This paper offers suggestions on teaching a difficult author to lower-level philosophy students and also explicates an introductory philosophy class designed to communicate the ground of the philosophical vocation while making philosophy relevant to students. The strategy discussed in this paper is to thematize a “philosophical attitude” by first examining Socrates’ claims about his own ignorance and relating these to his insistence that practicing philosophy is the key to the highest human happiness and living well. Then, after reading Heidegger on “being-towards-death,” comparisons are drawn to Heidegger’s claims that philosophy must structure its inquiries on the basis of finitude and that taking one’s own death seriously is paramount for freedom. After detailing lesson plans for these points and explicating several difficult concepts in Heidegger, the author argues that Heidegger’s discussions of finitude and authenticity are highly relevant to students and that teaching him together with Socrates provides a comprehensible picture of the philosophical vocation as a commitment to “the fully finite process of questioning.”

This paper attempts to respond to the critique that critical thinking courses may reflect a cultural bias. After elaborating a list of constitutive dispositions and abilities taught in the critical thinking curriculum (e.g. a direct approach to writing and speaking, care about the dignity and worth of every person, positions towards deductive reasoning, shared decision-making, etc.), the author considers arguments for why several of these might reflect Western, non-universal values. In each case, the author argues for the conclusion that these values, though they could be applied in ways that reflect a cultural bias, are not inherently biased. Next, the author offers an outline of a more systematic examination of cultural bias. After reiterating the “tentative conclusion” that critical thinking is not culturally biased, the paper concludes by considering the various ways in which critical thinking might be promoted so as to ensure its sensitivity to cultural differences.

This paper details the experience of planning, orchestrating, teaching, and participating in a writing-intensive, team-taught, introductory philosophy class designed to expand the diversity of voices included in philosophical study. Accordingly, this article includes the various perspectives of faculty, TAs, and students in the class. Faculty authors discuss the administrative side of the course, including its planning and goals, its texts and structure, its working definition of “philosophy,” its balance of canonical and non-canonical texts, the significant resistance met in getting the course approved, the complex pedagogical difficulties that attend teaching non-canonical texts, the motivation and execution of the course’s writing-intensive dimension, and a summary of student evaluations of the course. The TA authors reflect on the high level of student engagement and interest compared to other introductory philosophy courses, the perception that students found the material highly relevant to their own lives, and the capacity of the material to bring about philosophical insight for the instructors in the class. The student author offers a favorable account of the class and remarks on how the structure of the course aided the accessibility and relevance of the texts.

Frequently the literature on questions in the classroom supposes that teachers should ask high-level questions in order to get high-level thinking from students. Reversing this notion, this paper presents a method for structuring class discussion which helps students learn high-level questioning skills. The author articulates a typology of classroom conversations, arguing that the most desirable type is a “Problematical or Dialectical Discussion”. Characterized by “right answers” emerging as the most reasonable ideas that students work towards in discussion, the downside of such discussions is they may result from a one-sided view of the issue or from a lack of student interest. In such cases, it is desirable to introduce alternative viewpoints into the discussion and the author argues that the best way to do this is the Devil’s Advocate approach. By asking students to argue against their own individual positions specifically, students learn to question their own views and thereby internalize the structure of communal, critical inquiry. The author argues that this method facilitates student autonomy, a key goal of education, since learning to ask the right questions allows students to become their own teachers.