Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
Well, here we have a seminar on Marx turned into a teacher's defense of planned economics – or rather, the scenario when there is only one name of any product in stores, from toothpaste to sausage, the most “useful” and carefully selected for us by the party, the government and “great scientists”. “Why do you need a choice? You will choose a low-quality one. Scientists know best.” This could have been a real discussion, but it wasn't supposed to be: the audience listened in silence, and I was the only one who was young enough to argue. For other philosophers, there was not even a hint of discussion.
I still remember recently seeing this ideal on photos of store shelves in North Korea.
Yes, in general, there were enough nightmares, existential nausea, identity crises and other nishtyakov in the student body, because it was possible to study just “in philosophy”. I recall, for example, the case when one prankster from the group on the day of passing the test in medieval European philosophy sent the examiner from the “left” number an SMS-ku on behalf of the “Holy Inquisition” with a demand to put all the test “automatic” and the promise of terrible torments in case of disobedience. Of course, the joker sent this text message after he passed the test, and he passed it first. After reading the text message, the examiner decided to demonstrate who the Grand Inquisitor was, and off we went… The test lasted longer than any of the exams in my lifetime – from eight in the morning until the university closed (considering that there were only 12 people in the group)… I remember how everyone who came out of the office just sat on a bench and sat in silence for half an hour with a glassy stare. “There are no words but obscenities” – this is exactly the case. In the end, when the last body of the students tumbled out of the office, mercilessly tortured by sophisticated interrogations, everyone, without a word, rushed in a silent formation to the beer stall, and then to the nearest park (this was long before the law on the “open bottle”). I remember that the first words appeared only after everyone had put a couple of bottles in the trash.
But, of course, without such stories, it would be boring to remember student life.
And if you think already as a teacher, then the most terrible thing, perhaps, is when the teacher answers the question of students “Why do we, future doctors (var.: lawyers, builders, physical teachers, etc., etc.), study philosophy?” : “Because you have to pass the exam on it!” Unfortunately, some of my colleagues even flaunt this “argument”: they say, “All questions are cut off at once!” But your task as a philosophy teacher is to encourage questions, and not discourage them (to the extent that a philosopher is a person who has a question for any answer)! Not to mention the fact that such an “argument “is effective only as long as the philosophy exam in your school is not replaced by a test – as a” stick-strashchalki ” test is much less effective than the exam…
I was also horrified by the admission of one charming colleague that for her the main philosophical source is the textbook “Introduction to Philosophy” authored by the supervisor of her PhD thesis. Moreover, this textbook is actually memorized by her, and if suddenly a student asks a question “not according to the textbook”, he hears in response: “What do you think?” – and, if the student “does not think at all”, then the final chord follows: “Prepare a report on this topic!” As a result, as in the previous example, questions on philosophy pairs soon stop being asked, leaving “internal isolation”.
In my case, it turned out that the philosophy teacher had one hobby that characterized him much more than the fact that he was a philosophy teacher.
He was a strict man and spoke only to the point.�
In general, there was a bike at the university.
Two particularly hot guys who did not like the strictness and requests of the teacher decided to give him a dark one.They found out where he lives,ambushed him and attacked him…
Remember I mentioned a hobby, so he was an MMA coach.
One of them had a broken arm and nose, the other was just well beaten.
But they got the credit automatically, with the phrase “For courage”
Philosophy at my university was taught by a young man, several years older than the students. At the first lecture, he gave the audience a bored look and said: “You don't need it anyway, you won't understand anything anyway. So you just sit there and I'll just say something.” Then, during the semester, he bounced from Plato to Kierkegaard and back again, brandishing a can of Coca-Cola. Once I even brought this jar as an illustration I don't remember what example, calling it the Holy Grail. In practical classes, we spent six months reading a paragraph from the aforementioned Kierkegaard, without understanding or remembering almost anything. Apparently, it did not seem strange to him to go through the entire philosophy of man in a semester, which students of specialized faculties devote several years to.�
The assessment for the philosophy exam was not only and not so much based on the knowledge demonstrated by the students. But also from the points we were supposed to earn. How? Very simple
Post quotes from philosophers on twitter with a hashtag so that they can find and read them. Those who did not do this were expected to lower their final score. Here is a higher education.
When we came to the first lecture, our teacher announced that they would pass everything�
I think it's clear that this was followed by a standing ovation
I haven't been to philosophy since
In my first university, a charming philosopher came in and said from the doorway, ” You're all g*o. You'll never get anywhere. You are nothing.” And then he began to talk and for a long time rubbed incoherent thoughts about the Gospel, confused everything, asked sudden incoherent questions. In practice sessions, he hinted that “if you are not interested in my pairs, then you can solve it in a different way.” This path was known throughout the university. Then he pressed us for a long time, in the spirit of ” I know all the editors-in-chief in the city, if you complain about me, you will never get a job.” Later, he gave instructions on how to transfer the bribe to him. It was rumored that those who complained would face problems, since he collected a pretty penny from half of the city's universities and had a roof. Raised money from the entire group, gan n. We were afraid to even squeak. Such a shift from the Bible to bribes, it's amazing.I hope he burns in hell.
While studying at the Faculty of Philosophy, I listened to many different lectures on philosophy, since the vast majority of lectures in the Faculty of Philosophy are lectures on philosophy. I still remember a course of lectures on philosophy given by the highly respected Professor N. He took selected passages from his textbook, which we all got from the library, and read aloud. Another equally well-respected professor, say Z, gave detailed lectures on his philosophical research. His speech sounded beautiful, was filled with metaphors and rare terms, but 3-4 people in the audience, sitting, as usual, in the first row, could understand it.
And I have only one “satisfactory” in my diploma – in philosophy. The fact is that we did not agree with the professor on the topic of whether cats have self-awareness. I clearly remembered from his textbook that only humans have self-awareness, but unfortunately for me, it was HIS cat that also had it….
Sexism. Alexander Torgomovich Ghazaryan, a well-known professor in narrow circles, was biased towards girls – he demanded strictly from the guys (who were mostly randomly assigned to the publishing and journalism faculty of the former polygraph), but he considered us beings unsuited for, so to speak, higher nervous activity and therefore treated us condescendingly. This was a humiliating benefit, which many girls, however, were quite happy with.
But everyone is mistaken. Otherwise, he was a wonderful, enthusiastic and wise teacher and a very kind person.
In my case, the teacher was a powerful separatist ( please do not explode with anger, this is not the point). Therefore, in practice, we mostly argued about Nulland, pies from the Maidan and the IMF. The discussion seemed to involve the whole group, but it was only interesting for the first 2 sessions. Then everyone realized that it was useless to argue with him. Even those who were on his side understood this. The rest of the lectures were boring: we listened to the latest geopolitical news sometimes tied to philosophy by the ears(
Much has already been said, so let's get straight to the point. I can't say that I had a bad teacher, she was a very interesting woman, and the subject itself was interesting to me, but she had mistakes that almost discouraged all the craving for knowledge. 1. From the very first lesson, she told us that we are still small and stupid, that it is too early for us to know such serious things, that we will not understand it anyway, and in general our generation is stupid and lazy.�
We had a strange philosophy. The pair was held in the “I'll read it to you right now, but what I don't have time to do, we'll leave it for the seminar”mode. And the seminar is in the “here we downloaded it from Wikipedia and now we'll read it, and you give us a plus sign in the magazine” mode. By the end of the semester, the person who reads Wikipedia the most at seminars received an automatic machine. In philosophy, no one hacked and did not even bother to think.�
It all ended with an enchanting exam, where each student entered the classroom one-on-one with the teacher, told the definition of philosophy from the teeth, then she watched the visits and gave a grade.
So it was with 150 people on the course, except for me. I still don't understand why I am. She told me to talk about all the periods, about the schools and their prominent representatives. I didn't learn anything, but before the exam, I made a short (six-sheet) summary: who at what time, what they said, and what direction they belonged to. And before entering the classroom, I ran my eyes over it several times. Except for the last page, where two surnames of one of the directions were indicated. Having told all the philosophy from the Greeks to the 20th century, I fell on these unfortunate two surnames. I still don't remember who it was.
The teacher read his textbook and excerpts from his anthology at lectures, without being distracted by the audience, though aloud.�
At the seminars that our graduate student taught, you had to make reports in a certain format: make copies of the relevant passage from the textbook, highlight the main phrases with a colored marker, go to the blackboard, read them out.�
The textbook authored by the teacher and the anthology compiled by him had to be bought, and not taken from the library, as they complained here.�
At the same time, it was repeatedly emphasized in lectures and seminars that philosophy teaches us to think independently. Sincerely don't understand such methods? A distinguished man, a luminary, a professor. Maybe he was just bored with us. And neither do we. https://ru.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazarov, _LADIMIR_NIKOLAYEVICH
My personal indicator of a bad philosophy lecture is the flowers in the margins of my notebook. If the lecture was boring, boring, then I always disconnected from its plot and drew flowers, abstractions. I wanted to write down a good lecture without missing a single new concept.
My teacher drank, and he often smelled of alcohol. I would say that this is the top 1 of what not to do) In addition, it was not clear at that time why to study philosophy at all, what is the purpose of this. They did not understand how philosophy and views change the world, how one depends on the other.
We had a rating system of assessments at RHTU, 60 points could be scored in a semester and 40 in the exam. And here the philosophy teacher was such an exalted dude of 60 years old, like a dried-up and elongated Brodsky, who at lectures and seminars told something about Heidegger, and about how all students like subjective idealism, but like no one wants to think about objective reality any further. Sometimes his monologues were interrupted by some short remarks from students, but mostly we just sat and listened.�
But he didn't really care about the grading system. He encouraged us to make reports, and our girls immediately made these reports-they copied a couple of pages from the textbook at the seminar and handed them in. Some classmate of ours also noted the submitted reports, but he didn't read them himself. As a result, some scored 120 points out of a possible 60. It all seemed like a completely moronic activity to me, and as a result, I didn't get the 35 points required for admission to the exam, and some of my classmates did it. Usually, in this case, there was a “final score” in all subjects, that is, students retook tests, added something and completed it, but the philosopher decided first that I should be expelled from the first year. Then he was persuaded that I was writing an essay, I wrote a short but epic essay on Schopenhauer (this essay was then handed to him again by one of my friends). Then, in theory, there should have been an exam, but we didn't write it, but I just got 55 points and that's it.
In general, all this can hardly be called really terrible, but such a “philosophical” attitude to grades, students ' work and their understanding of the material, and possible expulsion – it was remembered and not liked.
There is no need to list tiresomely periods that were characterized by those who had followers…blah blah blah WHY DO I NEED THIS IN MEDICAL SCHOOL? I'm actually wondering how a teacher who teaches a subject that no one gives a shit about feels. As soon as they didn't check, 80% of people left. We had time to tell everything that related to medicine on the history of medicine, about all the ancient and not very philosophers associated with medicine, and a rather extensive excursion into their contribution. More simply a wild whim, shoved by our beloved Ministry of Education in the program, just not to teach useful subjects.
The teacher at the University was the head of the department, and in general all the fans of philosophical thought dried up and flowed over him. He devoted a lot of time to ancient philosophy, denounced the modern generation and talked about geyropa. Pairs of philosophy turned into pairs according to the philosophy of his beloved. He may have been cool in his own circles as a philosopher, but not so cool as a teacher. That's the first mistake: be a teacher, not a philosopher. It is certainly good to declare your ideas from the department, but it is unlikely that anyone will appreciate a physicist who starts telling his dissertation from the first couple.
In graduate school there was “philosophy of science”. It was not conducted by anyone, only the teacher was good and led philosophy as an object of research-they went through the history of development, the main provisions and approaches. And I broke one niche by asking for the definition of” morality ” on a pair where they talked about it. Here is mistake number 2 – to talk about something without defining its terms. Mistake number 3, rather fundamental-to try to solve completely scientific questions using philosophical methods, without taking into account that philosophy is strongly tied to language.
Our teacher hated women as a species. But that would be all right, at the directing department of VGIK you quickly get used to everyday misogyny and so on. He once told us that farmers placed milestones in the fields as a symbolic sign of the fertilization of the giant womb of the Earth with the human phallus. My desk mate, a beautiful girl from Minsk, whispered:: “And I thought that's how you mark the boundaries of plots…” And the aesthetics teacher at the first lesson told us that Bataille experienced his first orgasm over the corpse of his mother. This is a higher education.
Honestly, I can't even remember such a moment. All our lectures are held as if you are not on a couple at all, but watching, for example, some fascinating movie with a twisty plot. The professor knows his stuff. Both as a teacher and as a storyteller. Constant dilemmas, absurd theories that make interest eat away from the inside, a minimum of dry historical facts, a maximum of analytics.
Although, there is still a minus – classes are so rare that the withdrawal begins involuntarily.:)
Our teacher constantly told us strange gay jokes, in fact, he himself behaved very mannered, talked a lot about the business from his bell tower. Most of all, I remember the phrase: “Where is your heel, baby?”, what was it all about)
The worst part is that it was almost gone. It wasn't part of our education. Philosophy was mastered almost by ourselves before passing the candidate's minimum. The teacher was a wonderful L. I. Vasilenko (unfortunately already deceased), he gave full freedom of choice in his preferences, left behind a “Short religious and philosophical dictionary” in addition to the course of lectures, but it is impossible to teach philosophy so concisely.
Not that that was the worst part..but still. At our institute, the same teacher was in philosophy and logic. And here on one pair she talked about the thousand-eyed and thousand-armed Indian Deity, and on the next pair she said that there is no God)
I was lucky with lectures and lecturers on philosophy. But TOP-3 what not to do, in my opinion, the lecturer (I myself teach philosophy, so �is a voice from within the profession):
Come to classes “out of necessity” (you need to work somewhere), read something somehow, it doesn't matter what and to whom, as long as these 2 academic hours are finally over. It's actually very exhausting. At the same time, some also explain to students that “you won't understand it anyway, you don't need it anyway.” This is simply disrespectful to the audience. Many people have it, of course, out of desperation, but why give it a go?�
Use the opportunity to develop some of your own intricate but not yet recognized by the world ideas or views. Still, there are listeners, they can't run away, so at least they can… The commutation itself is tempting, but almost every philosopher or philosophy teacher has their own favorite ideas, and you can get carried away with explaining them instead of teaching them and discussing them.
Going into long and fussy explanations as a philosophy will help people in this particular specialty (accountants, road builders, archaeologists, singing teachers, anti-crisis managers. adjusters of CNC machines) “in life”. Too obvious is the feeling of insecurity in yourself and in your specialty. Philosophy can speak for itself, “why it is needed” -and such explanations turn it into something official, in addition to the “main specialty”:)
Here we have already written about the” You are all shit ” philosophy. We also added “people of your profession do not live long”, “all girls are stupid and whores by default”, the teacher was a church – educated person by the way-he has some kind of rank, he teaches at the seminary – and therefore we all knew for sure that “there is a boh” and “everyone will go to hell”. He was also very attracted to orgies and perversions, and he also talked a lot about them, but not about philosophy.�
I was lucky, I went to three or four of his lectures and dropped out because we were taking the exam to another teacher.
In 1968, at the Faculty of Philosophy of Moscow State University, Valentin Ferdinandovich Asmus taught us a full course on the history of ancient philosophy. I always sat in the front row in front of the lecturer's desk and saw that he was reading everything from the typographic proofs of his famous book, which was easy to get from the library. In 1971, the story was completely repeated in Asmus ' course on German classical philosophy. However, neither before nor after in my life do I remember a more memorable and penetrating philosophical discourse. In the same years, the most famous philosophers, whose names are on everyone's lips, gave us their courses. They did not use recordings, but improvised and acted in the audience, ostensibly demonstrating a live stream of consciousness. Alas, they completely left me indifferent. About something else. If a student does not understand lectures on philosophy, then either he has insufficient training, or he made a mistake in choosing his path at all. Turn to yourself…
The worst thing about philosophy lectures was that they were virtually nonexistent. As a group, we experienced a truly thrilling experience when we went to the session and saw (oh, horror!)in the schedule. exam in this discipline, which was not included in the installation session.
Our philosophy department is traditionally taught by a very strange person. He doesn't say the letter е e (because we journalists don't write it in our texts), put strange accents in some words, and in general talked in pairs about his family, his cat, minibuses, some of which he doesn't ride on principle, former students, and much more. It took about half a couple, the rest of the time was really philosophy, but it was simply unbearable to perceive it after this nonsense, and it explained everything incomprehensibly and far from everything. Fortunately, it is very easy to write off from him, however, if he doesn't like you with something, or he just got up on the wrong foot, he will still fill you up. But philosophy in the first year is such a faculty meme. In short, fun.
When I first came to the audience of students-they were auto mechanics from a Moscow engineering university-I almost made all the mistakes at once.
The audience greeted me with wariness and almost hostility. It consisted of thirty guys with their hands soaked in engine oil, wearing black leather jackets and box haircuts. The conversation about Plato did not come up.
I had to save the day by telling the mechanics that philosophy was extremely useful in everyday life.
“Sometimes,” I said, ” you're on vacation and you're sitting in a bar by the sea. It's a romantic night, and there's a beautiful stranger at the bar next to you. Then you throw your cloak over your left shoulder and say to her, ' I remember there's a remarkable passage about such nights in the late Heidegger.'”
And what? The car mechanic leader asked.
And then everything happens, ” I explained.
There was a pause.
Say that there is a need to tell this late, ” the car mechanic agreed with a frown.
“Oh, to do that, my friends, we will first have to talk about Plato,” I replied. “Because man lives in culture. And animals, by the way, this is the idea of Aristotle, are not involved in it.
So gradually everything basically got better.
The top 3 errors are:
1) consider students idiots, do not listen to what they say;
2) make them read a textbook and learn terms, rather than try to think together in the audience, i.e. act through reading, not through interest;
3) treat the activity itself differently than a professional actor entering the stage treats his work-without effort and emotion, without trying to connect with the audience.
Also, don't try to tell your students about “the whole philosophy”, it's an absurd task. Let there be a dozen vivid terms and examples, a cave, a Chinese room, Heidegger's cat, and a dozen names. Arouse interest, not boredom. Show the connection of philosophy with everyday life (“how to live intelligently?”). Show links to the students ' specialty – yes, mathematicians should be taught about the philosophy of mathematics, and programmers should be offered a discussion about artificial intelligence, etc. Illustrate the ideas and topics that you are discussing with the full scope of art culture.
We had an absolutely excellent philosophy teacher (more precisely, he led seminars, but not the point). He arranged interesting discussions, talked about the topic and not, and seemed a terribly enthusiastic person.
But it had 2 minuses. The first was that he thought naturally in Greek (he has a Greek education) and therefore spoke slowly, as if searching for words. Sometimes it was so lulling that I didn't have the strength to hold on. Yes, and he himself could fall asleep on the report of some chikuli, who downloaded 10 sheets from Wikipedia and read them out at the department. In general, they laughed at him.
The second negative was more significant. Like many people who are passionate about their subject, he did not know how to teach. He could talk endlessly interestingly, but as soon as it came to testing his knowledge, he arranged crazy tests: he read out pieces from the works of philosophers at a very fast pace, and we had to enter the missing word in a second (!!), in a second he started reading the next question, was terribly nervous that we didn't have time, blushed, fussed, literally ran around the audience and It was hell, because even if we were preparing for seminars, the brain slowed down so much that sometimes you didn't even have time to understand the essence of the question.
I still remember him with tenderness and love.
Oh, well, we have a great philosophy teacher, about whom stories go far beyond the university. And it would be fine if he just behaved badly, but this is so: passing the exam consists of copying chapters from his textbook from memory on a blank piece of paper, and the grade is directly affected by the attendance of lectures (and yes, he sits in the evenings, carefully checking the signatures in the list of those present).
But he is an interesting and multi-faceted person in a much larger number of ways: for example, at a lecture on Kant, he found it necessary to show a detailed video recording of the birth process.
And this wonderful man discovered the talent of a writer, the result can be estimated here: vk.com
Well, he has a fascinating article about the influence of psychedelics on some aspects of cognition (hse.ru). Colorful mushroom trip reports-follow the link.
Interesting, in general, uncle.
It is impossible to teach philosophy concisely, as they do in “elective courses” (quotation marks, because in most universities they are mandatory).�
Of course, to sit and talk about philosophy and problems of the world and concepts of knowledge is utter nonsense and dreams of schoolchildren. In such a discipline, we should be introduced to standard concepts, schools and teachings. But in the end, it turns out to be two training hours for an entire epoch.�
The worst thing about this was that we never considered the philosophical ideas related to my discipline (given that I am a mathematician and this is important), but we paid a lot of attention to politics and religion… although in the end, my head was just a mess of names.
The so-called “Review course”: one pair per week, a definition, written word-for-word (so it will be on the exam!), what points of view existed on this subject (very, very boring, with long quotes, without generalization) and … everything! No analysis, nothing more! Oh, yes, two or three three-hundred-page books that you still won't have time to read in a week.
Thanks to my school teachers in history and social studies, that I know at least a little about what philosophical ideas prevailed and when. And also my own curiosity, which prompted me to read Sartre, Camus, Kant and Heidegger (a strange choice, right? Well, if I understood a third of what I read at that time).�
And so, since the time of UNI, it's scary to open books by philosophers, it's a shame to start conversations with friends from the philosophical one. I excuse myself by saying that I am for the scientific type of knowledge, but philosophical and religious ones are not for me.