On the face of it, it is a course in the history of western philosophy (I do hope to expand beyond 'western' when I feel confident enough with the material). Of course, having a bit of a historical narrative is useful for helping us to understand what people are saying. But beyond that, if I'm honest, I'm not really interested in the students particularly remembering who said what. My concern is that I provide the students (and myself) with some great company in which we can discuss things that matter.
I have Gilbert Ryle's words in mind:
'Naturally we began, in a patronising mood, by looking for and finding in the Stoics, say, or Locke, primitive adumbrations of our own most prized thoughts. But before long some of them seemed to move more like pioneers than like toddlers, and to talk to us across the ages more like colleagues than like pupils; and then we forgot our pails of whitewash.' (Ryle 1970, 11)
With this in mind, I've made the effort to explain some of the philosopher's key ideas in ways with which the students will be able to engage, whilst being as be as exegetically faithful as I can. I have tried hard, but I'm certain that I've made loads of mistakes.
Each lesson has a similar format:
I ask the students a starter question (these often repeat themselves)
We discuss their answers and I introduce the answer of a particular philosopher or story.
The students try to explain that answer and then evaluate it.
There are 27 units, starting with an introduction to philosophy and carrying on to the late 20th century. I start with the introduction unit in year 7. Normally, we get through about 4 or 5 units a year. I normally get as far as Existentialism in year 11.
Although the units are arranged in chronological order, the students' essays must focus on a particular concept. Each term, the students have to write a term essay. They can do this on any concept but they can't do about the same topic twice in a year. Eventually, I will create a conceptual index document to help the students to see all the relevant arguments in one place.