【Conversation】Philosophy Teaching

Originally Contained: Position News

https://www.thestandnews.com/philosophy/talk-philosophy-teaching/

Foreword: Professor Wang Weixiong invited two professors Liu Chuangfu and Liu Yanfang to talk about the experience and experience of philosophy teaching, and discussed various aspects of philosophy teaching. Although it is difficult to say that it is comprehensive and in-depth, it can at least give readers a little understanding of philosophy teaching from the sharing of the three professors. Some notable points.

**************************************************** ********************************

(WW: Wang Weixiong; CL: Liu Chuangfu; JL: Liu Yanfang (Joe))

WW: First of all, I would like to thank the two of you for agreeing to participate in this dialogue on "philosophy teaching". I chose this topic because I think it involves many issues worthy of discussion, such as whether philosophy teaching has its own unique difficulties, how to teach philosophy, and what kind of teaching effect can be considered successful, etc. However, I don't have a set list of items for discussion. The two of you can ask questions at any time, and we just have to go with the flow.

Although I have been teaching philosophy for many years, I like this job very much, and I can get a sense of satisfaction from it. However, I still feel that philosophy teaching is not easy, and I feel that there are many things that I cannot do well. Or let’s introduce the subjects I usually teach first. The subjects I teach at the entry level include Introduction to Philosophy, Philosophy of Science, Logic and Critical Thinking, and the subjects at the higher level are Theory of Knowledge and Metaphysics. I also taught Nietzsche’s philosophy once.

CL: I also really enjoy teaching and enjoy the interaction in the classroom. I teach Western philosophy, and every year I teach the history of Western philosophy, either Greek and early Roman philosophy, or modern philosophy from Descartes to Hegel. Other subjects that are not taught on a regular basis include Introduction to Philosophy, Theory of Knowledge, Philosophy of Mind, more specifically Aristotle, Kant, Hegel or German Idealism, and a subject that explores the subject of atheism from an interdisciplinary perspective. Teachers of the Department of Philosophy at CUHK usually teach some general subjects. I have taught logic and argumentation, philosophy of science and technology before, and I teach a subject called "Mind, Human Brain and Artificial Intelligence" on a more regular basis. In addition, we have a popular part-time master's program, mainly for working people without a formal philosophy background; I teach one of the subjects of this master's program every year, which is roughly a re-cut of the above.

JL: I also teach Introduction to Philosophy and Critical Thinking at HKU. In recent years, many students have taken a general education course on food philosophy, with nearly 300 students. As for the more specialized philosophy courses, I mainly teach philosophy of mind and philosophy of cognitive science, but there are also many other topics, such as philosophy of language and logic. When I first started teaching at the University of Hong Kong, I co-taught a subject of political philosophy with Professor Chen Zuwei from the Department of Political Science, and I seem to have only six students in my memory.

WW: Some of my friends who teach philosophy don’t like teaching theories or introductory subjects because they think the content is too shallow and not challenging; they want to only teach subjects within the scope of their specialization. It is easier to achieve the effect of teaching each other. I wonder if the two have similar teaching preferences?

CL: No, I don't like teaching specialized subjects. On the one hand, I usually choose the difficult and the easy, and try to avoid challenges; on the other hand, I like that students can understand and participate, and students in subjects that are too specialized may not be able to keep up. I opened a Hegelian Seminar once, and when there were few people, I felt like I was constantly singing a one-man show. Since then, I decided not to teach any more. I actually enjoyed teaching part-time masters or general subjects.

JL: It would be nice to be able to teach your own research topics. However, for me teaching can serve different purposes: to inspire students, to organize textbooks, to learn something new, etc. The introductory course needs to be taught well, it has something to say, it can challenge students to think, but it must be interesting, but it is not easy. Courses at different levels require different teaching skills. I don't really care what I teach, as long as it helps myself and my students.

WW: I like to teach both introductory levels and specialized subjects, but for different reasons. Teaching specialized research subjects can satisfy one’s research interests at the same time, and even expand the research scope through teaching. For example, I chose the topic of “time” in the subject of metaphysics to conduct further research, and finally wrote an article about time. Philosophical treatise. As for subjects at the introductory level, the reason I like them is that teaching these subjects satisfies what I can call a "sense of mission", which is to open the eyes of students and make them start thinking about important issues that they have never thought about before. And to help them get rid of some simplistic views of the world; in other words, I hope to help them see the complexity of the world and be less dogmatic.

Even without all these eye-opening effects, subjects at the introductory level can at least give students a rudimentary understanding of philosophy. In fact, many students, including those who decide to major or minor in philosophy, have little understanding of philosophy at first, and even have serious misunderstandings. I have seen some students give up majoring in philosophy because after taking a few subjects they found that the subjects taught in the philosophy department did not meet their expectations for philosophy, such as seeking meaning in life and increasing wisdom; a few of these students even Say something like "So philosophy is so hard and boring".

CL: Every year students leave the philosophy department for various reasons, and some probably also feel that philosophy in the college is too pedantic to help them resolve their confusion and not meet their original expectations. However, there are a lot of students who are transferred into our philosophy department every year. Usually, more students are transferred in than they are transferred out!

JL: Many philosophical questions are not difficult to understand and are closely related to daily life. What is difficult is how to analyze and answer these questions. Some technical discussions can indeed be dull for some students. In these cases, I will try to illustrate with some more vivid examples. I will also explain the background of the discussion clearly, hoping to bring out a message: the key to dealing with many important philosophical issues is to clarify some basic concepts, and we should not underestimate the utility of semantic analysis. There are of course many reasons for being confused about life, but it may also be because of a problem in thinking.

WW: Joe's view is contrary to my experience. I think there are many philosophical problems that are difficult to explain, especially to students who are new to philosophy; the hard part is to make them understand why it is so For the problem, but also to make them understand the importance of the problem. For example, problem of induction, I have covered this issue in Introduction to Philosophy, but every time I feel that no matter how I explain it, some students do not understand why this is a difficult problem, or they seem to know what the problem is, but do not understand that it has what importance. Another example is the possibility and necessity mentioned in metaphysics. Even students majoring in philosophy cannot quickly grasp the importance of these two concepts in philosophy and the important issues involved. I have this feeling, maybe my requirements for "understanding" are too high.

JL: Philosophy is all-encompassing, and I agree that there are many philosophical issues that are not easy to explain. Maybe my requirements are relatively low. To introduce why a topic is important, I will mainly emphasize the relationship between this topic and other basic concepts. For example, if you mentioned the problem of induction, I thought I would say that the question has to do with what is "rational". If someone wakes up from a nightmare, believing that tomorrow is the end of the world, and immediately takes refuge in a cave, we'll think he's stupid. However, based on our limited past experience, how can we prove that tomorrow will not be the end of the world, or that the chances of it happening are very low?

Of course, I am not saying that this discussion will make students understand the importance of this issue. There are a lot of assumptions and knowledge that we as teachers may take for granted but are puzzling to students. The only way to understand their difficulties is through discussion and other means. There are many topics I have to repeat several times to find a better way to cut.

CL: Due to the tradition of the Department of Philosophy at CUHK and my academic background, I teach more subjects on the history of philosophy, often discussing philosophical ideas from hundreds to two thousand years ago. Many of those theories are obviously wrong, some even seem absurd today; but wrong theories can also be important, for example, they may have an important role in the development of ideas. Whether or not students consider certain theories important is another matter, however, depending on whether they can connect to some of the topics they consider important in the first place. I will try my best to sort out the background and context of the problem, and give them a big picture, so that they can more easily see the position and importance of a theory.

WW: I don’t think there are many philosophical theories that are clearly wrong. Even the “everything is water” or “everything is fire” in pre-Socratic philosophy, if understood as metaphysics, It is not obvious that it is wrong. However, you said that the big picture is indeed very important; every philosophical question has its ins and outs, and without the big picture, it is easy to misunderstand the problem, or see the forest for the trees. One of the difficulties in teaching philosophy is judging how big and how careful the big picture should be for students. It is not easy to get it just right.

When it comes to right and wrong, I have met several students who have their own opinions on the philosophical theories I teach, and insist on their own opinions. In English, they have strong opinions, but their opinions are actually specious; however, Because of their strong opinions, they were very resistant to me saying that their understanding was wrong or inconsistent and could not listen to my explanation. I'm afraid to meet such students, I wonder if you have similar experience?

CL: Of course there is. Some students always think they are right, and some students question everything, thinking that everything is relative, a product of society and culture. However, I don't mind meeting such students, and I'm not even afraid of the so-called "annoying glue". My biggest fear is that the class will become lifeless if the students don't respond. A reaction is a good reaction, haha.

JL: Like Chuangfu, I am more concerned about whether students respond. Maybe this is the difference between Hong Kong and American campus culture. I don't often see the kind of students Weixiong mentioned. In these circumstances, however, I would not consider it my task to correct the student's mistakes. I tend to accept David Lewis' view of philosophy. Lewis believes that it is difficult to win a philosophical debate in a landslide. What philosophers can do is calculate the cost of different theories. If a student holds an opinion that I think is wrong, I hope that at least he can understand the consequences and costs of this position, and compare it with other theories. Of course, if students are reluctant to think because of prejudice, that's okay. I think there are actually a lot of philosophers who are very stubborn and never give up, no matter how ridiculous their theories may be. Arguing with them can be a waste of life; but sometimes this obsession can lead to unexpected discoveries and broaden our horizons.

WW: I'm not sure if a reaction is a good reaction, but there is always a reaction to no reaction, because if there is no reaction, it's hard to tell how much they understand.

JL: Chuangfu mentioned that some students think that everything is relative, which is also my experience. I have tried many questionnaires and found that nearly 80% of the students believe that morality is relative, and right and wrong are just opinions and perspectives. However, they will also agree that all people should have freedom of religion and speech, and may also think that cats and dogs should not be abused. I reckon they may have confused "moral right and wrong are relative" with "moral right and wrong depends on the situation". I certainly wouldn't ask them to give up moral relativism, but I would hope they would reflect on whether their positions were aligned. Generally speaking, if students can challenge their ideas and bring some impact in teaching, they will be more interested and engaged.

WW: In the United States, too, many students accept, or claim to accept, moral relativism; I don’t just mean the students I have taught, many friends who teach at other universities have mentioned similar observations to me, not limited to philosophy. students, but a fairly common phenomenon. In fact, this is not a problem, but a good entry point to stimulate their thinking. I think that's roughly what Joe said just now.

However, Joe said that challenging students' ideas brought some impact and sometimes had the opposite effect. There is a situation in the United States, that is, some students cannot accept the impact of their religious beliefs. Not only will they not be interested because their ideas are challenged, but they will "turn off the channel" and will not listen to them. I had this experience: once in an introductory philosophy class, I talked about some concepts that we thought we understood, but we don’t really understand; I took the Christian concept of “Trinity” as an example. After a few sentences, one of the students stood up and asked to leave because she could not bear the insults of her religion. Of course I let her go. This is an extreme case that has only happened once, but since then I have been very careful about using religion as an example. It's not an allergy, because I've heard other colleagues say that some students are very resistant to evolution and don't want to hear it.

CL: I think a lot of people's acceptance of moral relativism is based on a beautiful misunderstanding that it represents open-mindedness, tolerance and respect. They fail to realize that to see mutual tolerance and respect as universal values worth pursuing is to deny value or moral relativism.

I also discuss religious beliefs from time to time in my classes, usually mostly critical, and mostly about Christianity. The situation in Hong Kong may be different from that in the United States. Although the Christian beliefs here are also conservative, most of them are accustomed to critical voices and will not have a particularly strong reaction. I think this kind of tolerance is the virtue of Christianity in Hong Kong. If I were to criticize other religions or political positions, I would have greater scruples.

WW: Yes, politics is another sensitive topic. If it is not handled well, for example, if you often find excuses to criticize Trump in class, it will easily offend some students. In the past two years of political turmoil in Hong Kong, talking about politics in the classroom is not only about teaching effectiveness, but also more likely to cause trouble. In fact, this is a bit ironic. Most philosophers attach great importance to the pursuit of truth. Aristotle said, "I love my teacher, but I love the truth more." However, it is not easy to pursue the truth without hesitation in the real world. Philosophers do not seem to have more courage than others in their pursuit of truth.

This topic is too heavy, let's turn it around. While most philosophers value the pursuit of truth, few, if any, philosophical doctrines or theories are accepted as truth by most philosophers. When we teach, even if we have a strong position on a philosophical issue, we should not say that our position is the truth, but only strive to guide students to think. However, here is a question for those of us who teach philosophy: what exactly are we teaching our students? Mainly knowledge? Or skill? or something else?

JL: The curriculum recommendation manual of our Faculty of Arts at HKU reads: Philosophy does not teach you what to think, but how to think. According to this teaching, philosophy teaches skills rather than knowledge. Strictly speaking, however, it is impossible for a philosophical education not to impart knowledge. If you major in philosophy, you should at least know some of the content of philosophical theory. Also, in order to improve the way of thinking, it is necessary to know some basic logical laws and reasoning principles. As for skills, training in thinking methods goes hand in hand with strengthening language skills. In addition to knowledge and skills, I also hope that students can pay attention to their studies and their attitude towards doing things.

Of knowledge, skills, and attitude, attitude is the most abstract and difficult to articulate, and the teaching mode is easily offensive. Most of my students do not go on to study philosophy after graduation. Improving their language skills and thinking methods through philosophical writing may be the most effective, but also the most time-consuming.

CL: I try to answer this question from another angle. Students who are really interested in philosophy all come to study philosophy with certain questions and hope to get answers; of course, some of the results come back disappointed, but most of them read it with relish, and even more and more addicted to it. Interestingly, almost none of the students I know who are interested in continuing to study philosophy continue because their original question has been answered. In other words, philosophy gave them something unexpected. I feel that the main benefit of students is to broaden their horizons, which not only means that they have learned some new theories, but also opens up a way of understanding the world, and this way seems to allow people to integrate knowledge in different fields and achieve A deeper, more comprehensive understanding of the world. I don't know if I'm exaggerating philosophy by saying this...

WW: Both seem to emphasize the educational role of philosophy, on the one hand to enhance students' thinking ability, and on the other to broaden their horizons. I would like to explore the relationship between the two, are they complementary or are they largely independent? Ideally, the two should complement each other - increased thinking power can make people able to judge which viewpoints or views are more reasonable after broadening their horizons; broadening their horizons, there is more material for exercise thinking force. However, the reality is often not like this - many philosophically trained people, although they recognize many different viewpoints and views, only use their enhanced thinking ability to defend their own inherent ideas, such as religious and political beliefs.

JL: I agree that broadening horizons and improving thinking skills may not necessarily remove prejudice. Knowledge and reason are often used to weave plausible fallacies. However, I am convinced that philosophical education is more beneficial to society than detrimental in the long run. Otherwise, philosophy departments around the world might as well close down, leaving only a handful of people to focus on philosophical research.

I think a philosophy course might make more reference to the research on cognitive biases in psychology. On the one hand, it is to remind students that there are many blind spots in thinking that we do not care about, and it is difficult for smart people to avoid it. In addition, I hope to provide some practical guidelines to teach students how to reduce the impact of these deviations in their daily lives. In addition to psychology, knowledge of history is also very important. Getting used to examining history with philosophical analysis and critical thinking counteracts brainwashing and oversimplification, while also making us realize that many values and assumptions are not taken for granted. Also, although philosophy emphasizes logic and rational thinking, we should not ignore that many decisions are actually dominated by personality and emotions, and these factors also affect our thinking patterns.

CL: Totally agree! Everyone knows that "philosophy" comes from the Greek and means "love of wisdom". Ancient Greek philosophers regarded themselves as lovers of wisdom. On the one hand, they expressed the attitude of pursuing wisdom, and on the other hand, they wanted to draw a clear line with the wise men or sophists who were popular at the time. Sophists claim to possess wisdom and truth, but what they really teach is sophistry and rhetorical skills; philosophers have always dismissed it, thinking that their work is valuable. Recently I joked with students from time to time that philosophers should stop being so arrogant and should learn from sophists, because the most reasonable theories, the strongest arguments and the most rigorous arguments are often not the most convincing and contagious Powerful; philosophers generally only care about the former, while ignoring, or even despising, the latter, which sophists are good at. Of course, philosophers can’t give up seeking truth and insist, and they can’t deliberately mislead people in order to strengthen their persuasiveness and appeal, but we need to deepen our understanding of people’s various cognitive tendencies and avoid being too “off the ground” and talking to ourselves. Especially in this age of disinformation and conspiracy theories, in addition to the pursuit of truth by philosophers and scientists, there is also a need to reflect on how to effectively bring reliable information into society.

WW: Chuangfu said to avoid too much "off the ground", which is very appropriate. I believe that when you say "off the ground", you mean that we have no relationship or relationship with the things we actually live and care about. Philosophy is hard to avoid getting off the ground, but too much can easily cause problems, such as getting into a bull's horn without knowing it. In terms of teaching, if the topics selected for teaching are too "off the ground", it will be more difficult to engage students. Let me give an example, that's my personal experience. In the past, when I taught theory of knowledge, I did not consider the issue of "getting off the ground" at all. The topics I chose to teach were all abstract and theoretical, such as internalism vs externalism, skepticism about the external world, and the Gettier problem. Many students could not keep up, and I am not interested. In the past five or six years, I have changed my teaching policy and chose some topics that are relatively "grounded", such as testimony, disagreement, and epistemic injustice. There are obvious differences in the responses of students, and they are more interested and engaged in discussion.

JL: The topic of "sticking to the ground" is indeed easier to arouse students' interest, and I also consider this factor when designing the course. However, I have an opinion on training thinking, and I don’t know if other people agree: getting used to abstract thinking is very beneficial to improving thinking and understanding. Abstract thinking does not refer to symbolic logic, but that the arguments and analysis of different topics often have similar patterns and approaches, which can be applied repeatedly. Although abstract and theoretical and relatively unfamiliar, the subject of "off the ground" may increase our sensitivity to these patterns, thereby enhancing our ability to think. When I teach, I always want to be able to do both, but actually being able to do it is another matter.

CL: In terms of "sticking to the ground", in recent years, some people and groups in Hong Kong and Taiwan have been working hard to popularize philosophy, and they have done a great job. I think we should also learn from them.

WW: Philosophy is popularized, whether it is in other forms such as articles or videos, it is inevitable to simplify or even popularize the philosophical issues or theories discussed, but it is difficult to do it just right, even if it is simplified, it can still express its essence. Where it matters, the result is often just dumbing down. When I teach philosophy classes at the level of theory, I will try to keep it simple without dumbing down, at least let students feel the complexity of those philosophical questions, such as guiding them to think about where I can ask questions that I have explained. go down.

Chuangfu said, "I should learn from them." Can you explain?

CL: It's not easy for Zapp to explain things in a simple way, but I don't think it's a problem with dumbing down. Readers come in a variety of degrees and backgrounds. Articles that are just right for experts are mostly not suitable for general readers; therefore, we need articles of various degrees, from kindergarten editions to professional philosophical works, as long as the content is correct, all have value. Philosophy has a wide range, I am only familiar with certain fields, and I also rely on Zapp's articles or lectures to understand the research in other fields, so I am a beneficiary of Zapp myself.

No matter how good an article is, if no one reads it, it doesn't make much sense. I know more about Zhepp's work in Hong Kong, and I think the key to their success in recent years is to engage readers effectively, and not limited to traditional channels, but to get closer to readers or "fans" through a variety of methods other than articles and lectures , and even established a group identity and interaction, not only introducing philosophical thinking, but also sharing the pain, joy and struggle of reading philosophy. As long as they can stick to the truth of the philosophers, use the techniques of sophists, and even add some packaging gimmicks, it is a good thing.

WW: Yes, when we teach students, we must also engage them in order to have a good teaching effect. Joe, do you have any additional or related questions?

JL: No more.

WW: Alright, let's end this nice conversation here. Thank you both for sharing.