Tuesday, April 7, 2009

Too late to be posting... WARNING: Incoherence may be a consequence

Constellation Building: Spirituality Through Creative Narratives

Working definition of spirituality:

Spirituality is a way of life that affects and includes every moment of existence. It is at once a contemplative attitude, a disposition to a life of depth, and the search for ultimate meaning, direction, and belonging. The spiritual person is committed to growth as an essential ongoing life goal. To be spiritual requires us to stand on our own two feet while being nurtured and supported by our tradition, if we are fortunate enough to have one (Teasdale, 1999, 17-18).

The Armstrong definition that we reviewed last week made me a little uncomfortable as it seemed to diminish the validity of religious experience. The last thing I want to do to anyone is to diminish (or even to appear to attempt this) the faith that they have in their beliefs. What I do think is important in this area of research is creating a community on university campuses that offers an opportunity to share values across cultural, religious, and identity boundaries that will afford individuals the opportunity to broaden their experience in these areas. The aim of offering these types of experience to students is to pose an opportunity for a filling in of the blank line of spirituality that has existed in higher level institutions for quite some time. As JMc stated last week, more or less, there is a dichotomy that exists between intellectualism and spiritualism in the collegiate and greater academic world. Bridging that gap, while most certainly is questionable project, is certainly something that must be explored with due process in order to get an understanding of what higher education is for or, at least, could be for. If one of the goals of higher education is to develop well rounded individuals capable of fulfilling of perceived and desired potentials (and this could very well include more than just those perceived and desired potentials of the students), and I think it is, then it is an imperative that the university offer experiences to broaden students exposure to cultural, religious, and identity groups.

One of the problems that I’ve run into that led me to this conclusion is that colleges feel as though they are against indoctrination of any kind. Anything that has the slightest connotation of a spiritualist bent (outside of philosophy and religion departments, generally) is regarded as taboo. However, in that move colleges are indoctrinating people into an ideal of non-spirituality if not anti-spirituality. “A great Irony is that while spiritual indoctrination, in particular, has been banned from our classroom, indoctrination and imposition continue unimpeded. Students aren’t indoctrinated into religious liturgy but instead into dualism, scientism, and most especially consumerism. We have been indoctrinated into a severely limited, materialistically biased world view” (Glazer, 1999 – Chickering, Dalton, Stamm, 9-10). I feel as though this irony is damning our generation and those that follow to a void that will be addressed by organizations and groups looking to recruit to accomplish their own ends rather than those of the common good. I don’t know whether that is an exaggeration of the problem or not, at this point. However, the potential for such a calamity appears to be there. I’ll ultimately need to find some sort of statistical data to bare this point out. Regardless, not addressing this problem falls beyond the consequences themselves and into the realm of responsibility. We simply must find a way to offer a complete experience to students on university campuses. If you consider everything else that campuses offer, it becomes rather clear that a student could have a moderately meaningful life without leaving the campus for four years (cut me some slack here, for the moment) with the exception of the spiritual experience.

On a different note, I’m still committed to this idea of storytelling as a very important piece of spirituality. I haven’t found any real texts that speak to this subject so I’m going to end up having to pull together disparate texts in order to find a cohesive system here.

A major problem that I’m working on now (internally, at least) is that this idea of storytelling as spirituality is not as operationally conceivable as I originally thought. There are two very important people involved in the process of storytelling: the speaker and the listener. My original focus was on the listener as authenticating the validity of stories with which the listener can connect to in some foundational way. But that hermeneutic is a shallow one that I think we all maintain already. Further, the problem here is that the listener has a foundation that already exists in which they glean from the experience of the story only that which they already subscribe to. I think that finding a way to expound upon the meaning of a foundation in one’s life is crucial. However, if that’s the only goal, there seems to be a lack of understanding in the sense of expanding one’s horizons, of understanding what was not once understood. To me, at least, the original hermeneutic doesn’t really focus on the appreciation of the right for everyone’s story to be validated and understood (in as far as they can be). I think that I need to shift focus from this foundational view to a more complex and integrating hermeneutic. This new hermeneutic means that we can learn from all of our encounters with the other through an appreciation of vantages that we may not have any experience in. In order to do this there must be a cultivation of empathy and desire to connect with all of those stories that not only illustrate shared foundations in some real way, but also those stories that lay outside the domain of our foundational beliefs. If anything, it is a project to develop within each person an appreciation (or possibly a desire to appreciate the idea) that all the speakers at the table of the conversation of life have input into that conversation that shouldn’t be ignored.

In closing, I have to admit something that may damn this project… or may make it some of the best work I’ve ever done. I’ve always maintained this idea that some of those that the world would consider to be the dredges of society because of their station in life are ignored simply because they were born into the wrong place or the wrong class, race, gender, sex, etc. Further, I’ve made it one of my missions in life to pay attention to people who otherwise might be overlooked as a testament to this idea and to be able to point out that I was right. If there was ever an example of reasoning after the fact, this is a good one to use. However, I still feel very strongly about this idea, especially in relation to spirituality. I think a good example of this is illustrated in the opening scene of O’ Brother, Where Art Thou? After a group of inmates escape the chain gang they end up hitching a ride on a handcar that is being powered by a blind, black man. This iconic figure, who is not only diminished in communal value because he is blind but further because he is black, prophesies to the escapees about their upcoming trials. While most would point out that this character, in a sense, is appropriated by the outlaw white males (which could be extended to the Western white male [or patriarchal] class in general) who bear the fruits of his labor, I tend to see this character as an exemplification of what I’m talking about here. He offers some real insight into the situation of these escapees that they could not have perceived themselves. His particular situation as the subjugated (or, more realistically, the marginalized) offers a real world consequential interpretation of the subjugation that all humans have to the experiences that they endure. In his words, although they are portrayed as prophecy, he endeavors to give a richer value to the meaning of life itself. He exposes the frailty of what it means to be human, no matter what our station in life is. He, being the “lowliest” of people on the planet, has a special understanding of that which no one else could comprehend unless they were to experience his life as their own. But his words, nonetheless, can have some kind of essential meaning, if we are willing to stop and listen to him and take him seriously. We can appreciate his ability to pierce the veil that exists between the stories that we tell ourselves and the real world.

I certainly hope I haven’t waxed too much here. I offer my deepest inclinations to pursue this project only to exhibit why it interests me as much as it does. I may be ending up here with an idealist kind of approach, but can’t that be an instrumentalist (pragmatist) approach, too? Ultimately, if it serves the end of perceiving all others as having some fundamental role in the process of communal life, I think it’s worthwhile. Further, if it gives meaning to others who might have not found any before this, I think it serves the same purpose.

Tuesday, March 31, 2009

Schedule for Conversational Leads

I'm going to assume an hour of facilitation from each leader to make things easier. If we end up with spare time, we can all, then, contribute what we are working on or discuss what we think is important to the project we are working on.

As we've already had leaders (myself, Carmine, and Blake), I'll start with those left, in order from the volunteer list as discussed today, and build out the calendar from this point on.

Apr. 1
Ernie
Jacob

Apr. 7
Dustin

Apr. 8
John
Carmine

Apr. 14
Blake

Apr. 15
Ernie
Jacob

Apr. 21
Dustin

Apr. 22
John
Carmine

Apr. 28
Blake

Apr. 29
Ernie
Jacob

I'm not going to schedule out any further than this because I think we'll all be in a place to have at least written our individual papers and looking at how we can conjoin all of our work, hopefully. At this point, I would think that we are working on our group project with some earnest; at least looking to get everything into one package that is AWESOME! or whatever.

Please look over the schedule and let me know if there's any problems with the dates assigned to you (check for errors in my order, too, please).

Thanks all!

Monday, March 23, 2009

Crisis and Revision

Hey all,

I've done a substantial amount of reading over break regarding my topic for our class and come to the conclusion that I've failed to find anything interesting (to me) in the area that I had hoped would be such. I did some soul searching and consulted with JMc this morning on my thoughts and have found a new topic. Since I'm in this new situation, I'll throw in my hat to lead the discussion tomorrow so that we can discuss my new ideas and I can get an idea of how I will proceed. Further, the question of how this fits into our group project is essential as well.

The gist of the questions: How does spirituality fit into education? To what degree should an educational institution promote spirituality and in what ways should it do so?

Obviously, these probably aren't the final question I'll be asking... That never seems to be the case. However, I feel this is a good starting point to promote discussion for tomorrow.

So, if there's no objection, come to our meeting with this post in mind.

Wednesday, March 4, 2009

“Modern Self and Curriculum”

          John Quicke, of the University of Sheffield (England), discusses the implications of modernity on the self and the resultant impact that this should have on curriculum reform in “Self, Modernity, and a Direction For Curriculum Reform” (1996). To begin with, the self is examined in light of modernity. And the very first sentence of the article highlights the main thought here most sufficiently when Quicke states, “Basic to the project of modernity is the idea of freedom from traditional authorities giving rise to widening opportunities for self development and self fulfillment” (364). With this of course comes specifically a greater opportunity for individual autonomy. From here, then, a goal of an educational institution ought to be increasing autonomy.

            Before moving on to how this enhancement of autonomy could be achieved I want to look more specifically at the modern self and its distinctive feature(s) from, say, the pre-modern self. While I’ve already mentioned that the modern self is noted as having wider opportunities for self-definition, what seems to be specifically going on within this widening is one’s ability to “keep a particular narrative going” (366). Creating a stable, fulfilling narrative is key in more fully actualizing one’s own self-identity.

            Now in terms of educational curriculum Quicke saw Personal and Social Education (PSE), with more emphasis on Personal, as key in developing the self. Now admittedly what particular classes/educational subjects would fall under Personal curriculum remains vague within this article. Quicke, however, highlights the values of both Personal and Social Education. For Social Curriculum an emphasis is placed on “environmental, multicultural, economic, or citizenship practices” and Personal an emphasis on “social, psychological, and philosophical practices which provide insights into our definition and understanding of the autonomous self.” (372). Some particular teaching/learning methods are mentioned that would be present in Personal Curriculum such as group work, personification in history texts, and the teaching of novels. Through these particular practices it seems that a student is given significant opportunity to more fully examine and define his or herself through reflections of the self via others.

            In conclusion, I have to begin to ask where to take this. We see an emphasis on creating opportunities for the self to become more fully defined. And of course this lends itself the autonomic goals of a liberal education. But if we take for example Drake University’s own mission statement, creating “meaningful personal lives” is just one-third of the university’s objective. How do we also make room in a curriculum for “professional accomplishments, and responsible global citizenship?” Or is it the case that by expanding a more “personal curriculum” we’re also providing for all of the values of the mission statement and not just the aspect that focuses on personal lives?

Tuesday, February 24, 2009

continental contributions

I will take this post to share some of the key points from the essay I discussed in class today. What Standish discusses in this essay is what the term "Europe" means, particularly how it relates to the Philosophy of Education today; he discusses some of the main currents of philosophical thought that have shaped the Philosophy of Education today; the distinction between postmodernity and poststructuralism; and the institutionalization of the field in Europe.

I will discuss what I took to be some of the most significant points. The first point of emphasis is the relationship of language to thought. He shows how after Kant, the analytic and continental traditions began to arise, or rather became distinguished from one another, by Kant distinction of noumena and phenomena with the analytic tradition delving more into phenomena, and the continental tradition delving more into the noumena. This distinction gave rise to heightened sensitivity towards language in the twentieth century, with Wittgentstein being a major player in the analytic tradition, and people like Heidegger and Lyotard advocating the continental tradition.

As the continental tradition flourished, the distinction between Philosophy and Literature became more blurred with narrativism and poststructuralism developing. With narrative landscapes mapping reality, the importance of language heightened, and with heritage in Nietzche and his philosophy, the continental tradition gave rise to the poststructuralist viewpoint of the relationship between knowledge and power. As we became "better" with words, we gained power in the world, making very important what is taught and how it is taught.

All this to say, and hopefully more clearly now, that what may be gained in the Philosophy of Education from the Continental Tradition is an attentiveness to the power of language to create reality, and the need to allow the space for this to occur. How does this happen? When we look back to Nietzsche, for example, we identify ourselves as radically homeless in the world, in the sense of not really knowing where we come from, where we're going, or which myth to paint our horizon with, and given this starting point, we should remain open to many varying possibilities in the world. This relates to Philosophy of Education because keeping this in mind may open the door for innovative ways of educating.

Lastly, what the Philosophy of Education can gleam from the Continental Tradition is radical love for the Other, thus rehoning focus in education on morality. We have an absolute relation to the Other and to one another, and with this comes a sort of moral responsibility for the Other. We ought to be concerned with community, with society, because though in some senses we are radically alone in the world, we are alone together.

Tuesday, February 17, 2009

Cultivating...phronesis? through art

I read two articles for today. The first was by Patricia Werhane. She focused largely on the way we approach morality inside of systems. Her argument was that solutions focusing just on individuals tend to miss the larger picture. Systems are connected, organic; solutions must take account of the relationships that exist between different parts of the system. A common example of a system is a corporation.

After establishing what a system is, she contends that moral imagination is necessary to avoid immorality (or amorality) when dealing with systems. Moral imagination differs from moral reasoning; she contends that moral imagination is tantamount to thinking outside of the box (where the box = the system) whereas moral reasoning is what helps us avoid moral fantasy.

She references the South African electrical corporation Eskom, which existed during apartheid and thereby denied services to non-white South Africans. Upon reflection (she doesn't describe how this reflexive process began) they started hiring non-white employees and expanding services. This approach extended to all parts of the business.

I found this article interesting, but had a few questions. First, I still don't understand how Eskom was an example of the use of moral imagination. I don't doubt that it was, but the process isn't clear to me. Second, it seems to imply that there originally existed some desire for change. The more interesting question for me is how we facilitate change in people who otherwise would have no such desire. She talks about how identifying the parts of the system most prone to change is imoportant, but I think more work could be done here.

Second, I read Art, Imagination, and the Cultivation of Morals by Andrew Kieran. This article was really interesting. He seems to be making a fine distinction: Art is not merely a way of getting at knowledge we already have of morality--it isn't purely instrumental--but is actually apart of the formative process. It shapes our understanding. Art is a way of seeing morality. He uses the term "imaginative understanding" to describe this process. He mentions Aristotle, but does not focus too much here--would it be a misinterpretation to say the process he is describing is that of cultivating phronesis?

He tries to avoid pure aestheticism in favor of ethicism; one argument he makes is that art that misrepresents really is flawed, even if the part of really it misrepresents is ethics. He describes Nazi propaganda here. The take home point is that philosophy and art are not at odds with each other--one still needs moral reflection through reason and philosophical texs--but that art should not be considered a mere subsidiary. Art and philosophy are in conversation with one another.

Monday, February 16, 2009

Statement of Intent

The main question I wish to pursue in this seminar is “What is the value of a liberal education?” This entails, then, my own thoughts of what education (institutionally speaking, i.e. curriculum, etc.) ought to be as I’ll be making an argument as to why one should pursue a liberal education as opposed to the a more narrowly focused education. I do recognize, however, that this is my preliminary intent and perhaps my view on the topic may change with further research. 

My interest here is quite frankly the result of my own educational experience and the fact that I’m nearing its end. I suppose I’m looking for some affirmation that my educational experience was the best that it could have been, or at least that the various institutions I was enrolled in afforded me the best possibilities for my own intellectual growth. 

Imperfect Procedural Epistemology

This will be brief, yet potentially helpful (it was for me). We have discussed knowledge and truth to some extent in class, and as Elgin has clarified distinctions about these topics for me, I will share these clarifications with you.

When we talk about knowledge in class, I often am thinking in absolutes and universals, and I would say our language often insinuates absolutes and universals, at least in part. What Elgin distinguishes is that there is a type of epistemology that deals with reality this way, and it is called perfect procedural epistemology. In this way of thinking, roughly speaking, the world is more or less black and white. There is right and wrong, moral and immoral. Few systems of thought fit well within this epistemological style.

So we may benefit in our conversations in class to think in terms of imperfect procedural epistemology rather than perfect procedural epistemology. This is the case because if we operate within this epistemological schema, we can approximate knowledge via coherence and correspondence, albeit we are indeed left with questions about whether our way of valuing knowledge is founded.

We can talk in class by referring to history and to the various fields of inquiry that exist, and what has been the standard for counting something as knowledge. We get somewhere by doing this, though we could be wrong. I'm okay with this right now, and I hope you all may be okay with this also.

Wednesday, February 11, 2009

Defining Understanding

Richard Mason, pg 1
"The title of this book is reflexive because the subject matter is. Anyone presenting a theory about understanding must be aiming to understand it: surely a philosophical task. But there is need to tread carefully, to avoid begging the question. To set off by trying to define understanding would be a poor start. Can we assume that a definition--or theory--offers a route to understanding?"

After rereading this, I thought understanding is quite ineffable, and nailing it down to a single definition or theory would be narrowing, if not obfuscatory. If any theory applies to understanding it must be one that preserves, or even enhances and furthers the diaspora of definitions or theories, that is encourages a variety of understandings.
The end of chapter 3, Mason writes, "A more positive conclusion might be that liberation from a model of understanding based on epistemology might be beneficial. Instead of looking for a fundamental, reductionist theory of understanding, we could simply try to understand it, in its manifold forms," (pg 49).
I agree with Mason on this, and would like to hear your thoughts; if you haven't fallen asleep yet.

Tuesday, February 10, 2009

***

On pg 25 of Mason's book he discusses how capacity as a model for understanding is rather inadequate. Critiquing Ryle's suggestion, "overt intelligent performances are not clues to the workings of minds; they are those workings," Mason goes on to posit that "to understand--in a case where what happens, is entirely private within someone's mind." (pg 26). This seemed, to me, to fit nicely with Nelson Goodman's understanding of understanding; "comprehension and creation go on together," (pg 72). Yet Goodman seems to purport that capacity is a natural consequence of understanding; "Perceiving motion often consists in producing it. Discovering laws involve drafting them. Recognizing patterns is very much a matter of inventing and imposing them." And Mason, as well, recognizes that there must be "some cases where a capacity to do something would be a necessary condition for understanding." However, Mason then contrasts how one must speak a language to understand it, with the example of a translation machine and its inability to understand the words it translates.

Capacity seems central to our discussion on education considering most, if not all, education consists of judging a student's capacity to do something, and not whether a student understands beyond that task. Moreover, considering Mason's thoughts on understanding being a private matter, and also Goodman's 'comprehension-creation,' it would be difficult, if not impossible, to balance judging or grading a students capacity with the possibility or probability of suffocating the creativity inherent with understanding. In other words, to steal Mason's quote from WE Johnson: "If I say that a sentence has meaning for me no one has a right to say it is senseless," (pg 26).
I feel going one step further, and saying that our current systems of education are counterproductive to the interests of furthering understanding (insofar as grading/judging, what is correct understanding and what is not), is not to much of a stretch considering Goodman's and Mason's articles thus far. Though, Mason has a lot of work to do still in his book.

"Power of Pictures" and what not

Regarding the “Power of Pictures,” Robert Schwartz discusses Picasso’s portrait of Gertrude Stein. Initial reaction to the portrait was that it didn’t even look like Stein. Picasso’s reaction, however, was simply, “Everybody thinks she is not at all like her portrait, but never mind, in the end she will manage to look just like it.” What’s really being said here is that the portrait will literally change the way Stein looks, or at least how she looks to us. This is accomplished by accenting certain features that are typically outside of our typical perception of Stein, and ignoring others that are typically a subject of greater focus. Features aren’t being actually created here, nor are some features being erased. All of these features are always present in a physical sense. What is happening is that Picasso is shifting our focus. And since we come to determine and understand reality through our perceptions, this shift in focus seems to actually change reality.

            Schwartz also mentions that he may also argue that scientists and theorists are also makers of reality. For example, theories of the sun inform our perception of it and essentially shape our personal realities. And it’s this point that weighs very heavily for the philosophy of education to me. How much power does an instructor really have regarding the education of his or her students? My initial inclination was to view the instructor as being a conduit to knowledge and reality for the student, but now it seems impossible to ignore the power to create reality that an instructor may have. 

Monday, February 9, 2009

Art/Literature and moral education

First off, I'd like to note that I feel neglected. Our blog does not have a link from the front page of JMc's main blog. Are you ashamed of us?

I'll use this post to describe and comment on an article I read, "The Wheel of Virtue: Art, Literature, and Moral Knowledge." At first, I read his post completely the wrong way. Arrogantly, I treated him as an outsider to philosophy, bitter for one reason or another. I realized that Carroll was quite well read as I continued, however.

Carroll first describes the three main arguments against the idea that literature and art can provide moral knowledge. They are as follows:

(1) The knowledge gained from art or literature is trivial.
(2) When does not learn anything from art or literature; it merely implies or suggests.
(3) Art or literature does not debate or defend claims, thus making it a deficient (or, even, nonexistent) form of knowledge.

After reading these arguments, I found the third to be the most compelling in light of the reading I've been doing in other classes. It seems like good arguments (which form the basis for knowledge) ought to stand up to criticism. But who is to stand up for a novel?

The minor argument presented, though one I find entirely compelling, is that literature is same in many respects to a thought experiment in philosophy. When we talk about a veil of ignorance, or the Ring of Gyges, we are trying to draw from one's apriori knowledge, something intuitive to them. Novels often have just as much intention as a philosopher has in using a particular thought experiment or example.

The primary claim advanced is that art and literature have much more conceptual discrimination than they are given credit for. By this, he means that there are distinctions between characters drawn--largely in the form of virtue or ethics--that allows us to analyze, scrutnize, and form judgments. He gives the example of several novels to demonstrate this. The dialogue I discuss as important to philosophy above comes into play when individuals engage in dialogue about the characters in the play.

I am compelled by his argument. In relation to our discussion, I think that there is something important. Children (and teenagers) are often incapable of engaging in and understanding in depth philosophical discussion. While I personally think they should be exposed to it, not everything will sink in. Literature can provide a way of engaging issue of ethics at a more real world level. The connections are clearer, and if there really is conceptual discrimination in the novel, adequate discussion can take place. I think novels are particularly important if one believes in virtue ethics. This is a prime way to develop the character necessary for moral decisionmaking. In some ways, the vagueness of novels also lends to the development of critical self reflection.

Saturday, February 7, 2009

Truth as Relative

Blake Daniel Brown
Philosophy Senior Seminar
7 February 2009

Truth as Relative

Nelson Goodman shows us that the worlds or paradigms that we live in and operate out of are always relative and in the process of being created. He describes “truth” as a possibility of meaning making in language. In the case of beholding something as beautiful, we don’t say that it is “true” in the sense of propositionally so; we may say it is “true” in the sense of “right” or “good”. Therefore, to say that science has truth “right”, or that religion has the corner on the market, is erroneous in the sense of language. This is the case because the propositions indicate a universal sense of “truth” that simply is not apprehensible apart from operating from within a particular world, where “given X criteria for truth, Y”. We are not gods, so we know from within a world, and our knowledge is at best proximal.
I take Goodman to be advocating for many avenues of inquiry into the ways of worlds. Which world is “right” is a bad question, but we can say, “Given X goal, which world is most expedient for achieving this goal?” Then there can be a right or wrong answer, based on agreed upon modes of measurement and valuation. This is a license to be rigorously creative. We need not quibble about who’s right in many cases, and we benefit from valuing various ways of being-in and creating worlds.

Friday, February 6, 2009

Proactive Knowledge, Understanding & Education

Having read nothing more on these topics since our last meeting, here are some thoughts that I toss out for you all to consider and comment on

I think that Proactive Knowledge comes in two varieties (and there probably isn’t a strict boundary): skills and information

Skills

To proactively know a skill one would recognize when the skill was relevant and be, in some sense of the word, compelled to use the skill

For example, reading this is something that you can’t avoid doing if you look at the words. It’s impossible for you to experience an opportunity to read without, in fact, reading. Sadly, there are few other skills that are as unavoidably prompted.

Information

Proactive knowledge of information would involve the ability to recognize when information is relevant in context outside of the domain in which information was learned – the Ohm’s law example would be an example of this.

Understanding

Okay, a way that I’ve been thinking about this is to see if I can figure out what I mean when I say “I don’t understand.” Against what I suggested Thursday, I’m now thinking that we only use “understand” in one way – “have the entire picture.” When I say that I don’t understand the causes of the VietNam War, I think I’m saying that I don’t have the entire picture – which would be all the pieces (which would come from may different realms) and how the pieces fit together (or the multiple way in which the pieces might fit together)


Back to Education

As a teacher, I want students to gain proactive knowledge (of both skills & information) and I also want students to want understanding and to have some tools for pursuing it. I think that the desire for understanding is curiosity.

Wednesday, February 4, 2009

Articles/Questions

I am particularly interested in reading articles surrounding understanding and art, literature, and morality. I also think more general discussion of what it means to understand would be helpful, which will require reading more articles on that topic.

What are you all interested in reading? Has anyone figured out what our question is?

Tuesday, February 3, 2009

Relevence of 'Truth Matters' to our needs

What are we doing in this Senior Seminar? Epistemology, or metaphysics or...what?

In Lynch's preface he writes "This book is about why truth matters in our personal and political lives. The last hundred years have seen a considerable amount of writing on truth by philosophers, but much of it has been preoccupied with formal questions of definition and paradox," (pg xi; italics added for emphasis).
Are we not 'preoccupied' with formal questions of definitions and paradoxes concerning truth in this class?
I was told, in email exchanges, that I was confusing metaphysical questions of truth's connection with reality, while we are concerned with epistemological questions of...whatever, not that apparently. Also, I infer from page 38, "But it may also indicate that Foucault just isn't worried about metaphysical questions of the nature of truth..." that Lynch is concerned with metaphysics and the nature of truth. Are we concerned with metaphysics, or epistemology, or both?

"While this work is of considerable importance, it can leave the average person feeling rather nonplussed; it rarely addresses the concerns that cause us to worry about truth in the first place. One of the aims of this book is to correct that," (pg xi).

So, I gather from this that Lynch is concerned with that which causes the average person to worry about truth in the first place. It would seem then, Lynch's book assumes that the average person is worrying about truth, and therefore is already in agreement with Lynch's proposition that Truth Matters (otherwise they wouldn't be worrying about it, ay?)
So, it appears to me that this book functions as a self-help for those who are drowning in "simple minded, cynical, false, unhappy, sweet lies," (titles of various chapters and sections of Lynch's book).
Very scholarly, indeed.
Please note the sarcasm, which I assume is valid argument, since Lynch's book is riddled with ad hominems and the like.
I mean this in jest, and will try to reserve judgment until the end of his little novel, but I would like to know what relevance this has to our discussion? What are we to get out of Lynch's book except for a good laugh at his expense, or mine considering I bought the book. Oh, dear god, he got me! I bought the book so truth must matter to me, damn you Lynch!
Oh, yeah and what is our discussion focus, exactly?