Many philosophers like talking with each other, yes. If you want to see this, go to a philosophy conference, or wander the halls in a philosophy department. It's quite incorrect to say that "there are hardly two philosophers that agree on things in a detailed manner when it comes down to it" -- but that's probably from lack of experience with enough philosophers, or having been in a class (or read a text) that only emphasizes differences.
I just watched this lecture in its entirety, and it is awesome. It’s clearly stated and covers everything one needs to know about writing this type of paper. As far as I know, this is the only video on the net where the professor goes into an engaging exchange with his students about how the process. I found it very informative and useful. Hopefully, I'll *finally* write a decent paper. Benjamin Jowett (rhymes with “know it”).
Glad the timing worked out well! That sounds like an excellent project -- I wish I had the time in the semester to have my students do that sort of thing!
I'm very glad to read that! It might be good for other students -- those not my own -- but when it's one of my own actual students who gets helped by it, that's even more important
Thanks for the well-timed upload.. My seniors are currently working on close readings. I am teaching the process by having them do this in groups using short stories from Winesburg, OH and having them present their findings to the class (It's a variation of the old Lit Circles idea). We are using research and critical thinking to be reading detectives and put big questions under the microscope. It's good to know that this will help them in college. Next week we are writing them individually.
Yes, I think that's the right way to go -- though I have to admit, every time I have to cut out some content, even if we really wouldn't get to spend enough time with it, i cringe a bit
They are looking for recurring themes throughout the stories and then asking the question "why?" We are mostly using Marxist and historical criticism theories. After we finish the novel we'll continue our study by looking closely at Dubliners and trying to come up with universal truths. The cool thing is that some of the kids are trying to connect the theme of loneliness to our discussions on Socrates and happiness from the beginning of the semester. Very rewarding :-)
That was one of my focuses of last summer's curriculum work. I wanted to substitute a lot of quality and remove quantity. In high school language arts, I believe that it's appropriate to use less content and spend more time building the skills that will be necessary across all disciplines. Learning how to think critically and solve problems/big questions is a skill that I think incoming freshmen (college) often initially lack. That was what my first two yrs of college were all about.
You need to ask the particular professor -- I made it clear that different professors will have their own requirements. If you were in my class, I'd say that your job is not simply to regurgitate quotations from others, but to demonstrate to me that you can reframe the concepts in your own words, and integrate the text with your own writing
Well, there's quite a few burnt-out or misanthropic "philosophers" out there, about the same proportion as with plain people, in my experience. What you want to do is find yourself some philosophers who are really interested and passionate about what they're studying -- most likely people doing their work in the History of Philosophy, rather than "analytic" or "continental" philosophers. Some one who gets excited about reading Plato, or Augustine, etc. will be a better dialogue partner
Towards the end of the video, you asked about perhaps compiling a list of writing techniques that were taught wrong in high school. Well, I was taught that, in addition to never using "I", one should never frame a statement with the word "one" in the same manner that I used it just then. Moreover, I was also taught to never use passive voice and always use active. What is your opinion on these two things. Particularly on the later point, as I think I can anticipate your view on the former. Thank you for your videos!
Hi Gregory, just wanted to thank you for all of your videos on philosophy, they have been extremely helpful to me throughout my studies. I just wanted to know how you would determine the difference between philosophical literature from other kinds of literature. Surely with a philosophical scope, ALL types of literature are somewhat philosophical? how would you separate these two types of literature?
I suppose one can probably bring philosophy to bear upon pretty much any bit of literature, and find something to talk about. But that to me doesn't mean that bit of literature itself is philosophical. That said, I also wouldn't try to make some sort of clean division between philosophical and non-philosophical literature. It's a matter of degrees.
Well, if Russell said it, it MUST be good advice. Actually, I quit reading Russell over a decade ago, when I realized that he was, when right, writing things other much more interesting philosophers discussed as well, but that generally her was a bad and tendentious reader of the history of philosophy most of the time
