I agree, and yet I hesitate. People who have taken one or two philosophy classes are often insufferable and not least to themselves (or so I suspect). E.g., there's no broadly accepted 'answer' in epistemology (can we know things? What does it mean to say we know something?), and in an intro class you're only likely to be introduced to the problem and a few of the historically popular responses. These may lead you to conclude that philosophy is a lot of sound and bespectacled fury, signifying nothing or else that your newfound cynicism about knowledge constitutes an important superiority over naive mortals.
Epistemology is just one example. Whatever tickles your brain in an introduction to philosophy--whether arousing your curiosity, 'clicking' with something long felt, or leading you almost to despair--you should treat as a diagnosis. Valuable information, no doubt, but almost worthless to you unless you go on to seek treatment, that is, to study it further.
Your experiences and/or preconceptions about what happens in a philosophy class differ greatly from what I experienced in school. Any decent philosophy teacher will present the historically popular responses and then let the class discuss and explore their own feelings on the subject. Nearly everybody goes to school with some kind of social and spiritual programming from their upbringing, and a few philosophy classes goes a long way in opening up your mind to the broader world. NO philosophy class should ever attempt to make you believe that one way of thinking is right or wrong, but instead should present all the ways of thinking so you are at least aware that they exist. Even knowing that such other schools of thought are out there makes you better able to communicate with and understand different people who think in a variety of ways throughout your life.
Comments
I agree, and yet I hesitate. People who have taken one or two philosophy classes are often insufferable and not least to themselves (or so I suspect). E.g., there's no broadly accepted 'answer' in epistemology (can we know things? What does it mean to say we know something?), and in an intro class you're only likely to be introduced to the problem and a few of the historically popular responses. These may lead you to conclude that philosophy is a lot of sound and bespectacled fury, signifying nothing or else that your newfound cynicism about knowledge constitutes an important superiority over naive mortals.
Epistemology is just one example. Whatever tickles your brain in an introduction to philosophy--whether arousing your curiosity, 'clicking' with something long felt, or leading you almost to despair--you should treat as a diagnosis. Valuable information, no doubt, but almost worthless to you unless you go on to seek treatment, that is, to study it further.
Your experiences and/or preconceptions about what happens in a philosophy class differ greatly from what I experienced in school. Any decent philosophy teacher will present the historically popular responses and then let the class discuss and explore their own feelings on the subject. Nearly everybody goes to school with some kind of social and spiritual programming from their upbringing, and a few philosophy classes goes a long way in opening up your mind to the broader world. NO philosophy class should ever attempt to make you believe that one way of thinking is right or wrong, but instead should present all the ways of thinking so you are at least aware that they exist. Even knowing that such other schools of thought are out there makes you better able to communicate with and understand different people who think in a variety of ways throughout your life.
That was not my experience at Tech. The first couple courses in it by Jon J Jonston tended to puncture any giant windbags of any particular variety.
He's (or was) very big on the history and the basis before interjecting yourself into the topic.