ID :
138737
Sun, 08/22/2010 - 15:21
Auther :
Shortlink :
https://www.oananews.org//node/138737
The shortlink copeid
Philosophy is fully self-reflective: Reiman told MNA
TEHRAN, Aug. 22 (MNA) - Professor Jeffrey Reiman believes that “philosophy is fully self-reflective”.
“You can't philosophize without reflecting on what you are doing, so philosophizing about philosophizing is part of all philosophizing,” Reiman, the professor of American University, told the Mehr News Agency.
Following is the text of the interview:
Q: Is it morally correct that university professors defend their own viewpoints in class? If your answer is yes, what are the ethical codes for presenting views?
A: I think that it is fine for professors to defend their own viewpoints--about the subject of the course--in class. It's inevitable anyway, since a professor cannot help but teach a subject from his (or her) own viewpoint about what's important about it. Even when a professor presents viewpoints different from his own, he will present them from his viewpoint! Thus, it's better that the professor put forth his viewpoint openly and give his reasons for it, than do it subtly without announcing it. The best way to protect students from indoctrination is not by having professors pretend to be neutral, but by making sure that students know when a prof is presenting his own viewpoint, and making sure that courses are taught by a variety of professors representing a variety
of viewpoints.
The most important ethical requirements here are honesty and openness to disagreement. The prof should make it clear that he is putting forth a viewpoint with which other experts disagree. As far as time and other obligations permit, the prof ought to present alternative viewpoints as fairly as possible, and indicate the reasons for those viewpoints. The prof should make it clear that students are entitled to disagree with him. He should not require that students pretend that his viewpoint is the only one, or the obviously true one--though he surely may require that students understand his viewpoint and his reasons for it.
Students should understand that disagreement is the motor of intellectual progress. They should be encouraged to challenge the prof's viewpoint. They should feel free to present or endorse alternative viewpoints. But a class is not a political meeting, where everyone has an equal right to voice his opinion. For this same reason, the class should not be used by the professor as a platform for presenting his views about matters outside of the course subject. The prof's job is to teach the subject as he or she best sees fit within the time available, and discussion must be adapted to serve that goal.
Q: What is your concept of disengagement in summertime by university teachers?
A: Though I take a few months off from teaching in the summer, I never stop being a philosopher. I am always thinking about philosophy, and always reading philosophy, and almost always also writing philosophy. I take a break from teaching because teaching philosophy is an intensely personal activity. I don't teach on TV to faceless students, and I don't teach to enormous lecture halls with hundreds of students. I teach groups of 20 to 30 students, whom, over the course of a semester, I get to know as individuals. We discuss fundamental questions about life and death, sometimes issues that have touched the students' lives directly. If I didn't take a break from such teaching, I would soon burn out and be unable to connect to the students personally.
Q: Technology has affected both our lives and knowledge. Do you believe that technology has changed the concept of “moral actor” in ethics? Can we use the Kantian meaning of the concept in ethics now?
A: I think that technology increases the range of harm and benefits that our acts can create. It also puts people at a greater distance from the consequences of their actions, and thus may contribute to them being unaware of those consequences. This particularly happens in actions that are the result of large numbers of individuals acting without conscious coordination, e.g., using up natural resources, causing pollution, supporting oppressive regimes, etc. In all these matters, I see no problem using Kanting ethics, though I think that technology places new moral requirements on people, in particular to look harder to see the far-flung consequences of their actions that may in the immediate experience appear to harm no one.
Q: Do you believe that philosophy and metaphilosophy are separate from each other? Why?
A: The answer to your question is easy: Philosophy is fully self-reflective. You can't philosophize without reflecting on what you are doing, so philosophizing about philosophizing is part of all philosophizing.
Jeffrey Reiman is the William Fraser McDowell professor of philosophy at American University in Washington, D.C. Dr. Reiman is the author of In Defense of Political Philosophy, Justice and Modern Moral Philosophy, Critical Moral Liberalism: Theory and Practice.
(By H. Kaji and J. Heirannia)
“You can't philosophize without reflecting on what you are doing, so philosophizing about philosophizing is part of all philosophizing,” Reiman, the professor of American University, told the Mehr News Agency.
Following is the text of the interview:
Q: Is it morally correct that university professors defend their own viewpoints in class? If your answer is yes, what are the ethical codes for presenting views?
A: I think that it is fine for professors to defend their own viewpoints--about the subject of the course--in class. It's inevitable anyway, since a professor cannot help but teach a subject from his (or her) own viewpoint about what's important about it. Even when a professor presents viewpoints different from his own, he will present them from his viewpoint! Thus, it's better that the professor put forth his viewpoint openly and give his reasons for it, than do it subtly without announcing it. The best way to protect students from indoctrination is not by having professors pretend to be neutral, but by making sure that students know when a prof is presenting his own viewpoint, and making sure that courses are taught by a variety of professors representing a variety
of viewpoints.
The most important ethical requirements here are honesty and openness to disagreement. The prof should make it clear that he is putting forth a viewpoint with which other experts disagree. As far as time and other obligations permit, the prof ought to present alternative viewpoints as fairly as possible, and indicate the reasons for those viewpoints. The prof should make it clear that students are entitled to disagree with him. He should not require that students pretend that his viewpoint is the only one, or the obviously true one--though he surely may require that students understand his viewpoint and his reasons for it.
Students should understand that disagreement is the motor of intellectual progress. They should be encouraged to challenge the prof's viewpoint. They should feel free to present or endorse alternative viewpoints. But a class is not a political meeting, where everyone has an equal right to voice his opinion. For this same reason, the class should not be used by the professor as a platform for presenting his views about matters outside of the course subject. The prof's job is to teach the subject as he or she best sees fit within the time available, and discussion must be adapted to serve that goal.
Q: What is your concept of disengagement in summertime by university teachers?
A: Though I take a few months off from teaching in the summer, I never stop being a philosopher. I am always thinking about philosophy, and always reading philosophy, and almost always also writing philosophy. I take a break from teaching because teaching philosophy is an intensely personal activity. I don't teach on TV to faceless students, and I don't teach to enormous lecture halls with hundreds of students. I teach groups of 20 to 30 students, whom, over the course of a semester, I get to know as individuals. We discuss fundamental questions about life and death, sometimes issues that have touched the students' lives directly. If I didn't take a break from such teaching, I would soon burn out and be unable to connect to the students personally.
Q: Technology has affected both our lives and knowledge. Do you believe that technology has changed the concept of “moral actor” in ethics? Can we use the Kantian meaning of the concept in ethics now?
A: I think that technology increases the range of harm and benefits that our acts can create. It also puts people at a greater distance from the consequences of their actions, and thus may contribute to them being unaware of those consequences. This particularly happens in actions that are the result of large numbers of individuals acting without conscious coordination, e.g., using up natural resources, causing pollution, supporting oppressive regimes, etc. In all these matters, I see no problem using Kanting ethics, though I think that technology places new moral requirements on people, in particular to look harder to see the far-flung consequences of their actions that may in the immediate experience appear to harm no one.
Q: Do you believe that philosophy and metaphilosophy are separate from each other? Why?
A: The answer to your question is easy: Philosophy is fully self-reflective. You can't philosophize without reflecting on what you are doing, so philosophizing about philosophizing is part of all philosophizing.
Jeffrey Reiman is the William Fraser McDowell professor of philosophy at American University in Washington, D.C. Dr. Reiman is the author of In Defense of Political Philosophy, Justice and Modern Moral Philosophy, Critical Moral Liberalism: Theory and Practice.
(By H. Kaji and J. Heirannia)
