OrangePhilosophy

Hey Chuck,
I'm not sure how to answer the question b/c I'm not quite sure what it is, or exactly how the article relates (although, I admit I read the first 1/3 and then skipped to the conclusion...feel free to chasten me).
One thing to note that is somewhat distantly related to your post is that often I notice that, in student evaluations by students who liked the course, they often compliment me for making them 'think outside the box'. I never really get this. I am proudly inside the box, and spend all my thinking time there, and proudly argue why they should be in the box too. Or, I guess I just don't know what the hell 'the box' is.
Another thing. You were in the Army, right? Is there some background experience here motivating the post?

You probably stopped right before it began talking about the generational differences between top-level officers and younger officers. It's a fascinating sort of difference. I wonder if some of it is just age, though. I know not all of it is, but don't people just get more traditional and less likely to think creatively when they get older?

I've never actually noticed any more creative streak in my students than in my fellow grad students. Maybe I somehow suppress it.

Well, I take teaching to be a form of leadership, as most probably do. Also, the content of our courses is often controvercial--the more risky, the better. We get students stirred up to the point where they will rethink their unquestioned assumptions. The approach I start with for younger students (my only audience so far) is Ordinary Language, first similar to Austin, later, more similar to Ryle. Most students will find this refreshing, for they will naturally see what most of the "problems" are, rather than just getting them dumped on their laps. Well, I can continue on like this for hours, perhaps I should get to the point.

Syracuse winters, molsn canadian, Sartre. I've often been told that our generation has less value than the one before us. I don't think that's right. Inevitably, the younger generation will respond the same way to us. To make our lives easier, we structure and systematize; routine is holy. But even though students feel safe with that structure, they lose that, say, "creative advance"--so we adjust fire (predictably so). And why do philosophers think they are immune to the sort of criticisms that scientists are (Kuhn,Feyerabend)? Are we? I don't know. So, whatever I'm getting at is now fizzled out. So my observation is more simple than I suspected: a better understanding of generational differences will increase our ability to lead. And by the way, just what good is a box for a process ontologist?