[Philosophy] Course Review

lr at willihigh.vic.edu.au lr at willihigh.vic.edu.au
Thu May 18 22:01:05 EST 2006 

thanks - will pass on to my students, but we have already finished the unit 3 authors and have our final SAC next week.  could be good for them for exam revision though.

"Bridget Kinsman" <bkinsman at ozemail.com.au> on Thu, 18 May 2006 22:22:17 +1000 wrote:
> Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) was a German philosopher who believed
> 
> the traditional values of the society of his day had cut religion and
> 
> philosophy-- and indeed, humanity itself--from their proper roots.  As a
> 
> response to the impending disaster he saw looming on the horizon, he
> 
> called for a thoroughgoing "transvaluation of values"--that is, a complete
> 
> rethinking of the whole philosophical and religious tradition that
> 
> produced those traditional values. The theories he developed in carrying
> 
> out this task set up something like a new myth, replacing the myth of
> 
> dispassionate rationality, established by Socrates and popularized by
> 
> Plato, with a myth of passionate irrationality, whose implications are
> 
> only now beginning to be understood.  (Nietzsche claimed, incidentally,
> 
> that his philosophy would not be fully understood until two hundred years
> 
> after it was written.)  The problem with understanding his ideas is that
> 
> he intentionally wrote in an unsystematic way (since constructing systems
> 
> was part of the old set of values).  Not only do some of his ideas
> 
> contradict his other ideas, but many of his books do not even pretend to
> 
> develop a single, well-argued set of ideas.  Rather, they contain
> 
> collections of his various ideas, often expressed in the fragmented form
> 
> of "aphorisms". In other words, Nietzsche would simply write a bunch of
> 
> insight papers, and then publish them whenever he had enough to make a
> 
> book!  He viewed himself more as a poet or even a prophet than as a
> 
> philosopher in any conventional sense.  Nevertheless, many of his insights
> 
> are directly addressed to philosophical issues; so if we do our best to
> 
> arrive at a general understanding of his main ideas, we should be able to
> 
> appreciate his significance for the philosophical tradition.
> 
> 
> 
>     Nietzsche himself (whose name, by the way, is pronounced as if it were
> 
> spelled "Neecha") was the son of a Lutheran pastor.  He was so intelligent
> 
> that he finished his formal education early and became a professor of
> 
> classics at the University of Basel when he was only 24.  In his youth he
> 
> developed a friendship with the musician, Richard Wagner, out of which
> 
> many of his early ideas developed.  After teaching for ten years, however,
> 
> he became disillusioned with the game of academia, and retired to a hut in
> 
> the mountains, where he spent the next ten years of his life as a recluse,
> 
> writing some of the most passionate and challenging books in the history
> 
> of western philosophy.
> 
> 
> Nietzsche's transvaluation of values, the goal around which all of his other
> ideas revolved, was primarily an attempt to break through the traditional
> understanding of the boundaries that limit our moral and intellectual life,
> and to establish in its place a new set of higher values.  The old values,
> as represented especially by Christianity and the philosophical tradition
> culminating in Kant, were, he argued, "life-denying"; they must therefore be
> replaced by "life-affirming" values, the best examples of which are to be
> found in the pagan religions and philosophies of ancient Greece.  Science,
> with its narrow field of vision, interpreting the world as basically dead,
> is not solely responsible for this faulty world view.  For the traditional
> Christian morals accepted by the vast majority of the western world, and
> defended in Kant's philosophy, also support notions such as love, humility,
> and self-sacrifice; and such values, according to Nietzsche, have killed the
> human spirit itself, and caused modern man to forget how to dance.
> 
>     Looking back to ancient Greek mythology, Nietzsche chose names for these
> two types of outlook on life:  the traditional, life-denying outlook he
> called "Apollonian" (after the God of the sun, named "Apollo"), while the
> life- affirming outlook which Nietzsche hoped to put in its place he called
> "Dionysian" (after the God of wine, named "Dionysius").  Whereas the
> Apollonian outlook is conscious, rational, and calm, the Dionysian is
> unconscious, irrational, and passionate.  The former gives rise to a "slave
> morality", in which people adopt a "herd mentality" and view themselves as
> determined by a fixed boundary line defining good and evil; in politics this
> attitude gives rise to democracy (rule by the masses), thus encouraging
> everyone to be alike in mediocrity.  By contrast, the latter gives rise to a
> "master morality", in which people adopt a "hero mentality" and view
> themselves as free to break out of the conventional ways of interpreting
> right and wrong; in politics this attitude gives rise to aristocracy (rule
> by a few people), thus encouraging the greatness of the human spirit to be
> expressed.
> 
>     In these and other ways the Dionysian outlook enables us to go "beyond
> good and evil", and live on a higher plane, characterized by what Nietzsche
> called "the will to power".  The will to power is a form of radical freedom,
> which solves the problem posed by Kant's distinction between nature and
> freedom by demolishing both sets of boundary lines: "we must ... posit
> hypothetically the causality of the will as the only causality."  We can
> truly master ourselves, according to Nietzsche, only by courageously taking
> hold of a freedom that refuses to be enclosed within any boundary, for only
> in so doing can we affirm life as it actually is.
> 
> http://www.hkbu.edu.hk/~ppp/top/top19
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Bridget Kinsman" <bkinsman at ozemail.com.au>
> To: "Year 12 Philosophy Teachers' Mailing List" <philosophy at edulists.com.au>
> Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2006 4:01 PM
> Subject: Re: [Philosophy] Course Review
> 
> 
> > Hi Richard,
> > I've enjoyed reading the reflections of other year 12 teachers, and I
> > thought I'd throw in my two cents.
> > Firstly, although I found it quite a challenge to teach the course for the
> > first time last year, by the end of it all I was quite impressed with the
> > 'balance' of the texts, so far as they seemed to reflect the more
> > significant and interesting philosophical issues that have grabbed the
> > attention of thinkers. Even Murdoch, for all her complexity, is
> particularly
> > relevant and speaks for an increasing proportion of philosophers.
> > Secondly, when you look at the content of the other humanities subjects
> that
> > compete for the interest of students, there might be the danger that
> > watering down the course will not be received well by students and
> teachers
> > alike, such that this newly sprouted subject withers before it has
> bloomed.
> > There will always be some students who would prefer everything to be made
> > easier.
> > Thirdly, I'm not sure that the analysis of popular films, in place of
> > traditional written texts, guarantees more philosophical depth in the
> > classroom. Films can exemplify the philosophical issues that we analyse,
> and
> > I make extensive use of wonderful texts such as 'Waking Life'; however, I
> > don't feel that they are substitutes for the current written philosophical
> > texts.
> > My gripe is probably more with the exam format than the texts. I would
> > prefer to see an exam that requires students to evaluate more of the
> > core/central arguments, as opposed to examining them on their knowledge of
> > what is sometimes peripheral detail. I might add, however, that the
> students
> > in my class who scored well in the exam last year were, without exception,
> > the better philosophers in the class (as opposed to rote learners).
> > Finally, we might remember that the essay question is of considerable
> weight
> > in terms of the marks allocated for it. And it is pretty difficult to
> write
> > a good section C essay unless you have understood the key ideas in the
> > texts, and have the ability to evaluate them in the appropriate analytical
> > manner.
> > By the way, I rather like the dramatic difference between the year 11 and
> > the year 12 curricula. We've got 3 year 10 classes up and running now, and
> I
> > wouldn't want to disappoint students who have completed year 10 and then
> > year 11 philosophy with a weaker year 12 curriculum.
> > Great to see so many thinking about the subject!
> > Jeff Kinsman (Uni High)
> > P.S. Anyone who is in the area and wants to drop in for a coffee and an
> > exchange of materials. . .
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----- 
> > From: "Richard O'Donovan" <rodonovan at fhs.vic.edu.au>
> > To: "Year 12 Philosophy Teachers' Mailing List"
> <philosophy at edulists.com.au>
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2006 11:35 PM
> > Subject: RE: [Philosophy] Course Review
> >
> >
> > > I like your thinking Lyn.  Sadly I've only seen 3 of the movies you've
> > mentioned - I really have to get out more, or stay in more given they're
> all
> > on video now...  I think Minority Report raises some good issues that
> could
> > be worked into Unit 4 as a kind of commentary on science - Groundhog Day
> > would be a good one for The Good Life in Unit 3, or even 50 First Dates or
> > Memento (if we'd get away with it).  I wouldn't mind coupling Inherit the
> > Wind with the DVD sent to all Australian schools called Unlocking the
> > Mystery of Life, which I think does an excellent job of making Intelligent
> > Design look intelligent.  I suspect moving to non-print texts would first
> > need a shift toward the kind of thing Emmanuel suggested in terms of
> having
> > optional texts to choose from.  Once we cross that bridge it would be much
> > easier to start to incorporate some of the more interesting movies into
> the
> > course as optional texts...
> > >
> > > Thanks for those two documents BTW - if it's ok with you I'll pop them
> > onto the website.
> > >
> > > If anyone else has anything they're willing to share please send it
> > through to me (rodonovan at fhs.vic.edu.au) and I'll upload it too.
> > >
> > > Incidentally, for those doing Yr 11 Philo you may be interested to know
> > that some changes are coming through for all Victorian schools with
> regards
> > to the use of animals in teaching.  An Animal Ethics Committee has been
> > established and all animal based activities will have to be approved by
> it.
> > Once it's up and running they will have a website and are looking for
> > resources that would be relevant to any subject, but VCE Philosophy is one
> > they're targetting in particular because of the animal rights component.
> So
> > if anyone has any materials/ideas/suggestions/requests etc. let me know
> and
> > I'll pass it on to the relevant people.
> > >
> > > Richard
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > >
> > > From: philosophy-bounces at edulists.com.au on behalf of
> > lr at willihigh.vic.edu.au
> > > Sent: Tue 28-Feb-06 10:40 PM
> > > To: philosophy at edulists.com.au
> > > Subject: RE: [Philosophy] Course Review
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > here's some ideas, for what they're worth.  i've used all of them over
> the
> > years, usually as movie/philosophy cafe evenings.  final cut (metaphysics
> > and ethics), flowers for algernon (metaphysics, ethics), i, robot
> > (artifiicial intelligence, ethics), inherit the wind (oldie but a goodie
> > about creationism vs. evolution), let him have it (docudrama about death
> > penalty), rashomon (japanese movie that explores epistemological issues),
> > rosencrantz and guildenstern are dead (existentialism), the truman show.
> > > does any of that help?
> > > lyn.
> > >
> > > "Richard O'Donovan" <rodonovan at fhs.vic.edu.au> on Mon, 27 Feb 2006
> > 14:18:42 +1100 wrote:
> > > > I haven't seen What the Bleep yet.  Waking life is good, but a bit
> > scatter gun.  I wonder if we could come up with a decent movie for each
> > theme ala Emmanuel's suggestion...?
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > >
> > > > From: philosophy-bounces at edulists.com.au on behalf of
> > lr at willihigh.vic.edu.au
> > > > Sent: Mon 27-Feb-06 1:54 PM
> > > > To: philosophy at edulists.com.au
> > > > Subject: RE: [Philosophy] Course Review
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > i would crop the murdoch and include something like "waking life" or,
> > even better, "what the bleep do we know?", which is fantastic despite some
> > poor acting!
> > > >
> > > > "Richard O'Donovan" <rodonovan at fhs.vic.edu.au> on Mon, 27 Feb 2006
> > 10:40:23 +1100 wrote:
> > > > > Thanks for the feedback Lyn.  I'd like to see a non-print text
> > included too... any suggestions?  If you had to crop something, what would
> 
> > it be??
> > > > >
> > > > > Richard
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > >
> > > > > From: philosophy-bounces at edulists.com.au on behalf of
> > lr at willihigh.vic.edu.au
> > > > > Sent: Thu 23-Feb-06 10:33 AM
> > > > > To: philosophy at edulists.com.au; philosophy at edulists.com.au
> > > > > Subject: RE: [Philosophy] Course Review
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > hi all,
> > > > > have to disagree with greg on the king.  i feel it's highly
> relevant -
> > especially when i have a mix of theists, atheists and agnostics in the
> room.
> > turing is little value without the objections, but i tend not to give my
> > students the objections straight away.  instead i ask them to come up with
> > some ideas, which are noted on the board, then i hand out the actual
> > objections and we classify their own thoughts under the different
> headings.
> > > > > i don't actually have a problem with any of the readings.  our
> school
> > doesn't have great resources, but i have enough time to do the course with
> 3
> > weeks at the end just for revision.  my kids usually perform at or above
> the
> > state average on the end of year exam.  some modern (non-print?) texts
> could
> > be good.  there NEEDS TO BE at least one SAC that is orally presented -
> the
> > running of a philosophy cafe, a speech, a role-play, whatever.  but if we
> > seriously want them doing philosophy and not just regurgitating the ideas
> of
> > dead white men they need to be assessed on their ability to speak!
> > > > >
> > > > > "Richard O'Donovan" <rodonovan at fhs.vic.edu.au> on Wed, 22 Feb 2006
> > 12:38:27 +1100 wrote:
> > > > > > Hi Clare & Greg & Ian - thought I'd combine response here.  Yes,
> > sorry I forget to say that I'm on the review panel.  I went to the first
> > meeting last Thursday and will go to another next Thursday.  It all feels
> > quite rushed to me as the preliminary report on changes is supposed to be
> > finished by the end of this term from memory - which is why I'm keen to
> get
> > as many responses/suggestion ASAP.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks Greg - I now have another metaphor for philosophy;
> > intellectual tennis - banging arguments from one side of the net back to
> the
> > other.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I think there are also a drastic shortage of secondary sources as
> > part of the course - I think that if we're going to have originals that it
> > would also be useful to have a bit of modern scholarship based on the
> > extracts included too... at least there'd be less of a vacuum for
> newcomers
> > like Ian - it's no mean task to get Philo up and running from scratch.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I believe that VCAA is keen to keep Philosophy rigorous - the
> > Specialist Maths of Humanities (although you can't do Specialist without
> > doing Maths Methods in Yr 11) - but I'm concerned that we are trying to
> > squeeze in too much; which is ok for schools who can afford to run
> > Philosophy camps and the like, but less realistic for the poorer resourced
> > sites... and I don't think anyone would want to restrict access to
> something
> > like philosophy based purely on socio-economic background.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Richard
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > >
> > > > > > From: philosophy-bounces at edulists.com.au on behalf of Murphy,
> Clare
> > I
> > > > > > Sent: Wed 22-Feb-06 9:03 AM
> > > > > > To: Year 12 Philosophy Teachers' Mailing List
> > > > > > Subject: RE: [Philosophy] Course Review
> > > > > > Hello Richard,
> > > > > > My name is Clare McKay and I teach @Eltham High School. I am on
> the
> > mailing list and can now reply. Generally I agree with your
> recommendations.
> > Are you on the review panel?
> > > > > > Clare
> > > > > >
> > > > > > From: philosophy-bounces at edulists.com.au on behalf of Greyruin
> > > > > > Sent: Tue 21-Feb-06 11:09 PM
> > > > > > To: Year 12 Philosophy Teachers' Mailing List
> > > > > > Subject: Re: [Philosophy] Course Review
> > > > > > I do agree, Richard. The King is great - but irrelevant, and I
> have
> > to
> > > > > > confess that the Murdoch just seems murky. Right, let's get back
> to
> > > > > > practising philosophy, not just memorising stuff. I know, it hurts
> > the kids
> > > > > > who can only memorise, but, then, I've always felt uncomfortable
> > about
> > > > > > tennis. Seems that all that attention to ball skills and being
> able
> > to belt
> > > > > > the jolly thing back at 250 m per second, or whatever, basically
> > > > > > inconvenienced us skinny intellectual dudes with thin wrists and
> > spaghetti
> > > > > > arms.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The Turing is good - but leave out the objections, right. My kids
> > thought
> > > > > > that was pointless. I'm not sure about dumping Aristotle
> altogether,
> > though.
> > > > > > We could look at his logic, perhaps. Yes, on Kuhn. Find something
> > more
> > > > > > closely connected with Popper. That's a bit strained at the
> moment.
> > How long
> > > > > > do we have to make a plea?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Greg
> > > > > >
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > philosophy mailing list
> > > > > > philosophy at edulists.com.au
> > > > > > http://www.edulists.com.au/mailman/listinfo/philosophy
> > > > > >
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > philosophy mailing list
> > > > > > philosophy at edulists.com.au
> > > > > > http://www.edulists.com.au/mailman/listinfo/philosophy
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ---
> > > > > lr at willihigh.vic.edu.au
> > > > > http://www.willihigh.vic.edu.au/
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > philosophy mailing list
> > > > > philosophy at edulists.com.au
> > > > > http://www.edulists.com.au/mailman/listinfo/philosophy
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > philosophy mailing list
> > > > > philosophy at edulists.com.au
> > > > > http://www.edulists.com.au/mailman/listinfo/philosophy
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ---
> > > > lr at willihigh.vic.edu.au
> > > > http://www.willihigh.vic.edu.au/
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > philosophy mailing list
> > > > philosophy at edulists.com.au
> > > > http://www.edulists.com.au/mailman/listinfo/philosophy
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > philosophy mailing list
> > > > philosophy at edulists.com.au
> > > > http://www.edulists.com.au/mailman/listinfo/philosophy
> > >
> > >
> > > ---
> > > lr at willihigh.vic.edu.au
> > > http://www.willihigh.vic.edu.au/
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > philosophy mailing list
> > > philosophy at edulists.com.au
> > > http://www.edulists.com.au/mailman/listinfo/philosophy
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > philosophy mailing list
> > > philosophy at edulists.com.au
> > > http://www.edulists.com.au/mailman/listinfo/philosophy
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > philosophy mailing list
> > philosophy at edulists.com.au
> > http://www.edulists.com.au/mailman/listinfo/philosophy
> _______________________________________________
> philosophy mailing list
> philosophy at edulists.com.au
> http://www.edulists.com.au/mailman/listinfo/philosophy


---
lr at willihigh.vic.edu.au
http://www.willihigh.vic.edu.au/

More information about the philosophy mailing list