I'm not sure yet what I'll be teaching next semester, but I need to start planning out some course ideas since I won't be able to do much work on it for a couple months coming up. So, here's some preliminary ideas of have for how to structure a course on "Philosophy of Human Nature," and feedback would be appreciated.
There are two threads running through the course. One is the subject matter: the notion of the self. What is the self? Is there any actually existing self? Am I primarily an individual shaped by my circumstances, or primarily a human being with rationality/freedom/whatever else that might entail? How does my identity relate to society? And stuff like that.
The other thread is the overall structure of the course (the formal cause, as it were). One of the problems in teaching an introduction to philosophy is that the students get overwhelmed by the number of views, and lapse into relativism, skepticism, or dogmatism to cope, or simply declare that it is all opinion. So I want to structure the course around the development of different notions of the self in order to show how we work through philosophical problems and the tools we have at hand for dealing with differences.
The current structure of the course would then be the following: I will look at three different traditions. The first will be the Platonic tradition: Plato, Aristotle, and Augustine (and despite differences, Aristotle is sufficiently responding to Plato to be placed within the Platonic tradition as far as I am concerned). This tradition largely sees the individual as an individual, rational substance, with will brought in with Augustine. The second will be the Chinese tradition: Confucius, Daoism, and Neo-Confucianism. This tradition focuses more on social forces, tradition, and ritual, whether the particular thinkers are for them, against them, or synthesizing these different aspects. The third will be Buddhism: Siddhartha Gautama, either Madhyamika or Yogacara, and Zen. This tradition does away with the idea of a subsistent self. (So there is individual-self, social/natural-self, and non-self). A final section will deal with how we can start to interrelate the different traditions from our own standpoint.
Since I am focusing on a specific topic, I think that the number of thinkers should be manageable. My misgivings are twofold: I am not including any early modern thinkers (largely because, while they are historically important, I just don't find them interesting other than as a bridge between the scholastics and the German idealists) or existentialists (who would normally be considered to be somewhat important on issues of selfhood). Also, it will be heavy on "Eastern" thought, including things that students will not necessarily encounter in their other courses, which might make it a poor introduction to philosophy in general. However, I think that the different thinkers and movements which I am presenting do bring up really interesting and relevant issues and so are good from a topical point of view.
Any thoughts?
3 comments:
Okay, well since I'm already in "troubleshooting last semester's mistakes" mode, I'll give my thoughts...
One consideration:, some Descartes could be helpful. It will help satisfy the mind/dualism requirement, and some of my students expressed that they found him to be among the most accessible of all the philosophers that I covered.
Also, don't worry too much about your students getting conflicted over the differing views. Most of mine had a hard time remembering material from one exam to the next. Not that they forget everything--but most of them are freshmen or sophomores and it's their first philosophy course, as well as a required course, so a lot of them will be primarily focused on what they need to know for the exams. When I did my Aristotle/Plato competition right after the first exam, I asked them a question that related to their last essay topic. No one could tell me. When I teased them about having just been tested on the material, one of my students rather energetically informed me, "but that was last week! We've forgotten it already!" :)
And last but not least, bear in mind that the closer it gets to finals, the more overwhelmed the students become, and the more they tend to skip the readings. So, keep that in mind when coming up with your syllabus. Last time, I did it historically, but next time I think I might want to do it thematically, leaving free will (since they also get that in their theology classes, and find it a bit easier) towards the end. The last few weeks of the semester, I covered the Kyoto School, Heidegger and Kierkegaard. It was really deflating to wait all semester long to teach them these cool ideas that I considered my area of expertise and realize that they were too busy cramming for their chem finals to really get much out of it. Not saying you should do it that way yourself, just that the motivation level at the end of the semester can be an important consideration when putting together a syllabus.
Hope that helps :)
I was thinking specifically about adding Descartes, but I'm not quite sure how to fit him into the overall structure of the course. I want to keep things unified as much as possible, to help those atrophied freshman/sophomore memories. I am planning on making the last section of the course light on reading, if not completely free from it, and instead focused on processing what we had been covering all semester, which should also help them on the final. Thanks for the tips!
That sounds like a plan :)
Of course, I'm no expert, having only taught one semester, but yeah, that's some of the stuff I've been mulling over.
Maybe next time, I'll show a movie the last week of class or something. I've heard they like that, and I'm into the whole intersection of philosophy and film these days anyways :)
Post a Comment