demands that everyone go to hell and suffer for eternity. Jesus however was perfectly good. He did not deserve any suffering at all because he was perfectly good. However, he did suffer and die. Now comes the really tricky part. God can now pardon any sinner he chooses to pardon because his sense of justice has been satisfied by the fact that an innocent person has been punished. Since everyone is equally and completely guilty God has no basis at all for pardoning one person rather than another. So he grants this pardon to some people for no reason at all and withholds this pardon from others for no reason at all. Those whom he pardons are those to whom he gives the “gift of faith.” (This is where it all comes around full circle.) Being given the gift of faith means God has caused you to believe the tricky part! Faith is believing what I called the tricky part. How do we know this is true? It is true because this is what Paul says in his epistles, chiefly Romans. Now Christians had read Paul for fifteen centuries before Luther picked him up and nobody ever found this doctrine in Paul before. How do we know this is what Paul meant? Well, because this is the “plain and obvious” reading of Paul and being given the gift of faith means that you do find this in Paul. Not being able to find this in Paul means you have not been given the gift of faith and so are not among the lucky to be pardoned. Sorry about that. Maybe you will just get lucky later. As one of the blessed lucky few I’ll pray for you. As for me I’m feeling really happy and relieved that I will spend eternity in paradise because I do believe the tricky part.
Saturday, January 22, 2011
Focus in the Classroom
This semester I am trying two new things in my classes.
First of all, I am declaring the classroom a "technology-free" zone. While in the past I've only had a few students bring laptops, and those students have been good students who remained highly engaged in class, last semester suddenly a lot of students started bringing laptops and smartphones, using them in ways that clearly disengaged them from class discussions. It also became clear that those students missed a lot that we went over in class. So, this semester I am going to ban laptop computers, cell phones, and smartphones from class, explaining that I want us to focus on each other and on the discussion happening in the classroom.
Second, I am going to start each class with five minutes of quiet meditation. I have in the past used meditation in some classes, where it was obviously relevant to introduce students to a variety of meditation techniques. And the students have really loved this. And so now I've decided to do this in all of my classes, and for every class session, simply because it is good for us. It quiets the mind, and prepares us all to focus.
Related to both of the above, I am going to make time now and then to talk in class about how to think more consciously about how we live our lives.
I'll report back about how this goes.
First of all, I am declaring the classroom a "technology-free" zone. While in the past I've only had a few students bring laptops, and those students have been good students who remained highly engaged in class, last semester suddenly a lot of students started bringing laptops and smartphones, using them in ways that clearly disengaged them from class discussions. It also became clear that those students missed a lot that we went over in class. So, this semester I am going to ban laptop computers, cell phones, and smartphones from class, explaining that I want us to focus on each other and on the discussion happening in the classroom.
Second, I am going to start each class with five minutes of quiet meditation. I have in the past used meditation in some classes, where it was obviously relevant to introduce students to a variety of meditation techniques. And the students have really loved this. And so now I've decided to do this in all of my classes, and for every class session, simply because it is good for us. It quiets the mind, and prepares us all to focus.
Related to both of the above, I am going to make time now and then to talk in class about how to think more consciously about how we live our lives.
I'll report back about how this goes.
Saturday, September 25, 2010
Public vs. Private
As a society we have divided into Red and Blue ghettoes. Liberals and conservatives talk only to each other and look with contempt on those in the opposite camp. The complaints that each side makes about the other offer a curious parallel. Conservatives claim that liberals are too individualistic when it comes to sex. There need to be public standards of sexual behavior, conservatives think. Liberals tend to think that homosexuals should be allowed to marry, that adults should not discourage teenagers from having sex so long as they use condoms, that women can raise children just fine without fathers, that high divorce rates are nothing to worry about and that couples living together for short or long periods of time without marriage is fine and healthy. Conservatives tend to disagree with all of the above. They would usually encapsulate their views on sex as “supporting marriage” and they would describe this collection of liberal attitudes as “attacking marriage.” In short, conservatives think that sex is not a purely private matter and that society as a whole should exercise some measure of control over the sexual behavior of individuals. Hard line conservatives want standards of sexual conduct enforced with legal sanctions. Liberal individualism about sex is seen as promotion of selfishness that is destructive to a healthy social order. Conservatives see a social order breaking down with harmful effects on everyone. Leaving individuals completely “free” to pursue their own sexual happiness leads to the destruction of the familial relations which are the essential to the health of society and ultimately to the happiness of individuals themselves. The search for sexual gratification unrestricted by social sanctions of any kind paradoxically leads to individual misery.
When it comes to money conservatives think that liberals are not individualistic enough. Here the key word is not “marriage” but “socialism.” Liberals want the government to be active in solving some of society’s problems. Government should place restrictions of business to protect the environment from degradation, to protect workers from discrimination based on sex or race, to protect consumers from dangerous and defective products. They want society to support healthcare, education, and public transportation. Liberals recognize that all this costs money and see nothing wrong with taxing the rich to pay for it. When it comes to money, conservatives think, individuals should do whatever they want and the public needs to back off. Taxes should be low and rates should not be higher for the wealthy. People should pay for their own medical care and for the educational needs of their own children. If they feel their employer is discriminating against them, they should quit and find a new job. Consumers should protect themselves by researching products before they buy them. And finally, the threat that unrestricted business activity poses to the environment is wildly exaggerated.
Looking at society from the liberal point of view reverses all this as if looking into a mirror. Conservative resistance to “socialism” is a sign of selfish individualism which blinds itself to public good. Economic activity is too important to be left to unrestricted free markets. Laissez faire capitalism would naturally destroy our natural environment, reduce the middle class to poverty, and ultimately destroy itself by collecting more and more wealth into fewer and fewer hands. Common sense demands a measure of public control of economic activity because completely “free” economic activity leads to moral disaster. On the sexual side of things, conservatives lack respect for individuals and their power to make choices unconstrained by society. The conservative sneer at “socialism” in economic matters is paralleled here by the liberal sneer at the “Puritanism” of conservatives.
The Red/Blue divide thus takes the shape of a disagreement about where to draw the line between public and private. Liberals want sexual relations to be purely private but think there should be a larger measure of public control of economic relations. Conservatives believe that society must support marriage and exert some measure of control over personal sexual behavior but that society should never interfere with “capitalistic acts between consenting adults.” Both sides see themselves as being unbending defenders of freedom where they think such freedom is appropriate and as being sensible opponents of due restraint where they think that such “freedom” is actually selfish irresponsibility.
In 1982 MacIntyre described our modern situation as a desolate one in which people could not reason with each other about what was right and what was wrong and instead could only express their anger and engage in ruthless political maneuvering to achieve their own favored ends. Now that we are in the second decade of the 21st century the modern situation looks even more like this than it did in 1982. Few, very few, liberals will actually make a serious attempt to argue that unrestricted sexual behavior will actually promote the well-being of society. Generally this is simply assumed and those who disagree are sneered at. Few, very few, conservatives will actually make a serious attempt to argue that the invisible hand of the marketplace solves all problems in the long run. Generally the mere use of the label “socialism” is considered enough of an argument.
Pity the poor moderate who seeks compromise and gets sneered at by both sides.
When it comes to money conservatives think that liberals are not individualistic enough. Here the key word is not “marriage” but “socialism.” Liberals want the government to be active in solving some of society’s problems. Government should place restrictions of business to protect the environment from degradation, to protect workers from discrimination based on sex or race, to protect consumers from dangerous and defective products. They want society to support healthcare, education, and public transportation. Liberals recognize that all this costs money and see nothing wrong with taxing the rich to pay for it. When it comes to money, conservatives think, individuals should do whatever they want and the public needs to back off. Taxes should be low and rates should not be higher for the wealthy. People should pay for their own medical care and for the educational needs of their own children. If they feel their employer is discriminating against them, they should quit and find a new job. Consumers should protect themselves by researching products before they buy them. And finally, the threat that unrestricted business activity poses to the environment is wildly exaggerated.
Looking at society from the liberal point of view reverses all this as if looking into a mirror. Conservative resistance to “socialism” is a sign of selfish individualism which blinds itself to public good. Economic activity is too important to be left to unrestricted free markets. Laissez faire capitalism would naturally destroy our natural environment, reduce the middle class to poverty, and ultimately destroy itself by collecting more and more wealth into fewer and fewer hands. Common sense demands a measure of public control of economic activity because completely “free” economic activity leads to moral disaster. On the sexual side of things, conservatives lack respect for individuals and their power to make choices unconstrained by society. The conservative sneer at “socialism” in economic matters is paralleled here by the liberal sneer at the “Puritanism” of conservatives.
The Red/Blue divide thus takes the shape of a disagreement about where to draw the line between public and private. Liberals want sexual relations to be purely private but think there should be a larger measure of public control of economic relations. Conservatives believe that society must support marriage and exert some measure of control over personal sexual behavior but that society should never interfere with “capitalistic acts between consenting adults.” Both sides see themselves as being unbending defenders of freedom where they think such freedom is appropriate and as being sensible opponents of due restraint where they think that such “freedom” is actually selfish irresponsibility.
In 1982 MacIntyre described our modern situation as a desolate one in which people could not reason with each other about what was right and what was wrong and instead could only express their anger and engage in ruthless political maneuvering to achieve their own favored ends. Now that we are in the second decade of the 21st century the modern situation looks even more like this than it did in 1982. Few, very few, liberals will actually make a serious attempt to argue that unrestricted sexual behavior will actually promote the well-being of society. Generally this is simply assumed and those who disagree are sneered at. Few, very few, conservatives will actually make a serious attempt to argue that the invisible hand of the marketplace solves all problems in the long run. Generally the mere use of the label “socialism” is considered enough of an argument.
Pity the poor moderate who seeks compromise and gets sneered at by both sides.
Thursday, September 2, 2010
Teaching to students with disabilities
What has been your experience teaching to deaf and hard-of-hearing students?
A little background:
I will be teaching at RIT starting next week, and a significant part of the RIT culture is the National Technical Institute for the Deaf. 9 out of the 75 students currently signed up for my courses are in the NTID; in orientation we've already been given some preliminary tips on how to integrate these students into the class, and of course there are many other resources available at RIT.
That said, in my decade plus of teaching, I've only had one deaf student, and it was a mixed experience for me. I got used to having a translator in the classroom, and had positive interactions with the student in and out of class. However, her written work seemed limited by the grammar of ASL, and I worried that my lectures never quite made it through translation (admittedly, she should have been able to keep up through the required reading).
Do you have any positive (or negative) experiences you'd be willing to share?
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
Avatar and Philosophy
The idea of modern European/American people “going native” is not new. At first it was overwhelmingly viewed as a very bad thing. As far back as the 17th century the Pope worried that the missionaries he had sent to covert the Chinese were becoming Chinese instead. After James Fenimore Cooper’s Last of the Mohicans Americans devoured horror stories about white women being forced to go native. In the 19th century the British worried about officers and men stationed too long in India losing their British identity and this is a theme in some of Kipling’s tales. Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness (1902) depicts going native in Africa as a horrifying descent into madness and evil. At some point in the 20th century the tide shifted and “going native” started to seem appealing rather than appalling. Dancing with Wolves depicts a white American shifting loyalty from American culture to the Lakota as something positive. In 2010 Avatar takes the going native theme and transports it into a beautiful science fiction setting and becomes the most popular movie of all times. Is this merely due to the stunning visual effects or did the movie make the idea of going native hypnotically appealing?
In Avatar Jake, a paraplegic ex-Marine is feeling useless and abandoned in an ugly world. The world of 2154 in which Jake lives is much like ours but darker, dirtier and nastier. Nature has been all but completely destroyed and human relationships are coarse, violent and exploitive. Medical science has the ability to heal Jake and let him walk again but society won’t pay for the operation. Jake has been left by society to fend for himself and he’s not doing very well. Jake shows no trace of anger or rebelliousness at his treatment by society. His whole attitude and demeanor is that of hopelessness. Jake is offered a chance to pay for the operation and get his legs back by taking his brother’s place in an expedition to an alien world. The organization that hires Jake has tremendous resources at its disposal and pursues its economic ends with unblinking ruthlessness. His mission is to infiltrate the alien culture and get them to sell their natural resources in exchange for modern consumer goods. But the Na’vi do not like the deal. They prefer to live simple lives in harmony with each other and with the animals and plants that make up their natural environment. They do not want to be like us. They don’t want to trade their forest homes for Ipods. Jake is stranded among the natives. They don’t like Jake but they take him in. They live in harmony with nature and with each other. Jake comes to feel that that this simple natural life is better than the world he left behind. A moment of crisis arrives and Jake finds his loyalties have firmly switched to his new people. There is a climactic battle in which the Na’vi win and a conclusion in which Jake abandons his human body and permanently becomes an alien.
The movie appeals to so many because so many feel like Jake does at the beginning of the story. He feels as though he’s been used and abandoned by a grimy, violent, uncaring society. Jake sees no reason to hope that things will get better for himself or for society as a whole. Life is hard and business is business. Nothing, not nature or the feelings of sensitive people, is going to interfere with the juggernaut of modern civilization. Mother Nature and poor little Jake are powerless. Resistance, shall we say, is futile. In the movie Jake escapes from the bleakness of modern life and finds love, harmony and right order among the Na’vi. The feel-good victory of Mother Nature depicted in the film is exposed as fantasy by the time the moviegoer gets to the parking lot to drive home. You are not on Pandora and there’s no way back. We told you that resistance was futile. Little wonder that some moviegoers felt depressed in the weeks following the movie.
Why is any of this of interest to a philosopher? Because it is evidence that many people feel something is deeply wrong with modern society and the lives it encourages us to live. Things are not in right order. If there is a deep dissatisfaction with the way things are then this is a call to philosophers to think deeply about how things should be.
In Avatar Jake, a paraplegic ex-Marine is feeling useless and abandoned in an ugly world. The world of 2154 in which Jake lives is much like ours but darker, dirtier and nastier. Nature has been all but completely destroyed and human relationships are coarse, violent and exploitive. Medical science has the ability to heal Jake and let him walk again but society won’t pay for the operation. Jake has been left by society to fend for himself and he’s not doing very well. Jake shows no trace of anger or rebelliousness at his treatment by society. His whole attitude and demeanor is that of hopelessness. Jake is offered a chance to pay for the operation and get his legs back by taking his brother’s place in an expedition to an alien world. The organization that hires Jake has tremendous resources at its disposal and pursues its economic ends with unblinking ruthlessness. His mission is to infiltrate the alien culture and get them to sell their natural resources in exchange for modern consumer goods. But the Na’vi do not like the deal. They prefer to live simple lives in harmony with each other and with the animals and plants that make up their natural environment. They do not want to be like us. They don’t want to trade their forest homes for Ipods. Jake is stranded among the natives. They don’t like Jake but they take him in. They live in harmony with nature and with each other. Jake comes to feel that that this simple natural life is better than the world he left behind. A moment of crisis arrives and Jake finds his loyalties have firmly switched to his new people. There is a climactic battle in which the Na’vi win and a conclusion in which Jake abandons his human body and permanently becomes an alien.
The movie appeals to so many because so many feel like Jake does at the beginning of the story. He feels as though he’s been used and abandoned by a grimy, violent, uncaring society. Jake sees no reason to hope that things will get better for himself or for society as a whole. Life is hard and business is business. Nothing, not nature or the feelings of sensitive people, is going to interfere with the juggernaut of modern civilization. Mother Nature and poor little Jake are powerless. Resistance, shall we say, is futile. In the movie Jake escapes from the bleakness of modern life and finds love, harmony and right order among the Na’vi. The feel-good victory of Mother Nature depicted in the film is exposed as fantasy by the time the moviegoer gets to the parking lot to drive home. You are not on Pandora and there’s no way back. We told you that resistance was futile. Little wonder that some moviegoers felt depressed in the weeks following the movie.
Why is any of this of interest to a philosopher? Because it is evidence that many people feel something is deeply wrong with modern society and the lives it encourages us to live. Things are not in right order. If there is a deep dissatisfaction with the way things are then this is a call to philosophers to think deeply about how things should be.
Monday, June 28, 2010
Summing Up
The course is over. It's been an exhausting five and a half weeks. I won't post any more on this since there seems to be no interest in discussing how to teach basic intro. This disappoints me since I think it is in some ways the most important course any of us teach.
I think that my efforts to tie the core areas of epistemology and metaphysics to ethics was a success. My students, at least the better ones, saw the connection and it made epistemology seem meaningful and not farfetched. The key was building the whole course around Glaucon's question to Socrates in the Republic: "how then, shall we live?" Only the most unthinking person fails to understand and appreciate the force of this question. It is the question that fired my interest over forty years ago when I first stumbled upon philosophy and I find that returning to it and making it the center of my intro course is the most honest and direct way of making the case for why students should devote at least a little serious thought to abstract and difficult ideas.
What's wrong with professional philosophy in general and analytic philosophy in particular is that most professional philosophers now look down their noses at such a "juvenile" and "unprofessional" way of looking at philosophy. I cannot disagree more with this kind of elitism. Philosophy that strays too far from this root is merely self-indulgent sophistry.
I think that my efforts to tie the core areas of epistemology and metaphysics to ethics was a success. My students, at least the better ones, saw the connection and it made epistemology seem meaningful and not farfetched. The key was building the whole course around Glaucon's question to Socrates in the Republic: "how then, shall we live?" Only the most unthinking person fails to understand and appreciate the force of this question. It is the question that fired my interest over forty years ago when I first stumbled upon philosophy and I find that returning to it and making it the center of my intro course is the most honest and direct way of making the case for why students should devote at least a little serious thought to abstract and difficult ideas.
What's wrong with professional philosophy in general and analytic philosophy in particular is that most professional philosophers now look down their noses at such a "juvenile" and "unprofessional" way of looking at philosophy. I cannot disagree more with this kind of elitism. Philosophy that strays too far from this root is merely self-indulgent sophistry.
Thursday, June 3, 2010
Midpoint in the course
We have reached the midpoint of summer school. It's too soon to say whether my experiment of trying to emphasize the connection of metaphysics to ethics will spark more interest latter on because I haven't hit Descartes yet. When discussing Aristotle I stressed that his view of happiness is directly tied to his view of human nature and that what human nature really is does not seem to be merely a matter of opinion but rather some kind of objective fact. I think I was successful in getting them to see Aristotle's view of ethics as a live option for them. I don't think they see him as just another "dead white guy."
I introduce Epicureanism by comparing it with Buddhism. The Four Noble Truths of Buddhism represents a theory about human life that is both more radical and more negative than Epicureanism but extremely similar in its motivations.
A couple of highlights: "A stomach can be full but a bank account is never full." worked well as an illustration of the Epicurean doctrine about the difference between natural and socially conditioned desires. My comparison of Epicureans to potheads drew some smiles of recognition in my students.
I tried to show that these ideas are not locked into the past by briefly discussing Mill's attempts to answer the standard objections to Epicureanism a thousand years later. I also spoke about the paradox of hedonism and its possible connection with Mill's depression. "Since pleasure is the by-product of pursuing other goods when you desire pleasure itself you cut the ground from under your own feet. Pleasure become impossible."
I can say that I have at least a few students who seem intensely interested in the course thus far. Naturally there are also those who are obviously just taking the course to pick up a humanities credit and want nothing more than that. I'll have a better sense of how much this is sinking into their minds when I grade the midterm tomorrow.
I introduce Epicureanism by comparing it with Buddhism. The Four Noble Truths of Buddhism represents a theory about human life that is both more radical and more negative than Epicureanism but extremely similar in its motivations.
A couple of highlights: "A stomach can be full but a bank account is never full." worked well as an illustration of the Epicurean doctrine about the difference between natural and socially conditioned desires. My comparison of Epicureans to potheads drew some smiles of recognition in my students.
I tried to show that these ideas are not locked into the past by briefly discussing Mill's attempts to answer the standard objections to Epicureanism a thousand years later. I also spoke about the paradox of hedonism and its possible connection with Mill's depression. "Since pleasure is the by-product of pursuing other goods when you desire pleasure itself you cut the ground from under your own feet. Pleasure become impossible."
I can say that I have at least a few students who seem intensely interested in the course thus far. Naturally there are also those who are obviously just taking the course to pick up a humanities credit and want nothing more than that. I'll have a better sense of how much this is sinking into their minds when I grade the midterm tomorrow.
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Revising Intro
I start summer school next week and one of the two courses I'm doing is Intro again. I want to change the structure slightly in order to maximize what went well and minimize what didn't.
What went well was the first half of the course where I concentrated on value issues as they arise in Plato, Aristotle, the Stoics and the Epicureans. The students saw the point of thinking about the nature of the good life and could understand and mostly appreciate the different perspectives offered. But when I switched away from ethics to metaphysics and epistemology with Descartes and Berkeley, they lost most of their interest.
I'm going to try to correct this by tieing the metaphysics and epistemology to the ethics. Ethics will continue to be the foundation but then I plan to point out that what kind of universe we inhabit makes a difference to what kind of life it is sensible to live. The epicureans are materialists and their hedonism makes sense from that perspective. The Stoics take a more spiritual view of reality and their insistence that virtue is necessary and sufficient for happiness makes sense from that perspective. So, making a rational choice between Epicureanism and Stoicism would require figuring out if the world was fundamentally spiritual or material. Now when we ask: how do the Stoics know that the world is fundamentally spiritual skepticism takes on a more practical aspect.
Concretely I plan to bounce around from one philosopher to another much more than I did in the Spring. I want to show the students how all the particular topics covered in philosophy are interrelated and form part of one BIG conversation.
This is a somewhat risky strategy. Bouncing around too much may look more chaotic and less unified if I don't do it well. But if I do it right, it should produce a greater sense of unity.
I plan to post a few comments to report how this is going and if there seems to be any interest I will continue posting comments.
What went well was the first half of the course where I concentrated on value issues as they arise in Plato, Aristotle, the Stoics and the Epicureans. The students saw the point of thinking about the nature of the good life and could understand and mostly appreciate the different perspectives offered. But when I switched away from ethics to metaphysics and epistemology with Descartes and Berkeley, they lost most of their interest.
I'm going to try to correct this by tieing the metaphysics and epistemology to the ethics. Ethics will continue to be the foundation but then I plan to point out that what kind of universe we inhabit makes a difference to what kind of life it is sensible to live. The epicureans are materialists and their hedonism makes sense from that perspective. The Stoics take a more spiritual view of reality and their insistence that virtue is necessary and sufficient for happiness makes sense from that perspective. So, making a rational choice between Epicureanism and Stoicism would require figuring out if the world was fundamentally spiritual or material. Now when we ask: how do the Stoics know that the world is fundamentally spiritual skepticism takes on a more practical aspect.
Concretely I plan to bounce around from one philosopher to another much more than I did in the Spring. I want to show the students how all the particular topics covered in philosophy are interrelated and form part of one BIG conversation.
This is a somewhat risky strategy. Bouncing around too much may look more chaotic and less unified if I don't do it well. But if I do it right, it should produce a greater sense of unity.
I plan to post a few comments to report how this is going and if there seems to be any interest I will continue posting comments.
Thursday, April 15, 2010
MLK National Memorial
I've been asked to post some links about the effort to build a memorial to Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. This is the sort of project that Quakers tend to support, and several members of my meeting (Roanoke Monthly Meeting) have been talking about Dr. King this month, the 42nd anniversary of his death and 43rd anniversary of his declaration of opposition to the war in Viet Nam. However, I don't have much to add beyond providing a couple links with resources both about Dr. King and the proposed memorial.
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
The fault, dear Brutus, ...
The course has not gone as well since I left classical philosophy and started on the modern period. I continued to relate the issues to contemporary times, but this didn't seem to have much effect. I think the main thing is the switch from a focus on ethics and the good life to epistemology and metaphysics. It just doesn't grab them in the same way. Is the external world composed of material objects having primary qualities that affect our senses with color and sound? Or is the external world composed of sensible objects that consist of patterns of ideas caused by God? My students don't care.
When we find something interesting it is hard to understand why someone else would not find it so. The temptation is to assume that the person is disinterested because they just don't understand it. Many philosophers give in to the temptation of thinking this but it seems self-serving and false to me. As a side note did you see the piece in the Chronicle of Higher Ed by a philosopher bemoaning the fact that philosophy has become marginalized. The possibility that we are doing something wrong is not considered. It is assumed that people are just too lazy to make the effort to read what we write. I don't buy this explanation.
Ethics, at least ancient ethics, still engages the interest of contemporary Americans when it is well-presented. But equally well-presented discussions of modern epistemology and metaphysics do not.
At the moment I don't have an answer to the question that interests me in all of this: what kind of epistemology and metaphysics would interest people now? Any suggestions?
When we find something interesting it is hard to understand why someone else would not find it so. The temptation is to assume that the person is disinterested because they just don't understand it. Many philosophers give in to the temptation of thinking this but it seems self-serving and false to me. As a side note did you see the piece in the Chronicle of Higher Ed by a philosopher bemoaning the fact that philosophy has become marginalized. The possibility that we are doing something wrong is not considered. It is assumed that people are just too lazy to make the effort to read what we write. I don't buy this explanation.
Ethics, at least ancient ethics, still engages the interest of contemporary Americans when it is well-presented. But equally well-presented discussions of modern epistemology and metaphysics do not.
At the moment I don't have an answer to the question that interests me in all of this: what kind of epistemology and metaphysics would interest people now? Any suggestions?
Thursday, March 18, 2010
update on Intro class
I haven't posted about the Intro class in a couple of weeks because I have been distracted by working on the truth paper. But now that the paper is practically done, I will resume updates.
Today's class didn't go well. The reason seems pretty clear to me. I got news last night that a friend of mine has cancer and the news doesn't look good. This has been on my mind and I'm sure it affected my mood and classroom demeanor. I just couldn't be as energetic and upbeat as I normally am. It really seems to me that it affected the students. They tried to engage in discussion but it seemed flat. Nothing felt right.
Unfortunately I can't just choose to feel upbeat and optimistic under the circumstances. And knowing that I hadn't done a good job teaching today just made me feel worse. I'm wondering if I shouldn't have just told my students what had happened and how it was affecting me. I would hesitate to get that personal with my students. I fear it would almost sound like I was asking for their sympathy. So I don't know what I should have done. I think I just have to accept that sometimes class isn't going to go well for reasons beyond my control.
Today's class didn't go well. The reason seems pretty clear to me. I got news last night that a friend of mine has cancer and the news doesn't look good. This has been on my mind and I'm sure it affected my mood and classroom demeanor. I just couldn't be as energetic and upbeat as I normally am. It really seems to me that it affected the students. They tried to engage in discussion but it seemed flat. Nothing felt right.
Unfortunately I can't just choose to feel upbeat and optimistic under the circumstances. And knowing that I hadn't done a good job teaching today just made me feel worse. I'm wondering if I shouldn't have just told my students what had happened and how it was affecting me. I would hesitate to get that personal with my students. I fear it would almost sound like I was asking for their sympathy. So I don't know what I should have done. I think I just have to accept that sometimes class isn't going to go well for reasons beyond my control.
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
Paper on Truth
I finished my paper on truth this afternoon (thanks to Spring Break). I plan to let it sit awhile before rereading it to see what I'm missing or messing up. At the moment it doesn't contain any notes or references, I suppose it will take me another day of work to insert them, but I did want to keep it rather informal so that it could be read by a wider audience than just professional philosophers.
I'd like to share it with any interested Quaker philosophers. I'll email it to you if you want it.
I'd like to share it with any interested Quaker philosophers. I'll email it to you if you want it.
Thursday, February 25, 2010
More on Truth
OK, here's a new paragraph. Does this sound fair and reasonable?
Moreover, when concerned people looked at inequality it seemed to be no temporary or accidental phenomenon. Inequality seemed to be deliberately maintained by those who profited from it. The powerful kept control of society in part by the use of crude physical violence but also, and more importantly, by control of information. John Stuart Mill had argued that the free flow of information and the interplay of rational argument would ensure that in the long-run the truth would emerge victorious over falsehood and superstition. On the contrary, in the 20th century people began to argue that what emerged as victorious in the marketplace of ideas were the ideas that had the backing of the moneyed classes. Wealth and not the objective worth of arguments determined what books were published and how many copies; what movies were produced and where they were distributed; etc. The world-picture painted by mass education, mass entertainment and mass communications seemed deliberately designed and controlled to justify existing inequalities. Wealth is the natural result of hard work. So the explanation of poverty is laziness. Thus, the rich deserve to be rich and poor deserve to be poor. This is the picture that the rich ensure is overwhelmingly reinforced in popular culture as being the truth. If the Enlightenment represented a new cosmopolitan faith, then the history of the 20th century represented a crisis of faith. Recognizing that the powerful manipulate ideas to protect their interests is enough to give truth a bad name. Thus, the most radical postmodern response is to reject the most central notion of the Enlightenment: truth itself.
Moreover, when concerned people looked at inequality it seemed to be no temporary or accidental phenomenon. Inequality seemed to be deliberately maintained by those who profited from it. The powerful kept control of society in part by the use of crude physical violence but also, and more importantly, by control of information. John Stuart Mill had argued that the free flow of information and the interplay of rational argument would ensure that in the long-run the truth would emerge victorious over falsehood and superstition. On the contrary, in the 20th century people began to argue that what emerged as victorious in the marketplace of ideas were the ideas that had the backing of the moneyed classes. Wealth and not the objective worth of arguments determined what books were published and how many copies; what movies were produced and where they were distributed; etc. The world-picture painted by mass education, mass entertainment and mass communications seemed deliberately designed and controlled to justify existing inequalities. Wealth is the natural result of hard work. So the explanation of poverty is laziness. Thus, the rich deserve to be rich and poor deserve to be poor. This is the picture that the rich ensure is overwhelmingly reinforced in popular culture as being the truth. If the Enlightenment represented a new cosmopolitan faith, then the history of the 20th century represented a crisis of faith. Recognizing that the powerful manipulate ideas to protect their interests is enough to give truth a bad name. Thus, the most radical postmodern response is to reject the most central notion of the Enlightenment: truth itself.
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Postmodernism
I would really appreciate some reaction to these four sentences on postmodernism. As you know I'm an Analytic guy so I'm struggling to understand postmodernism. If these four sentences aren't on the right track then I may just have to give up.
We live in a postmodern age and what this means is that there is a consensus that the intellectual synthesis that was the Enlightenment is no longer acceptable and must be replaced. But the consensus does not go much farther than that. The Enlightenment is a complex phenomenon and the debate does not become substantive and interesting until we have identified which elements of the complex we intend to reject and what we intend to offer in their place. The Enlightenment variously stood for many things: laissez faire capitalism, democracy, human rights, the scientific method, individualism, mass education, free speech, cosmopolitanism and progress.
We live in a postmodern age and what this means is that there is a consensus that the intellectual synthesis that was the Enlightenment is no longer acceptable and must be replaced. But the consensus does not go much farther than that. The Enlightenment is a complex phenomenon and the debate does not become substantive and interesting until we have identified which elements of the complex we intend to reject and what we intend to offer in their place. The Enlightenment variously stood for many things: laissez faire capitalism, democracy, human rights, the scientific method, individualism, mass education, free speech, cosmopolitanism and progress.
Friday, February 19, 2010
Stoics, Epicureans and Buddhists
I haven't been keeping up with reports on Intro lately so here's a quick update.
The essay exams took me approximately nine hours to grade. It got pretty tedious towards the end. They did pretty well though and that's encouraging.
Since then I have been talking about late classical philosophy. I introduced it will a quick synopsis of the 4 Noble Truths of Buddhism. The similarity as I see it is that original Buddhism is rather like Stoicism and Epicureanism in that 1) the goal is ataraxia and 2) there is an analysis of human psychology that leads to conclusions about how we should pursue it.
I do the Epicureans first and central to my account of them is the distinction between moving pleasure and static pleasure. A cat sitting contentedly on a sunny windowsill while I go to work embodies static pleasure. I summarize the Epicurean preference for static pleasure as the advice to "be the cat." Then I ask them to imagine trying to follow this philosophy today. They would drop out of school, get a job at Starbucks, and find a cheap apartment to live in with a couple close friends.
Next lecture I introduce the Stoics. They seem to like the idea of holding themselves to high moral standards while simultaneously not blaming other people for their behavior. I can see that a few of them really come to appreciate the Stoic philosophy.
The essay exams took me approximately nine hours to grade. It got pretty tedious towards the end. They did pretty well though and that's encouraging.
Since then I have been talking about late classical philosophy. I introduced it will a quick synopsis of the 4 Noble Truths of Buddhism. The similarity as I see it is that original Buddhism is rather like Stoicism and Epicureanism in that 1) the goal is ataraxia and 2) there is an analysis of human psychology that leads to conclusions about how we should pursue it.
I do the Epicureans first and central to my account of them is the distinction between moving pleasure and static pleasure. A cat sitting contentedly on a sunny windowsill while I go to work embodies static pleasure. I summarize the Epicurean preference for static pleasure as the advice to "be the cat." Then I ask them to imagine trying to follow this philosophy today. They would drop out of school, get a job at Starbucks, and find a cheap apartment to live in with a couple close friends.
Next lecture I introduce the Stoics. They seem to like the idea of holding themselves to high moral standards while simultaneously not blaming other people for their behavior. I can see that a few of them really come to appreciate the Stoic philosophy.
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Plain-speaking vs. Oversimplification
What is the line between between being clear and simple (the Quakerly virtue of plain-speaking), and oversimplifying or being simplistic?
Monday, February 15, 2010
Incident Report
Below is a copy of an email exchange with student names deleted. To get the full flavor of this start reading from the bottom up. Do things like this happen where you teach?
From: McCarty, Richard
Sent: Saturday, February 13, 2010 6:20 PM
To: Collins, John
Cc: Miller, Richard
Subject: RE: Student
John;
I'm taking care of this student--nothing administrative is required. In essence, the student has been absent from my 1175 for four weeks and I've agreed to meet with her and help her catch up. She could not be transferred to Richard's 1110--which she had been attending--because she had already taken 1110.
Yes, for four or five weeks she had been attending a class she had already passed, without realizing it. She even had bought the books for my class. So she obviously never attempted any reading assignments in Richard's class. She attended my class for the first time on Thursday, and sat on the back row with her laptop open. After I told her laptops were not allowed in my class she proceeded to read the newspaper. It became clear to me then how she could have attended for so long a class that she had already taken.
.RMc
From: Collins, JohnSent: Saturday, February 13, 2010 2:53 PMTo: Bailey, GeorgeCc: McCarty, Richard; Miller, RichardSubject: RE:
George,
I don’t know who the other confused student is. Richard, Rick: if there’s a second student, besides XXXXXXXX, who enrolled in Rick’s but attended Richard’s and who needs to have this fixed, please send the info to George so he can have the registrar fix both problems at once.
-John
From: Bailey, George Sent: Friday, February 12, 2010 9:10 PMTo: Collins, JohnSubject: Re:
The second time? You mean we have to do another student as well? No problem, I hope, but if so, have someone get me the relevant info – better to do both at once if there are two.
And thanks.
George
From: "Collins, John" Subject: RE: Her name is XXXXXXX. She is enrolled in McCarty’s 1500 section 001 and has been attending Miller’s 1180 section 001 (both courses have just the one section). Same initials, same time, and the rooms were right next to each other. Richard tells me this is the second time this has happened this week. From: Bailey, George Sent: Friday, February 12, 2010 5:32 PMTo: Collins, JohnSubject: Re: It would be better coming from me – what is the student name and banner id and what sections of those courses are involved?
Thanks,
George
From: "Collins, John"
George,
Yesterday I mentioned to you the philosophy student who was mistakenly enrolled in a different class than she was attending. Rick and Richard have both agreed to letting her into 1180 and out of 1500 (without a late drop). I’ll go ahead and explain it to the registrar and ask for what we want, unless you think it would be better coming from you. What do you think? (And should the email go to the registrar or to the special attention of any particular person there?)-
John
From: McCarty, Richard
Sent: Saturday, February 13, 2010 6:20 PM
To: Collins, John
Cc: Miller, Richard
Subject: RE: Student
John;
I'm taking care of this student--nothing administrative is required. In essence, the student has been absent from my 1175 for four weeks and I've agreed to meet with her and help her catch up. She could not be transferred to Richard's 1110--which she had been attending--because she had already taken 1110.
Yes, for four or five weeks she had been attending a class she had already passed, without realizing it. She even had bought the books for my class. So she obviously never attempted any reading assignments in Richard's class. She attended my class for the first time on Thursday, and sat on the back row with her laptop open. After I told her laptops were not allowed in my class she proceeded to read the newspaper. It became clear to me then how she could have attended for so long a class that she had already taken.
.RMc
From: Collins, JohnSent: Saturday, February 13, 2010 2:53 PMTo: Bailey, GeorgeCc: McCarty, Richard; Miller, RichardSubject: RE:
George,
I don’t know who the other confused student is. Richard, Rick: if there’s a second student, besides XXXXXXXX, who enrolled in Rick’s but attended Richard’s and who needs to have this fixed, please send the info to George so he can have the registrar fix both problems at once.
-John
From: Bailey, George Sent: Friday, February 12, 2010 9:10 PMTo: Collins, JohnSubject: Re:
The second time? You mean we have to do another student as well? No problem, I hope, but if so, have someone get me the relevant info – better to do both at once if there are two.
And thanks.
George
From: "Collins, John" Subject: RE: Her name is XXXXXXX. She is enrolled in McCarty’s 1500 section 001 and has been attending Miller’s 1180 section 001 (both courses have just the one section). Same initials, same time, and the rooms were right next to each other. Richard tells me this is the second time this has happened this week. From: Bailey, George Sent: Friday, February 12, 2010 5:32 PMTo: Collins, JohnSubject: Re: It would be better coming from me – what is the student name and banner id and what sections of those courses are involved?
Thanks,
George
From: "Collins, John"
George,
Yesterday I mentioned to you the philosophy student who was mistakenly enrolled in a different class than she was attending. Rick and Richard have both agreed to letting her into 1180 and out of 1500 (without a late drop). I’ll go ahead and explain it to the registrar and ask for what we want, unless you think it would be better coming from you. What do you think? (And should the email go to the registrar or to the special attention of any particular person there?)-
John
Monday, February 8, 2010
Working on Truth Again
I'm working on my contribution to the anthology on truth that several of us are contributing too. I've read through what I wrote early on and through all the abstracts that Jafe sent to us. Now I am rereading the article in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (plato.stanford.edu) on truth. This article is firmly in the Analytic tradition and it makes a lot of sense to me but what bothers me is that there is nothing in it about the postmodern views on truth.
The Stanford article provides what seems to me a perfectly clear and adequate summary of what Analytic philosophers have said about truth. Is there anything that does the same for the postmodern/continental crowd? I would feel better about writing this if I could read a brief clear summary of what the other side thinks about truth. I want to know what I am missing before I try to put my thoughts in final form.
The Stanford article provides what seems to me a perfectly clear and adequate summary of what Analytic philosophers have said about truth. Is there anything that does the same for the postmodern/continental crowd? I would feel better about writing this if I could read a brief clear summary of what the other side thinks about truth. I want to know what I am missing before I try to put my thoughts in final form.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)