I can’t remember one specific thing that motivated me to pursue philosophy with my graduate education, but I made the move from economics to philosophy as I matriculated from undergraduate work to Seminary. It might have been my group of very thoughtful and talkative friends (one of whom went on to get a PhD in philosophy), and it might have been my attraction to apologetics, but one way or another, I am still glad for the choice I made. I still love the discipline, and I am daily grateful for the critical thinking tools it gave me.
That is why I was so frustrated talking with a young man who is entering college this fall. One of his classes is an introduction to philosophy course. I have taught this kind of class a lot through the years, so naturally I was interested to hear what the class was going to be like.
His first comment was not encouraging. “I did not know that college professors could take classes less seriously than high school teachers did.” Knowing a bit about his high school experience, my expectations were suddenly as low as my temperature was high.
One of the first comments the professor made in class was that they were going to avoid as many “dead white guys” as possible. Another pronouncement on the first day was that “there are no wrong answers.”
One of the first assignments is a group discussion and presentation on, “under-represented groups” in philosophy.
One of the final papers is a short essay on “My Personal Philosophy.”
To be fair, the syllabus contains several weeks of traditional philosophical education (at least on paper), ironically covering a lot of dead guys who were likely light-skinned.
So, What’s Wrong?
This syllabus, and the second-hand report about the class, represent ways to fail at teaching philosophy, and fail at education more generally.
Take the notion that “there are no wrong answers” in a philosophy class. This assumption is probably often made among zealous and ignorant freshmen philosophy students, but it is flatly false. It should not be made by the professor. If there are no wrong answers, and if every contradictory brain sneeze is “true”, then the whole discipline is a joke. Metaphysical Naturalism is false. Solipsism is false. All forms of Moral Relativism are false. Marx’s political philosophy is false. Students should be taught that the process of critical thinking and serious analysis of ideas is not identical to the sophmoric notion that “there are no wrong answers.”
What about under-represented voices? These students, who do not know Nietzsche from The Nutcracker do not know, literally know, what is and is not over or under-represented in philosophical discourse. The syllabus, though, lists exactly what you would expect: women, minorities, LGBTQ+, etc. One problem is that if you dig just a little bit, you will find that a sizeable chunk of contemporary philosophy is obsessed with these issues. It is the opposite of under-represented. Secondly, if a “voice” is under-represented, that does not automatically make it worthy of serious discussion. As a result, this section in the coursework is nothing more than political indoctrination.
It should be almost unnecessary to complain about having students write a paper on their “personal philosophy” when they have had only a few weeks of tainted lecturing and spent most of their time discussing with fellow skulls full of mush. This class should train them to interact with big and influential ideas without fear of grade-retribution from their professor, not express themselves.
Then we have those poor “dead white guys.” Including this on the first day of a philosophy class is racist and thick-headed. The field of philosophy, as the Western world knows it, was started by men who are now dead and who had low melanin levels. Certainly, there are valuable thinkers and philosophers outside of the Western tradition, but just being outside of the tradition does not make anyone better or more interesting than Aristotle, Kant, and Russell. If you want an expansive syllabus, do the smart thing and include a broad range of thinkers. Do not pretend to exclude some for blatantly racist reasons.
All of this got under my skin because I find the process of philosophizing so powerful. Learning how to read very difficult authors is like finding a new muscle to flex. Learning how to find assumptions buried in premises and how they lead to questionable conclusions is one of the most useful tools any thinking human can have.
If any student walks out of a class like this loving the discipline of philosophy, it will be a fluke.
“Philosophy” means, “the love of wisdom.” It does not mean, “whatever you think is right,” or, “your personal feelings are just as valid as everyone else’s feelings.” One is the path to understanding and flourishing, the other is a path that leads to the vices and disappointment.