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.
Thursday, March 18, 2010
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)