Syllabus

Historical Introduction to Philoosphy —PHL 181—Fall 2009

Michael R. Baumer, Course Instructor

MWF 11:00 am—12:05 pm

Main Campus, MC 307B

DESCRIPTION OF COURSE

This course will be a general survey of “Western” philosophy, from the beginning in Classical Greece to the mid-twentieth century.

The concept of “Western” thought and culture is a somewhat fuzzy one, but it encompasses the poetic, mathematical, medical, legal, scientific, philosophical, and theological literature of classical Greece and its cultural heirs, including the Hellenistic, Roman, Christian, Islamic, Jewish, European, and European-American traditions and civilizations.

Philosophy in the West is the parent discipline of the natural sciences. Certain other closely related disciplines, however, namely mathematics, astronomy, and medicine, seem to have had origins independent of philosophy and of the natural sciences. (Astronomy was not considered a natural science until early modern times.) The histories of all these disciplines are interwoven. In our survey of the history of philosophy, we shall have frequent occasion to refer to the histories of mathematics and of the natural sciences.

The figures we shall be principally discussing are Heraclitus, Parmenides, Zeno, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, St. Anselm, William of Ockham, Descartes, Hobbes, Hume, Kant, Hegel, Nietzsche, Russell, Husserl, Sartre, and Wittgenstein. We shall also be discussing some philosophical implications of modern physics as expounded by Einstein and Schrödinger.

BOOKLIST (BOOKS AVAILABLE AT CSU BOOKSTORE (csubookstore.com))

ONLINE TEXTS

STUDENT COURSEWORK

The course will consist mainly of detailed reading and analysis of the philosophical works listed in the "Schedule of Readings and Assignments" below.

There will be four components of student coursework:

I. Regular class attendance and participation.

II. Short answers to study questions from the “Schedule of Readings and Assignments” below to be handed in on alternate class days. The class is to be divided into two Groups, A and B, and the respective members of each group are to hand in their answers as indicated in the “Schedule of Readings and Assignments” on alternate days as marked. The answers should be a half-page or less in length -- they are simply to be succinct answers to the questions asked. Group A will consist of students whose last names as registered begin with the letters A-L, and Group B with the letters M-Z. Please let me know if you would like me to use a name different from the one that appears on the class roster on campusnet.

III. Midterm writing assignment. This should be from 2000 to 3000 words in length (eight to twelve typewritten pages @ 250 words / page).

There are two options for the kind of paper you write, a philosophical dialogue and a book report about the biography or autobiography of some famous philosopher.

The midterm writing assignment is to be completed in three stages, a proposal, a preliminary draft, and a final draft. (I will give you my reaction to the preliminary draft in time for you to apply whatever of my comments you find to be of value to the task of writing the final version.) You are asked to submit a one-paragraph topic proposal for the dialogue, due Monday, September 21. The preliminary draft will be due Monday, October 26, and the final version on the last day of classes, Friday, December 4. There may be an opportunity to read your preliminary draft to the class and get their comments as well.

The philosphical dialogue as a literary genre was created by the followers of Socrates, most notably Plato. By the time you need to submit your proposals, we shall have read some of Plato's dialogues. The Parmenides and the first book of the Republic are notable examples of the kind of interchange you are being requested to depict, except that these two examples are markedly one-sided. Many philosophers, emulating Plato, have written philosophical dialogues, but few have approached him in quality. This is partly due to the fact that Plato's dialogues depict Socrates, an especially "dialogic' person (and in fact the entire genre was inspired by the example of his mode of philosophizing), with the exception, in my opinion, of David Hume's Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion (a work that is included in Cahn but that is not among our scheduled readings).

Your dialogue should represent two philosophers of opposing viewpoints initially summarizing their viewpoints and then subjecting each other to questioning in a way that is genuine and potentially revealing of weaknesses in each. You may include other characters, and you may have one viewpoint win out, both characters change their minds, or the characters depart at the end remaining in their state of disagreement.

Since some of the suggested pairs of interlocutors in the topics list could never actually have met, you may create a fantastic setting in which this is somehow possible.

There are a number of suggested topics listed below. In some cases it is intially unclear to what extent the interlocutors are in general agreement. In these cases the task of the dialogue is a bit different from what has just been stated--namely the task in these cases is to explore this question and to compare and contrast. The Nietzsche-Sartre topic is like this.

The second kind of paper you may write is a book report on a biography or autobiography of a famous philosopher. As models you may consult the book reviews in the New York Review of Books or the New York Times, except that you review should adhere to the scholarly standard of impartiality, a suitable degree of scepticism, and proper citation of references.

The elements of such a report are the following:

1. A complete specification of the book, including title, author, publisher, edition, date, and ISBN.

2. A brief sketch of the basic facts about the author.

3. An account of the occasion of writing of the book--what need or want on his/her part or anyone else's was the author trying to fulfill--what axes, if any, did he or she have to grind?

4. An account of the basic facts insofar as they are known about the person who is the subject of the book (this may be the author): when, where, and in what circumstances was he or she born, what came to be his or her station or position in life, what were his or her characteristic activities, acts, or suffereings, what hagiographic or other iconic stature did he or she attain in posterity?

5. A summary of the book.

6. A critical appraisal.

7. Your own reaction.

IV. Final exam with questions handed out one week in advance. Approximately 250-word answers to a choice of two out of ten or more possible essay questions, and additionally a multiple choice / matching / fill-in-the-blank section, which altogether will be worth as much as one essay question. These non-essay questions will be either based on the daily study questions or of such a general nature that knowledge of the answers could plausibly be considered a requisite for basic "literacy" in the history of Western philosophy. Written without notes. This will take place during the scheduled final exam period for this block, which is Friday, December 11, 8:30-10:30 am. The questions will be handed out on Monday, November 30. Reading the assignments, paying close attention to the study questions, and attending class regularly will be good preparations for this exam. Answers will be evaluated on factual knowledge of philosophical arguments and positions and clarity of philosophical analysis.

Each of the four components of student coursework will be worth 25% of your grade.

DESIDERATA FOR A GOOD PAPER

I.          You should use good spelling and grammar.

II.         For the philosophical dialogue: The point of departure for the dialogue should be what you take to be the essence of the philosophical positions of the specified interlocutors on your chosen topic. You may have the discussion broaden to include other relevant positions of other real or imagined interlocutors.      

III.       For the philosophical dialogue: You should try to think through the progress of the arguments prior to the actual writing. After becoming acquainted with the interlocutors' basic viewpoints, you should reflect on what they would say to each other if they could actually have met. This is analogous to Aristotle's injunction to writers of tragedy to imagine the action unfolding before their eyes.

IV.      For both types of writing assignment: use good citation pratice, which means documenting factual claims, including the views of philosophers you are citing. Use Wikipedia or other encyclopedias to inform yourself (maintaining a due degree of scepticism), but for documentation use the sources cited by Wikipedia or the other encyclopedias instead. For online texts include date consulted by you.

DIALOGUE TOPIC LIST

Socrates/Plato vs. Aristotle on the Forms.

Socrates/Plato vs. Aristotle on the Socratic constitution.

Socrates/Plato vs. Aristotle on the moral and intellectual value of tragedy.

Zeno vs. Aristotle (vs. Bertrand Russell in Our Knowledge of the External World ) on the Achilles paradox.

Anaxagoras vs. Aristotle on "all things together."

Aristotle vs Galileo (in Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems) on the dimensions of physical space.

Aristotle vs. Galileo on the natural motions of bodies.

Galileo vs. Einstein on the addition of velocities and the transformation of co-ordinates.

Kant vs. Einstein (vs. Aristotle vs. Timaeus, a Platonic character) on the nature of space and time.

Einstein and Schrödinger vs. Bohr on the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics.

Socrates/Plato and Aristotle on first principles (a compare and contrast topic).

Socrates vs. Nietzsche on Socratic decadence.

Ockham vs. Russell (vs. Aristotle vs. Scotus) on universals.

Anselm vs. Aquinas on the proof of God.

Aquinas vs. Hume on miracles.

Berkeley vs. Hume on matter.

Plato and Hobbes on the state (a compare and contrast topic).

Kant vs. Russell on the nature of number.

Wittgenstein I vs. Wittgenstein II on philosophy.

Hume vs. Kant on causality.

Kant vs. Hegel on the Thing-in-Itself or the Absolute

Kant vs. Aristotle on categories.

Descartes vs. Schrödinger on causality among bodies.

Nietzsche and Sartre on Sartre's "atheistic exsitentialism" (a compare and contrast topic).

Aquinas vs. Aristotle on "the eternity of the world."

Husserl vs. Descartes on the epoché.

HISTORICAL FIGURES AND THEIR (AUTO-) BIOGRAPHIES

Hypatia of Alexandria--two options:

Hypatia of Alexandria, by Maria Dzielska (translated by F. Llyra).

Hypatia of Alexandria: Mathematician and Martyr, by Michael A. B. Deakin.

Boethius

Consolation of Philosophy, Book I, by Boethius.

Peter Abelard

History of my Calamities, and Letters of Abelard and Heloise

Galileo Galilei

Galileo (play), by Bertoldt Brecht. Movie version: American Film Theater.

Simone de Beauvoir

The Mandarins, by Simone de Beauvoir

Heisenberg and Bohr on the German nuclear weapons program in World War II

Copenhagen (a play), by Michael Frayn.

Bertrand Russell

Autobiography of Bertrand Russell, Volume 1, 2, or 3.

SCHEDULE OF READINGS AND ASSIGNMENTS

POLICIES

Plagiarism or cheating are unacceptable and if detected may result in the student plagiarizing or cheating receiving a failing grade for the course.

GENERAL EDUCATION REQUIREMENTS

This course counts towards satisfaction of the “Arts and Humanities” requirement.

OFFICE DATA

Location: RT 1920

Hours: MWF 12:15-1:20

Phone: 687-3902

INFORMATION REQUIRED TO BE POSTED ON SYLLABI REGARDING THE GEN ED REQUIREMENTS:

Criteria for Arts and Humanities Courses:

1. Courses must be offered at the 100/200 level in an arts and humanities discipline including but not limited to English, History, Philosophy, Art History, Music History, Religious Studies, or Modern Languages.   Courses offered in other disciplines may be approved if they meet the other conditions indicated below.
2. Courses must provide students with background knowledge and analytical skills that will allow them to:
   • Demonstrate understanding of how human beings interpret, translate, and represent diverse experiences of the world through language, literature, the historical record, philosophical systems, images, sounds, and performances.
   • Apply that understanding to the study of the human condition, cultural heritage, cultural artifacts, creativity, and history.

• **Additional criterion for courses NOT specifically focused on Asia, Latin America, Africa or the Middle East:
  • Courses must be survey courses that provide an overview of a broad topic or field of knowledge.
• **Additional criteria for courses focused on Asia, Latin America, Africa and/or the Middle East:
  • The primary focus of the course must be on a society or societies in Asia, Latin America, Africa and/or the Middle East.   Courses that compare these societies to those of North America and/or Europe may be approved only if the majority of the course material concerns the first group of societies and the principal purpose of the course is to improve students' understanding of those societies.
  • Content must be presented from the perspective(s) of the societies being studied, not simply European and/or American perceptions of those societies.

Criteria for the “Writing” skill area:

To qualify in the skill area of writing a course must:

1. Designate that at least 15% of the student's grade in the course is based on an evaluation of writing.  
2. Include writing assignments that directly relate to the course goals.
3. Include instruction in writing-to-learn and/or writing-to-communicate .   While writing-to-learn emphasizes the student's experience, writing-to-communicate highlights the reader's experience.   Both are necessary to produce a thoughtful text that observes academic writing's conventions. 4 
4. Require that students write a total of 2,000 words (8 pages, double-spaced, in 12-point font, with 1” margins) in multiple assignments.
5. Assign writing throughout the semester.

Criteria for the “Critical Thinking” skill area:

To qualify in the skill area of critical thinking a course must:

1. Designate that at least 15% of the student's grade in the course is based on an evaluation of critical thinking.
2. Require students to attain skills beyond lower-level knowledge, thereby requiring:
   1. higher-order thinking (analysis, synthesis, evaluation); OR
   2. skills that involve the use of content knowledge (e.g. finding information to solve a problem); OR
   3. the recognition of the importance and usefulness of knowledge and skills gained in the course (e.g. recognize the ability to and importance of working with others to solve intellectual problems).

1. [back]The word count may only include one preliminary draft for each final draft.
2. [back] Exceptions to this criterion may be granted in disciplines or courses where students do a substantial amount of writing, but the course structure and/or content does not create opportunities for an assignment of this length.
3. [back] Writing-to-learn helps students use writing to explore many aspects of the course as well as their own reflections; these activities should foster learning at deeper levels than memorization or recitation.   Writing-to-communicate emphasizes aspects of writing (style, grammatical correctness, coherence, focus) that allow a reader to navigate the writing as he or she wishes.
4. [back]Writing-to-learn helps students use writing to explore many aspects of the course as well as their own reflections; these activities should foster learning at deeper levels than memorization or recitation.   Writing-to-communicate emphasizes aspects of writing (style, grammatical correctness, coherence, focus) that allow a reader to navigate the writing as he or she wishes.