Philosophy 11001, section 031, Summer III, 2008; MTWR 7:35-9:30; Bowman 220
Jeffrey Wattles, instructor
A person can have good looks, money, knowledge, and skill yet still be foolish—an observation which may prompt a quest for wisdom—in other words, philosophy. Since our actions are based on our beliefs, the question arises about the truth of those beliefs, a topic on which philosophy has a lot to say (along with science, religion, and other disciplines). How does the quest for wisdom, conducted in conversation with great philosophers, relate to daily life? Come and see. The student will learn some highlights of the history of philosophy and be exposed to something of philosophy’s logical skills. In addition, philosophy does not get real unless put into practice, and there is an experiential component of the course (without pressure to accept or try out any unwelcome view). Evaluation is based on participation, three quizzes, and some short written assignments, culminating in an eight-page term paper.
Diversity Element: Philosophy specializes in intellectual diversity; in addition the class considers religious and non-religious alternatives and studies Latin American perspectives. This course satisfies Kent's diversity requirement.
Texts: (1) Great Dialogues of Plato, Plato (Rouse tr. New American Library, 0-451-5282745-3); (2) Philosophical Essays and Correspondence, Rene Descartes (Hackett Publishing Company, 0-87220-502-9); and (3) Jorge Gracia, ed., Latin American Philosophy in the Twentieth Century, Prometheus Books (ISBN-10: 0879753331).
Evaluation. Evaluation is based on participation (10 points): We are a community of inquiry, and our interaction has a life of its own; so you are expected to attend regularly, be on time (including after the break), have the reading done, and be ready to participate. More than four absences may affect the grade. If you miss seven classes, how can I pass you? Second, there are written assignments leading up to a term paper (60 points total). The projects facilitate growth by nudging you to let your study illuminate your experience and vice-versa. If you feel you have a reason to request an alternative to any of the projects, please speak with the instructor. One more thing about the papers. Writing is so important for your future role; English well used is important for our world, especially when so much communicating is mediated by machines; and it is a vital skill that school sometimes fails to teach. If I don’t fuss about writing, you should see what some folks hand in! So I fuss, and I generally get quite decent writing. Thus papers must be well written to receive a C or above. It’s a good idea to familiarize yourself with the Writing Center’s services and its website: http://dept.kent.edu/english/WritingCent/writngcenter.htm . Speaking of communication, the University obliges you to check your KSU e-mail address. If I have messages to send to the whole class, e.g., about changing a syllabus assignment, or keeping in touch in the case of an epidemic, I will use those addresses. Third, there are three quizzes (including the final--10 points each), mostly multiple-choice; later quizzes will touch on material covered in earlier quizzes.
My office hours are MTWR, 9:30-45 and 2:00-3:00 (Bowman 320H) and by appointment (330-672-0276; e-mail: jwattles@kent.edu ).
For the course website go to
http://www.personal.kent.edu/~jwattles/whatphil.htm
Additional materials are posted at http://www.personal.kent.edu/~jwattles/classes.htm. For web links (but don’t forget the library), you may begin at http://www.apa.udel.edu/apa/asp/guides.asp
through the American Philosophical Association). Rather than simply going to Google, consider academic sites: http://www.searchedu.com/ (now one of the Google search engines). There’s also the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, http://plato.stanford.edu/
In accordance with University policy, if you have a documented disability and require accommodations to obtain equal access in this course, please contact the instructor at the beginning of the semester or when given an assignment for which an accommodation is required. Students with disabilities must verify their eligibility through the Office of Student Disability Services (SDS) in the Michael Schwartz Student Services Center (672-2972).
The Philosophy Department Grievance Procedure for handling student grievances is in conformity with the Student Academic Complaint Policy and Procedures set down as University Policy 3342-4-16 in the University Policy Register. For information concerning the details of the grievance procedure, please see the Departmental Chairperson.
July
14 Introduction to philosophy’s range of topics and reliance on reasoning, plus a survey treatment of a dialogue written by Plato, The Apology [Defence] of Socrates. Pay special attention to the references to truth, beauty, and goodness, e.g., on pp. 427 and 436-7. Your major insights, sought or won, are pivotal for the term paper.
15 Plato’s Crito. Be sure to read this very carefully for today’s class and be ready to discuss it. Also prepare by going to my classes page: http://www.personal.kent.edu/~jwattles/classes.htm and scroll down to the Plato section, then read the document on the Crito.
16 Read part of Plato’s Symposium, pp. 95-106 in Rouse very carefully; find the link from the classes page for the document on that dialogue, and read it in preparation for discussion.
17 Read pp. 303-317 in Rouse from the Republic, plus the document on that dialogue found through the classes page (as on the two previous days).
21 Paper one due: an account of a decision-making process, showing—like the Crito—a reflection on the meanings of your situation and a reflection on the value(s) to be actualized. Today’s lecture will focus on logic and on the topic of “universals.”
22 Review of Plato, Quiz #1
23 Introduction to Descartes. Read the Rules for the Direction of the Mind–all the rules in bold italics (pp. 2-28), plus the paragraphs discussing rule #3. In addition, read the first three chapters of Discourse on Method 46-60).
24 Finish the Discourse.
28 Read the first two of the Meditations on First Philosophy (97-113). Print out the Descartes document available from the classes page, read it, and bring it to class.
29 Read Meditation #3 and prepare for discussion.
30 Paper two due. Lecture on the rest of the Meditations.
31 Review of Descartes, adding a bit, and Quiz #2
August
4 Antonio Casio
5 Francisco Miro Quesada
6 Alejandro Korn
7 Alejandro Octavio Deustua
11 Carlos Vaz Ferreira. Final paper due.
12 Leopoldo Zea
13 Augusto Salazar Bondy
14 Review and final quiz.
Project One: Making a Significant Decision
in Conversation with Socrates
This project invites you to work on—or complete—a significant decision by following something like the process we see in the Crito.
Choose a significant matter that you are presently dealing with, a situation that calls for decision.
Here is the structure to follow in your paper. Be sure the divisions are clear to the reader.
First write down the facts of your situation in a paragraph or two.
Second, in another paragraph or so, interpret the deeper meaning of those facts (roughly comparable to what we see in the last part of the dialogue (beginning with Socrates’ imagining what the laws would say to him if he chose to escape). In some cases, you will consider the meaning of the facts that would result if you were to choose one or more possible options. (Note that to do this part, you can’t express those depths in your initial statement of the facts of the situation.)
Note: you can develop a sense of the meaning of those values by considering perspectives from the sciences that are relevant to your facts. Are there health concerns in the picture? Then think of perspectives from biology and medicine. Is self-actualization part of the challenge? Then think about perspectives from psychology. Is family part of the challenge? Then think about sociology? Are work-related problems part of the situation? There may be relevant perspectives from economics. There may be perspectives from political science and history that also illuminate your perspective.
Next, consider what the relevant value(s) are. (Here is where you use your reason to unfold the meaning or implications of a value, roughly comparable to what Socrates does in the middle of the Crito where he logically draws out the implications of the commitment to justice.) Is there in any sense loyalty to truth involved? Is beauty involved on any level? What specification of goodness is most relevant to the decision to be made? Devote one or two pages to this discussion.
What decision do you come up with as you bring your reflection on the deeper meaning of the facts together with your reflection on the deeper meaning of the relevant value(s)?
There is no need to fake a quick resolution of the problem if you are not ready with your decision yet. You can indicate what looks best so far without pretending to have finished your process of deliberation, or you can present the strongest case for more than one course of action.
Then take a page to write what you think Socrates might have to say about your decision-making process.
Finally, write a paragraph or so about what you think about this way of clarifying a decision.
The evaluation of the paper will take into account two facts: the students are beginners, and the project period is short.
Rubric
D or F: the account is full of chatty details and lacks focus.
C: the account is clear but sketchy.
B: the account is clear and competent.
A: the account shows careful consideration of aspects relevant to the decision.
D or F: The reflection contains little or nothing that adds to the initial statement of facts, or else the reflection is irrelevant to that statement of facts.
C: The meaning is essentially contained in a single sentence, with almost no effort to reason, drawing out implications in the value(s) to be actualized and thinking about connections of relevant concepts (our best example so far is the connection in the Symposium between eros and beauty).
B: The account shows effort to draw out implications and to make clear the connection of relevant concepts.
A: The account gives an insightful discussion of the implication of the value(s) in question, and makes a real beginning at discussing the relevant concepts.
D or F: The reflection lacks focus and shows little or no effort on this part of the assignment.
C: The reflection is brief, but clear.
B: The reflection is clear, and it begins to draw out implications and consider the connections of relevant concepts.
A: The reflection gives two pages of clear and logical discussion, showing genuine effort on this phase of the assignment.
D or F: The reflection contains little or nothing that adds to the initial statement of facts, or else the reflection is irrelevant to that statement of facts.
C: The meaning is essentially contained in a single sentence, with almost no effort to reflect on the broader significance of those facts, the big-picture perspective.
B: The account shows effort to draw out implications and to make clear the connection of relevant concepts.
A: In addition to the achievements mentioned for a B, the account gives an insightful discussion.
D or F: The commentary shows poor grasp of the Socrates.
C: The commentary relies on the instructor’s notes for summarizing the text rather than on a fresh reading of the text(s). Points are few; they are made very briefly and without any penetrating observations. There is no attention to issues raised in class.
B: The commentary makes judicious use of a couple of brief quotations, and comments appropriately on their relevance.
A: In addition to the achievements mentioned for a B, the commentary shows an fresh insight in adapting an understanding of Socrates to the previous parts of the paper.
D or F: The response is extremely brief and either tritely critical and dismissive or full of trite praise.
C: A few points are made giving reasons for the evaluation.
B: In addition to the achievements required for a C, the response demonstrates personal engagement in the project.
A: In addition to the previously mentioned achievements, the comments give fresh insight.
D or F: the writing is below the level of college. There are many major errors—sentence fragments, run on sentences, as well as lesser errors (poor word choice, misspelled words, punctuation problems).
C: writing is at a level which is consistent with getting a Bachelors degree from KSU.
B: the writing is not only competent at the sentence level, but also well developed at the paragraph level (I do not mean that the paragraphs are long, just that they are well integrated).
A: in addition to good sentences and paragraphs, there is the kind of life in the writing shows the quality of insight that comes from sincere engagement in the project.
Projects, privacy, and choices
Over the years, most students, after perhaps some initial hesitation and uncertainty, launch headlong into the project and have a very positive experience.
Maximum growth comes from tacking our front-burner issue—the aspect of our character that most needs attention. In some cases, however, this may not be advisable, and there is no pressure to do this. One may be in a psychologically sensitive time and feel that this is just not the right time to confront a certain issue. The choice is up to the student.
One may prefer not to share a particular issue in writing with the instructor. I heed professional standards of respect for the confidentiality of what is submitted, but there may be aspects of your experience that you will describe only in general terms or not at all. The choice is up to the student.
In some cases, for the purposes of this project and this class, one may choose to focus more on issues that are less personal, less central. One does need to find some significant decision to work on, however. It is always possible to propose a different project altogether and to discuss an alternative with the instructor.
Be sure to read the fuller statement of guidelines, “Writing Papers”—the first link on the my “classes” webpage.
The word "philosophy" comes from two Greek
words, meaning “the love of wisdom.”
Philosophy explores truth, beauty, and goodness, and most of philosophy's subdivisions are in the first area.
|
Truth (aletheics, to use a rare term) |
Beauty (aesthetics) |
Goodness (ethics and political theory) |
Here are some of philosophy's subdisciplines in the realm of truth:
Philosophical theology
Philosophy of religion
Metaphysics or ontology—reality-ology or being-ology
Philosophical
anthropology: What does it mean to be a human being?
Philosophy of mind
Epistemology—knowledge-ology
Logic: the study of
correct ways of reasoning
Philosophy of science
Philosophy of nature
Of the most prominent philosophers of ancient Greece, the first two were Athenian. Socrates (469-399 BCE) engaged others in discussion but wrote nothing. Plato (427-347) wrote dialogues in which Socrates is often the main character. Aristotle (384-322) was born in Macedonia but studied 20 years in Plato's Academy then founded a school of his own school Athens.
French mathematician, scientist, and philosopher René Descartes (1596-1650) sought the perfection of scientific knowledge connecting mechanistic cosmology with philosophically demonstrated affirmations of the existence of God and the immortality of the soul.
Thinkers may be said to show (mostly) one of three basic attitudes in thinking.
Dogmatism, which knows how
to make sturdy affirmations, but resists critical examination.
Skepticism, which knows
how to pose critical questions, but takes the critical attitude to excess. Any
virtue, carried to extremes, may become a vice.
Adventuresome thinking, namely philosophy, which can make sturdy affirmations and entertain critical questions.
Where shall we seek for wisdom? In the ancient proverbs and teachings of the world’s traditions? In religion? “The fear (awe) of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom” (the Hebrew Book of Proverbs). “If any man lack wisdom, let him ask” (New Testament). The ancient Greeks, drawing on the rich cultures of the Mediterranean world, including Egypt and the Middle East, including influences from Persia and India, developed a new discipline, they called philosophy, discussing questions in quest of knowledge and insight beyond the realm of simple matters of fact. Stimulated by progress in science and by the lack of an advanced religion, the philosophers probed the depths of thought.
Reading a text philosophically, we
ask: When is the writer making a claim about some
matter of fact? What does the writer mean by what he or she says? What
is logically implied by the meaning of certain statements? When is an
evaluative statement being made? The concepts of fact, meaning, and value
are important philosophic themes. As a beginning, you might think of fact
as about what we can perceive
and about what can be empirically, scientifically verified . One can have heaps of information
yet lack wisdom. Meanings are discerned by wise interpretation of the
truth of facts, meanings, and values. Values, in the supreme sense, are experienced in
a spiritual
realization of truth, beauty, and goodness
Inquiries into human diversity flourish when three phases of affirmation, inquiry, and appreciation are balanced.
Affirm our common humanity.
Seek to understand our differences (as well as particular similarities).
Appreciate the unique, mysterious, and wonderful personality of each individual.
1. One model of philosophic method is the medieval quaestio, or question, whose roots go back to ancient Greek philosophy. In some of his dialogues, Plato would probe a topic in conversation with various objections coming from a particular view or school of philosophy. For example, the Phaedo develops responses to problems arising for Pythagoreans. Obviously, one might wish to have responses to objections from every point of view. It would also seem nice for complex questions to be broken down into simpler ones, and put in order. This is what we see in the practice of Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274). He would organize sequences of topics, set forth precise questions on each topic, and discuss each particular question in the following way.
1. State the precise question to be answered.
2. List all the (major) objections opposed to his answer that can be drawn from on the scriptures and the writings of ancient Greek, Jewish, Muslim, and Christian philosophers and theologians.
3. Quote a brief indication in favor of his own view.
4. Explain his own answer and give reasons for it usually in a couple of paragraphs.
5. Show, whenever it was not obvious, how his answer supplied the key to an adequate response to the objections.
2. René Descartes (1596-1650), hoping to dispense with the ill-founded opinions of the ancients, set forth a method centered on intuition and deduction. His standard of insight for intuition was so high that only simple mathematical truths and a few philosophical propositions such as “I think” and “I exist” would qualify. See the readings and webnotes on Descartes for more.
One of the hallmarks of much philosophic writing is that there is some attempt to give reasons in support of a thesis. Even though this class does not presuppose any training in logic, the student may well begin to consider some ideas about how to examine reasoning.
Philosophy involves asking questions, considering alternative perspectives, reasoning, and articulating our experience/understanding. One of philosophy's methods is analytic philosophy. This tradition asks persistently, "What does this mean?" "Why do you believe it?" Analytic philosophy emphasizes precise formulation of a question, involvement with the best contemporary philosophy on a given topic, lucid organization of ideas, keen analysis, construction of persuasive arguments, and clear writing.
One commonly suggested sequence of questions to develop your response to reading is: Describe, Interpret, Evaluate. For example, What does the author say? What does the author mean by what s/he says? Is it true?
When considering a piece of reasoning, you may find leverage in asking the following questions.
1. What is my purpose in working with this piece of text (or our purpose, insofar as the inquiry is a team project)? If there are multiple purposes, which purpose is dominant?
2. What does the author's purpose seem to be?
3. Are there any empirical claims or assumptions which can be confirmed or disconfirmed in daily experience or science?
4. Are there claims or assumptions--positive or negative--about religion or spiritual realities?
5. What words or phrases convey key concepts? (Do not overlook articles, prepositions, verb forms, etc.) Is there any term, phrase, or sentence that is ambiguous? What interpretations are possible? What interpretation is most plausible? Or is it the case that more than one meaning is involved (whether or not the ambiguity is deliberate)? Note that what one finds to be clear depends partly upon the categories one is accustomed to using. Is there any problem with the concepts being used?
6. In the sentences where key affirmations are made (assuming, for the moment, that they are not questions, exclamations, commands, or invocations) is the grammar clear? Are the subject and predicate presented as possibly linked, actually linked, or necessarily linked? Does a sentence express a necessary condition or a sufficient condition? What other possible relationships might obtain between subject and predicate? Do not overlook the interesting structures of paragraphs and groups of paragraphs.
7. Examine the arguments. The term "argument," as used in philosophy, does not connote an angry dispute between persons; it simply means that a conclusion is being proposed on the basis of one or more reasons or premises. In reasoning it is common to use words called inference markers. "Therefore" indicates a conclusion. "Because" indicates a reason for a conclusion. Other conclusion indicators include "thus" and "hence." Other reason indicators include "since," and (in some uses) "for."
Argument is not the only way to achieve a strategic sequence in writing. Authors also use descriptions, accounts, and narratives.
8. Identify the conclusion(s), stated and unstated. What is the text driving at? What is the main point? There may be several arguments in the text. Having summarized the text as a whole, you may focus on just one line of argument.
9. Identify the reason(s) or premise(s) for each conclusion. Are the premises true?
10. Identify any unstated assumptions. Attribute to the author only those assumptions that you may reasonably expect him or her to be assuming (on the basis of the text). These are not necessarily the same as the assumptions that are logically required in order for the argument to be valid. Are the assumptions true?
11. Construct a diagram of the argument.
12. Do the premises and unstated assumptions, IF TRUE, constitute strong evidence for the conclusion?
13. Consider other arguments that are relevant but not mentioned in the argument you are examining.
14. Give the argument an overall evaluation. It's easy to pick flaws. Were your criticisms significant or minor? Could the author easily fix the argument and make it strong?
15. What can you do constructively with your analysis that goes beyond the immediate assignment in class?