In light of Wednesday’s class being canceled (at least I
think it was, as per Thad’s proposition during Monday’s class), I would like to
take the opportunity to discuss what I felt worked, and what did not, for this
course. For starters, I absolutely loved the student-led lectures; however, I
think the delivery of the material also permitted a lot of unnecessary
discussion. As I have touched upon in some prior blog posts, there was a
tendency for a select few students to get caught up on trivial technicalities
in philosophical jargon or pragmatics. Alas, this sort of vulnerability is the
product of the conversation-rich environment which was sought from the outset.
In other words, there isn’t much that can be done, preventatively speaking,
unless Thad were revert back to the traditional teaching style—but again, this
defeats the purpose of, and often impedes upon, truly open discussion. As frustrating, frequent, and frustratingly
frequent as these digressions were, I completely support the open-discussion
approach to this course as it seems to mimic, and further stimulate, the
process of philosophical deliberation. Furthermore, I believe having students
teach the material is a requisite for optimal comprehension. This is because
students tend to think like other students, not like well-versed philosophers.
It is no surprise that the material presented, while fundamental to the
understanding of existentialism, is considered largely esoteric to many. This
said, student-led discussions make the material more accessible, presenting it
in terms with which the majority can relate. One suggestion that I might offer
for making the material even more engaging concerns the blog post requirements.
In my experience, myself included, students tend to make only as many responses
to others’ posts as are required of them. Needless to say, this isn’t true
discussion—this is one individual creating a post and another individual
responding to it, once, with neither party remotely interested in returning to
the topic. If authentic engagement is the objective, I would suggest making
multiple responses to the same topic a requirement for the course. All in all,
I thoroughly enjoyed the material, the discussion and the growth I experienced
as a result of having participated in existential dialogue—so thank you, PHI
304!
Yours Tru.ly
