I am sure there are many people, including my students, fellow teachers, and even friends, who would despise my teaching method. Often, I provide very few clear objectives. Students struggle to understand what an assignment is about. Lectures are often not evaluated by quizzes or exams.
The struggle and ambiguity are the point. What does it matter to the average person if they can recall the difference between Lockean and Cartesian theories of the mind and knowledge? What does it matter to the average person if Spinoza is a dualist or monist, if he was a theist or not?
It does not matter at all, and it is the pompousness of professional philosophers, and their misunderstanding of their own subject, self-ignorance, that makes us think it does.
The struggle is the point, because if we are to be truly human and free, then the most important habit to build is the habit to accept and deal with ambiguities for which there are no clear answers, for which the individual human must apply the motions of thinking, rather than recalling misunderstood information.
I am also being pompous, because I would be incapable of teaching all of the fine details, even of Spinoza. It bores me to teach it, and my memory is too poor for that. Privately, I love dealing with them, but only with myself or with those who are also excited about them. Otherwise, I will save the pedantics for my academic essays. I will value that which I do, not because it is valuable, but because I do it.
Natural Causes 
That sounds excellent. Do you still have the free-will mindset? (seriously just a yes or no question I’m not trying to have an argument, just want to quench my curiosity). In case you are wondering–which I sort of doubt–I do.