I thought I’d take a quick pulse of the class. Take a moment or two to identify what is for you so far the muddiest point or least clear aspect of the course so far. It can be a term, a concept, a reading, a way we do things, something about the writing assignments — anything that you think is the least clear, most confusing aspect of the course experience thus far in our journey toward a good life. You can write as little or as much as you would like.
To facilitate discussion Tuesday, the deadline for this short post is: 9 a.m., Tuesday morning, Feb. 12.
I think that the most confusing part is the response papers, but that could be due to my own lack of writing skills and due to lack of creativity on my part.
For me, the most confusing part so far has been trying to understand the difference between “morals” and “ethics.” However, the last few discussions have started to clear that up a bit.
For me, the most confusing part has been my own opinions. Every time something comes up in class, I find myself agreeing and disagreeing with it… I can’t seem to come up with a definite opinion on anything.
I definitely had some questions about the definition of culture, but I think our last discussion/your email helped clear that one up a bit!
I am kind of confused on the responses. I’m not sure if you want us to respond to the articles through analysis of the article, or analyze our own lives, or just express our own ideals in our lives that are touched on in the articles. I’m also not sure how secularly we are approaching the “good life”, because part of what I consider to be the good life involves a lot of spiritual exploration.
One thing that I am having a lot of trouble with, not just in this class but in others as well, is my writing. I have noticed that different professors look for different things in the way I write and so I have a hard time finding my own style because I am trying to cater to what gives me a good grade. Also, I have a hard time formulating my own opinions about things because many of the authors are very persuasive in their arguments, so I find myself going along with what they say.
The most challenging reading so far for me has been the Mitchell reading, “How to Live (I Think).” I understood some of it, but honestly, I’m not sure about the rest of the reading. I too was confused about the actual definitions of morals and ethics, I think because they are used so interchangeably by most people. The response papers have been rather tricky for me to figure out exactly what kind of writing is good writing for this course. Also, sometimes it is hard for me to formulate opinions about the subject matter in class. I formulate my own opinions about the readings and what I think that it means, but when I get into class, I feel like I have totally missed the point of why we read it in the first place. I guess what I am trying to say is that its hard for me to analyze the readings outside of class the same way that we analyze them in class.
The thing that I am having a hard time with in this class is knowing when to draw the line between skepticism and trusting something as truth. We are told not to regurgitate what we have been told by someone but to find truth in their words. Then we are also told to listen and learn from others and those who came before us. So I guess I am having a hard time knowing when to search deeper and when to realize I can trust the source.
What I am having a hard time with is transferring my opinions from outside class to the class discussion. Maybe it is my lack of understanding of some of the readings, especially “Living in A Cave,” or just a disconnect on a larger level. I think that our discussions help, but sometimes I think we have a difficult time as a class in expressing our ideas in a way that we can all understand. We have very different minded people in our Perennial class, which is a good thing, but sometimes I think there is a hole in our discussions that cannot be filled for some reason.
I have been struggling with exactly what the difference is between morals and ethics, and I am still trying to decide what happiness is actually defined as. This has made some of my response papers a little unclear and has made me more confused in the class discussions.
I’ve been thinking about this response (sorry for it being so late, by the way), and I’m not even sure if it’s valid anymore, but that question of WHY it’s good for people to be self-sacrificial absolutely blew my mind. It’s really been nagging me in the back of my mind for the past couple days. Could we talk about that more in class?
Absolutely, Blake. It’s a great question, and I think the answer lies in part in the fact that self-sacrifice runs counter to our nature and default, which is to serve, protect, feed and lavish self.
I’m also sorry about this response being late, but I guess we kind of talked about my muddiest point in class yesterday when I asked about sticking to the questions provided in the prompt. I now know that if I find myself straying from the topic at hand, I just need to go back and reign it in.