Advice needed for teaching philosophy class

[Mike82ARP]

I’m new to this site and hope I am posting this in the proper forum. I am an open objectivist and will be teaching a one semester class on philosophy to 11th and 12th graders next fall. I want the class to be more than just the typical mundane "survey of philosophy” in that I want to incorporate objectivist principals as a proper worldview from which to evaluate other systems. Unfortunately, Rand was a firebrand and the mere mention of her name can invoke some unwarranted strong negative feelings mainly by parents, so I want to slowly incorporate Objectivism without the “in your face” presentation that Rand would likely have required.

Can anyone recommend, if there is any, source material that presents Objectivist principles without being overtly Objectivist? I’m just trying to avoid potential problems.

Thanks.

[BaalChatzaf]

Talk about reality existing independent of our whims and moods.

Show some of the strange consequences of Plato's views.

Contrast Aristotle's -Metaphysics- and -Physics- to Plato's -Timeaus-

Everything Rand taught (taken singly) has been taught prior and better elsewhere/

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Brant Gaede]

The need for philosophy comes first. People need philosophy, not cows, ducks, dogs and cats. Then, what philosophy? Go into science and critical thinking. This sets up Objectivism in its simplest for the metaphysics and epistemology are the same as with science. While the next logical step is ethics you can go to the politics by discussing the founding of the country and individual rights (see, the Declaration of Independence). "The pursuit of happiness" dovetails neatly with rational self-interest and you're off to the races. Then you can go to the philosophy as a whole by referencing the four basic principles and how one leads to another--this does not include esthetics--and you put Rand's name on it. Then you can explain in a summing up how there are two Objectivisms, one cultural/intellectual (hers) and the other--intellectual (as explained so far)--and that to get into her philosophy as she explicated it you have to read the novels and her non-fiction, etc. Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand, is centered on her idea the ideal man and the sanction of the victim (and probably beyond the purview of your course for there's too much material). One great virtue of this philosophy is its integration across parts of philosophical discourse and its emphasis on living on earth. Then there's the contrast with other philosophies and studying philosophy in college which is mostly a bunch of continuing, ungrounded intellectualizations and a worthless way to acquire more student loan debt.

--Brant

nothing wrong with her being a "firebrand"--you might play a DVD of her so they can get the flavor

is this social studies?

[dldelancey]

I would echo Brant's suggestion to start off with why these young folks need philosophy in the first place. It will set the stage for anything else you may teach them during the semester because they will know why they should give a damn.

[PDS]

Take a look at David Norton's Personal Destinies, and otherwise focus on ethics, not the fancy or esoteric stuff.

Also--especially around 11th and 12th graders-- don't forget the difference between principals, and principles, which you appear to have done in the haste of typing your opening post.

[Selene]

Take a look at David Norton's Personal Destinies, and otherwise focus on ethics, not the fancy or esoteric stuff.

Also--especially around 11th and 12th graders-- don't forget the difference between principals, and principles, which you appear to have done in the haste of typing your opening post.

Yes. The way it was taught is that the "principal" was your "pal" which, of course was not true. However, it has stuck in my mind forever...lol.

[Mike82ARP]

Take a look at David Norton's Personal Destinies, and otherwise focus on ethics, not the fancy or esoteric stuff.

Also--especially around 11th and 12th graders-- don't forget the difference between principals, and principles, which you appear to have done in the haste of typing your opening post.

Well, I wish the principal subscribed to objectivist principles!! LOL!! I was in a rush when typing this earlier.

Thanks for the advice everyone.

[Mike82ARP]

The need for philosophy comes first. People need philosophy, not cows, ducks, dogs and cats. Then, what philosophy? Go into science and critical thinking. This sets up Objectivism in its simplest for the metaphysics and epistemology are the same as with science. While the next logical step is ethics you can go to the politics by discussing the founding of the country and individual rights (see, the Declaration of Independence). "The pursuit of happiness" dovetails neatly with rational self-interest and you're off to the races. Then you can go to the philosophy as a whole by referencing the four basic principles and how one leads to another--this does not include esthetics--and you put Rand's name on it. Then you can explain in a summing up how there are two Objectivisms, one cultural/intellectual (hers) and the other--intellectual (as explained so far)--and that to get into her philosophy as she explicated it you have to read the novels and her non-fiction, etc. Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand, is centered on her idea the ideal man and the sanction of the victim (and probably beyond the purview of your course for there's too much material). One great virtue of this philosophy is its integration across parts of philosophical discourse and its emphasis on living on earth. Then there's the contrast with other philosophies and studying philosophy in college which is mostly a bunch of continuing, ungrounded intellectualizations and a worthless way to acquire more student loan debt.

--Brant

nothing wrong with her being a "firebrand"--you might play a DVD of her so they can get the flavor

is this social studies?

I've been surreptitiously priming the students this year. I have a "Who is John Galt?" decal on my vehicle and have discussed the Atlas Shrugged movies with several of my students, most who have viewed the film and many who plan to tackle the book this summer. I loan my DVD to others and they love it, especially given today's political climate. No grief from parents so far = no grief from the principal.

[Reidy]

I second the others who say that you shouldn't set out to indoctrinate your students.

If you want to include Rand, Allan Gotthelf and Tibor Machan have written introductory texts on Objectivism. I haven't read them, but the Gotthelf text is supposed to be mostly on the upstream branches of Rand's theory rather than on the ethics and politics that usually get attention.

You've presumably read "The Objectivist Ethics" and the rest of VoS. If you have time to read Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics before school starts, you might find some interesting, beginner-appropriate topics between the two books: where does value come from? what are the virtues and why are they virtues? Your students might be up to reading all of VoS but more than a fraction of Aristotle would be impractical.

The Ayn Rand Society of the APA held a session several years ago on introductory teaching of Rand. You might be able to get copies of the papers if you contact them.

[jts]

Take a look at David Norton's Personal Destinies, and otherwise focus on ethics, not the fancy or esoteric stuff.

Also--especially around 11th and 12th graders-- don't forget the difference between principals, and principles, which you appear to have done in the haste of typing your opening post.

Well, I wish the principal subscribed to objectivist principles!! LOL!! I was in a rush when typing this earlier.

Thanks for the advice everyone.

The kid refused to go to school. He said it's not so much school as the principal of the thing.

[Selene]

The need for philosophy comes first. People need philosophy, not cows, ducks, dogs and cats. Then, what philosophy? Go into science and critical thinking. This sets up Objectivism in its simplest for the metaphysics and epistemology are the same as with science. While the next logical step is ethics you can go to the politics by discussing the founding of the country and individual rights (see, the Declaration of Independence). "The pursuit of happiness" dovetails neatly with rational self-interest and you're off to the races. Then you can go to the philosophy as a whole by referencing the four basic principles and how one leads to another--this does not include esthetics--and you put Rand's name on it. Then you can explain in a summing up how there are two Objectivisms, one cultural/intellectual (hers) and the other--intellectual (as explained so far)--and that to get into her philosophy as she explicated it you have to read the novels and her non-fiction, etc. Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand, is centered on her idea the ideal man and the sanction of the victim (and probably beyond the purview of your course for there's too much material). One great virtue of this philosophy is its integration across parts of philosophical discourse and its emphasis on living on earth. Then there's the contrast with other philosophies and studying philosophy in college which is mostly a bunch of continuing, ungrounded intellectualizations and a worthless way to acquire more student loan debt.

--Brant

nothing wrong with her being a "firebrand"--you might play a DVD of her so they can get the flavor

is this social studies?

I've been surreptitiously priming the students this year. I have a "Who is John Galt?" decal on my vehicle and have discussed the Atlas Shrugged movies with several of my students, most who have viewed the film and many who plan to tackle the book this summer. I loan my DVD to others and they love it, especially given today's political climate. No grief from parents so far = no grief from the principal. :thumbsup:

Mike:

Welcome to OL.

I started teaching at Queens College in the NY CUNY system when I was twenty (20), in 1966-67. I was attending NBI. I had finished reading Atlas when I was about 14 or 15. It provided me with the philosophical framework for my core perceptions.

I taught for five (5) years and I had no problem exposing my students to Ayn's ideas. I literally had a copy of Atlas with me virtually all the time.

I never forced her ideas on my students. I clearly expressed my belief that Ayn's ideas were serious and worth their investigation.

I was teaching Rhetoric at that time.

I am quite happy to hear that you are impacted by her ideas. Since I closed the cover of Atlas, as I sat on the shore of the Delaware River, at the allegedly "impressionable age" of fifteen (15), and I said, "but of course!," I have never looked back.

Once again, welcome to the philosophical fight!

A...

[syrakusos]

I agree that "Why do we need philosophy?" is a good approach, given first that you have a definition for it. Why do we needs zorbs? What is philsophy? Once you have some idea of the subject, then you can determine its usefulness? In other classes - such as mathematics - the principles are taught by examples, story problems. It seems obvious that we "need" mathematics, but I was stopped when my daughter asked me point-blank and honestly, when was the last time I actually used algebra in daily life. The need is not obvious, since few people actually perform "story problems" in daily life.

Same with philosophy...

You might start with problems. Ethical problems are easy to posit, life abounds with them. Or art, kids are all about music. What is good? Why? Then follow it back class by class through the antecedants to metaphysics. Then for the term paper or final, let them tell you what good iti is.

I never taught philosophy. I have taught other subjects in college and private industry. I also just finished (2008;2010) a BS and an MA. I mention that because of stories from the classroom that I like to tell in which Marxist professors were astonished that their opinions were discarded. Kids do not arrive without opiniions of their own, often from home, sometimes not.

If you think that you are going to open their eyes and reveal the truth, you are in for a hard fall.

Also, myself, I have a blog that I wrote for middle schoolers interested in Crime Scene Investiigation. For the entry on Morality and Ethics, I offered John Rawls and Ayn Rand and let it go at that. Horses, water, and drinking....

[Jerry Biggers]

(Revised and expanded, March 1, 2013)

Probably the most scholarly approach to Objectivism , without becoming polemical or "in your face," as you put it, and its place - and significance - in the history of philosophy is

Ayn Rand: The Russian Radical, by Chris Matthew Sciabarra (1995: The Pennsylvania State University Press, University Park, PA) [477 pages]. In particular, the middle section of the book (Part Two) is a straight-forward presentation of the essentials of Objectivism. Part Three deals with its application and its relationship to other philosophies.

I suggest that you take a close look at this book. Primarily for your use as an instructor. If this is an introductory course on philosophy, the book itself may be too much, in its level of comprehensiveness and intellectual sophistication.

Two other presentations may be more appropriate for first year college students, and/or introductory philosophy courses. Both are pamphlets published by The Atlas Society

Ayn Rand: Her Life and Thought, by Chris Matthew Sciabarra (32 pages); and The Moral Revolution in Atlas Shrugged, by Nathaniel Branden (44 pages) .http://www.atlassociety.org/sites/default/files/The_Moral_Revolution_in_Atlas_Shrugged.pdf .

Additionally, William Thomas of The Atlas Society has written a series of position papers which cover many of the issues that would like come up in the context of your course. The Atlas Society has also published a series of Q&A topics which would prove useful. Both sets are downloadable and are "free."

[Selene]

I think that there have been some excellent suggestions advanced for your perusal on this thread.

I would, as a rhetorician, given the specific audience of "11th and 12th graders next fall," utilize value clarification exercises to develop critical thinking. Then, once that is in progress, expand it into philosophy and why philosophical premises matter.

Are you familiar with the NASA group exercises that were employed to develop cooperative problem solving?

http://wilderdom.com/games/descriptions/SurvivalScenarios.html

I guarantee that your students will dive into these "scenarios" and that you can utilize them to link there interests through your philosophy classes.

It worked for my students.

A...

[Xray]

I’m new to this site and hope I am posting this in the proper forum. I am an open objectivist and will be teaching a one semester class on philosophy to 11th and 12th graders next fall. I want the class to be more than just the typical mundane "survey of philosophy” in that I want to incorporate objectivist principals as a proper worldview from which to evaluate other systems. Unfortunately, Rand was a firebrand and the mere mention of her name can invoke some unwarranted strong negative feelings mainly by parents, so I want to slowly incorporate Objectivism without the “in your face” presentation that Rand would likely have required.

Can anyone recommend, if there is any, source material that presents Objectivist principles without being overtly Objectivist? I’m just trying to avoid potential problems.

Thanks.

Jmpo, but I would not teach "proper worldview" in a philosophy class. Philosophizing about the world does not necessarily mean that one will arrive at definite answers.

The process of philopsophical question-asking can be very productive and dynamic; the journey is its own reward.

[Mike82ARP]

I’m new to this site and hope I am posting this in the proper forum. I am an open objectivist and will be teaching a one semester class on philosophy to 11th and 12th graders next fall. I want the class to be more than just the typical mundane "survey of philosophy” in that I want to incorporate objectivist principals as a proper worldview from which to evaluate other systems. Unfortunately, Rand was a firebrand and the mere mention of her name can invoke some unwarranted strong negative feelings mainly by parents, so I want to slowly incorporate Objectivism without the “in your face” presentation that Rand would likely have required.

Jmpo, but I would not teach "proper worldview" in a philosophy class. Philosophizing about the world does not necessarily mean that one will arrive at definite answers.

The process of philopsophical question-asking can be very productive and dynamic; the journey is its own reward.

Well, I suppose I meant to say I wanted to help the students develop a proper worldview through the use of philosophical inquiry. Since I view objectivism as a system which best permits one to achieve true happiness, that will be the destination.

[Jonathan]

Well, I suppose I meant to say I wanted to help the students develop a proper worldview through the use of philosophical inquiry. Since I view objectivism as a system which best permits one to achieve true happiness, that will be the destination.

My advice would be that you should consider slowing things down a bit, and remember that you're a teacher and not a preacher. You appear to have been bitten hard by the ObjectiVampire and you now want, if not need, to bite others. In your introductory post, you say that you hadn't read Rand until after seeing the film Atlas Shrugged, Part 1, and that you've since read many of her philosphical works. From the release of the film to today in not whole lot of time to critically absord and analyze an entire philosophy, let alone to conclude that it is the "system which best permits one to achieve true happiness."

J

[Reidy]

1. What would you teach if you'd never heard of Rand?

2. How can you teach this better for having read her? What special insights does she have on the material?

[Mike82ARP]

1. What would you teach if you'd never heard of Rand?

2. How can you teach this better for having read her? What special insights does she have on the material?

Q#1. I would have taught a survey course in philosophy which I viewed as insufficient for my purpose. I've been considering this for a few years, but haven't gone forward with it as I could not identify a final goal or purpose with which I was comfortable.

Q#2. Rand's philosophy was not something that changed my life as I unknowingly held most of her tenets for many years. Rand simply ordered the system in a way that I couldn't.

[Mike82ARP]

Well, I suppose I meant to say I wanted to help the students develop a proper worldview through the use of philosophical inquiry. Since I view objectivism as a system which best permits one to achieve true happiness, that will be the destination.

My advice would be that you should consider slowing things down a bit, and remember that you're a teacher and not a preacher. You appear to have been bitten hard by the ObjectiVampire and you now want, if not need, to bite others. In your introductory post, you say that you hadn't read Rand until after seeing the film Atlas Shrugged, Part 1, and that you've since read many of her philosphical works. From the release of the film to today in not whole lot of time to critically absord and analyze an entire philosophy, let alone to conclude that it is the "system which best permits one to achieve true happiness."

J

If you think teachers aren't preachers, you're unaware of the indoctrination that is taking place in today's schools, e.g., environmentalism, multiculturalism, egalitarianism and yes, altruism. My purpose is to help the students recognize what is garbage.

Further, I am not a Randian and I am not in lock-step with all of her teaching therefore I would not be teaching pure "Objectivism", but only objectivist principles in contrast to other philosophical school and systems (empiricism, pragmatism, mysticism, etc.) As I noted to Reidy above, I already unknowing held many of Objectivism's tenets for years. Rand's writings will help me communicate them more effectively.

[Reidy]

What was unsatisfactory about the survey course you first had in mind? What was the purpose it didn't serve? What changes (Rand-related or not) would make it better?

[Mike82ARP]

What was unsatisfactory about the survey course you first had in mind? What was the purpose it didn't serve? What changes (Rand-related or not) would make it better?

Well, it was about 30 years ago. The teacher was a post-modern type who really didn’t think that philosophy was a path to truth- as if that could be known, but only an endless journey. So, I thought, what’s the point? Rand had at least reached her goal. Most of which comports with life.

IMO, post modernists are Objectivism’s and philosophy’s greatest adversaries.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Mike,

First, welcome to OL.

On substance to the thread opening, here is a practical delivery suggestion that works and works well. I got it from looking at patterns of modern bestsellers that explain cognitive psychology, neuroscience, etc.

Use stories to illustrate the principles and dry material you want to teach.

Not just any stories, either. You basically need two main ones--and two are all you need for it to work perfectly. More stories are merrier, but be careful with a saturation point.

You need:

1. A well-known story from history, which can be as far back as prehistoric to as recent as last century.

2. A modern events story.

This way you emotionally ground your argument and engagement in tradition and you make it current.

I would not use stories from Rand for these two except occasionally (and rare occasions at that). For clarity, I would use references to Rand, though, and Rand-related "ministories" as the discussion develops. In other words, if you want to use Rand's ideas (or themes she raised) as a base to build on, use these references and ministories--where relevant and interesting--as a running theme throughout all points. If you don't want to mention Rand so often, there is nothing wrong with that. too.

There are three elements to the two main stories you want to look for.

1. They must strongly portray what is familiar to students. If there is too much that is new, the listeners will tune out.

Incidentally, this does not mean you can't tell a story about a person or place no one ever heard of. You can. But the familiar part needs to be strong. This can be (and most often will be) the human condition of the person. This means, depending on what is relevant to your overall educational goal, growing up pains, social interactions that cause strong emotion like falling in love or being humiliated in public, dreams and aspirations of changing the world, major disappointments and triumphs, and things like that.

We all have these experiences in common. The details differ (of course), but the overall experiences are the same. Falling in love is falling in love for everyone. These experiences are familiar. You want your story-person to not just do stuff, but to feel things listeners also feel.

2. The stories should contain aspects that not many people talk about these days, or even hidden meanings. In other words, Point No. 1 will be your setting or context, and this one (Point No. 2) will be the interesting stuff you put within that context.

Incidentally, these first two points act like a virus you infect the students with. A virus is not a complete life form. It needs to complete itself by attaching to a complete form. The familiar part is bait for your listeners to lower their guard on their own complete forms and the new stuff is what the virus carries within it. Once it attaches and delivers the new stuff, it turns into a new cell within their minds, so to speak. (This metaphor can only go so far, but I hope you see what I mean.)

A good example from the historical aspect is Malcolm Gladwell's use of Paul Revere's midnight ride (in The Tipping Point) to illustrate his idea of "connectors" in marketing. Everybody knows "The British are coming!" And everybody knows fear and defiance. The unknown part (or little talked about part) was Revere's gregarious personality and William Dawes's simultaneous midnight ride, which did not brand itself on our culture like Revere's ride did.

3. You need at least one cliff-hanger in the middle of each story. This is so you can introduce your dry material. A cliffhanger is easy to produce. You either talk about someone wanting something badly and getting right up to it it, without disclosing whether the person gets it, what his response is, etc., or you produce a sudden danger that shows up out of nowhere. This danger can be physical or something as mundane as being found out.

Then you structure your presentation like this:

a. Story to cliffhanger

b. Dry stuff to explain what is going on

c. Story completion, starting from the cliffhanger

d. Meaning and further explanations, projected alternatives, open discussion, etc.

If you do this twice--once from a historical slant and once from a modern event slant--per major point, principle, body of information, or whatever you want to get across, you practically don't need to test your students. They will tend to remember it well and will only need to bone up on the stuff that is innately hard to remember.

And, who knows, you can even write best-sellers like Malcolm Gladwell, Dan Ariely, Daniel Pink, etc. Maybe do a TED talk...

You can mix this up however you wish, leave out one of the stories, even add Rand's form of nonfiction writing to it, but the principle is to use stories people can relate to in order to transmit information they don't know.

Obviously, you don't need to be completely formulaic about it, in other words, you can explain stuff at several points in a story, but the formula of prefacing each explanation with a cliffhanger is actually more than a formula. I consider it to be something like mental breathing. Yes, there is in and out and only in and out, but that's the way it is because that's the way it works on a fundamental level. If you stop, you die. Just like your lecture will die if it gets too boring. Just like you will lose your listener if your story meanders all over without any gut-juice.

There is one added benefit to this method. You asked for "source material that presents Objectivist principles without being overtly Objectivist." My way makes you come up with your own material and also makes you think through the principles.

in other words, you have to use your brain.

(That is such a good thing...)

Another point--it's OK to get something wrong once in a while when doing this. Even that can be valuable to students. You have encouraged them to think and see on their own instead of memorizing facts by rote, so many of them will contest your conclusions if they disagree. Even when they don't do it openly, they will in their hearts. And, if you find out you were wrong, you have a great story for later presentations ("I used to teach xxxxxxxx, but then yyyyyyyyyy happened and I had to get used to the taste of crow for a while. )

The important thing is that you opened a door for them to examine the point and gave them some contextual tools for doing so. Once they start from the mental imprint of this experience, one thing can't help but lead to another in their minds, so they will be examining it for a long time to come.

It's almost like showing a hidden form in a picture (like the ones on this site, for example--I know, I know, there are oodles of less racy examples I could have used, but sometimes I think I'm damaged goods ). Once you see it, you can't not see it from there on out.

That's how I would approach teaching philosophy. There are so many colorful stories it's breathtaking. (Did you know Schopenhauer had a dog named "Atma" and would call it "human" when he wanted to scold it? Think you could "Rand" that one up? I certainly could... )

Like I said, this post is merely a suggestion.

Maybe your educational orientation or goals are different and I'm OK with that if that's the way it is.

Michael

[dldelancey]

Well, I suppose I meant to say I wanted to help the students develop a proper worldview through the use of philosophical inquiry. Since I view objectivism as a system which best permits one to achieve true happiness, that will be the destination.

My advice would be that you should consider slowing things down a bit, and remember that you're a teacher and not a preacher. You appear to have been bitten hard by the ObjectiVampire and you now want, if not need, to bite others. In your introductory post, you say that you hadn't read Rand until after seeing the film Atlas Shrugged, Part 1, and that you've since read many of her philosphical works. From the release of the film to today in not whole lot of time to critically absord and analyze an entire philosophy, let alone to conclude that it is the "system which best permits one to achieve true happiness."

J

If you think teachers aren't preachers, you're unaware of the indoctrination that is taking place in today's schools, e.g., environmentalism, multiculturalism, egalitarianism and yes, altruism. My purpose is to help the students recognize what is garbage.

Further, I am not a Randian and I am not in lock-step with all of her teaching therefore I would not be teaching pure "Objectivism", but only objectivist principles in contrast to other philosophical school and systems (empiricism, pragmatism, mysticism, etc.) As I noted to Reidy above, I already unknowing held many of Objectivism's tenets for years. Rand's writings will help me communicate them more effectively.

The solution for indoctrination is not more indoctrination. Based on all your other posts, I don't really think that you have suggested so. However, in your zeal I do think you're walking a thin line. Young people don't need us to force feed them a value system. They need us to teach them the thinking skills to arrive at their own value system. Objectivism, as you have noted, includes a structure that allows that to occur. You can hope that they will arrive at the same values you have chosen, but you shouldn't expect it. Both you and they need to know at the end of the semester that their choices have been their own. Otherwise, there was no point in teaching them philosophy in the first place.

[Brant Gaede]

The true philosophical heart of Objectivism is the ethics. This means the ethics will end up getting the majority of attention over the course of a semester. Put at its simplest it's not "selfishness" for Rand used that word for rhetorical or polemical reasons in the same sense she kept saying, "And, I mean it!" This kind of absolutism is incompatible with science. "Concern with one's own interest" is not selfishness qua any dictionary, but her denatured rendition of the word after slapping the reader across the face with it in a title and insulting him in the book's opening remarks. ("Afraid of it.")

Anyway, the proper nomenclature is rational self-interest. This is connotative of the individualism involved in the essence of thinking for group think is no think. Or, this represents the logical bridge between the reasoning mind and the ethics and in turn the politics all transcendent of any type of collectivism, but, unfortunately, also transcendent of human social nature and needs as generally though not completely explicated in the fiction and non-fiction. "The trader principle" doesn't quite make it in the context of hard-wired biological yearning although it can cover it over like frosting on a cake.

--Brant