Background: One of the tougher courses I’ve taken was the “Intro to Ethics” course that all Florida university students have to take. The professor debated like Bruce fought– everywhere but nowhere until he sensed you dropped your guard, and then he’d quickly finish you. I mention this because while his class was as as torturous as a Kerry speech, his grading system was easy.
- A- Student can EXPAND the material by linking disparate ideas and themes and create through synthesis a valid link.
- B- Student can EXPOUND on the material, and can reason through the logic behind the material.
- C- Student can EXPLAIN the content of the material, and has a solid understanding of the fundamentals.
The final in this course was a 2,500 word essay, your choice from 10 available topics. I chose option 10, the most difficult– link the ideas of an opposing pair of philosophers and show that both sets of ideas have a solid logical base. I chose Nietzsche and Kierkegaard… which wasn’t actually that hard to do. The short form goes like this– both saw a basic problem (oppressive morality), but differed on the solution. Nietzsche created a new morality, but Kierkegaard created new interpreters of morality.
The reason I bring this little story up is that in the modern world, we have plenty of EXPLAINING and EXPOUNDING going on, but no EXPANDING. People always talk about “being awash in information,” and they are. The problem is that so few people try to synthesize the information into a useful form. (This was something Bob Heinlein complained about. He even took a few years off writing to catch up on and tie together all the new information in his fields of expertise.) This lack of synthesis is why so many people turn away from certain areas of discussion– politics, gun rights, libertarianism. Information without synthesis is like watching a channel that drops frames… eventually you’ll turn away.
That’s one reason why I draw from so many sources when I write a post. Each writer has a different take, does different research, and shines a different light on a topic. Combined, they are the perfect example of a Fermi problem. We will probably never figure out for certain (insert your choice here– what the anti-gunners are thinking, what is going on in the White House right now, whether the AK or the AR is better), but we can take a series of guesses of try to piece them together. Ideas, food, and sound– all are better when blended.
