I did a presentation of my work on expanding value beyond the individual. Now, as you know, I have not been the happiest philosophical-camper - due to the lower-than-wanted mark on my last essay.
This piece of work would have got an even lower mark.
Watching the presentation were three 'proper' philosophers (including super-supervisor, Ben), three DPhil students and some doing the same Masters as me. Some - more than I had expected - had read the paper. I delivered a presentation with a slide show and talked through my idea.
Then they launched in.
OK, it was a bit like hyenas over a felled wildebeest.
BUT it was really useful and they were pretty kind to me - in the way they delivered the criticism. Some of it referred to things I knew were weak - I never really explained clearly what I was against or for. That's kind of a biggie. A hugie, as it were. But also some interesting reconceptions - like how radical do I want to be? Maybe I do want to be radical? Or, what about, taking the radical view and working through it - what problems would that solve? What problems would it raise? Dom (proper philosopher) said that I don't have to embrace a view, or proselytise it, in order to work through it.
One proper philosopher (Becky) studied veterinary science first and she said that I'm presenting a holier-than-thou kind of view of animals all working together and what about cuckoos, killing baby birds? Relationships aren't all beneficial. That's important to address.
Ben said I seemed to be saying something like what happened in political philosophy when there was a move away from individualism with one group saying the sum IS greater than the value of the parts and the other saying, no, not greater - but at a pragmatic level we have to understand how the groups work because that matters.
So, all in all, a lot to think about.
It was well worth doing the presentation and I was better that it than on the last two occasions.
Comments