Lesson 1

Notes

1. ROLL/Getting to know each other: I plan to do my silly roll questions (a way of getting to know them). Then, I'll ask them to put everything away and get them calm, like something serious is coming. The summer homework has the “six-word memoir” activity; this can take the place of the silly roll questions. The six-word memoir is a one-page, decorated choice of six words to describe oneself.  

Once I've got them focused, I'll likely ask them, "What do you expect is the subject of this class?" I'll get some answers, and affirm what I can...then, I'll say "I have a surprising answer for you....the subject is actually you." I'll explain what I mean by that; it is the formation of their ability to think clearly and to communicate clearly and beautifully, AND their ability to ascertain the deeper forms of logic that actually influence our societies, to become part of that Great Conversation...to see when things are good, true, beautiful, ethical, affirming human dignity...and also to recognize when communication is built on premises (logic) that is not affirming of that dignity...TO KNOW THE DIFFERENCE. If we are to be effective communicators, we have to first recognize what someone is actually saying, what the persuasion or argumentation is actually resting upon. If we understand the deeper premises (that upon which the conclusions rest), we can often see very clearly what is right or wrong, ethical or unethical, beautiful or ugly, true or false, about the entire argument. 

Their ability to recognize this and to communicate is the subject, the purpose, the reason for this class. 

I'll then say that I want them to get a chance to just jump right in, because the key to getting the most out of this class is to recognize that they already have these abilities...to recognize truth. We're just going to help you be more conscious of your ability, better at it...etc. 

2. Harari: So here is one of the more influential historians and philosophers of our day--Professor Harari. He is an advisor to many influential people in politics and economics, and this is a short clip of him explaining his basic conclusions about where the human race is heading---the "Fourth Industrial Revolution"---we'll watch the clip and I just want you to take in what you can; I'll play it a couple of times (and I''l provide them with a transcript). I will also caution them that this is just a small section of what he says overall, and so we aren't fully aware of his complex positions...these are some major conclusions that must rest on some important assertions/judgements/principles (premises) he has about reality. Our job here is to think about what those might be..but to always be aware of what we don't know (Socrates).

I'll let them take it in, and then take out paper and write what they think---what are his conclusions about where we're headed? Here's the kicker (important question): How do you think he came to those conclusions? In other words, does it depend on how he defines human nature? How must he define it in order to get to the conclusions he does? 

Finally, what do you think about this, although it is just a short section of his overall philosophy? 

(I encourage them to be honest). 

Depending on how they respond, I may do a whole-class discussion, or smaller groups for about 5-10 min.

I will then segue into the three questions to ponder. Does Harari seem to think what he is saying is true? Based on what evidence (evidence of a higher truth about the purpose of human nature, or evidence based entirely in empiricism–materialism: only what we can sense or use practically)? Should communication be based on truth? What do we mean by truth? If someone’s communication is based on half-truth, faulty truth, is it a lie? Is it then still communication?

From Richard Weaver, great thinker in rhetoric, from the Introduction to Ideas Have Consequences: "The issue ultimately involved is whether there is a source of truth higher than, and independent of, man; and the answer to the question is decisive for one’s view of the nature and destiny of humankind. The practical result of nominalist philosophy is to banish the reality which is perceived by the intellect and to posit as reality that which is perceived by the senses.

“With this change in the affirmation of what is real,  the whole orientation of culture takes a turn, and we are on the road to modern empiricism.The denial of universals carries with it the denial of everything transcending experience. The denial of everything transcending experience means inevitably— though ways are found to hedge on this— the denial of truth. With the denial of objective truth there is no escape from the relativism of "man the measure of all things." The witches spoke with the habitual equivocation of oracles when they told man that by this easy choice he might realise himself more fully, for they were actually initiating a course which cuts one off from reality. Thus began the "abomination of desolation " appearing today as a feeling of alienation from all fixed truth."

3. Summer Reading Groups: In the summer reading groups, we’re beginning to set the tone for dialectic. For the optional summer reading choices:  I ask them to talk in groups (about three-five students who’ve read the same book) about the essential truth or lesson of the book they read, and then I go round to groups, listen, and ask follow-up challenging questions,  questions that deepen or challenge their understanding, particularly having to do with the protagonist recognizing truth, and their own recognition of truth in the stories and in reality. Then, I bring them in for the larger group discussion.  

4. QQIC: 

Although this is graded, for me this is  primarily a diagnostic: I want to see how well they organize a paragraph, how well they embed quotations and evidence, their depth of thinking, precision, concision, and completeness, etc.. 

In general, I use every writing assignment, especially these shorter ones (logic answers fall into this category) as writing workshop opportunities, because I think that a beginning or struggling writer can more easily see issues and revise them with smaller, more straightforward assignments. 

Therefore, on any of these assignments, I will give students a chance to revise—especially challenged students. However, I will sometimes push more skilled writers to greater depth. My model is a mentor/apprentice paradigm, highly differentiated teaching in terms of writing. I want to help each student grow individually from his or her “start” to the greatest finish possible for him or her at the end of the year. This will look different for each student—and is reflected in their grades as they revise. 

The QQIC means that students are primarily answering a question (the art of answering good questions is to begin the arts of dialectic and also thesis-writing). They need to ground their answers in the text by embedding and analyzing one section of the text (quote) and to interface with the text to analyze as inquiry (what does this text mean in light of the whole and how does it help me answer my primary question?). They also need to provide some context for the quote (“C”) so that they are not taking things out of context. 

The elements Q, Q, I, C can come in any order in their paragraph. 

All of this, again, helps me to diagnose their ability to organize, to synthesize, to ground text, to quote text, and to create a depth of inquiry in a short amount of space. 

During the class discussion next class (the first dialectic, though I don’t use this vocabulary yet with students), I’ll be helping them learn to synthesize: summer reading  with QQIC as notes, the questions to ponder, and Harari.