Aside from the the general philosophy textbook, what would you recommend to the beginning student as concerns what actual text to read? One could argue that they should start at the beginning with Plato and Aristotle and work their way to contemporary philosophy. And there is some merit to the argument since a lot of what philosophers do today tends to refer to what those before them have done. Rorty once expressed his appreciation for this method in that it prepped him to read the more modern philosophers such as Quine, Wittgenstein, etc… Plus that, Plato and Aristotle tend to be a little accessible than, say, Delueze and Guattarri or Derrida.
However, I would argue the reverse. It seems to me that one of biggest problem I have in interpreting philosophical text is relevance. When I read more contemporary philosophers such as Zizek. Horfstadster, Searle, or Rorty, I see it applied to experiences I am more familiar with. It seems to me that we could start from such a point and treat philosophy as a kind of archaeology, work from where we are now, and dig our way to the past. But what do I know, right?
Whatever represents the most exciting intellectual journey. In this sense, it really can be a suspense ride, where we witness the development of thought, and the branching outward of ideas in different logical, inevitable, gorgeously inventive directions. For this to happen, you really need a storyteller who can envision the history of philosophy as a gripping tale. I believe this is why Bertrand Russell’s history was so impacting for me as a beginner. By seeing the story unfurl, you almost inadvertently, painlessly learn how to think.
To get a student excited, it’s good to make a strong showing in defense, in exaltation, of Socratic method. The nobility of a lifetime of asking why, and why again, and really trying to surf the waves of truth wherever they go. For this, Socrates (Plato) is needed. But even the lighthearted Plato is still dated and chore-like for today’s beginner students, which is why films should be leveraged, like Waking Life, for instance, or What The Bleep is Going on?, or the book Socrates Cafe.
We should be exposed to how philosophy is relevant and urgent today in govt, and human or animal rights, in science and relgion (which is a controversial claim to make) so that they are equip with a sense of purpose, i.e. why the FUCK am I learning this shit? Introduce them to epistemology, and how its flawed for all of us in diff ways, but for many, it’s flawed in very stupid correctable ways, and philosophers can help with that. Show a quick review of fallacies and examples of them, in a way everyone can sigh and recognize, and tell them philosophers help all branches of thought avoid fallacies.
There should be a glossing over of philosophy’s greatest hits, moments of breakthrough, Des Cartes, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Kant, things like that. Fun paradoxes, Xeno, Parmenides, etc. Anaximander and Anaxagoras. Hume, Hegel, Husserl, Sartre – but just a brief summary of how exciting these schools of thought were, and where it lead modern thinkers.
A quick glimpse at today’s most exciting questions, and a call to arms to join the bleeding edge of thought, and the assurance that it’s doable.
By all means, avoid giving them a classic wedge of paper to devour followed by a long, rambling lecture by a self-important burned out middle-aged guy looking to fuck an undergrad. Avoid long outlines. Avoid jargon. It’s about Socratic method, getting them to be bit by the bug. It’s not about acting all smart and smug. And talk fast for godsake. if you can’t talk really fast, step the fuck down.
Dude I never could have started with Rorty, I can barely finish with the guy.
I would start topically, and choose a text appropriate to the topic, no matter when it was written. My intro class was “Human Nature”, which asked - “Are we mind, matter, spirit or some combination of the three, and which combination?” Lousy teacher, but very good text, which was an anthology.
if you get through your first semester knowing how to sort this question out, you’ve gotten a good start. Plato, Descartes, Hume (if you’re careful), Kierkegaard, Dewey, Rorty, maybe a little Marx - all have written accessible passages that beginners should not have too much trouble with.
Another way, which is not so different in the end, is to sort out metaphysics from everything else. Another is to simply look at epistemology and how it is used by given philosophers.
I would shy away from concentrating too much on the greeks, because beginners tend to think the greeks are the alpha and omega on these topics, especially if that’s all they have read.
I sharply disagree with slow john. To expose a newbie to such nonsense as Hegel, Husserl and Sartre might put them off philosophy forever, or at least put them off their lunch. And the Socratic method doesn’t live up to the hype. I also, as a point of fact, see nothing wrong with fucking undergrads.
I’m on my second quart, which means I’m a little outside my window. I explain this only to let you know why I’m going around randomly here and picking out quotes.
That said, thanks guys for getting this off to a good start.
Even though I would take a different tact on this, I get the sensibility behind it, Faust. It reminds me of a saying by Flannery O’Conner:
The problem with writer’s workshops is not that they don’t encourage enough writers; it’s that they don’t discourage enough.
And I don’t agree with this out of some arrogant presumption of maintaining the quality of writing. That will take care of itself. I do it out of compassion for the presumptive writer that doesn’t fully realize the real sacrifice involved with no promise of a payoff. I mean if there is no hope of them becoming a great writer, why shouldn’t they at least have the consolation of a normal life? Why should they complicate their lives with the nonsense that we do?
Actually, it was Sartre’s Transcendence of the Ego and a misinterpretation of his point that if you are looking at something then say “I am looking at myself looking at something”, then go on to say “I am looking at myself looking at something”, then go on to say “I am looking at myself looking at myself looking at something”, you can go forever until you’re like 2 mirrors reflecting, but what you can never look at is what is looking out, the perceiving thing, that actually inspired my enthusiasm for it. My play with phenomenological concepts (such as intentionality) and my further studies of Being and Nothingness only furthered that enthusiasm. Of course, the pot I was smoking at the time helped a lot.
But I get what you’re saying in that I know how frustrating it was when I first started out.
I actually started out with Will Durant’s The History of Philosophy. At the time, I was primarily a musician who wanted to see “how Aristotle’s Categorical Imperative would affect my music”, which goes to show how little I knew at the time. Nevertheless, it did work to get where I am.
But the organic process you seem to be suggesting certainly has merit. In a sense, it kind of invalidates the initial point. But then the main point of most strings is to initiate dialogue.
This kind of goes without saying. When it comes to philosophy, we are talking about a discourse, one that extends well into the past. This, I think, is what the purpose of Introductory Philosophy Textbooks should be.
But I think we would agree, having read more contemporary philosophy texts ourselves, that textbooks only go so far.
Actually, I didn’t start with him either. But my recent focus on Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature has made me realize he has moved well down the path I have been going all along. I have to go through him to get beyond him.
I face a similar situation with Zizek.
Anyway, thanks, guys, for justifying my point A to point B.
Faust… It’s good to see you in action again, brother. I’m always impressed.
Are you joking? The Socratic Method is about exposing internal inconsistency, in order to get closer to a good answer by removing bad ones. What exactly are you trying to say? --That coherence or questioning why you think what you do, doesn’t live up to the hype??
Anyways, I agree with Faust that an Intro class has to be narrowed down somehow, to a more specific focus–but by topic, not time-period. They’ll learn philosophy by doing philosophy, rather than scholarship or history.
There’s too much to say here, and I’m tired, so I’ll just make one point: Young people are idolizers. They find someone they like, and they idolize, mimic, fanaticize, etc. Just look at this website. So, whatever you do, make sure that every different person you study, one after the other, is saying something that disagrees somehow with the person before him. Give them contrasting viewpoints, always, continually. Make them choose and have to defend their own path. E.g., contrast Socrates’ objectivist views on morality, with Hobbes’ subjectivism. Hobbes with Mill. Mill with Marx. Bentham with Kant. Kant with Nietzsche. Etc…according to your class focus, whether its ethics or metaphysics, logic, or political philosophy.
That’s how you respect the Socratic Method… you give the learners contrasting viewpoints, as if the history of philosophy was one long dialogue, each person questioning the one before him.
Although I take some issue with this popular hatred of Lawyers.
There are many of them that go into it to look out for common people, to protect their rights.
ACLU lawyers cannot possibly be as evil as the corporate system and the Fox news it owns wants to make them out to be.
How did wanting to use one’s gifts to actually help people suddenly, in a nation that considers itself Christian, become evil?
I, personally, think it would be cool to understand the system to such an extent that you can protect less educated people from it. Isn’t that what we are out to do as philosophers?
If we’re not out to use our gifts as heroes, then what is the point?
2 make money? 2 get chicks? 2 get powerful? 2 be rock stars?..
Okay, on further reflection, those do sound like good incentives. But such gifts do warrant some sense of higher purpose.
Here’s an elaborate pyramid (since I’d want them to occupy what I consider the tip) scheme:
1)Survey the students about their beliefs
2)Recommend books that ‘conflict’ with their beliefs
3)Survey their reaction to book
4)If they take it in their stride, say philosophy can offer different perspectives. If they become angry, say philosophy can offer peace of mind OR continual vendettas to rage. If they don’t show a strong reaction, try harder to provoke them… these are the ones that need philosophy the most.
What good would it do you if you had all the knowledge and eloquence but no one wants to listen?
What is it you cannot do to live peacefully in this world if you do not come in contact with particular knowledge? Only in thought there would seem to be a problem with your life if you think there is some better state for you to be in. Day to day existence in the world as it is now is all that there is and the things around you are what you have available for you to be in harmony with. Why make the false assumption that there is a problem with your life as it is just because there are so many solutions offered. The solutions don’t work, they’re inadequate. Solutions are the problem when there is really nothing to complain about. This is the only life and there is no other. Coming to terms with your life as it is means there is no thought process of finding something better.
I don’t know if that is a philosophy in itself or lack of it. Either way it is certainly able to be criticized.
It’s certainly a philosophy with philosophical implications, that is as long as we keep in mind that there is a difference between having a philosophy and doing Philosophy.
And you’re right, you have to, at some point or other, come to terms with what you have. Otherwise, you’d be miserable. But at the same time, the possibility of change for the better through discourse is available to us. There is no reason we shouldn’t justify our point A to point B by using it.
One has to hold some reservations when confronted with the argument that since things could be worse, there is no reason to ask if they could be better.
If I was teaching philosophy I wouldn’t recommend any common or popular texts.
As far as I have found these are very very rhetorical, and are either designed for faulty critics or for people with limited mental capacities. I was going to say morons but I don’t want to insult everyone.
If you were to study religion and culture they would produce fairly similar things to what a philosophical text would express. It could be a criticism of the culture and religion that is written, or some other reaction to them, but it’s not pure philosophy. It’s contraversy.
Contraversy is usually either 50% crap or 100% crap because one party of the argument has to be wrong.
This for me spoils philosophy and renders it impure.
Reality isn’t a contraversy itself, it appears to be very harmonious despite its unintelligent.
Dan~ - this would be a good way to study method, for sure. Philosophy is the act of finding and examining the underlying assumptions we have - [i]about/i] something. And this approach would not work well with morons, just as surely. But more than technique can be taught this way. The Bible was text for Nietzsche, for instance, as were classical texts, of course. The Declaration of Independence, many Supreme Court rulings (and not just US, of course), history texts, some literary works, some visual arts, even, play scripts, many foundational science texts - a ton of stuff, could serve as text. As we know if we browse the bookshelves, TV shows evidently can serve as texts. I wouldn’t necessarily choose the Simpsons, but some other sitcoms would do. The best stories are morality pieces - so a lot of fiction qualifies. Seinfeld has an interesting moral stance, i think. And you could use friends as an example of what not to do, ever, under any circumstances. The production of that show was the closest thing to a sin that this soulless bastard has ever seen.
But this method is surely more difficult to teach.
I think if me and my student tried to describe how and why we think, we would get down to self analysis which is one of the most important things. This isn’t a text though; it’s more lively.
The bible is interesting in that it is supposedto contain the history of humanity. We follow the foot steps in the sand and we eventually arive at this jewish male god head figure. Later people tried again to follow the foot steps in the sand but that time it produced darwinism. Not everyone found the same things when trying to examine history. When we think we should study our own history in that we consider all memories in our life. And if possible we should study how we study aswel.