Tom Krettek

Introducing Philosophy through Concepts of Ultimate Reality and Meaning

Teaching Philosophy
Volume 17, Issue 2 - June 1994
pp. 141 - 149

Creighton University

Recently, Patrick McKee and Thomas Auxter have made helpful proposals regarding
the teaching of philosophy that they view as ways of recovering the original charism of
philosophy.1 I wish to reaffirm their proposals and identify ways that the study of human
concepts of ultimate reality and meaning can supplement their recommendations
regarding the teaching of philosophy.

Patrick McKee laments the perfunctory treatment in introductory philosophy courses

that the notion of philosophy as the love of wisdom receives because teachers miss the
opportunity to connect with the student's respect for the ideal of wisdom and establish a
sense of rapport with the discipline. As a way of restoring the idea of philosophy as love
of wisdom, McKee proposes the concept of "seeing through illusion," which consists of
an "empathetic awareness of a temptation to err and an insight which gives immunity to
it," as an alternative way of understanding the wisdom that philosophy seeks.2

Thomas Auxter claims that taking seriously cultural diversity in philosophy is both a
return to the origins of the Western philosophical tradition and a contemporary
necessity. The appreciation of cultural differences is necessary if we are not to destroy
other cultures, and ourselves in the process. It is also necessary because an attitude of
cultural pluralism seems absent among American philosophers, while minority students
are increasingly present in our educational institutions.

Auxter asserts that

... People [need to] come to realize that background conditions are not always the same,
that utterances and actions can have different meanings in different regions, and that we
are enriched by each style of expression and by each articulation of cultural reality. The
philosophical task of a new generation of intellectuals is to thematize these different
senses of human reality in such a way that others have access and are able to view
themselves as insiders, rather than as outsiders and potential antagonists.3

― 142 ―

We need to learn how to make cross-culturally informed and regionally thoughtful

judgments if we are to be responsible participants in the world in which we live. For
Auxter, philosophy, with its goal of integrating all experiences in such a way that
humans can make sense of things, has a key role to play in the creation of multicultural
education.
My proposal for supplementing the recommendations of McKee and Auxter arises from
my involvement with The International Society for the Study of Human Ideas on
Ultimate Reality and Meaning (URAM) and my efforts to employ some of its principles
and research as a way of introducing students to philosophy. URAM is an international
and interdisciplinary association of scholars organized to promote the study of any and
all human efforts to understand reality and find meaning in our world. The concept of
ultimate reality and meaning identifies what humans consider ultimate (i.e., that to
which the human mind reduces and relates everything but which is not reduced or
related to anything else), of supreme value (i.e., that for which one would sacrifice
everything but which one would not lose for anything else, at least for the present), and
a horizon (i.e., that final hermeneutical principle which is not interpreted any further yet
in the light of which everything else is interpreted). A concept of ultimate reality and
meaning is believed to be discoverable in every individual, system, society, and culture
throughout history. This concept is freely created by the individual, system, society, or
culture and "functions as the final hermeneutical principle... in every experience" at
least until it loses its "problem-solving power in confrontation with new, unexpected
'insoluble' problems" and then "a new concept of ultimate reality and meaning" replaces
the old.4

As a course designed to introduce students to philosophy, the course has three primary
goals. The first is to introduce students to the nature of philosophy. The second is to
introduce students to typical philosophers and philosophical ideas. The third is to
engage students in the activity of philosophy. To achieve the first goal, I use Mark
Woodhouse's identification of philosophical problems as "questions about the meaning,
truth, and logical connections of fundamental ideas" that are not empirically decidable.5
This framework occasions the treatment of the tools of critical thinking that are
necessary for philosophy and introduces the idea that philosophy deals with
fundamental ideas that are not empirically decidable. One fundamental idea, in
Woodhouse's sense, that recurs throughout the course is the relation between concepts
of the ultimate and concepts of philosophy.

The treatment of critical reasoning early in the course is important because the
subsequent examination of URAM concepts, whether the student's own or those of the
authors studied, is guided by two assessive criteria. The first is that of rational
defensibility as examined in the section on critical reasoning. The second is that of
coherence and adequacy. The

― 143 ―
criterion of coherence asks the question about the internal coherence of the assertions
made, i.e., the logical consistency of one claim with another. The criterion of adequacy
asks the question about how well a particular URAM concept, whether it be one's
personal URAM concept or that of the philosophers studied, brings coherence to
considerations external to the view. These criteria invite each student to question
whether a particular URAM concept brings more unity than another URAM concept to
his or her personal experience and the experience he or she has in common with others.

This approach can be based on the coherence theory of truth as articulated by Michael
Oakeshott. He holds that
The only absolute in experience is a complete and unified world of ideas, and for
experience to correspond with that is but to correspond with itself; and that is what I
mean by coherence... [K]nowledge is always a coherent system of ideas, and we can be
said to know only a system of ideas which is, or appears to be, coherent...[A] gain in
knowledge is always the transformation and recreation of an entire world of ideas. It is
the creation of a new world by transforming a given world... [I]t is the achievement of
the coherence of a given world or system of ideas by the pursuit of the implications of
that world.6

Since most of my students in the introductory course hold some form of the view that
truth depends on one's point of view, it is not necessary to introduce them to the idea of
being skeptical about knowledge claims. Since they begin with a skeptical attitude
toward the possibility of knowledge and truth, the approach to truth and knowledge by
way of the coherence theory takes seriously their own starting point and at the same
time makes their starting point subject matter for philosophical reflection by asking the
question about its rational defensibility and adequacy.

A fundamental idea that is introduced at this time and that remains as a question for
them throughout the remainder of the course is that the question "What is philosophy?"
is itself a philosophical question. The raising of this question at this point begins to get
them to think about their own images of philosophy, gives them a question to ask
regarding the philosophers they will read, and introduces them to the topic for the final
paper they will have to write for the course. Other topics that are introduced in
connection with the answering of this question are those of skepticism, theories of truth,
the possibility of knowledge, and the very possibility of philosophy. These topics are
introduced at this point because they are revisited regularly throughout the semester in
connection with the various philosophers and URAM concepts examined.

Having introduced them to some of the logical tools that are important for doing
philosophy and the question of the nature of philosophy, I then introduce the discussion
of human concepts of ultimate reality and meaning as fundamental ideas. As a way of
introducing the URAM

― 144 ―
concept, I have the students return to their own URAM concepts, the very notion of
URAM, and how their concepts of URAM relate to various possible understandings of
URAM. Clarity regarding their own conceptual framework is important so that they are
able to separate what they believe about URAM from the URAM views that they will
be studying.

The writings of selected philosophers are then examined to determine what they propose
regarding the nature of philosophy and the concept of URAM that it includes. These
views are then examined with respect to their meaning, their rational defensibility, and
their logical relationships, i.e., their internal consistency and adequacy. Thus, the third
goal of getting students involved in the activity of doing philosophy takes place as they
examine their own concepts of ultimate reality and meaning and the URAM concepts of
the philosophers treated in the course for their meaning, truth, and logical connections.
They also philosophize about the nature of philosophy as they try to answer the
question, "What is Philosophy?" for this philosopher.
This approach seems to supplement the recommendations of McKee because it meets
students where they are in their philosophical development, i.e., they all have URAM
concepts. The URAM concept approach also complements McKee's proposal because it
not only addresses the question of the adequacy of a particular URAM concept, i.e.,
seeing and seeing through the limitations of a particular principle and why it is limited,
but it also tries to achieve greater adequacy through the idea of "intellectual
democracy."

The notion of "intellectual democracy" is the belief that as many people as possible
must cooperate in order to achieve an adequate understanding of URAM, for without
such cooperation the existing total reality that is URAM will never be realized. Because
URAM is the most comprehensive concept, research into it must be most
comprehensive, including all people and peoples. While it is assumed that all
interpretations of URAM can learn from one another, the search for URAM is not only
a descriptive activity but a mutually assessive cooperation insofar as it involves a
"search for the best concept of reality and meaning, that is, for the one which has the
greatest problem-solving power for the most variable problems we can face," i.e.,
Oakeshott's notion of "a complete and unified world of ideas."7 The philosophical
challenge to the students then becomes one with the philosophical challenge to all
philosophers, namely, the development of a rationally defensible, coherent and adequate
account of experience.

A better understanding of human existence is considered by URAM members to be

most clearly disclosed by one's insights into URAM. In sympathy with Auxter, this
better understanding is "necessary for the growing interdependence and unity of the
whole of humanity," and the

― 145 ―
awareness that the growth of one's own identity, rather than being threatened by the
recognition of the differences and peculiarities of others, is enhanced.8 The multi-
disciplinary and multi-cultural character of the URAM perspective, by linking
philosophical issues to a wider context, counters the dangers of specialization and
fragmentation that emerge when philosophy turns in on itself. This global perspective
also enhances the contribution that philosophy can make to other disciplines. A further
advantage is that by offering a particular but universalizable question, the URAM
concept approach makes possible multi-disciplinary comparison and cooperation that
does not sublate one discipline to another but subordinates all disciplines to a more
comprehensive idea. Finally, the dialogical character of URAM work counters the
Cartesian conception of philosophizing as a personal meditation by restoring the
Socratic/Platonic approach to philosophizing as a matter of conversation and agreement.

An introduction to philosophy using URAM perspectives involves the students in

discovering, examining, and systematically evaluating the concept of ultimate reality
and meaning as it is present in the thinking of significant philosophers and philosophical
systems and as it is present in their own thinking. This is in part accomplished by
having them keep their own URAM journals. This journal records three types of entries.
The first type of entry is the initial articulation of the student's concept of URAM as he
or she begins the course. This is done the first day of class and before there has been
any introduction to the URAM concept. The students are asked to articulate what typical
URAM concepts mean, e.g., God, Truth, Love, Unity, Humanity, Life, and Family.
They are also asked to say what they believe to be ultimate, of supreme value, and a
horizon. The concept of horizon is elicited by asking them to imagine themselves in a
do or die situation and identifying what principles they would use to make decisions.

The second kind of journal entry is the articulation and evaluation of the URAM
concept as it is found in the particular philosophers and systems studied in the course of
the semester. This kind of entry has two components and is made at two different times.
The first component is what the particular philosopher or philosophical system is
asserting as a URAM concept, i.e., what is the idea of ultimate reality and meaning of
the subject matter? This component intends to teach the students to identify what the
author is saying and why he or she is saying it. The second component is the students'
assessment of the adequacy of the URAM concept. How comprehensive and coherent is
the concept? This component intends to teach the students to evaluate the rational
defensibility of a particular view. The first time this kind of entry is made is when the
students have first read the assigned article. The second time is after the material has
been examined and discussed in class. This kind of entry functions as an on-going take-
home exam that looks for both knowledge of content and critical evaluation.

― 146 ―

The fourth kind of entry is the students' repetition of the exercise of the first day of
class. This is done during the final week of classes and includes a reflection on how
their initial entry compares with this final entry. These final entries can then be shared
and compared in the small discussion group to which the student has belonged during
the semester. If the class size allows for it, they can be shared and compared in the class.
I find that students are pleasantly surprised when they compare what they thought at the
beginning of the course with what they think at the end. This comparison of before and
after can be more encouraging for them than getting a good grade in the course.

The students' progress in the course is identified and evaluated on the basis of the
journal and his or her final paper. The paper is the occasion for the students to bring
together the various views of philosophy examined during the semester and to use them
to answer for themselves what they believe philosophy to be. The journal and the paper
are graded on the basis of the knowledge of the content of the course and the quality of
the critical thinking that is manifested in each.

A possible syllabus for such a course would be the following, which is an adaptation of
the syllabus that I follow in my introductory course. It is based on a 16 week semester
with 42 classes. I divide the semester into blocks of time for treating various kinds of
material. There are three main divisions. One section (7 classes) is for working on the
skills necessary for critical reasoning. A second section (16 classes) is for investigating
important figures in the history of philosophy. A third section (15 classes) is devoted to
an examination of topical areas and multi-cultural perspectives. The remaining four
classes are given over to introducing and developing the direction of the course and the
URAM concept, and a final class bringing closure to the course. The readings can and
in most cases should serve as background for original texts from the author or belief
system.

A Syllabus Guide9
Class 1 a) What are the student's URAM concepts? What does she or he think of
when they hear _____(Should include notions pertinent to URAM ideas, e.g. God,
Love, Life, Family, etc.)? This would be the first entry in their personal URAM
journals.
b) Introduction of URAM concept. Viktor Frankl Man's Search for Meaning;
"Philosophical Foundations of Logotherapy" in Phenomenology: Pure and Applied, ed.
Strauss, E. (Pittsburgh: Duquesne, 1964); (URAM 5:2); and Tibor Horvath's "Study of
Man's Horizon Creation: A Perspective for Cultural Anthropology," in The Concept and
Dynamics of Culture, ed. Bermardi, B. (The Hague: Mouton, 1977, pp. 313-329).

― 147 ―

Classes 2-8 The nature of philosophical problems and critical reasoning. In what
sense(s) can something be said to be true? What does it mean to hold a coherent and
adequate philosophical position?

Classes 9-10 a) Examine and discuss: What are possible URAMs? "The Very Idea of
URAM," Webster, Richard T. (URAM 12:2) "General Symposium on 'What is of
Ultimate Importance,'" Tough, Allen. (URAM 12:3) "Gaining Meaning and Purpose
from Seven Aspects of Reality," Tough, Allen. (URAM 9:4)
b) Characteristics of URAM:
"Ultimate Meaning and Presuppositionless Philosophy," Durfee, Harold A. (URAM 6:3)
"The Truthfulness of Faith," Polakova, Jolana. (URAM 14:4)

Classes 11-26 16 classes devoted to examining the URAM concept operating in

significant figures in the history of philosophy apportioned according to interest.
"Five Elements in Plato's Conception of Reality," Plochmann, George Kimball. (URAM
4:1)
"URAM in Aristotle: A Classicist's View," Tracy, Theodore. (URAM 5:3)
"Noetic Activity in Aristotle's Thought—Man, God and URAM," Baillie, Harold W.
(URAM 5.3)
"An Inquiring Response to Prof. Tracy's and Prof. Baillie's Essays on Aristotle,"
Peccorini, Francisco L. (URAM 5:3).
"Saint Anselm of Canterbury on URAM," Decorte, Jos. (URAM 12:3)
"The Cosmic Holism Concept: An Interdisciplinary Tool in the Quest for URAM,"
Utke, Allen R. (URAM 9:2)
"The URAM Object," Panco, George. (URAM 12:3)
"John Locke on URAM," Armstrong, Robert L. (URAM 3:4)
"URAM in the Thought of Marx," Andrassy, Gyorgy. (URAM 11:1)
"Nietzsche: The Superman, the Will to Power and the Eternal Return," Neumann,
Harry. (URAM 5:4)
Two-volume issue on American Philosophers' concepts of URAM. (URAM 16:1-2)

Classes 27-41 15 classes to be divided between topics and non-Western perspectives

according to interest.
a) Theodicy
"Theodicy and URAM. Existence of Evil in the World Modifies the Idea of God," Wall,
George B. (URAM 14:2)
"The Holocaust as a Challenge to Jewish Thoughts on URAM," Schweid, Eliezer.
(URAM 14:3)
"An Interpretation of the Origin and Status of Evil of Eden-Story in the Light of
Concrete Relationships in History as URAM," Barzel, Alexander. (URAM 14:3)
b) Epistemology

"Michael Polanyi's Theory of Meaning and Reality. Prolegomenon to Exploiting

Polanyi's Resources on URAM," Gulick, Walter. [Comment 10:2] (URAM 9:4)

― 148 ―
"Benjamin Lee Whorf and URAM," Ellos, William J. (URAM 5:2)
"Sound as URAM. The Mode of Knowing Reality in African Thought," Anyanwu, K.
Chukwulozie. (URAM 10:1)
"Translational Problems: Meaning and Reality in African Thought," Sogolo, Godwin.
(URAM 10:1)
c) Interdisciplinary studies
"The Structure of Scientific Discovery and Man's URAM," Horvath, Tibor. (URAM 3:2)
"The Quest for URAM: A Scientist's View," Gilbert, Thomas L. [Comment in 7:1]
(URAM 6:4)
"Physics and the Ultimate," Jaki, Stanley. (URAM 11:1)
"Psychology and URAM," Arnold, Wilhelm. (URAM 2:4)
"Can Sociobiology Assist in Finding Meaning in Our World?," Wind, Jan. [Comment]
(URAM 7:1)
"Subsistence, Environment and Society: New Directions in Ecological Anthropology,"
Plasket, David S. (URAM 8:2)
"The Environment and the Perception of Reality, A Physiologist's Point of View,"
Grayson, John. (URAM 11:4)
"The Search for Meaning and Its Biobehaviorial Correlates: An Essay in Philosophical
Anthropology," Vivelo, Frank Robert. (URAM 7:2)
"The Reality of the Phytosphere and (Ultimate) Values Involved," Svoboda, Josef.
(URAM 12:2)
d) Multi-cultural perspectives:
"Transcultural Dialogue and the Problem of the Concept of URAM," Singleton,
Michael.
and
"The Navajo and the Idea of URAM," Blanchard, Kendall. (URAM 2:2)
"Plains Indians of North America: Concepts of URAM," Kehoe, Alice B. [Reply in 5:4
(D '82)] (URAM 5:1)
"Concept of URAM of the Teton Sioux," Bunge, Robert. [Comment] (URAM 10:2)
or
"Igbo World and URAM," Uzukwu, E. Elochukwu. (URAM 5:3)
"The Meaning of Ultimate Reality in Igbo Cultural Experience," Anyanwu, K.
Chukwulozie. (URAM 7:2)
"Ancestors and the Idea of URAM in the Igbo Worldview," Abanuka, Bartholomew.
[cf. 5:3 & 7:2] (URAM 13:2)
or
[Yoruba view in 7:3 & 14:1)]
or
"Muhammad's Contribution in the Field of URAM," Watt, Montgomery. (URAM 5:1)
"Fakhr al-Din al-Razi's Contribution to Ideas of URAM," Haywood, John.
"Sufism and Its World View," Austin, Ralph.
― 149 ―
or
"The Sikhs and Their Way of Seeing URAM," Marenco, Ethne K. (URAM 2:1)
"Guru Gobind Singh's Idea of Durga in His Poetry: The Unfathomable Woman as the
Image of the Unfathomable Transcendent One. A Further Contribution to URAM Sikh
Studies," Kaur Singh, Nikky Guninder. (URAM 13:4)
"Aspects of Reality from the Rgveda," Dange, Sadashiv. (URAM 1:2) "The Idea of
URAM According to the Kalpa Sutras," Kashikar, Chintamani Ganesh. (2:3)
"The Upanisads and the Ultimate Real One," Dange, Sadashiv, A. (URAM 7:4)
or
"On Theology and on Jewish Concepts of URAM in Modern Jewish Philosophy," Levy,
Ze'ev. (URAM 8:1)
"Relation—The Ultimate Reality and Human Praxis of Togetherness. On the Meaning
of the Kibbutz, the Israeli CoRelational Community," Barzel, Alexander.
"Essential Characteristics of the Jewish View of Reality: Judaism as a Living Historical
Phenomenon," Schwarzschild, Steven S. (URAM 14:3)
or
"Discourse on the Main Stream Chinese Ideas of URAM," Chao, Paul. (URAM 3:1)

The bibliographies at the end of these articles serve as background information on the
topics.

© Teaching Philosophy, 1994. All rights reserved. 0145-5788/93/1702-0141$1.00

Notes

This article originated as my contribution to a presentation by Professors Anthony Blasi,

Thomas Krettek, and Peter Morgan, entitled "Globalization in Philosophy: Linking the
Research of the Institute for Ultimate Reality and Meaning to the Teaching of
Philosophy," given at the Ninth International Workshop-Conference on Teaching
Philosophy, August 7-10, 1992, Burlington, VT.
1
Patrick McKee, "Philosophy and Wisdom," Teaching Philosophy 13:4 (December
1990), 325-330, and Thomas Auxter, "Toward Multicultural Philosophy," Teaching
Philosophy 14:2 (June 1991), 187-197. 2McKee, p. 327. 3Auxter, p. 187. 4Ibid. 5Mark B.
Woodhouse, A Preface to Philosophy, 5th Edition. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth
Publishing Co., 1993, p. 2. 6Michael Oakeshott, Experience and Its Modes, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1933 (Reprint 1966), pp. 40-42. 7Tibor Horvath, "The
Research on URAM: A New Philosophical Discipline for Universities and Colleges to
Challenge the Young Beyond the Present," URAM 6:34.― 150 ―8Tibor Horvath,
"Encyclopedia of Human Ideas on Ultimate Reality and Meaning. A Plan for a New
Encyclopedia," Newsletter of the Institute for Encyclopedia of Human Ideas on
Ultimate Reality and Meaning, 1975-1976, 3:62. 9References in the Syllabus are to the
journal Ultimate Reality and Meaning: Interdisciplinary Studies in the Philosophy of
Understanding, ISSN 0709-549X, University of Toronto Press, 5201 Dufferin Street,
Downsview, Ontario, Canada M3H 5T8. Tom Krettek, Philosophy, Creighton
University, Omaha, Nebraska 68178, USA