I had session with the Thokozani philosophy club that brought up some really interesting questions about misunderstanding (or not understanding) and philosophical discussion. Influenced by a technique from the philosophy teacher Isabelle Millon, I gave each of the students a card that was green (with a tick) on one side and red (with a cross) on the other. I periodically, after someone had spoken, asked them to use their cards to display whether they had understood or not, and the speaker then asked someone why they did not understand, and invited someone who did understand to answer their question. Repeat as necessary. I then asked them to display whether they agreed or disagreed, and the speaker then asked someone to justify their answer. This revealed that many people frequently did not understand what other speakers were saying. The discussion proceeded far more slowly than before and got into less depth. Although a mix of isiXhosa and English has always been used in these sessions, the students used far more isiXhosa this week as it became more important that their peers understood. Extremely useful technique. But, to what extent should it be pursued? Firstly, is some lack of understanding after someone has spoken a problem? Meaning is frequently deduced not only from a single utterance (or a paraphrase), but from listening to other people’s questions and the responses. Perhaps too much stopping obstructs understanding then? Secondly, does each student have the same standard of ‘understanding’ that I have when I asked if they’ve understood? Does a positive answer mean ‘completely on the same page’ or ‘intelligible but some fuzzy areas’? This has consequences for the previous point. Thirdly, is there not sometimes value in not pursuing an absolutely shared understanding? There is value in a broad exploration of the question with only some level of shared understanding, in which we can progress relatively quickly through an argument, problematizing many of our assumptions and revealing different angles. There is also value in really grabbling with an argument very thoroughly, in which we want something closer to absolute shared understanding. In focusing on the one kind while neglecting the other we seem to be losing something. Next week: the ethics of humour. I’m going to bring in a cartoon (or joke) or two to discuss. Any suggestions?
Posted on: Tue, 01 Oct 2013 17:49:31 +0000
Trending Topics
© 2015