Writing typically forms a crucial part of the evaluation of students in undergraduate philosophy courses. However, philosophy instructors tend to adopt only two types of writing assignments: the essay test and the professional paper. There are, however, a number of problems with the professional paper and this essay argues that at least some undergraduate papers should treat writing not as a way of demonstrating competence to the teacher but as an act of communicating to readers. After briefly exploring why writing assignments in the disciplines have evolved the way that they have, the paper explains how insights from assignment design in the field of writing theory can aid philosophy teachers develop writing assignments that serve different purposes and achieve unique learning outcomes.

This paper introduces “Modernitas”, a child of undefined gender who, having just read Descartes “Discourse on Method” and “Meditations” begins a series of letter to students (who take the role of Modernitas’ parents) asking them to solve various problems posed by Cartesian philosophy, e.g. how to get out Descartes’ nightmare of doubt. Students are tasked with responding to Modernitas’s initial difficulities with Descartes’s philosophy and receive follow-up letters about other philosophers, e.g. Aristotle, Sartre, Plato. This type of exercise has the benefit of keeping students writing the entire semester and is capable of showing students that topics dealt with in philosophy courses are more than mere academic exercises but have real practical relevance.

Philosophy courses face unique problems in that students generally have no previous encounter with the subject and have serious misconceptions about its nature and relevance. This paper presents an essay “What Makes the Examined Life Worth Living” that provides students an accessible introduction to philosophy; one that corrects their suspicion that philosophy is nothing more than opinion, where no progress is made, and has no practical importance. The essay begins by replacing the practice of philosophy as merely asserting one’s opinion with philosophy as analysis and argument about fundamental questions, turns to a discuss of progress in philosophy, and concludes with four replies to the view that philosophy lacks practical relevance.

This paper argues that without the appropriate educational and organizational context, Socratic pedagogy can undermine a teacher’s leadership and negatively impact classroom dynamics by exposing a teacher’s lack of knowledge. In arguing for this position, the paper articulates the nature of the Socratic method, clarifies the notion of “power” and “leadership,” and then discusses traditional power roles in the classroom. These traditional power roles are strongly contrasted against the notion of power in the Socratic method, where the Socratic teacher derives their power by asking questions. Finally, provided the educational and organizational context are structured in a way that puts the teacher in the role of the Socratic questioner, instructors need not worry that their leadership is in jeopardy or that classroom dynamics will suffer.