Years ago I attended a colloquium where the speaker gave a talk that I found clear, insightful, and compelling. When the time came for comments, I expressed appreciation for the fine presentation. The audience waited for my criticisms, but I had none. I merely wanted to offer praise. That attitude, however, appeared to shock my colleagues. Wasn’t I going to try to demonstrate a mistake in the argument? Wasn’t I going to suggest the limitations of the approach? Wasn’t I going to call attention to a reference that had been omitted? If not, why had I spoken?
Similarly I recall that soon after the publication of Robert Nozick’s remarkable book Philosophical Explanations, I saw him at a national meeting of the American Philosophical Association, where I told him how much I admired his new work. Then, however, I apologized for repeating what he had surely heard many times before. To my surprise, he replied ruefully that in fact I was the first person there to have complimented him. Others had sought him out, but only to express disagreements—not a word of encouragement had passed their lips.
Not offering gratitude when it is merited indicates a lack of manners, a failure to treat others appropriately. The link between manners and ethics was noted by Hobbes, who referred to manners as small morals (Leviathan, ch. XI), an insight Dewey expressed more alliteratively by stating that “manners are but minor morals.” (Democracy and Education, ch. 2)
Philosophers may overlook the connection because too many view philosophical inquiry as a competition in which we score points by refuting others rather than as a cooperative enterprise in which we reason together to enhance understanding. Accepting that wiser perspective would lead us to recognize that colleagues deserve thanks when they move the process forward.
The same principle applies to teaching, where appreciation should extend to students. However unsophisticated the remarks they offer, so long as they are trying to make a contribution, they should not be belittled.
On an autobiographical note, more than five decades ago I was led to consider a career in philosophy by taking two undergraduate courses with Ernest Nagel (pictured above). I admired his brilliance but was most impressed by his modest demeanor. In class he answered numerous queries with seemingly never-ending patience, invariably putting each question in the best possible light and always treating the questioner with respect.
A teacher should display neither rudeness nor arrogance. Instead of an instructor’s reacting to a student’s opinion by declaring, “You’re missing an obvious point,” a more appropriate reply would be: “You may be on to something, but let’s consider a possible objection to your view.”
In this spirit I suggest that any response to a student’s question should be welcoming. And when comments are offered at a lecture, they should begin on a positive note, even if only to thank the speaker for raising provocative issues. Such politeness will not diminish the power of any challenge offered but will reinforce the principle that criticism is consistent with courtesy.
Photograph: Ernest Nagel (via Wikimedia Commons)
Steven M. Cahn
Steven M Cahn is Professor Emeritus of Philosophy at the City University of New York Graduate Center. Among the recent books he has authored are Teaching Philosophy: A Guide (Routledge, 2018); Inside Academia: Professors, Politics, and Policies (Rutgers, 2019); Navigating Academic Life: How the System Works (Routledge, 2021); Professors as Teachers (Wipf and Stock, 2022), and, most recently, From Student to Scholar: A Candid Guide to Becoming a Professor, Second Edition (Wipf and Stock, 2024).
Love it!
Pure Wisdom:
“Praise a Person in Public and critize her in private.”
I opened the email mail link specifically becasue I knew an attitude of gratitude would be waiting to greet me…
Thank YOU…For the reminder that at heart philosophy is a cooperative endeavor, and thrives most vigorously when engaged from a place of gratitude.
I really enjoyed the sentiments in this. Thank you.
My one reservation is around your comments about interacting with students. Certainly, being respectful is necessary, and being truly kind is too. My concerns are about what true kindness should involve. To my mind, it must involve support or respect of the other’s capacity to live a good life on their own terms, and it must involve authentic interpersonal interaction. Following Larmore, I take authentic interpersonal interaction to involve being oneself, that is, owning what one really believes, intends, feels, etc. Following Darwall and others, supporting or respecting another’s capacity to live a good life on their own terms involves treating them as accountable and supporting accountable practices.
Following both of these conditions, it strikes me that sometimes the truly kind way to respond to a student is to be real and to insist on accountability in a situation. That may come off as impolite, but it is not abusive. On the contrary, it is truly kind.
In short, I would like to see a middle category in your reflections, between feeling good and being abused. I would call it “true kindness,” and it would sometimes be uncomfortable, but only because real things between people sometimes are and — especially in our avoidant, unaccountable society — so too is accountability.
I think we have to be careful to reject the historically abusive picture of the philosopher snob and harsh critic while not replacing it with the consumer-culture-complicit view of the professor who makes students feel good.
Thank you for the reminder of what defines “kindness” and “accountability”.
It seems that kindness/compassion and accountability demand the willingness and courage to engage energetically. Not simply placation(kindness) but beyond the comfort that often accompany longstanding beliefs and understandings, breaking through to reveal “true-kindness”.
In Buddhist Philosophy compassion and loving-kindness are founded in the understanding of “good” (as aligned with true-kindness) as a benefit, regardless of the “feeling state”.
Curiosity seems to be the transcending factor. From a place of pure curiosity, all boundaries, personal ego limitations and divisive categorizations of right and wrong can be dissolved (including generally designated standards for “recognized” levels of understanding, teacher/student, titles/PhD’s, etc…) and appreciation for an encounter’s offering at it’s purest level of appreciation and love-of-knowledge.
This was an excellent reminder. Thank you.