A few final (I hope) thoughts on the Battle of the Books. Some of my basic assumptions have been obscured in the heat of battle. I'd like to try to lay them out. First of all, philosophy is a skill, not content. Ideas invite one to exercise the skill, but aren't the end. 1/x

Secondly, this skill requires active, independent engagement. Students *must* learn to recognize their own questions, and to recognize and navigate what feel like right or wrong approaches to them. A mentor (as in any skill) is extremely helpful. 2/x

Thirdly, this kind of active engagement is no longer cultivated in our schools. I don't know the cause, but as many recognize, our students are much more fearful and passive than they were. This is a disaster for humankind. No exaggeration. (3/x)

Muddling through a primary source without an agenda (and one hopes, with a mentor) develops that active independence. The goal is not grasping fixed content, but connecting with one's own questions and developing ways to pursue them. Great books are tried and true here. (4/x)

By contrast, secondary sources, especially in courses that evaluate students on grasp of content, are not likely to convey a skill. Rather they will reinforce the students sense of themselves as passive receptors and regurgitators of content. (5/x)

So much is meant as a response to the critics who say, "I could never get from the primary source to the content." I say, these priorities are absolutely backwards! That said, it *is* possible to teach an active skill *without* primary sources, but with arguments. (6/x)

Notice that an emphasis on content is almost a necessary consequence of factory-style large classrooms and simple means of mass evaluation. And I recognize that there is more than one way to cultivate the skill, although I think sources are the best way. (7/x)

Some critics have said "Why not *both* secondary and primary sources? One doesn't rule out the other." True-- *once one has developed the active skill of philosophy.* THEN (and only then) one reads a secondary source for what it is: an interpretation, not an authority. (8/x)

Gifted undergrads and grad students, those who are already active and independent learners, won't be harmed by secondary lit. But beginners will be. They risk not developing philosophy as a skill *at all* (9/x)

Some critics say: Beginners will philosophize badly and need help to do it well. I say that it is better to do something badly for oneself (cf. singing, swimming) than to rely on someone else. And philosophy is a human thing, for everybody. (10/x)

Primary sources *can* be used as gatekeepers to keep people out. "If you're struggling you don't belong here". I find this repugnant. My original reaction was, in fact, to secondary lit as gatekeeping: "this is for dummies like you, *we'll* digest tough stuff for you!" (11/x)

So I have an affinity with those of my critics who hate gatekeeping above all. So do I. That's it. Thanks for all of your interest. (fin)

Tagging my original interlocutors, @KevinZollman and @philosophybites .

and thanks to @JIWarren and so many others for their help.