UA-R-GC-1914-01-01-1935-11-01_Page-040

244 Report on the Course of "History of Philosophy" taught in the Senior College. The textbook used for this course was Roger's "A Student's History of Philosophy-", Revised Edition, 1933. In regard to this text, I can say that it is very satisfactory as a textbook for this course. Frequently after consulting other books for summaries of periods or the ideas of various thinkers, I have returned to the textbook ts the roost satisfactory state-ment. More then once, meribers of the class said during the pest year, "Our textbook has the best statement." The main purpose of the course was to show the "making of the modern mind", to use the title of a book used for collateral reading; to show hove thought developed from age to age and to try to estimate the contribution of each period; and to show how the different lines of contribution through science, philosophy and religion converged to form our present thought world. The ideas most frecyuently emphasized were: how the thought of one period becoues the germ of thought for the next or succeeding periods: how originali-ty of thought may exist along with dependence upon preceding thinkers: and the necessity of an unbiassed, just and scientific estimate of the contribu-tion of each thinker or each period. The textbook was used as E basis of study and frequent reviews and oral quizzes were resorted to in order to see if the classes were keeping up to the program and also if they understood the thought and thinkers under dis-cussion. A number of written tests vere also given, mostly of the true - and - false type. The work of the class room was largely carried on thro, reports, papers, and class discussion. Anything like lectures was i nfre-c_ uent. The teacher largely confined himself to questions, comments, and occasional summaries. The last half of the second semester was given over to the reading and discussion of term papers on modern philosophers, most of whom were briefly given in the text, if given at all. All the papers were carefully prepared and a number were excellent. I should have said above that, while we tried to ßllow the thought period by period and to gain an understanding of the background of each period, the approach was mainly through the study of individuel thinkers, whom to tried to place, each in his own age and against his own background. The interest of the class was maintained well throughout the year and, on the whole, good work was done. There WES not as much jetted discussion and enthusiasm as there was last year, when tue problem of philosophy of religion gave much opportunity for discussion; but on the other hand, the historical nature of the course rec_uired more solid study and careful reading than last year and on the whole I think it can be said that the class did careful end thoughtful work. There was some disposition at times to coi.lpare earlier thought with modern science to the great disadvantage of the former; but on the other hanu, one of the students who is devoted to science and had begun by scoffing at early Greek science said in his final term paper, "Lc knob that Science cannot afford to be dogmatic" and another said, "Vi e should not be dogmatic because scientific thought is always changing." Whether this lesson of tolerance and disinterestedness has really been learned or not, I feel that the year's work has helped in that direction and that all the students have seen more or less clearly that philosophy, no less than science and religion, has profited by the contributions of many, angde sm Eanndy pmeaorpel etsh. inkers and that our modern world is indebted to wary countries C.C. /DAMS