(no subject)
Christine Jacobson
Dr. Steeves and Dr. Hall
Honors I : Foundations of Knowledge and Understanding
Essay Part I: Posts
On Knowledge 8/31/08
“I expected to question many things during my pursuit of knowledge in college such as political ideologies, religious beliefs, etc. I did not expect to question the pursuit of knowledge itself.
Plato would have us believe that the pursuit of knowledge is absolutely imperative. Plato spent his entire life separating himself from society, materials belongings, and simple human relationships that attributes to being a part of "The Cave". He taught his disciples to attempt the same, and told him before his death that he was on his way to achieve ultimate enlightenment.
Faust spends nearly his entire life in his study, devoting his life to knowledge and enlightenment. He laments that his life has been unfulfilling and therefore decides to step into "the cave", if you will. His story has an unhappy ending, as his love denounces him and he is left to "skip" through life, evading the devil and true happiness.
The classroom discussions that have been held seem to lean towards one of these extremes or the other. While I agree it's certainly more scintillating and sensational to deal in extremes, it's not practical. One can "walk" through life, achieving a balance between worldly happiness and knowledge. In fact, I would assert that the two have the ability to compliment one another.
In future discussions, I would like to see more parameters set so everyone can be on the same playing field and therefore get more out of the discussion. At times, the debate seems chaotic. I do feel that the small group discussions are extremely beneficial, however.
To conclude, I'm very excited to explore our individual foundations of knowledge and even more excited to rattle them from the core.”
On Skepticism 9/7/08
“ What reality would you choose for humankind? The reality in Decartes' meditation or the reality that we are all just brains in vats being controlled by the operator of a super-computer? Why? Advance your own skeptical hypothesis.
To be honest, I am frustrated with this question. This sounds reminiscent of Plato’s Cave, Oedipus’ conflict, the Fall of Adam and Eve just on a much grander scale.In choosing a reality that’s best for mankind that either gives them freedom of contemplation or keeps them in the dark about their situation, we are essentially returning to the trite question of “Is ignorance bliss?” and it is a question that I feel has been exhausted.
I suppose it would be honorable to choose Descartes’ reality for the world rather than sticking mankind’s minds in vats of nutrients. It’s certainly more respectable to give man the power to contemplate their conceptual reality, right? However, if I were to choose this reality for the world, would it not be preposterous to think about such things? Obviously, because I have chosen to give them a world not controlled by an evil computer, they would be alive and not “asleep”. Talk about a waste of time.
I will admit that I probably don’t properly admire the philosophers we’ve been studying in class. As a political science major, I believe in doing as much as you can for the world while you are in it to a make it a better place. I refuse to believe that these philosopher’s and their disciples did much for other people except for turn their minds into mushrooms. Therefore, I would assert that by choosing a reality created by brains in vats, I would be setting mankind free to do what they please in life instead of being slaves to their thoughts, wondering as they go through life if they are awake or asleep.
I understand that many will view this argument as controversial and will disagree with me, the least of which would be Dr. Hall. Certainly there is value in reflection and contemplation. Certainly these philosophers have offered us interesting views, and some of which have greatly influenced politics and other things of importance. However, I fail to see the value of Descartes’ reality. So again, I would set mankind free by letting them be brains in vats.
On Origins 9/15/08
“First, who do you think ought to be responsible for the explanation of the beginning? Only Science? Only Religion? Or can they be reconciled?Second, which view is more compelling to you? Which are you more likely to reference when someone asks you how everything began? Why?
As a strong follower of Deism, I believe that Science and Religion can compliment one another and work together. Therefore, one doesn't need "only science" or "only religion". I believe it was Albert Einstein who said ""Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."I would have to agree.
To explain, Deism asserts that it was God who created the world and then let world be. More specifically, many deists hold the belief that God ignited the big bang. I believe this is a perfectly feasible theory. Because the Big Bang theory lacks a starting point, an explanation that accounts for the matter, God is a reasonable explanation.
As for which seems more compelling, I would have to side with the Big Bang scientific explanation for the Genesis creation story is not widely accepted by Deists (or anyone for that matter). It's a fairly absurd and simplistic fable of the beginning of the world that I would feel uncomfortable and slightly embarrassed of referencing.”
On Evolution 9/21/08
“A scientific theory MUST be testable and falsifiable (able to be refuted/proven wrong). Also, a scientific theory is not just speculation; it must be based on a large pool of peer-reviewed, objective, empirical evidence. How does this definition of theory affect the Intelligent Design in schools debate?
There’s a different between a debate on whether Intelligent Design should be taught in schools and in whether Intelligent Design can be taught in schools.
A personal advocate of Intelligent Design, I believe it should be taught in schools. Stephen Hawkings himself wrote that "It would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun in just this way, except as the act of a God who intended to create beings like us.'" As a dedicated deist, I believe that science and God can work together and compliment one another. And because I believe students should learn a host of ideas about our origins in an educational environment, I advocate Intelligent Design being taught in schools. But that’s not the point.
Intelligent Design simply can not be taught in schools. Not only is it unconstitutional (which we’ve discussed in depth so I’ll not reiterate that argument), but it can not fit the description of a scientific theory. Intelligent Design is not testable, nor is it based on a large pool of peer-reviewed and objective empirical evidence. Because it fails in this regard, it would difficult to justifiably include it in a curriculum.
So, because it is unconstitutional and fails to meet the requirements of scientific theory, Intelligent Design can not be taught in schools.”
On Faith 9/28/08
“Richard Dawkins asserts in his essay, Science Refutes Religion, that Science and Religion are "distinctly different domains" and that they are unable to "snuggle up together in a respectful and loving concordant".
Dawkins is referring to the statement made by Pope John Paul II that Dawkins paraphrases as being "there came a moment in the evolution of hominids when God intervened and injected a human soul into a previously animal lineage" in order to reconcile MacroEvolution and the Catholic faith.
Dawkins argues that while Catholocism should be limited to claims of values and morals, it steps over the bounds of faith and onto the turf of science with the Virgin Birth, the bodily Assumption of the Virgin Mary, the Resurrection of Jesus, and the survival of our own souls after death and is wrong for doing so.
I agree with Dawkins on all of these points.
However, Dawkins is simply speaking of the Catholic faith. What of Deism? Deism is a respectful faith with the likes of famous followers such as Thoreau, Emerson, the majority of out founding fathers, and of course, yours truly.
I will agree with Dr. Hall's assertion that Science provides an explanation while Religion provides a justification. I will agree with Jessica Bianco's commendable metaphorical example of a dog racing a bike, in that the two are hardly worth comparing. I also agree with the masterfully crafted arguments made my Anders Brent and Michael Cicalese that faith can not and should not be based on evidence.
However, I put it to you, that perhaps explanations and justifications can coincide and even compliment one another. That while two things such as faith and science exist in separate realms, they can coexist. I do not agree with the reconcilliation made by Pope John Paul II. I do believe that God set the world in motion and enabled all living things to evolve naturally and beautifully as they have.”
On Evil 10/5/08
“I believe this is the first week my belief in God has truly been challenged. It was a challenge I welcomed and I think I have overcome.
Because I am a deist, and not a strong minded Christian, I believe I have been able to be left unaffected by our discussions thus far in class. However, the existence of evil in the world and the belief in a wholly good God does provide a predicament for someone who believes God created the world and let it grow and be as it pleased. But why would a wholly good God allow suffering?
I had hoped the Christians in class would rise up and meet the challenging questions of Dr. Hall. However, I found their explanations to be unfulfilling. For example, the idea that a deer suffers in solitude in the woods because God “foresaw it hitting a car and injuring a family” appeared ridiculous to me because a wholly good God should be able to stop both from happening. This would seem more productive to me, anyway. I also don’t believe a loving God would account for natural and moral suffering as “tests of faith”. I found this explanation given by some in the class to be preposterous.
It wasn’t until we met in our small group that it started to become clear for me. Suzanne Reffel suggested that perhaps we were asking the wrong questions. In order to understand why suffering (and therefore, evil) exists in the world, we have to ask ourselves what our purpose here on earth is. To this I would answer that our purpose is not to live a suffer-less (and therefore perfect) life, but to grow and learn and become better. And often, this is done through suffering.
Anders Brent is correct, the Free Will Defense explains moral evil, but it does not account for natural evil. But natural evil just arrises from nature taking its course. Regardless, I would assert that suffering and the causes of suffering should not be identified as “evil”. Anders asked me today “If I stab my knee with a knife, I suffer. Is this evil?” He’s right. It’s absolutely not evil. I don’t believe “evil” truly exists.
Admittedly, my thoughts are discombobulated and I apologize for the lack of cohesiveness in this post. However, I would be interested in learning what people thought of the idea that evil doesn’t exist.”
On Tragedy 10/12/08
“I feel very much the same way as I did last week.
Whether we control our hapiness or not is irrelevant. (Although, I believe it should be said that we can not. If we could, would we not all choose to be happy all the time? Clearly, this is not the case.) It is not our purpose on earth to be happy forever and always. Just as I said last week, it is not our purpose in life to live a life free of sorrow.
In our small group, we explored the idea of genuine free will versus the illusion of free will. This is a topic I find to be much more interesting, but still related to the prompt. I ask you this: If God is truly omniscient and knows everything that has been, is, and will be, do you truly have free will? For example, if you physically have the choice of three balls to choose from, and you are partial to the green and so you choose it, you would be under the impression you just demonstrated free will. However, because God is outside of time and knows everything that has and will be and therefore, knew you would choose the green ball, could you have truly chosen a different colored ball if you wanted to?
Frankly my dears, I don't think God gives a damn what color ball you choose; but, it is interesting nonetheless. What do you think?”
On Determinism 10/19/08
“Our group debated determinism over steaming pancakes at the Spanish Mill in Deleon springs. The conversation was as delicious as the pancakes.
As I ate my chocolate chip pancake, I wondered to myself "Could I have chosen anything other than chocolate chips?" I wasn't so sure.
I feel that I must admit freewill is an illusion. Because God is outside of time, and can seen everything that has, is, and will be; I had no other choice but to choose to put chocolate chips in my waffle.
However, I still feel that I have a very very strong sense of freewill for I do not believe God concerns himself with our toppings or what socks we put on or what restaurant we eat at. And just because God knew(knows) what we would choose doesn't make the choice any less of a choice.”
On Love 10/27/08
“I would be very sad if I were to be on the receiving end of Socrates' solution for love. It would be tragic if I loved someone entirely and they only loved me for my beauty or intellect (hypothetically, speaking).
I think it is far better to make yourself completely vulnerable to a person and grow to love them for every characteristic, freckle, and flaw.
However, the question of Odysseus' decision is an interesting one. Most would agree that he made an honorable decision in choosing Penelope. Yet, I would have to ponder Dane's proposition that it would be worth the experience to experience Godly, immortal love. Odysseus had already experienced earthly human love, and was presented with the unique opportunity to experience both worlds.
I think I would stick with Odysseus' decision though.”
On Law/Government 11/3/08
“As a libertarian, I believe very strongly in limited government and allowing capitalism to take its course. The topic was misleading, I think, as the prompter seemed to confuse Hall's idea of "tending one's own garden" for an ideal that moves away from capitalism. This is not the case. "Tending one's own garden" is a capitalist, libertarian ideal that promotes hard-working and self-governing values.
As for which point on the "political spectrum" is most conducive to a happy society, the answer is unclear. It depends on the kind of society in question. In social democracies such as Sweden, Denmark, and Norway; welfare goods and services are provided on a large scale and quality of life is high. However, these Scandinavian countries had a vastly different transition into Democracy and the society make-up is nothing like that of America's.
I abhor the idea of a political spectrum for this very reason. The idea of a far right and a far left on a thin line is absurd. It doesn't make much sense, for if one goes far enough left, they'll end up on the right side. It's an ineffective circle. Not to mention, it's all very relative. What seems totalitarian to you or to this society could seem fairly democratic still to someone sitting in North Korea. This is why I subscribe to the idea of "room temperature" politics. Depending on where one stands in the room, the temperature of that part of the room describes that person's situation in relation to others in the room. I digress.
As for one's civic duty, I believe we as a society should do a better job implementing lesson plans on history, structure of government, policy reform, and civic activism into our education. It is unreasonable to believe citizens will want to vote on every little policy introduced. Current voter turn out for presidential elections is bad enough as it is due to civic disengagement via video games, television, and other 21st century distractions. Simply raising awareness and making our presidential elections a more accurate representation will do for now. Until we overthrow the electoral college, anyway. But that's a rant for another time.”
On Community 11/10/08
“I would agree with Aristotle. We are political creatures and participation in the political process is one of the most imperative elements of a good society. However, I'm not sure that chimpanzees could be described as such. Dr. Hall asked our group if we thought Jane Goodall had made disney-like personifications of the chimps. I think this is a definite possibility. As Dr. Farrell said, we must discuss other species in such a way that almost gives them human-like attributes because of our linguistic shortcomings.
The subject of Utopia is an interesting one. The emphasis in community and living with the bare essentials is certainly ideal. However, the members are described in such a way that they hardly seem human. Moore seems to imply that eliminating strong emotions is important for an ideal society. This makes the citizens rational to the extreme, thus seemingly inhuman.
Hanging out with the ants was fascinating. I vote (hooray democracy!) that we take more excursions in the near future.”
On Sin 11/23/08
“While Augustine's thoughts on sin are ideal and romantic, I simply refuse to believe all people sin just for the sake of sinning as an expression of freedom. I find that most people don't really concern themselves with expressing their freedom in any way and, furthermore; if one were to choose to express their freedom in life, would they not do it in a jovial, passionate light?
Really, all this talk of sin is poppycock to me because I don't believe in Sin. One can either choose to live life well, or by Jesus' example, the Ten Commandments, etc - or not. I truly feel that the concept of sin was created to give actions that went against the laws of Christianity a name. In doing so, such an act would weigh heavier on one's conscious and feel that they had personally wronged their lord, resulting in higher penance rates.
I was admittedly frustrated by the language of the prompt in the bit about the first amendment. The first amendment says nothing about separation of church and state. It simply stipulates that no law shall be made "respecting an establishment of religion" or that prohibit the free exercise of religion. That the dollar bill says “In God We Trust” and that we (freely) choose to say the words “one nation under God” would be considered a violation of the first amendment is preposterous.
As for the extent in which the church should be allowed to play a role in government is a difficult question to answer. In our conservative democratic government, I would assert it should not have any for we are a melting pot of a population and no church of any religion would have a place in influencing policies for all. However, in countries like Germany where the majority of the population is like-minded in values and votes in a Christian Democracy by majority, the church is able to play a large role in government policies by advocating social welfare programs and other programs that promote the general welfare of the population.”
On Individualism 11/24/08
“The spectrum of conformity vs. individualism seems insufficient. Just as Anders said, "by being individualistic one can be conformist and vice versa. E.g. someone who is being very individual could just be conforming to others who want to be individual".
The idea of the ultimate "individual" is difficult to envision. Dr. Ron Hall offered the example of Hillary Clinton saying she had "truly found her voice" during her campaign for the democratic presidential nomination. This was frankly infuriating. I find it hard to believe that someone as intelligent as Dr. Hall would truly believe such cheesy political campaign rhetoric.
The only idea of a true individual I can conceptualize would be someone like Plato who is completely outside of society and all material things belonging to the physical world. A person who is completely in touch with his thoughts and his ideas and goes about life dreamily and unconnected. While this may be considered a noble pursuit to many, I've never thought much of Plato or others like him. What benefit are they to society? Of what relevance are they?
I suppose I mean to say that while conformity is not ideal, individualism is highly overrated.”
Christine Jacobson
Dr. Steeves and Dr. Hall
Foundations of Knowledge and Understanding
10 December 2008
Part II : Essay
Foundations of Knowledge and Understanding
Most come to college to create or find their identity. I arrived at Stetson University with a pretty defined identity and an established set of beliefs. I was a Jeffersonian girl through and through, as a libertarian when it came to politics and a deist when it came to matters of religion. I idolized the works of Emerson and Thoreau and took them to be the only philosophers necessary or worthwhile. I entered the Honors Program at Stetson expecting to find intellectual stimulation derived from rigorous lectures and supplemented reading assignments. I would soon find that I was completely unprepared for what was in store. Over the course of this semester there were certain topics that I fell in love with, some I found to be unnecessary to the course, and some that rattled my beliefs to the core.
As a political science major, it is no surprise that I really enjoyed the week spent on law and government. The Pericles reading sparked scintillating conversation by drawing ties from Pericles’ war to our current war in Iraq. The discussions over separation between church and state were interesting as well .Over the course of the semester, I found that I usually preferred readings that were followed by discussions that related to current events. I was disheartened to find that during these discussions I felt that my fellow students’ awareness in current events and global issues was a little lacking. However, I was impressed by the research and thoughtfulness shown on both sides during the formal debate of “Democracy versus Other Types of Governments”.
While I found the aforementioned week to be pleasurable, I’ll admit I didn’t change my political ideologies, or even really learn anything new. It wasn’t until we examined the subject of community that I shifted in my thinking. Specifically, the piece by Jane Goodall about living with the community of Apes ignited conversation in our small group about society and the way we felt about it. I remember Dr. Hall asking us if we liked society, or other people in general. As a follower of Thoreau, I had grown a disdain for society and found his way of life in the woods to be ideal. I expressed this in the small group and Dr. Hall remarked on how much like Plato I was.
His comment struck me, for if there’s one thing I discovered during this course, it’s that I don’t care for Plato very much at all. His detachment from society and his disdain for physical, worldly things, while seemingly noble, is ridiculous to me. I value those who actively seek to benefit a community or society as a whole. As a political science major, I have little patience for those who do nothing during their time on earth but isolate themselves and reflect upon tableness and how horrible the “cave” of society is.
I think the paradox here is obvious. My ideologies about society were antithetical to my beliefs about the role of a person in society. This would not do. I decided to dive into this discovered discrepancy and explore community, the role of a citizen, and society in my last honors paper of the semester. I found that I really had no reason to despise society. It’s just as easy to find the good in people as it is the bad. My convictions about the role of a person in society (appropriately) turned out to be stronger than my Thoreau-induced convictions.
The last subject we covered that I particularly liked was love. Never have I considered the possibility of loving a God. The discussion about Odysseus’ choice in choosing an earthly love with Penelope over a Godly love was therefore fascinating. I pondered the possibility myself, and arrived at the conclusion that I probably would have left Penelope, in order to have experienced love in two vastly different ways during my life. I suppose that’s not the most valiant choice, though. The form of love presented to us by Socrates in which he loved someone for their beauty or intellect, immortal ideas that would never let you down, disturbed me. I found myself feelings sorry for those who received Socrates’ love and then, ever sorrier for Socrates himself. To live life as a stone statue and never learning to love someone completely and vulnerably, coming to love every characteristic, freckle, and flaw is a grave tragedy. Perhaps I am a naïve eighteen year-old girl for thinking so. What do I know of love? Because I know so little, and because I doubt my classmates are experts either, I would assert that this subject is particularly important and interesting.
Thus, I feel as if there could have been some more readings on the subject of love that offered a wider range of perspectives on the matter. I also feel as if we didn’t discuss it nearly in depth enough during the class discussions and this should be changed.
There were a few subjects I didn’t care for and that I thought didn’t add anything to the curriculum of “Foundations of Knowledge and Understanding”. Firstly, the week on sin seemed out of place put between community and individualism. It seemed as if it was weakly tied by an on-going discussion of separation of church and state, which had already been exhausted. Secondly, I haven’t derived any value from readings by Augustine during this course. His ideas are frankly romantic and ridiculous. I sincerely refuse to believe that people sin as an expression of their freedom and most of my classmates agreed, making the discussion lack proper debate. Perhaps my classmates were as exhausted as I was on any subjects related to religion by then.
I fele that the topic of “individualism” was trite and incapable of sparking true intellectually stimulating conversation. The readings did prove to be interesting - I specifically liked Hall’s piece called “American Myths of the Individual”. However, it merely ignited talks about Batman, while the Confucius piece was hardly even mentioned. I believe the week on individualism probably just inspired a lot of anti-conformity papers. I would suggest taking individualism out of the curriculum, or choosing different readings that spark better conversation.
Thirdly, the amount of time spent on metaphysics was astounding. I understand the importance of presenting a freshman class of honors students with ontological, cosmological, and epistemological arguments to shake them up. In fact, it seemed that the agenda of the class was to have us believe that we truly knew nothing, as if to wipe a clean slate if you will, and then fill our heads with new knowledge and a new way of approaching knowledge. This is completely understandable and makes for a wonderful curriculum. However, the inordinate amount of time spent on considering if the table in the room was real, if we’re all just “leaving in a dream”, or if “knowledge truly means anything” was exhausting and frustrating. I left the class feeling unproductive and as if I hadn’t learning anything. In reflection, I don’t feel that it was a complete waste of time. However, cutting it back to get to more involved issues or helping the class to see its significance might be beneficial to the next class.
That being said, there were a few subjects that rattled my beliefs to the core - the subject of knowledge being one of them. The first line from my very first post sums up my sentiments as “I expected to question many things during my pursuit of knowledge in college such as political ideologies, religious beliefs, etc. I did not expect to question the pursuit of knowledge itself.” This led me to question my participation in academia all together. The story of Faust affected me, even if we neglected to read it in class, for he spent his whole life buried in academia and felt unfulfilled. Before coming to Stetson, I had considered taking a year off to travel. Examining this subject made me question if I had made the right decision in coming here. However, through group discussions I came to realize that it is perfectly possible to walk through life as opposed to skipping or standing still.
The week we examined evil I truly felt lost. As a Deist, most of the discussions on religion, faith, and origins up until that week had left me unaffected. But the existence of evil in the world and the belief in a wholly good God provided a predicament for me. I wondered why a wholly good God would allow suffering. I had hoped the Christians in class would rise up and meet these challenging questions. However, I found their explanations to be unfulfilling. For example, the idea that a deer suffers in solitude in the woods because God “foresaw it hitting a car and injuring a family” appeared ridiculous to me because a wholly good God would be able to stop both from happening. Some offered the “test of faith” explanation which I found to be preposterous. It wasn’t until we met in our small group that things started to become clear to me. Suzanne Reffel suggested that perhaps we were asking the wrong questions. In order to understand why suffering (and therefore, evil) exists in the world, we have to ask ourselves what our purpose here on earth is. To this I have decided that our purpose is not to live a suffer-less (and therefore perfect) life, but to grow and learn and become better. And often, this is done through suffering which occurs naturally in the world and is not induced, nor inhibited by God.
Because the topic of evil had affected me so much, I decided to take on the subject in my second honors paper. I set out to prove that evil does not exist with the thesis of “Because suffering is not evil, and both ‘natural evil’ and ‘moral evil’ can be explained further than the simple definition of a ‘cosmic force’, evil does not exist.” Needless to say, this was a difficult thesis to prove. I really enjoyed writing the paper and I decided to present it in class. I benefited a lot from the grilling questions asked by the professors and fellow classmates. I’m used to speaking in Student Government and public speaking through other venues, but I truly felt vulnerable presenting my own ideas to a class of my peers and two esteemed professors. I was glad to have had the opportunity to do it.
The last subject that greatly shook up my beliefs, and that has still left me perplexed to this moment, was determinism. I think this week was expertly prefaced by the week on tragedy, in which we examined Oedipus the King. We questioned whether or not Oedipus could have truly escaped his fate. I have always been frustrated by this debate, for it seems to me that Oedipus could have vowed never to kill anyone or sleep with anyone double his age for his entire life in order to escape the prophecy. However, in the discussion on determinism, the point was brought up that if a truly omniscient God exists, would our free will not be negated? For surely if God knows everything that has, is, and will be, each choice we make has already been determined. For example, it is not truly my choice to have chocolate chip pancakes instead of blueberry if God already knew I would choose the chocolate chip. This leaves one with an ultimatum in their beliefs: either God does exist and we simply have the illusion of free will, or God does not exist and our free will remains intact. While I believe firmly in a creator, I haven’t resigned myself yet to believing in the illusion of freewill. Thus, my confusion remains with me today.
Assessing how well the topic Knowledge of Foundation and Understanding was taught is quite an undertaking. I can simply offer my humble opinions and suggestions. I certainly loved the variety of topics chosen. As I mentioned earlier, there are a few that could stand to be taken out, or at least approached differently such as the Metaphysical topics, Sin, and Individualism. I can’t say what topics I would replace them with, for there are so many excellent ones already covered. Perhaps more time could be spent expanding on topics that didn’t get as much time such as love, law, and community.
The class discussions leave something to be desired. A large part of this is due to the sheer size of the class. However, there is something to be said about the nature of the discussion. I could complain about certain individuals who were allowed to talk too often and who didn’t add anything meaningful to the discussion. However, I know things like that are hard to control. While I did learn an immense amount from my fellow students, I have to admit that I was disappointed in how little I learned from the two professors. I am not speaking of the quality of their teaching; however, I am asserting that the class could probably benefit from some monologues on the part of the professors before the dialogue ensues.
One of the finest things about the curriculum is the use of small groups led by the Co-teachers. The small groups enabled those who normally couldn’t speak during the regular class time to share their ideas with an intimate group of their classmates. The smaller groups also allowed for further discussion and the ability to delve deeper into these broad subjects we were examining. I found my co-teacher to be very effective in leading discussions and I strongly advocate the co-teachers’ role in the honors program.
My favorite component of Honors I: Foundations of Knowledge and Understanding was the class presentation. Not only is it imperative for a small group in the class to come together to share ideas with another, but it is also to important allow that small group to creatively present their ideas to the rest of the class. In putting my presentation together, I not only learned from the other six members of my group, I learned a lot about them as well. It was a truly rewarding experience to perform our presentation and to also watch the other groups’ presentations. I strongly encourage this requirement to stay in place.
I may not have changed as dramatically as some of my classmates. My political and spiritual convictions are as strong as ever. In fact, I would argue that this class helped me to grow into my skin more rather than changed me. Living like Plato was detrimental to my passions in life of politics and civic activism. I am grateful to Dr. Hall for helping me to see this. I have become more myself because of it.
I also still have unanswered questions to work out. I don’t know how to reconcile determinism and my faith in a wholly good God. But certainly the question will pervade my mind until I find an answer. I love the Honors I class for giving me a plethora of things to ponder for the rest of my life. The professors should know that discussions from class had a habit of spilling over onto our walks back to the dorm, lingering in the hallway with us, and finally surrendering to an afternoon spent in the hat rack over coffee. That kind of learning experience is invaluable.
To conclude, I was incredibly fortunate to have been a part of this program. I look forward to the next couple of years in which I expect to continually grow through its stimulating curriculum and wise professors.