A little background …
I have to admit I did take intro to Philosophy in College, but it was one of those GE courses that I just wanted to get through.
Some years later I came across the term “Classical Education” in a book titled “A Humane Economy“. Intrigued, I learned more. It turns out that the repertoire of subjects we are exposed to in school has changed quite a bit. I found out that children originally learned something call The Trivium, which comprised Grammar, Logic, and Rhetoric. The Grammar of the Trivium is also not what we learned in school and Rhetoric was something completely different than what you hear pundits talk about after a political speech. But it was Logic that really grabbed me.
When I was a kid and watched Star Trek (there was only one Star Trek at that time, unless you count the animated series), I would see Mr. Spock always solved problems using logic. This logic stuff intrigued me, even though I had no idea what it was.
Learning Logic
As a computer science major, I learned logic, but it wasn’t useful outside computer science. I just couldn’t see how it could be practical for reasoning, or solving problems.
When I learned about the Trivium, I learned that a whole block of what comprised the basis of education had been pulled out of the foundation and tossed aside. The logic I had learned was different from, (although based on) Aristotelian Logic, which had been taught since antiquity up until around the time of the First World War.
I read two really good books on the subject of this “lost logic”, The Trivium by Sister Miriam Joseph, C.S.C. Ph.D., and Socratic Logic, by Peter Kreeft, a professor of philosophy at Boston College and The King’s College (NYC). Sister Miriam’s book touched on all the subjects of the Trivium and Peter Kreefts focused on logic.
The Course Itself …
But here was a chance to take a class on this (and get a certificate). I figured with what I already knew, I could sail through this, since it would just repeat what I had read in the books.
But deLeplante goes into areas the books don’t go into, like probability and the fact that often expertise in the subject at hand is necessary and logic alone isn’t enough (sorry Spock!).
He goes into a subjects like fallacies, which the books I mentioned do, but backs it up with real world applicability, take for instance this rule:
#1 You can’t argue with someone who is intentionally trying to mislead or deceive you.
Additionally he delves into:
- What modern science says about how we form beliefs and make Decisions.
- How to write a good argumentative essay.
- Avoiding plagiarism and how to cite sources.
There is a lot packed into the course and it is one I keep on my Udemy list and go back to from time-to-time to refresh my knowledge.
More importantly as deLeplante puts it in the course overview:
“For long-term success in school, business and life, learning HOW to think is far more important than learning WHAT to think.”
I think that is the best justification right there.