How is an academic philosopher, humanities researcher, or scientist with an interest in philosophy able to imagine, understand and reproduce a philosophical theory that’s highly abstract in a way, because the theory is a priory by nature and doesn’t use a lot of examples that relate to daily life? For example, Helmuth Plessner’s Die Stufendes Organischen und der Mensch(1928)? Talking from my own experience as a trained academic philosopher with a master’s degree and a PhD in philosophy of anthropology and technology (Müller 2009), it takes a lot of analytical training and many years of study to build a huge‘internal mental mind map’–looking like a gigantic spider’s web or grid with interrelated philosophical and other scientific concepts–that serves as a road map to compare ideas, deepen the understanding of formerly read texts and gain new perspectives on philosophy as a discipline and life in general.

Working in academia, this way of reading texts, understanding theories, producing papers and a dissertation, worked very well for me for quite some time. Until I startedtoteachphilosophy myself as a PhD student. In university, students are used to lectures accompanied by PowerPoints with lots of slides packed full of theories, definitions, andquotes, and sometimes a few images are added. I liked doing ‘traditional knowledge transfer education’ during my lectures but enjoyed the work groups even better as Ilearned a lot myself from the discussions with my students. Although being the‘master’ in front of a class of‘students’ has its beautiful sides (standing in a long tradition ofteaching regarded as a craft, where knowledge is passed over like a‘guild system’), I preferred the ’democratic ways of the work group’ joining efforts together in gaining a better understanding of philosophical theories and the way they relate to history and the cultures we live in–and our own lives. I always had the feeling that teaching philosophy could be done in a different way. This made me think. Could I invent a set-ting where the traditional ways of knowledge transfer would intertwine with the spicy‘agree to disagree’ discussions and moments of synergy?