THE ANSELM ARGUMENT CONTINUED

Anselm calls out to God and encourages us to do the same:

PHILOSOPHY 100 SPRING 2011 SYLLABUS

PHILOSOPHY 100 INTRODUCTION TO PHILOSOPHY

SPRING 2011

Course Description

This course is an investigation of truth, and how Western philosophers have addressed this question. We will ask how and what we know about important things whose truth is at issue. We will focus on three invisible things in which most people believe, or disbelieve --  the soul(personal identity), God, and free will.

We will investigate the evidence for these beliefs by asking you to tell your own truths and asking, as well, that you try to formulate the reasons you have for holding these truths.  In addition, we will read and discuss how a series of philosophers have conceived and written about these issues, and we will read accounts from contemporary sources that address the same issues. By the end of the class you will have held some of your most closely held beliefs up to the light for examination and if all goes well these beliefs might even be established on firmer foundations or modified to fit standards that the class has made available.

You will be asked to write two kinds of essays. First you will write your own initial versions of your beliefs about God, the self and free will. Then, after reading the philosophers and the other written sources, and discussing what these have to say, you will write three more formal essays, each a minimum of 7 pages, on the questions of the reality and nature of God, the self and free will. These essays will reflect readings and discussions, and will comment on your original essays. We will spend much class time discussing your views, and the views of our philosophers, in a variety of formats, including some form of debate. Expect to read some of your work in class.

Evaluation

 Each class member will write three “rough” essays on his or her beliefs about God, self and free will. These essays will be typed, the pages numbered, and should be at least three (3) pages in length. Each member will then write a longer, more formal essay on the same topics, written after reading the philosophers and other sources. Each of these essays will be at least five (5) pages in length, will be typed, pages numbered, and bear a header with you name, as well as a title on the first page, which will be repeated in the header.

You will also be expected to attend class unless you have a good reason for missing, a reason about which you inform me beforehand by way of email. Excessive absence (more than four) will seriously jeopardize your standing in the class and your grade. 

You will also be expected to do the reading and to be able to respond to questions about it, which I will ask during class. Evidence that you are not reading will also have a serious negative effect on your standing. Each of three essay sets will count for 30% of the final grade.

The final 10% of the grade will be calculated based on two final written objects. 

You will write a two page essay on what one thing you have learned in the class, something that matters.

You will write a one page Manifesto, in which you will express your most fundamental beliefs about God, self and freedom without arguing. The Manifesto is all assertion. Details on this item will be provided.

Instructor and Office Hours

Kevin O’Neill

101 Bekins Hall

Extension 8655;  909-748-8655         email:koneill@coemgenus.com

Office Hours;

Monday  2:30 - 4:00

Bibliography: John Cottingham  Western Philosophy: An Anthology by Blackwell Publishing

Calendar

January 12 Introduction. Begin to write identity essay.

PART ONE: PERSONAL IDENTITY AND THE SOUL

17 Present and discuss identity essays. Summarize kinds of beliefs about identity. Read Cottingham pp. 63 - 69 , Plato and the Cave.

19 Discuss Plato. Read Berkeley , pp. 91 - 96 Cottingham

24 Discuss Berkeley. Read Descartes, pp. 22 -25 and 145 - 151 Cottingham

26 Discuss Descartes. Read pp. 127 -133, Plato on the soul. Cottingham

31 Discuss Plato. Read Locke on consciousness, pp. 187 - 191. Cottingham

February

2  Discuss Locke. Read Hume, pp. 37 -41 and 197 -202. Cottingham

7   Discuss Hume. Read Freud, pp. 203 -208. Cottingham

9  Discuss Freud

14 Review identity theories. Sketch our identity essay.

16 Present drafts in class.

21 Identity paper due. Introduce God.(!)

PART TWO: GOD

February 23  Discuss Anselm and Descartes.  Read Aquinas arguments pp. 248-250; Pascal’s Wager,  256-259

March 5 Discuss Aquinas and Pascal. Read Leibniz Problem of Evil pp. 260-264; Kierkegaard and Faith, 277-282 

7 Discuss Kierkegaard and Leibniz. Read Hume on Design and Miracles pp. 265-276.

12 Discuss Hume. Read James on Will to Believe pp. 283-287

Discuss James

14 Discuss James Read  Wisdom on God and Language pp. 288-294

March 19 Discuss Wisdom.

21 Read God drafts in class.

26 God essay due. 

28 Begin Freedom. Read Sartre, pp.

April

2 Discuss Sartre. Read Strawson on Freedom and Resentment pp. 234 - 240. 

 4 Discuss Strawson. Read pp. 427-432, Hume on Suicide.

9 Discuss Hume. Read pp. 455-460 on abortion.

11 Discuss Abortion. Assign Freedom paper

16   Reading of freedom paper drafts.

18  Freedom paper due. Discuss final assignments

The Last Intro

We need to organize this last iteration of the full time intro course because it is going to be the basis for my book on Philosophy for Civilians, wehich I intend to complete in a first draft by this date one year from today. 

The fundamental thrust of the book will be to make philosophy, both as content and process, available to a general public. It will re-acquaint those who have taken philosophy in school and offer a first acquaintance for those who never studied the subject. The mode will be 'popular''smart, or pitched to people who enjoy snappy writing and humor but who also like to think.

My competition - and is there for such a subject? - is 'Sophie's World', whose structural cleverness I cannot match, and Alain de Boton's "Consolations of Philosophy", which offers a nice balanced, cooked version, as does Joosten. The "Socrates /Platypus Walked Into a Bar' book I do not know but will soon. 

My approach is to distill forty years of teaching and honing into a written performance - oral to textual. I do not know of this will work but look at Plato,who is my guide here, as odd as that might sound. I would never do a dialogue -- I am not a dialogic guy -- and lack the writing skill. But I can flat out perform and we will see where this gets us.

Structure: I have three lines of hunches that I think need including and this will be the initial juggle and squeak. 

1. 'Splainin'

2. Citying

3. Invisibles : God , Identity, Freedom, Art

#1 has to do with the events in which philosophy might get born, the situations that might provoke its inception.

#2 has to do with the settings, historical and cultural, in which philosophy can develop, and in which questions of the #1 can come up.

#3 has to do with the current content of philosophy, what it most typically deals with and what it leaves aside.

All three themes or strains are highly selective and my treatment is even eccentric and will aggravate many professional philosophers but that is part of my point. Like many another philosopher I think that the practice has gone off-track, partly because it has become a professional descriptor. There is nothing inherently wrong with allowing those who love this activity to get jobs and medical coverage and pension plans in pursuit of it,but once one relocates the power from practice to bureau, once the power resides in the desk/office and its inevitable and necessary web of procedures, things can go awry. I am not an anti-organizational Luddite but am a little suspicious of the 'taming' of philosophy within the current, increasingly corporate university model.

My biases and limitations in this regard will soon emerge more clearly.  

First let's get to the quick and start, perversely, with theme #2.

THE IDENTITY TEMPLATES

We have examined several ways of understanding and talking about our identities. Here are the main schema:

THE OUTSIDE - WHAT THE WORLD SEES EASILY

1. The Basic Equipment:

a. Body, Birth and Death.

b. Desire and Dreams

2. The Add-Ons

a. Family

b. Socio-economic status

c. Gender

d. Acquired Skills

_______________________________________________________________________________

THE INSIDE - WHAT ONLY SOME PEOPLE SEE/WHAT NO ONE EVER SEES

PLATO  - THE IMMORTAL SOUL

BERKELEY - THE PERCEIVER

DESCARTES - THE THINKING THING

LOCKE - CONSCIOUSNESS

FREUD - THE UNCONSCIOUS

SARTRE - THE FREE SELF - THE 'NOTHING'

_____________________________________________________________________________

THE MEETING POINT BETWEEN THE OUTER AND THE INNER: YOU

Aristotle and Virtue

Aristotle and dog training

the nub of Aristotle's approach is that each individual has, as a living human organism, a certain balance between and among talents, interests, limitations and external obligations. Training any one person to be ethical and to live a good life in which she flourishes requires a thorough understanding of both the individual being trained, of the situation for which the training is being done, and of the specific demands that this situation will make on this individual. A good analogy is that the individual is like an athlete and the ethical teacher like a good coach.

The analogy is not perfect because ethical training goes beyond teaching your charge how to set a pick or drive the lane, to include a sense of moderation, that is of striking a mean or, midpoint between extremes. In sports one wants to train the athlete to achieve extremes, not just to be a good defender but to be a smothering defender. However, in areas beyond skill, sports and Aristotelian ethics are not far apart. A good person and a good athlete have this in common: both know how to act in the right, moderate way in challenging circumstances. Thus, a good person knows when to back off in an argument, or when to call someone for making a racist remark, or when to stop drinking at a party. Similarly, a good athlete knows how to take bad calls with dignity, how to give a good foul, how to act when they win. A perfect example of Aristotelian good action and athletic class: coach Huggins of West Virginia comforting his injured point guard in the NCAA semifinal game. Huggins knew what to do: when your player is injured you step in to provide support, forgetting the game for the moment. Huggins did not weep and wail at his athlete's injury, but neither did he act cool. This was a possible major injury to a decent guy who wanted a pro career; Huggins' response was measured perfectly to the situation.

Aristotle did not believe that there were universally binding ethical rules, or single universal motives, to guide his thinking. For him, being a good person was a matter of a particular individual acting in the right way for that individual at that time and in that place. To be good one had to acquire the habits needed to respond well under differing and sometimes trying circumstances to a series of complex challenges. Knowing how to respond moderately and appropriately to every situation, even to ones in which there were no good options was, for Aristotle, the heart of the moral life.