Hadn’t we been anticipating lecturing almost all of lives? Wasn’t that what we’d been doing in our part-time years, as we watched the full-time lecturers? Hadn’t we always been taking mental notes of what we should not do while sitting alongside the students, preparing for our seminars?
Clear in our teaching, that’s what we dreamt of being. Speaking simply, without technical terms. Hiding behind no terms of the art. Presuming no deep culture on the part of our audience. No profounds of understanding. Laying it out so even the comprehensive-schooled could follow …
Methodical: that’s what we wanted to be. No trendy bollocks! No theory gobbledygook! No mishmash of names! Of ideas! No bricolage of this and then that and then this. No ill-disciplined leaping about, from oeuvre to oeuvre! From period to period! No scrambling! No scrabbling!
Involving: that’s what we wanted to be. The art of keeping attention: that’s what we’d practice. No reading from notes. From the lectern. It was a matter of performance. Of liveliness. Of pacing the podium, in full philosophical character.
The seriousness of philosophy: that’s what we were there to embody. The seriousness of European philosophy – of the thought of the Continent, so reviled in UK philosophical circles. Its lucidity. Its importance. The way it could contribute to the most ancient disputes. Weren’t we ambassadors of a kind for the thoughts of old Europe? Weren’t we bound to show its seriousness and its scrupulousness, European thought? The way it could stand up to any analytic scrutiny? The way it was concerned, like all philosophy, with what mattered most?