Let's continue the schedule rundown, shall we?
On Wednesdays I have a morning logic class. Predictably, I hate it like the devil. I'm required to take it (for real this time, not like Duquesne and U of T where I could limbo under the radar), and since I haven't had any logic up until this point I have to take the BA level course, which is fine, I don't feel the need to be excessively challenged in this area. But, like most things I hate like the devil (quitting smoking, taking multivitamins) I'm sure it's good for me. I value the opportunity to make some sense out of the arguments structures I've been hearing so much about, and there really isn't any excuse for my not having a clue about Aristotelian syllogistics at this point in my career. I do feel confirmed that now is the time to get this over with by the fact that a very nice logic professor from Mt. Allison (Dr. Matthews) gave me a Copi book when I met him this summer, which just happened to be one of the books I packed, and this is precisely the volume that my logic professor is teaching out of. I read that coincidence as a confirmation that it is just time to do this now, better in Europe than somewhere else I suppose. I still hate it though.
On Thursdays I have my other morning class, this one on Kant. I struggle with Kant, fundamental as he is, so this class does not give me joy either, but the subject is interesting and the professor is approachable, so I am learning a great deal. The topic of the course is related to Kant's underpinning his treatment of human freedom (morals) and his treatment of natural science (the world in concreto) with the metaphysics of his first two critiques, the Critique of Pure Reason and the Critique of Practical Reason. Like I said, I struggle with Kant, but the transition from transcendental metaphysics to the special applied metaphysics is interesting to me, so we'll see what I get out of it. The professor has this funny lecture style where he makes a lot of little hand gestures right in front of his face and repeats himself endlessly, so it's a bit of a bear to take notes, but once you get into the rhythm of the way he works, it's kind of hypnotic. Despite the subconscious suggestion, however, I think I will have trouble with this course. We'll see.
Then on Fridays I have my contemporary Philosophy seminar on Horkheimer and Adorno's Dialectic of Enlightenment. It's a very small class (5 people) taught by a very young professor named Dr. Geyskins, whom I like a lot even though we got into a tussle about whether the historical trope of faith that H & A are using in their geneology of enlightement can be considered in touch with Kierkegaard's conception. I mentioned it as a point of interest, and Dr. Geyskins thought I was trying to voice a critique, and it downward spiralled from there. I think I'm still right of course, given that Adorno's treatment of Kierkegaard is notoriously shallow and the Dialectic is not exactly an in-depth treatment of the history of philosophy, but rather a imaginary portraiture of certain trends in Western thought (a la Nietzsche's Geneology), but I wasn't going to take up class time with my arguments (undeveloped as they always are in those moments). Overall, I enjoy it very much. The discussion is good and the book is interesting, however much the flippancy and irony of the work annoys me at times. I'm not sure I'm altogether sympathetic with the Frankfurt School, but it's important to know something about.
So that's my schedule then. Alas, there will be no Husserl for me this year, despite the resources that Leuven has in that regard. I am taking a phenomenology class next semester, but we're doing something with Heidegger. What I'm really looking forward to is a class in the theology department on Biblical ethics, which will access one of Levinas' texts. In the meantime, I am trying to pull together the sources for my thesis, which is coming along.
On Wednesdays I have a morning logic class. Predictably, I hate it like the devil. I'm required to take it (for real this time, not like Duquesne and U of T where I could limbo under the radar), and since I haven't had any logic up until this point I have to take the BA level course, which is fine, I don't feel the need to be excessively challenged in this area. But, like most things I hate like the devil (quitting smoking, taking multivitamins) I'm sure it's good for me. I value the opportunity to make some sense out of the arguments structures I've been hearing so much about, and there really isn't any excuse for my not having a clue about Aristotelian syllogistics at this point in my career. I do feel confirmed that now is the time to get this over with by the fact that a very nice logic professor from Mt. Allison (Dr. Matthews) gave me a Copi book when I met him this summer, which just happened to be one of the books I packed, and this is precisely the volume that my logic professor is teaching out of. I read that coincidence as a confirmation that it is just time to do this now, better in Europe than somewhere else I suppose. I still hate it though.
On Thursdays I have my other morning class, this one on Kant. I struggle with Kant, fundamental as he is, so this class does not give me joy either, but the subject is interesting and the professor is approachable, so I am learning a great deal. The topic of the course is related to Kant's underpinning his treatment of human freedom (morals) and his treatment of natural science (the world in concreto) with the metaphysics of his first two critiques, the Critique of Pure Reason and the Critique of Practical Reason. Like I said, I struggle with Kant, but the transition from transcendental metaphysics to the special applied metaphysics is interesting to me, so we'll see what I get out of it. The professor has this funny lecture style where he makes a lot of little hand gestures right in front of his face and repeats himself endlessly, so it's a bit of a bear to take notes, but once you get into the rhythm of the way he works, it's kind of hypnotic. Despite the subconscious suggestion, however, I think I will have trouble with this course. We'll see.
Then on Fridays I have my contemporary Philosophy seminar on Horkheimer and Adorno's Dialectic of Enlightenment. It's a very small class (5 people) taught by a very young professor named Dr. Geyskins, whom I like a lot even though we got into a tussle about whether the historical trope of faith that H & A are using in their geneology of enlightement can be considered in touch with Kierkegaard's conception. I mentioned it as a point of interest, and Dr. Geyskins thought I was trying to voice a critique, and it downward spiralled from there. I think I'm still right of course, given that Adorno's treatment of Kierkegaard is notoriously shallow and the Dialectic is not exactly an in-depth treatment of the history of philosophy, but rather a imaginary portraiture of certain trends in Western thought (a la Nietzsche's Geneology), but I wasn't going to take up class time with my arguments (undeveloped as they always are in those moments). Overall, I enjoy it very much. The discussion is good and the book is interesting, however much the flippancy and irony of the work annoys me at times. I'm not sure I'm altogether sympathetic with the Frankfurt School, but it's important to know something about.
So that's my schedule then. Alas, there will be no Husserl for me this year, despite the resources that Leuven has in that regard. I am taking a phenomenology class next semester, but we're doing something with Heidegger. What I'm really looking forward to is a class in the theology department on Biblical ethics, which will access one of Levinas' texts. In the meantime, I am trying to pull together the sources for my thesis, which is coming along.
No comments:
Post a Comment