The function of Intro courses

I was wondering what the point of introductory classes was. I don't think they are useless, rather I want to understand why they are useful so that we can structure the classes accordingly. I want to focus especially on my own field, philosophy.

I think that there are two main functions to the introductory class. The first is to literally introduce the field to the beginning student who might develop an interest in the subject and be inspired to major in it. I think this is somewhat rare though. Philosophy is something people tend to discover on their own for personal reasons. Nonetheless professors must take this in to account when structuring their classes.

The second class of students is far more important. First, most people are taking introductory philosophy classes because they have to. The course is required of them. So we start at a disadvantage. We must pique the student's interest.

But what should we address in class? There is no canon or accepted introductory way to teach the course and there is a lot of leeway given to the instructor. I know one that talks about Plato's Republic, Descartes' Meditations and Ayer's Language, Truth, and Logic. I know other professors who just talk about Philosophy of Mind. Still others who arrange their course around the question of the meaning of life, and a younger colleague who mostly teaches questions of love and sex. Some of us stodgy types teach just old dusty texts of Kant, Plato, Mill, and Descartes. Others of us use watered down anthologies and mostly talk about how boring Kant must have been and how exciting Leibniz's sex life was, without really getting too deep in to the actual philosophical context of their works.

What problems or texts should we be exploring? Should we explore texts or problems? Many professors give introductory versions of what interests them at the moment. This is selfish and lazy but does have its merits. The professor will exhibit the most enthusiasm and be able to incorporate the most up-to-date research in a field he or she is currently thinking about. Conversely, the professor, being so absorbed in his own field may forget that the obvious assumptions and background to the material which he has mastered and is fresh in his mind, might not be so obvious to the incoming freshman.

Texts are good ways to introduce philosophy, as it gives the students a feel for what it is like to struggle with a real philosophical problem. Kant might be tough reading, but it pays off if you can convey what it is like to have engineered the categorical imperative. If you can get across the importance of consistency, duty, and the inherent worth of persons as Kant saw it, you have made important inroads toward giving the student valuable philosophical insight.

There is also good reason to think that a problem-oriented approach is better. Students get nifty units which they can deal with. There is a definite question and a definite answer. There can be a paper, and there are areas for further research. There is a nice satisfying beginning and end in which the students really see a question and develop and use the methodology for answering it. This is quite good.

Unfortunately I do not think that completing and satisfaction is what we are looking for in philosophy. The field of history is well known for having lots of details. You can take a class on the Civil War, or a class that addresses the Civil War, and develop a life-long interest in it because you know there will always be another book that you can buy that will shed more light and give you a more complete grasp of the war. There are new details you can find out, and new stuff you can learn. Philosophy too must strive to do that. It must provide enough so that some question that students might be interested in can provide for a lifetime of interest in the field.

This is not an easy task. There are not many accessible books in philosophy that can be read by people with a first course in the field, and this is the fault of the profession. But the first course must make more literature accessible to the average college graduate. I suppose my real goal is to train people to be able to understand philosophy a bit, or at least one or two of the problems, and make them interested enough to want to try. It is important that the students realize that these problems, despite appearances, are still open problems. These open problems are still interesting. Studying these problems are partially what makes us human as a species.

So to sum up, the goal ought to make problems interesting enough so that when students are all grown up and have time to think about the issues, they might turn to a book in philosophy, and have it still be readable.