How to Talk to Philosophers

[1Q84]

So, I'm from the English forum but thought I'd peek in here to see if anyone could offer some insight into a problem I've been experiencing:

 

I'm currently in a graduate level Marx class in my MA program. Interestingly, it's been cross-listed with the philosophy department so the lit students (even though it's technically offered by the English department) are actually outnumbered by the philosophy ones.

 

Anyway, I don't have much philosophy reading under my belt but more importantly, I don't have any experience interacting with philosophy students in an academic way. So our first two classes have been rough for me because it was a) dominated by very outspoken, brash and (frankly, in my opinion, rude) philosophy students who wanted to cram their point down everyone's throats and those who keep sidetracking the discussion into minutiae of philosopher biography or semantics. I haven't been able to contribute much because I don't know how or am unfamiliar with the really obscure philosophy that they're bringing up. I don't want to say anything because I might be asking an extremely elementary question that all philosophy students learned when they were in freshman year.

 

I don't blame these other students because from what I gather, this is how most philosophy classes operate. The strong assertions, even the "you said x, do you mean y?" type of comments. I see it as my problem... a "discipline shock," so to speak, because that's not how many literature classes operate. I do very much want to better myself and be able to function in this type of environment, though.

 

Any philosophers here have any advice on how I can better contribute and offer my usually-uninformed opinion? Is there a better way I can phrase my questions or comments that might go over better with these students?

 

tl;dr how do I contribute to philosophy discussions without looking like a jackass?

 

Thanks!

[Billy Goehring]

In a lot of philosophy departments, alas, this is the rule rather than the exception. I've been to quite a few departments that I would describe as "viper nests." Everyone is out for blood, and the most aggressive are usually also the least insightful/nuanced/attentive to the text itself.

 

In my experience, it usually comes from deep-seated anxiety and insecurity. Many philosophy students (and many graduate students, generally speaking, I'd wager) have a gnawing fear of being perceived as inadequate. 

 

I've taken many, many cross-listed courses and courses outside the philosophy department--if I were you, I'd just stay the course. If you're worried about asking an elementary question, just be above-board about it. Besides, the fundamentals can never get too much attention--I find this particularly true about Marx and Marxism. The entire class will be too proud to admit that they don't "really" understand the relationship between use-value and exchange-value (etc), and these basic concepts get passed over (and then ugly misunderstandings and miscommunication in class follows as a result). 

Or take them at their word. If they ask "You said x; do you mean y?" questions, push them on it. "What is at stake between x and y? Why is y more accurate than x? Perhaps I'm wrong, maybe you can direct me to the text where y is the case rather than x?" On the one hand, this meets (this type of) philosophers where they live; on the other, it brings things back to the text (which is your place to shine, as an English student!).

 

Long and rambling way for me to say that I know the feeling! Hang in there.

[philophilosopher]

Oh sure, it's really simple, especially for a Marx class. All you need to do is ensure that in every comment you include, at a minimum, the following phrases at least once: alienation, commodity fetishism, and ideology.

 

If you are met with strong assertions, you have two options: reference esoteric secondary literature so that you can condescend your interlocutor into silence, or, subtly suggest that their viewpoints are bourgeois. The former is less polemical and therefore more ideal. Careful though, if you do refer to secondary literature, you can quickly become enmeshed in an ever-escalating battle about who you have and haven't read. When you find yourself in one of these battles, never admit to not reading someone; it always gives you interlocutor/enemy the upper hand. 

 

Also, say everything with total confidence. Don't even entertain potential fallibility.

[overoverover]

I think the attempt to diagnose the behavior as a result of anxiety or insecurity is rather ill-founded, or at least pretty uncharitable.

I'm a philosphy PhD student, but I live with two English PhD students. We talk a lot about the ways our seminars differ. I think that, at least in part, it's just conventional differences.

Philosophers see themsleves as by and large interested in argumentation--so we want to get at the arguments themselves, looking at premises, checking inferences.

Lit people seem to be more interested in interpretation (makes sense). I don't think they care as much about the arguments themselves (for better or worse).

To the non-philosopher, then, it might seem like philosophers are overly aggressive, but I genuinely think we aren't trying to attack someone personally when we attack arguments. You should feel free to press them on issues or points on which you disagree. They won't take it personally (or shouldn't at least). And don't worry about seeming stupid: we all do sometimes, and I'd rather be in a seminar with someone who was interesting but wrong than someone who is boring.

[Monadology]

Billy Goehring's advice is excellent. Asking questions is a great way to slow people down, clarify what they are saying (and the text under discussion) for the benefit of yourself and class members, avoid having to be aggressive/rude yourself, and diagnose just how much of a jerk someone is inclined to be in class. Plus, Socrates would approve. You might also try to highlight in a question when a philosopher is referring to something you are unlikely to be familiar with. I bet there are other students who are frustrated by not knowing whatever obscure allusions are being made, so flagging it as a dynamic might make some of the philosophers aware that they need to explain their references or avoid making them. 

 

If you simply cannot get a word in edgewise because people jump in/talk over you, that's an issue I would raise with the instructor. 

Edited January 24, 2015 by Monadology

[alopachuca]

To the non-philosopher, then, it might seem like philosophers are overly aggressive, but I genuinely think we aren't trying to attack someone personally when we attack arguments. You should feel free to press them on issues or points on which you disagree. They won't take it personally (or shouldn't at least). And don't worry about seeming stupid: we all do sometimes, and I'd rather be in a seminar with someone who was interesting but wrong than someone who is boring.

 

It might be different in grad courses, but at least in undergrad it was pretty clear to me that the philosophy department had the greatest number of aggressive and non-approachable students. I took upper-division classes in several departments and something I always noticed was how stress-free I felt in classes and discussions in other departments. I can think of a couple of philosophy classes that were somewhat ruined by aggressive students. The very few grad students I knew personally said the trend was worse in the graduate seminars. 

 

I used to argue often in non-philosophy discussions and I was never classified as an aggressive student. I think you're right that part of the issue is that some students who aren't used to argumentation might take things personally, but it's not the whole story. 

[xypathos]

I've taken two seminars in the Philosophy Department at Vandy and experienced both sides of the spectrum. On one hand, it was a room full of vipers that wanted nothing more than to plump up their ego in front of the professor and fellow students by their "Look at how amazing I am!" and another professor who wouldn't have any of that shit. If someone was being overly aggressive he'd inform him that he's "heard enough of them for the day" or if someone is being pushy but not contributing to the conversation, he'd engage the student directly as Billy noted, with examples like "Why Y? What benefit does that afford that X can't?" and if you tossed him a bullshit answer, he'd make sure the class knew it was bullshit If he simply disagreed, that's different. Really, he was going after the personality types that sought to be argumentative for the sake of being argumentative but weren't furthering the conversation.

 

It's a personality type I've found common in the history department at Vandy, the "I'm not so much interested in your opinion, unless you can back it up with the text." Being someone interested in history I found this approach comforting.

[1Q84]

Wow! Thanks for all the great feedback, folks.

 

As to what overoverover said, I'm definitely not trying to pathologize philosophy students or call names. More like I'm trying to understand the norms of the discipline better so that I can contribute in this weird hybrid of a course.

 

I'll definitely try to point to the text more, which should help draw the discussion back from (in my mind) pointless tangential comments. 

 

Will keep everyone updated but would love to hear more thoughts as well!

[isostheneia]

I'll offer some input as well, though I think a lot of the answers so far have been quite accurate. Philosophy departments seem to have an above-average number of hostile students, at least relative to the other departments I've taken classes in. (This has sometimes been cited as a reason that philosophy deters female students, though I won't speculate regarding that.) But even in classes that have some of these students, I've found that most students view this type of activity as a negative influence on classroom environment, and are appreciative of questions that make these students return to the basics/justify their claims in more detail.

 

The best solution, in my experience, is to direct questions toward them with humility, rather than meeting their aggression. So, for instance, you might ask them "I'm a bit confused. You seem to think that X is the obvious interpretation of this position/text, but it seems to me that Y is at least a possibility. Could you explain in a bit more detail what the benefits are of thinking X instead of Y?" Or, as others have suggested, pointing the discussion back toward the text, such as, "Your explanation sounds plausible, but I'm unsure where to locate that view in the text. Could you point me to where you're finding that view?"

 

It seems that hostile discussions are often fostered by a few students competing against each other. By making the discussion a more humble venue, it both sets an example for others to proceed and brings out the rudeness (and, often, the idiotic assumptions) of these students. I wouldn't worry about coming off as less smart than such students; they have almost always skipped over important foundational issues that many people appreciate returning to.

[ianfaircloud]

they have almost always skipped over important foundational issues that many people appreciate returning to.

 

Agreed. Also, I think the most confident people in philosophy classes are typically the least informed. As I've studied philosophy, I have learned more about the world, and, paradoxically, I have learned how little I know about it. Questions that never came to my mind are now always on my mind, and I am less convinced that I have the answers. The true gain is that I've learned more about the questions, and I'm perhaps better equipped to explore those questions. People who talk a lot in class, as Isostheneia points out, often "skipped over important foundational issues." I don't know how to handle people like this. I think back to when I was an overconfident college student, and I pity them. I keep quiet and look forward to when they stop talking. It's sad, really. And too often the professor will say nothing or, worse, encourage the behavior by treating the comment as if it were gold.

[alopachuca]

It seems that hostile discussions are often fostered by a few students competing against each other. By making the discussion a more humble venue, it both sets an example for others to proceed and brings out the rudeness (and, often, the idiotic assumptions) of these students. I wouldn't worry about coming off as less smart than such students; they have almost always skipped over important foundational issues that many people appreciate returning to.

 

I just want to quote and emphasize this comment to avoid any misunderstandings. Based on some of our comments, it might seem like philosophy classes are generally hostile environments. I would say that while the trend is there, more often than not you'll have students who genuinely want to engage in the material. It really only takes 2-4 students who have no respect for conversation to ruin a lecture or a discussion. 

 

A couple of years ago, I took a class in theory of meaning. There was one hostile student always objecting to absolutely everything. Well I remember one day I was sitting in lecture and we were all groaning and such because he wouldn't shut up. 15 minutes before the end of lecture I decided I'd had enough and I grabbed my things and walked out. The next lecture the professor spent about half an hour explaining that we needed to learn how discussions work. I really respected the professor after that, although it was an embarrassing experience. 

[1Q84]

I'll offer some input as well, though I think a lot of the answers so far have been quite accurate. Philosophy departments seem to have an above-average number of hostile students, at least relative to the other departments I've taken classes in. (This has sometimes been cited as a reason that philosophy deters female students, though I won't speculate regarding that.) But even in classes that have some of these students, I've found that most students view this type of activity as a negative influence on classroom environment, and are appreciative of questions that make these students return to the basics/justify their claims in more detail.

 

The best solution, in my experience, is to direct questions toward them with humility, rather than meeting their aggression. So, for instance, you might ask them "I'm a bit confused. You seem to think that X is the obvious interpretation of this position/text, but it seems to me that Y is at least a possibility. Could you explain in a bit more detail what the benefits are of thinking X instead of Y?" Or, as others have suggested, pointing the discussion back toward the text, such as, "Your explanation sounds plausible, but I'm unsure where to locate that view in the text. Could you point me to where you're finding that view?"

 

It seems that hostile discussions are often fostered by a few students competing against each other. By making the discussion a more humble venue, it both sets an example for others to proceed and brings out the rudeness (and, often, the idiotic assumptions) of these students. I wouldn't worry about coming off as less smart than such students; they have almost always skipped over important foundational issues that many people appreciate returning to.

 

I think this is a great way to approach all graduate education as well. A great reminder to be humble about one's knowledge.

 

I just want to quote and emphasize this comment to avoid any misunderstandings. Based on some of our comments, it might seem like philosophy classes are generally hostile environments. I would say that while the trend is there, more often than not you'll have students who genuinely want to engage in the material. It really only takes 2-4 students who have no respect for conversation to ruin a lecture or a discussion. 

 

A couple of years ago, I took a class in theory of meaning. There was one hostile student always objecting to absolutely everything. Well I remember one day I was sitting in lecture and we were all groaning and such because he wouldn't shut up. 15 minutes before the end of lecture I decided I'd had enough and I grabbed my things and walked out. The next lecture the professor spent about half an hour explaining that we needed to learn how discussions work. I really respected the professor after that, although it was an embarrassing experience. 

 

Interesting! Was the professor referring to your walkout or to the loudmouth?

 

And, I should note (and looking back, I guess I didn't) you're right in that there's only 2-4 disrespectful students while there are also a bunch of chill, thoughtful, and friendly philosophy students in there too.

[alopachuca]

Interesting! Was the professor referring to your walkout or to the loudmouth?

 

And, I should note (and looking back, I guess I didn't) you're right in that there's only 2-4 disrespectful students while there are also a bunch of chill, thoughtful, and friendly philosophy students in there too.

 

Well the big sermon, while directed at everyone, was almost exclusively about the loudmouth's attitude. There was already agreement (at least between students and TAs) that something had to be done, but I think the walkout is what finally got the professor to bring up the issue. It's embarrassing you know... being told to learn to have a basic conversation. I've had other courses with a couple of aggressive pricks but this class was the most severe case. 

[1Q84]

It's embarrassing you know... being told to learn to have a basic conversation. I've had other courses with a couple of aggressive pricks but this class was the most severe case. 

 

Couldn't agree more. Kind of a copout in the end as about half the original class (including all of the aggressive ones) dropped the course after the first class. Thus, I haven't had much of a chance to test my mettle against them. Either way, it's been a relief.

 

I've taken folks' advice from here and make sure that I have a few things to say about specific points in the text and that seems to help discussion. The professor has been better at moderating the conversation, giving everyone a chance to speak, etc. too so I am enjoying the course much better now!