ask a question

recent responses

all topics

info

⚲

Education
Philosophers

Which would you recommend to a neophyte of philosophy who has a broad but a very, very superficial understanding (I know a bit about the history and how and why philosophical trends happend since the pre-socratics to contemporary philosophy) of philosophy? A very terse, comprehensive, and detailed book on Kant/Kant's Critique of Pure Reason or the Critique of Pure Reason itself? I hear from many philosophers that Kant is a boring writer with great ideas. Is he boring in the sense that Aristotle is boring to some people in that he is dry and to the point (I do not find that boring at all!)? I would like to read both Pure Reason and an academic's commentary, summary, and analysis of it, but I have time and money for only one. Also, thanks for this website, I've found it very useful!

I'm going to cheat and recommend both. Couldn't you find a really cheap copy of Kant in a used bookstore or get it out of the library? Then you could read the commentary cover to cover, but refer to Kant as needed. It would be a pity not to get the distinctive flavor of the Critique of Pure Reason by reading passages, looking at headings, etc. I don't think you could get a satisfying sense of really having tackled Kant without doing that. But reading just Kant, not the commentary, would be (to be honest) excruciating.
Education
Ethics
Religion

I go to church regularly and say things I don't believe. I justify this by saying that it's necessary to support an institution that I believe does more good than harm and that the usefulness of a statement is more important than its truth. I think my grounds are utilitarian and pragmatic, and do not share the vulnerability, among skeptics, of belief in the statements. I am satisfied with my justification until I am asked to teach a seventh-grade Sunday School class. If I decline I leave it to somebody else, maybe as much a skeptic as I am, to give the support I want given. I can't do that, and don't expect a philosopher to give me a justification for it. If I accept the job I do the things that make me ask for help from a philosopher. My question: How I can avoid harm, and if I can't will I do enough to tip the utilitarian balance and remove me from the church? As I see it, I risk doing three kinds of harm. First, pedagogical harm. I will be teaching credulousness. They can't believe what...

I have struggled with similar dilemmas, as a non-believing member of a Jewish religious congregation. It looks like you have four options--(1) leave the church entirely, (2) teach in the normal fashion, (3) teach non-literally, and (4) remain in the church but don't teach. You've made up your mind against (1), and you're struggling between (2) and (3). I think you're right to be worried about (2). It concerns me the way Sunday school teachers stand before children and present religious stories exactly as if they were history teachers or science teachers. This does exploit the credulousness of children in a way that is problematic. It's been way too long since I read Austin, so I don't know what he says about the "backstage artiste," but I think it's fine for children to be taught that religious material is "meaningful to us" but not historically or scientifically true. The problem is that I doubt other congregants would think it's fine (unless your church is extremely liberal). So I can't...
Education
Philosophy

Having grown tired of reading secondary material in my study of philosophy, I have decided to read primary texts in a chronological, rather than thematic, order. I have started with Plato and have read most of the works I can find online or at my library. Before I move on to Aristotle, I would like your advice. Do you think a chronological approach is a good idea for someone untrained in philosophy? Do you think I should read every work by a given philosopher, or are there 'key' works that serve as their primary contribution to the field? If the latter, are there any lists that you are aware of that state what those key works are?

If you do decide to take the chronological approach, then I think you should definitely focus on key works--in fact, in many cases just chapters of key works. I think it would make sense to choose a history of philosophy as your guide, staying away from anything overly voluminous or idiosyncratic. Blackwell has a one-volume history by Anthony Kenny that looks good. The table of contents references specific philosophical works, which may help you create a manageable, focused itinerary for yourself. Bon voyage!
Children
Education

Why not compromise on the creationism vs. evolution argument and simply require that high schools offer an elective class in theology? This way the students still get the more pragmatic information of evolution but at the same time parents are given the option of introducing their children to the opposing ideas if they feel it is appropriate. Along this same line of thought, why not compromise in the argument of safe sex versus abstinence and simply offer both? Allow parents to select which class their child should be enrolled in, but require it to be one or the other? Children are individuals too. Some would benefit more from a conservative class while others would gain from a liberal class. Personally, I’m an eighteen-year-old virgin saving himself for marriage. I was raised on an abstinence program and it worked for me. A peer of mine was raised on the same system and is now at his doctor being tested for hepatitis C. By generalizing all children aren’t we guaranteeing that we’ll fail at least...

I think the two compromises you propose bring up very different issues. Letting parents choose between two types of sex education classes is problematic. Although you have personally chosen abstinence--which is entirely fine, of course--studies show that abstinence education generally (on average) changes the age of first intercourse minimally or not at all. If regular sex education generally does a better job of preventing unwanted pregnancies and STDs, the school would essentially be offering a choice between better sex education and worse sex education. I don't think offering that choice fits within the mission of health education--which is to use the best methods available to steer children and young adults toward better health. The other compromise seems more sensible. Religion plays such a major role in world affairs, it is odd that a person can graduate from high school knowing next to nothing about it (as I did). It seem reasonable to at least offer comparative religion as an elective....