Teach a philosophy class!

How would you teach your very own philosophy class (if you were given the opportunity)?

If you answer please specify which academic group you would be teaching (elementary school, middle school, high school, college, etc..). Would you vary your methods to fit the students' capabilities?

Would there be grades? What would you grade?

It would depend on the course you are teaching. If it were a course in Introduction to Philosophy, you would have to choose between teaching it mostly historically, or mostly problematically. I would choose the latter, but choose a text which had readings from the great philosophers. Then, I might choose to cover (say) the problem of freedom of the will; the problem of our knowledge of the external world; the problem of what is mind; and maybe the problem of civil disobedience. We would read Plato, Hume, Descartes, and several other philosophers. (I am talking, of course, about college teaching) Of course, there would be grades. If you were teaching in an institution of learning, there would have to be grades. And you would have to make up an examination which covered what the students were supposed to know. You would certainly have two examinations, and maybe three. Some teachers give more exams. Then, of course, you would have to give final grades at the end, based on their examination grades. Maybe you would have them write a short essay, and grade that too.

If you answer please specify which academic group you would be teaching (elementary school, middle school, high school, college, etc..). Would you vary your methods to fit the students' capabilities?

Would there be grades? What would you grade?

I would do something quite similar, except that I would be less interested in the readings being from famous philosophers, and more interested in them being understandable. And I would likely discuss different issues. But otherwise, I would do the same sort of thing you are describing for such a class.

Of course, I am not saying that I have any problems with your choices, and, indeed, have no problems with someone teaching it mostly historically. An introductory class is, out of necessity, not a complete and exhaustive study, so much will be left out no matter what one does.

If I were given the opportunity to teach a philosophy class, I would decline the offer on the basis that I don't know enough about philosophy to do so. I wouldn't want to cheat those few students who are actually there (in college) to learn.

I think it would be nice if, from time to time, the instructors would intentionally express faulty reasoning for the purpose of highlighting the common errors and mistakes that the great philosophers have made throughout the years.

I'd like to see a class where great emphasis is placed on teaching people (in a fun way) how to reason, what common mistakes to be wary of, and to show ways of avoiding them ourselves.

Even if it were an introduction to philosophy class, I think it would be a good thing to cover such issues of logic on the side. You speak of how to teach, and I think keeping things fun and lively is the way to go. It doesn't need to be nor should it be dull. The material needs to capture the hearts and minds of the students and spark enthusiasm for the subject. If I were teaching, I'd want to leave the student wanting more.

I would base a class on a few philosophic texts, depending on the amount of time available, even if it is an introductory course. One of the most important skills to be learned from any philosophy course is the ability to read carefully and to understand the text itself; another is to be able to express the arguments and positions of important philosophers in a student's own words without completely distorting the original meaning--- only once this understanding and analysis is accomplished can a student be encouraged to venture on criticism, the third step.
Students would be graded upon 1) how well they outlined the texts, and a final essay that demonstrated that they understood the text.

Pyrrho;122399 wrote:

I would do something quite similar, except that I would be less interested in the readings being from famous philosophers, and more interested in them being understandable. And I would likely discuss different issues. But otherwise, I would do the same sort of thing you are describing for such a class.

Of course, I am not saying that I have any problems with your choices, and, indeed, have no problems with someone teaching it mostly historically. An introductory class is, out of necessity, not a complete and exhaustive study, so much will be left out no matter what one does.

It is up to the instructor to make the readings understandable, and that means that he should select readings he understands. Readings in introductory texts are selected to be understandable in the first place. I have never seen an introductory text that contains a Heidegger reading. I, myself, would feel an obligation to introduce student to Plato, or to Descartes, in addition to discussion of the problems, since for many, if not most, this introductory course may be the last and only time they will read such authors. And they ought to leave college with at least a taste of Plato. Don't you think?...

What is not taught in most high schools is the ability to examine arguments critically; in a modern democracy this seems important if its citizens need to be able to separate propaganda from reasoned arguments for or against certain policies or regulations. An unprotected mind, is at best useless and at worse, dangerous to society.

While the careful and critical reading of a selection of the best philosophers both gives models for thinking as well as topics for analysis, class reading and discussion of contemporary writing drawn from a variety of sources (from both print and internet media) would also serve to provoke criticism.

Alongside of this it would be useful to teach some basic formal logic--- and especially the recognition of informal fallacies--- as well as argumentative patterns (e.g. the difference between inductive and deductive expositions, or proper causal inferences) that from a functional viewpoint require different kinds of warrants for conclusions.