- Bertrand Russell, Problems of Philosophy (Hackett)
- Plato, Five Dialogues (Hackett) -- I'm looking to this especially for the Euthyphro and the Phaedo
- Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics (Hackett)
- Descartes, Discourse on Method and Meditations (Cambridge)
- Hume, Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding (Hackett)
- Mill, On Liberty (again, Hackett)
- Nietzsche, Twilight of the Idols (and finally, Hackett)
Notice what's missing...I had to suppress a very strong urge to include George of Cloyne's Principles Concerning Human Understanding (Me: yes kids, there is no such thing as matter...it's all in your head! Students: thanks for nothing!) and Kant's Groundwork. I want them to learn, not run from philosophy screaming.
On another note, this process started an interesting conversation between another early-morning colleague and I. I mentioned my interest in changing my course to employ all primary source material, and I asked him about his thoughts on the subject. He uses two of the books I propose above (and several more, I would guess), and he mentioned that using these makes the teacher/lecturer necessary and useful. While I'm not entirely sure he meant it this way, I took this comment to be an attempt at helping the students understand what the role of the teacher is in a philosophy class.
I guess I have always thought it a little unfair -- and hence my reticence to use the primary texts -- to give students walking into a field with which they have had little or no interaction (what, you didn't have a philosophy class in high school?) a set of texts that are by nature difficult and oblique. There was an occasion in college when, in a medieval philosophy class, we were given quite possibly some of the most challenging (and in some cases, almost unreadable to the undergraduate eye) texts possible, with the expectation that we would rely on the wisdom of the professor to navigate us through these difficult waters. The idea of professor-as-sage is something that is generally unwarranted...especially for a lowly MA like myself. My fear has always been that I would be selling my students a false bill of goods, and that I wouldn't be able to get them through the texts at all, much less do it wisely or with any sagacity (whoa).
On the other hand, the thing that leaves me so dissatisfied with the textbook approach is that the professor becomes virtually useless to the average student who pays attention while s/he reads and "gets it." I, and subsequently the time spent in class, end up being redundant for these students, and that troubles me a little. Of course, I make what effort I can to extend the text as far as I can but I'm not actually sure whether my students are -- on this approach -- learning philosophy or learning about philosophy. There's a difference.
On Karen's advice I've been trying to consider a question or an aspect of philosophy that motivates me in order to develop a theme for my class. It occurred to me this week while teaching about relativism and moral nihilism (I'm really digging the metaethics right now) that one thing of importance to me is progress. How is it that we change, and change for the better? Like we always said at the Seminary, philosophy is at the lower-layer of most things, and I think it it can -- in most of its forms -- inspire change and transformation. I hear the voice of the wisest person I've ever had the privilege of learning from mumbling in the back of my head, "thou requirest a little lower layer..."
Anyway, I'm curious what you think of my central question and my selected texts. What has been your experience (or recollection for all you Platonists out there) with primary sources and primary texts in introductory classes of any sort? Any words of wisdom, my friends?Also, thanks to some prodding from Keith, anyone can comment. Just keep it clean here, people. Leave the swearing to me.
3 comments:
Cool idea and list! In some of my undergrad courses we would have a secondary text about the history of philosophy (or one with a thematic arrangement), and then that text would be supplemented by two to four primary texts (Plato, Hume, Nietzsche). I remember sometimes feeling frustrated with reading the primary material as if I just could not possibly understand it, but usually I felt like I was getting something and I felt like I was given interpretive license to have my own conversation with the likes of Plato. I think your approach will be great, just to dive in - especially with the texts you picked.
At first I was a little hesitant about the theme mixing with the list of texts, but the more I think about it, the more new avenues for exploring the texts come to light - for me they are surrounding human progress in terms of moral development (one of your resurring themes if I am not mistaken!) and knowledge.
Good Luck, and have fun!
Becky, I like the idea of having some of the primary texts along with help from the professor (you), and from secondary texts. But with the idea of helping the students to more and more be able to get into and appreciate the primary texts for themselves.
I wonder why some Christians lose their faith when they take philosophical courses. I knew a very intelligent guy, who was a very committed Christian, who took philosophy (I think he majored in it) at a well known Christian school. It seemed to throw him for a loop, and he dropped out of attending church for some time (years, I believe), before coming back. An aside question, so forgive me. I do remember that Francis Schaeffer told his students that when reading philosophy, they needed to be reading twice as much in Scripture (or something to that effect).
Hello Ted and nedric: Sorry I'm so slow on the back-comment.
I was looking through the Bertrand Russell text, and I think it might function as a good organizer for the main ideas I'm concerned to discuss. So nedric, I might be able to get two birds by using a sort-of secondary text that has the character of a primary source (or maybe it's the other way around...).
Ted: I'm inspired to another post by your question. I hope you don't mind if I tackle it out of the comments.
Thanks to you both for your assistance here and helping me think through this important process!
Post a Comment