[lit-ideas] Re: Daughter of a Female Dog

Please see specific, albeit minor, replies below:

Quoting karltrogge@xxxxxxxx:

> 
> On 23-Jun-09, at 8:14 PM, Walter C. Okshevsky wrote:
> 
> > 1. Let not secondary/critical commentary on the work of a genuine  
> > philosopher interfere with your study of that philosopher. This  
> > maxim is doubly obligatory in the case of Kant ... since no other  
> > philosopher has had more crap written about him than he.
> 
> An interesting claim. May I respectfully nominate others for this  
> 'crown'?
> 
> 1. Plato
> 2. Descartes
> 3. Heidegger
> 4. Wittgenstein
> 
> For those about whom particularly interesting - or 'smelly' (depending  
> upon how far you want to take the metaphor) - crap has been written  
> (i.e., quality over quantity), I would nominate:
> 
> 1. Berkeley
> 2. Hume
> 3. Goedel
> 
> No doubt a longer reflection would result in alterations and  
> extensions of both lists.

WO: I wish to maintain my original position in the face of the counter-examples
proffered by Herr Troge. The onus of argument is surely on him to disprove my
claim. 


> Your "typical comments" sound, alas, all too familiar.  In those long- 
> ago days when I marked papers, I would hand out a mimeograph (I told  
> you the days were 'long gone'!) with a numbered key, and then just  
> write the appropriate numbers in the margins of the papers.  Often  
> little other commentary was necessary or, alas, affordable.
> 
> I would also clearly distinguish between assignments which had a  
> pedagogical purpose and those which were ('merely') evaluative.   
> Assignments of the former type would receive (often extensive)  
> commentary (where warranted or required); those of the latter type  
> would merely receive a grade.  (This distinction was not only clear to  
> me; it was also made clear to the students.)  I was also willing to  
> discuss any assignment, aspect of a course, or, indeed, ALMOST any  
> topic in personal one-on-one meetings with students.  It surprised  
> (and, yes, saddened) me how few availed themselves of this opportunity  
> (even for instrumental - i.e., grade-raising - purposes.)

WO: There is much here that is truly disheartening in educational and
pedagogical terms. Almost all of my assignments for students fall into the
category Mr. Trogge delineates as "pedagogical." Only the final exam, which is
not a learning experience, is "evaluative." As for "numbered keys," I have no
use for them. The epistemic (and personal) force of my written feedback to
students' essays rests on the premise that the student is being personally
addressed by my comments and is both personally responsible and professionally
accountable for addressing the issues I raise. My comments are recognized to be
addressed TO and FOR her. A "numbered key" is surely but a metanarrative in the
tradition of classes cannibalized by powerpoint. 

Walter O
MUN



> 
> Thanks to you Mr Okshevsky, and Mr Enns, for stimulating bitter-sweet  
> memories.
> 
> Karl Trogge
> Hamburg
> --
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
> digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
> 

------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html

Other related posts: