A Word to the Wise, Kids
May 3, 2008 by Jennifer Lawson
Posted in General Interest | 4 Comments
4 Responses to “A Word to the Wise, Kids”
Leave a Reply
-
Recent Posts
-
Recent Comments
-
Popular Posts
Categories
- Action Theory
- Aesthetics
- African Philosophy
- Ancient Philosophy
- Asian Philosophy
- Bioethics
- Buddhism
- Business Ethics
- CFPs
- Christianity
- Comparative Philosophy
- Conferences
- Continental Philosophy
- Early Modern Philosophy
- Environmental Philosophy
- Epistemology
- Ethics
- Feminist Philosophy
- General Interest
- Grad School
- Hermeneutics
- Hinduism
- Interviews
- Islam
- Job Market
- Judaism
- Late Modern Philosophy
- Latin American Philosophy
- Logic
- Medieval Philosophy
- Metaphysics
- Moral Psychology
- Naturalism
- News & Notes
- Phenomenology
- Philosophy of Language
- Philosophy of Law
- Philosophy of Mathematics
- Philosophy of Mind
- Philosophy of Psychology
- Philosophy of Religion
- Philosophy of Science
- Political Theory
- Pragmatism
- Race and Gender
- Social Philosophy
- Teaching Philosophy
-
Blog Stats
- 85,236 hits
This seems like obvious, but necessary (apparently), advice for all graduate students, but I dare say that attention to secondary lit will best serve to distract most undergraduates. The majority of the times that I was directed to secondary literature were in service of work beyond the call of the normal assignments or a part of advanced classes.
That being said, it was indispensable in fostering a working knowledge of specific areas. Simply considering the primary literature is just fine for anyone cruising through a bachelors on the way to Law school, etc. but it seems that for anyone serious about professional philosophy the secondary lit. is a must.
These are just my impressions and they are limited by my exposure - I await graduate school. Does this seem reasonable based on your experience?
Some of the comments on the original blog post seem to be missing the richness of many philosophical debates (historical and contemporary). I agree with Van Norden that it would be difficult to contribute meaningfully to the dialogue/debate without at least some familiarity with the secondary lit.
~Q
Hi Quincy!
I’m no undergrad advisor, but, yes, that seems reasonable to me. Surely no one is going to criticize an undergrad for not reading the works of the major Berkeley scholars, for example.
I should probably add that I’m not sure I’d discourage such reading, though I’d be interested in what others think.
In my own experience as an undergrad, reading secondary literature on figures or areas I was interested in was amazing and I don’t regret it one bit.
But I think that you and I are probably in agreement on that, yes?
I believe we are in agreement. The secondary literature should be encouraged since it is indeed valuable and, in my experience, rewarding. It shouldn’t, however, be expected in broader survey type courses.
I really think the best thing to come away with from a course like that is a familiarity with the debate in general and with the core primary texts.
That being said, I always found it helpful when the syllabus had a list of secondary literature that would be relevant - as an undergrad it isn’t always easy to find the work that will be helpful rather than distracting or too dense/specialized.
~Q