Hello Philosophers! I graduated college not too too long ago and have missed the intellectual discussions I used to have there. Someone alerted me to this site, and it has done more than anything else to bring back the good memories. Thanks to all of you for spending your time on this - it's like having a mini personalized philosophy class - and it's free! I was intrigued by the recent question about philosophy and improving students' characters (posted Sept. 9), responded to by Professor Louise Antony and was wondering if that discussion could be continued a little. In particular, I was unclear on whether Professor Antony was positioning herself as disagreeing with the questioner. Is she saying that it is not philosophy's purpose to improve character, or just that it is un-PC for a professor to state it as a goal of the course? Would, for example, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., (or Socrates, as I think was the example used by the questioner) be considered presumptuous? It was my understanding that writers and philosophers (and artists and engineers), at least the well-intentioned ones, are trying to improve the world. Surely that's not presumptuous of them...So I'm a little unclear as to what Professor Antony meant on that particular point. Secondly, when I went to college many students were disaffected and spent their time in wild parties engaged in all kinds of (I hope this isn't presumptuous of me) immoral and often illegal behavior. And it was a highly ranked college as well! And this wasn't the minority of students either - I'd say it was rather the majority. Is it presumptuous to intervene here, as a professor? I would think that professors of philosophy would be best positioned to intervene here to persuade the disaffected students of the lack of wisdom of their behavior, not just in a practical sense, but in a philosophical and moral sense. I am completely in agreement with Professor Antony that issues such as oppression of women by organized religion are serious, world-affecting issues that everyone (!) should be aware of, but the issues of date rape, hazing, and general alienation that abound in college aged students seem like equally important issues and ones that, perhaps, hit closer to home. I don't understand what is holding those issues back from being discussed in the classroom. Thanks!!!

Comments

I'll let Louise respond on her own behalf, as far as her own position is concerned. But, if I may address the second question, in a spirit with which I think she'd agree....

Yes, of course, date rape, and hazing, and binge drinking, and the like are all serious problems. But the question is why one should suppose that philosophy classes are the right place to address them. I think it's asking a lot of philosophy—not to mention of philosophy professors—to suppose that it—and we—are in some special position to instill wisdom in our students. Certainly, if you ask me what I'm trying to teach the average student in one of my undergraduate courses—the one who's not a major or, perhaps, is but is headed to law school or the business world or what have you—I'll say I want them to learn to read and listen well, and to think and express themselves clearly. And one would certainly hope that these skills might help people live their lives better. But, however clearly I can think (and I don't even manage that much all the time), I don't know that I am any sort of expert at living life well. Living life well involves a lot more than thinking clearly. Indeed, the problem, in many of the cases you mention, is that there isn't a whole lot of thinking going on, and I'm not sure philosophers have any special skills that will get people thinking about what they're doing in these sorts of cases. Counselors, therapists, and the men and women of the cloth seem a better bet.

This conversation reminds me of one that Plato often representsSocrates as having with certain sophists. Socrates asks them just whatin the world they are claiming to teach. They offer an answer that isvery similar to Richard’s: “We teach our students how to think clearlyand well.”

Socrates wouldn’t be satisfied. After all, don’t allteachers claim to teach their students how to think well? "About whatsubject matter do philosophers teach us to think well?" Socrates wouldask. The answer, as is evident from this website, is: “A whole lot ofthings.”

AsLouise noted in her response to the original question, oneof the things with which philosophers have traditionally been concernedis how one ought to live one’s life. A philosophy department’s offeringswould be seriously lacking if it didn’t include courses in whichstudents were taught to think well about ethical issues. Richard saysthat he doesn't know whether he is an expert on living life well in an effort to explain why it would be inappropriate for him to take up certain issues in the classroom. But I'm uncertain whether he believes that it would be inappropriate for any philosopher, even someone who has studied ethics at length, to take up such issues in the classroom-- not, certainly, with the goal of "solving the problem of binge drinking, etc. on campus" but with the goal of developing skills to think clearly about how it is best to live.

Inany case, I agree with Louise, and disagree with Socrates, on thefollowing question: Is it the business of philosophers to buildcharacter in our students? While I believe that good teachers of ethicshave the ability (and perhaps obligation) to increase their students'insight into ethical matters, character is a separate matteraltogether. We can know the right way to live our lives andstill notbe able to motivate ourselves to live our lives in this way.Philosophers are not trained to deal with this issue. At thisstage, but not before, a therapist might be helpful.

Read another response by Richard Heck, Jyl Gentzler

Read another response about Education, Philosophy