I haven't had much chance to post lately, that's what happens when work drops mandatory overtime just as your classes get into full swing.

I have been keeping up with my readings, however, and the more I read "Does the Center Hold?" the more often I have to refrain from throwing it across the room in disgust. I have several problems with the way philosophical ideas are presented, and over this term I've felt that it has really gotten in the way of grasping the material.

My biggest complaint is that everything I read is already pre-digested. What I mean is that he has already read the source material for each of the philosophers he covers, then presents his own findings to us, with his own simplifications, opinions, and examples. While I'm sure his intent is to be helpful, it makes it difficult to understand the material when I'm disagreeing with the author half the time!

In fact, it's difficult to grasp the material, period. I've had to resort to taking a hilighter to each section, digging up the one or two phrases that exemplify the idea from under the opinions, quaint cartoons, and examples provided. Sometimes they're all helpful, but I strongly feel that the study of philosophy is about reading the material and developing my own interpretation or understanding of it.

Palmer has also, on several occasions, set up arguments that made certain topics either "right" or "wrong". These terms have no place in philosophical understanding. Why? If one single philosophy was more "right" than all the rest, everyone would believe that view of reality over all others, discarding any other viewpoint. All discourse, perceptual comparison, and individual critical thinking would no longer be a part of this discipline. All together, I feel that to continue any classes in philosophy at this point would require consciously separating Palmer's opinions from everything I've learned to date.