PHILOSOPHY - Daniel PHL 301 Unique Number 42170, ... JGB 2.324, Daniel Bonevac, WAG 403, M 3–5, bonevac@ Introduction to Philosophy ... 12/11 Final Exam Review ...

Download PHILOSOPHY - Daniel   PHL 301 Unique Number 42170, ... JGB 2.324, Daniel Bonevac, WAG 403, M 3–5, bonevac@  Introduction to Philosophy ... 12/11 Final Exam Review ...

Post on 08-May-2018




1 download


1 PHL 301 Unique Number 42170, MWF 1:00-2:00, JGB 2.324, Daniel Bonevac, WAG 403, M 35, bonevac@austin.utexas.eduIntroduction to PhilosophyCourse DescriptionThis course introduces the central problems of philosophy. It considers solutions proposed by the greatest thinkers of the Western philosophical tradition, and some from non-Western traditions as well.We will ask what it is to be human, and reflect on the importance of this question for how we live our own lives. Are we minds and bodies? Just minds? Just bodies? What difference does it make? What is it to lead a good human life? What is a good person? How should we make decisions?We will move on to questions in the theory of knowledge: What is knowledge? How do we get it? What can we know?We will also raise some of the basic questions of metaphysics: What is there? What is a thing? Do things have essences? Is reality independent of our minds? Is there a God?The course is organized according to three great philosophical traditions: Classical Empiricism, which in the West begins with Aristotle; Classical Rationalism, which in the West begins with Plato; andIdealism, which in the West begins much later, with Berkeley. A fourth group, the Skeptics, launch attacks against all three traditions.The unexamined life is not worth livingSocratesPHILOSOPHYUniversity of Texas at Austin, Fall 2017mailto:bonevac@austin.utexas.edumailto:bonevac@austin.utexas.edu2 PHL 301 Unique Number 42170, MWF 1:00-2:00, JGB 2.324, Daniel Bonevac, WAG 403, M 35, bonevac@austin.utexas.edu8/30 Welcome to the course!9/1 The Socratic MethodClassical Empiricism: The Aristotelian Tradition9/6 Confucius on Virtue2.1, 2.2, 2.3 (3858)9/8 Confucius on Virtue2.1, 2.2, 2.3 (3858)9/11 Aristotle on Virtue3.3 (8897)9/13 Aristotle on Virtue3.3 (8897)9/15 Utilitarianism5.5 (174184)9/18 Externalism12.1, 12.2, 12.3, 14.2 (309319, 343348)Paper 1 due9/20 Aristotles Categories18.1, 22.1 (409416, 507511)9/22 Aristotle on Essence19.2 (436448)9/25 Lockes Empiricism16.2 (377382)9/27 Primary and Secondary Qualities 20.1 (448465)9/29 The Self in Aristotle and Locke9.2, 10.3 (259263, 274282)10/2 The Cosmological Argument23.3, 24.1, 24.2 (535541, 544555)10/4 The Argument from Design25.4 (582587)10/6 Humes Critique25.5 (587594)Classical Rationalism: The Platonic Tradition10/9 Socrates on Virtue3.1 (7583)Paper 2 due10/11 Plato on Virtue3.2, 4.2, 9.1 (8388, 105111, 249259)10/13 Platos Internalism about Knowledge14.1 (334343)10/16 Platos Forms19.1 (429436)10/18 Skepticism13.1, 14.3, 15.1 (320328, 348363)10/20 Skepticism13.1, 14.3, 15.1 (320328, 348363)10/23 Augustines Platonism 15.2 (363368)10/25 Descartess Foundationalism10.1, 10.2, 11.1 (264274, 291294)10/27 Descartess Dualism16.1 (373377)10/30 Leibnizs Rationalism16.3 (382386) Paper 3 due11/1 The Ontological Argument23.2, 25.1, 25.2 (533535, 562578)11/3 Pascals Wager25.2 (562578)Idealism: Kant and Post-Kantian Philosophy11/6 Hindu, Daoist, and Jain Ethics1.1, 1.2, 1.6, 2.5 (316, 3136, 6569)11/8 Buddhist Ethics1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 8.3 (1631, 244248) 11/10 Kants Ethics5.3 (157168)11/13 Kants Ethics5.3 (157168)11/15 Humes Scandals5.2, 16.4 (153157, 386398)11/17 The Critiques of Berkeley and Hume10.4, 20.2 (282290, 465475)11/20 Hindu and Buddhist Idealism7.1, 7.3, 18.2, 18.3 (223226, 416423)Paper 4 due11/27 Kants Transcendental Idealism21.1 (476485)11/29 Hegels Historicism21.2 (485491)12/1 Peirces Pragmatism21.3 (491496)12/4 Relativism21.4 (496502)12/6 Perspectivism18.4, 22.2 (423428, 511515)12/8 Realism21.5, 22.3 (502506, 515524)12/11 Final Exam ReviewPaper 5 due12/18 Final Exam, 7:00pm-9:00pmRequired TextThe readings above are section numbers from Daniel Bonevac and Stephen Phillips (ed.), Introduction to World Philosophy. Oxford University Press, 2009. (Page numbers are in parentheses.) The readings include everything in the section, including all subsections.To view the slides used in class, click on the date of that class session.Lectures from this course will be posted on a dedicated playlist on my YouTube channel.Introduction to PhilosophySyllabusUTAUSTIN Fall 2017mailto:bonevac@austin.utexas.edumailto:bonevac@austin.utexas.edu PHL 301 Unique Number 42170, MWF 1:00-2:00, JGB 2.324, Daniel Bonevac, WAG 403, M 35, bonevac@austin.utexas.eduQuizzes. Quizzes (25% of the final grade) will be given through Canvas once a week. You can take them on your own schedulebut, once you open a quiz, you will have only 5 minutes to complete it. They will concentrate on recent material, but anything up to that point in the course is fair game. We have no objection to your working together on quizzes. But their main point is to prepare you for the final exam, so relying on others or on search engines will be self-defeating.The final exam (Monday, December 18, 7:009:00pm; 25% of the final grade) will consist of 105 multiple-choice questions. It will be comprehensive. You may not use books or notes. Bring a sharp pencil and a sharp mind. There will be a practice final online.There are five papers (50% of the final grade) assigned for this course. Each is to be about 2 pages (roughly, 500800 words). Quality is much more important than quantity, however!Paper 1, Virtues, due on Monday, September 18: Discuss a virtue that you consider centralthat is NOT discussed by Confucius or Aristotle. (a) Explain the virtue. (b) Give an example of this virtue in practice. (c) Is this virtue a mean between extremes? If so, what are the extremes? Is there an underlying drive or emotion? If not, why not?Paper 2, Moral Qualities, due on Monday, October 9: Are moral qualities primary qualities? Secondary qualities? Something else? (a) Discuss a moral quality (e.g., right, wrong, just, unjust, courageous, generous, wise, etc.), giving an example. (b) Explain what primary qualities are, and explain why you think that moral quality is or is not a primary quality. (c) Explain what secondary qualities are, and explain why you think that moral quality is or is not a secondary quality.Paper 3, Skepticism, due on Monday, October 30: How should we respond to skeptical arguments? (a) Explain ONE skeptical argument, outlining its premises and conclusion, using a few well-chosen quotations from one of its advocates. (b) Is the argument valid as it stands? Or does it require underlying unstated assumptions? (c) Are the premises and any unstated assumptions true? Why or why not?Paper 4, Moral Dilemmas, due on Monday, November 20: Gregory the Great discusses the Simony Dilemma, which arises whenever someone obtains a position illegitimately but then proceeds to do an outstanding job. Should they conceal their earlier misdeed for the sake of the good that they now do? Or should they reveal what theyve done and lose their positionwhich, let us assume, will be taken by someone who will not do nearly as good a job. (a) Explain the dilemma in general terms. (b) Present an example of someone facing this dilemma. (c) What would Kant advise that person to do? Why? Make your use of the categorical imperative, in one form or another, explicit. (d) Would you give the same advice? Why or why not?Paper 5, Absolute Truths, due Monday, December 11: Are there truths that are absolutethat are not relative to a particular person, society, historical period, conceptual scheme, or interpretive community, but hold at all times, for everyone, everywhere? (a) Explain what relativism is, focus on one particular form of relativism (e.g., to a historical era, or to an interpretive community), and give an example of a truth that *is* relative in that way. (b) But are *all* truths relative in that way? Explain how at least two philosophers (from among Kant, Hegel, Nietzsche, and Peirce) would answer the question. (c) Answer the question yourself. If you think that all truths are relative in that way, explain why. If you dontif you think that some truths are absolute in that respectgive some examples, and explain why you consider them absolute.The papers must be your own work. You must not use material from anyone else without citing the source. That includes Wikipedia and other online sources. The best way to follow this rule is to read the works yourself and write your own reactions, not someone elses.For more on how to avoid plagiarism, see and submit all papers on Canvas. All grades will be posted on Canvas.Introduction to PhilosophyRequirementsUTAUSTIN Fall 2017mailto:bonevac@austin.utexas.edumailto:bonevac@austin.utexas.edu PHL 301 Unique Number 42170, MWF 1:00-2:00, JGB 2.324, Daniel Bonevac, WAG 403, M 35, bonevac@austin.utexas.eduReading and writing philosophy are unlike almost anything youve ever done. Its hard to get the hang of philosophy. Even if you read the words faithfully, youre likely to find it hard to grasp the point of what youre reading. Writing philosophy is even harder. We dont expect you to know how to do these things already. Fortunately, there are many helpful guides to reading and writing philosophy. This pages points you to just a few of them. Reading PhilosophyJim Pryor of New York University has an excellent guide to reading philosophy. There is a helpful guide at Philosophy Pages. Most philosophers read with a pencil at hand, marking a line in the margin beside important sections, underlining key definitions and theses, and jotting notes and questions in the margin. Dont try to read philosophy without marking or writing anything; you wont retain enough of what you read. And dont use a highlighter; its too indiscriminate. Look for key theses, terms, and arguments; mark them; and think about them. Thinking about concrete cases often makes it clearer what the philosopher is trying to sayand also where its inadequacies are.WritingTo write philosophy well, you first need to know how to write! You might think you already know how to do that. But effective writing isnt something most people learn until theyre out of college.The best guide to writing Ive found is The Elements of Style, by William Strunk and E. B. White. Its still in print, and in a fourth edition; you can find the original 1918 version online. There are some rules of style that are suspended in philosophy. First, feel free to use the first person. Philosophers often write I think, I want to argue, and the like. In philosophical writing, you want to take a stand, advance an argument for it, and contrast your view with the views of others. Using the first person is a good way of doing that. Second, dont worry about using the verb to be. Philosophers need to define terms, and is and are are useful for that purpose, among others. Third, sometimes its best to use foreign terms.Writing PhilosophyJim Pryor also has an outstanding guide to writing philosophy. I urge you to consult it. Peter Horban of Simon Fraser University, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Philosophy Pages, and the University of Wisconsin Madison all have excellent pages devoted to the topic.Start your paper by stating your goal. Say clearly what youre going to accomplish. A well-known paper by Peter Geach begins, I am arguing that identity is relative. Aspire to such clarity. Dont write fluff. (Philosophers have argued about identity for centuries.... Ugh.) Dont keep the reader in suspense. Philosophy isnt a mystery story.Useful Tipsguide to reading philosophyguide to writing philosophyevidence-based study tipsEncyclopediasStanford Encyclopedia of PhilosophyCatholic EncyclopediaStyleStrunk and White, The Elements of StyleGeorge Orwell, Politics and the English LanguageFor FunThe Philosophical LexiconProofs that pPhilosophical HumorIntroduction to PhilosophyGuide of the PerplexedUTAUSTIN Fall 2017mailto:bonevac@austin.utexas.edumailto:bonevac@austin.utexas.edu PHL 301 Unique Number 42170, MWF 1:00-2:00, JGB 2.324, Daniel Bonevac, WAG 403, M 35, bonevac@austin.utexas.eduOur Grading CriteriaIntelligibility. Can we understand what youre trying to say?Clarity. Is your paper clear? Do you express your points with precision?Understanding. Do you understand the writers and the issues well?Support. Do you support what you say with reasons and arguments?Depth. Do you get at the heart of the issues? Or does your paper show only a superficial understanding?Strunk and Whites Rules1. Use the active voice.2. Put statements in positive form.3. Use definite, specific, concrete language.4. Omit needless words.5. Avoid a succession of loose sentences.6. Keep related words together.7. Write in a way that comes naturally.8. Write with nouns and verbs.9. Revise and rewrite.10. Do not overwrite.11. Do not overstate.12. Avoid fancy words.13. Be clear.14. Do not take shortcuts at the cost of clarity.Pryors Rules1. Use simple prose. If you wouldn't say it, don't write it.2. Make the structure of your paper obvious.3. Be concise, but explain yourself fully.4. Say exactly what you mean.5. Pretend that your reader is lazy, stupid, and mean.6. Use plenty of examples and definitions.7. Present and assess the views of others critically, but with understanding.8. Anticipate objections.9. If something in a view you're examining is unclear to you, don't gloss it over. Call attention to the unclarity. Suggest several different ways of understanding the view. Orwells Rules1. Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.2. Never use a long word where a short one will do.3. If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.4. Never use the passive where you can use the active.5. Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.6. Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.Pawls Principles1. If you are going to evaluate an argument, be sure to give it as clearly as you can. Dont ever say that an argument is good or bad, valid or invalid, convincing or not, unless you lay it out explicitly.2. Always say precisely what you mean. Reread to make sure that your wording isnt unclear.3. Dont use rhetorical questions. 4. Argue for your claims.5. If you dont need to make a contentious claim to make your point, dont make the claim. 6. If something you say isnt necessary for proving your point, or helpful in elucidating what you mean, drop it. 7. Dont bite off more than you can chew. Given the choices of being broad and shallow or narrow and deep, go for narrow and deep.8. Never say an unkind word about any thinker or that thinkers intentions. 9. Be careful of amphiboly (ambiguity): it will invite your critics to poke fun at your expense. 10. Do all of the thinking for your reader. Never leave any inference, no matter how obvious, to the (in)capable hands of your reader. 11. The same goes for explaining quotations. Always tell the reader what she should take from the quotation, even if it is obvious to you.12. Use signposts. First tell me what you are going to do. Then tell me that you are doing it. Finally, tell me what you have done. (Tell em what youre gonna tell em; tell em; tell em what you told em.)13. Never employ a technical term before defining it unless you are confident that your reader knows exactly what it means from you.14. Proof-read!UTAUSTIN Fall 2017 Introduction to PhilosophyRules for Good Writingmailto:bonevac@austin.utexas.edumailto:bonevac@austin.utexas.edu6 PHL 301 Unique Number 42170, MWF 1:00-2:00, JGB 2.324, Daniel Bonevac, WAG 403, M 35, bonevac@austin.utexas.eduYou may use your laptop computer or tablet to read and take notes in class. Research indicates, however, that people learn better when they write notes by hand.You dont need to bring any books to class. Quotations we discuss will be shown on screen.Attendance is not a formal part of the grade. But attending class is by far the most efficient way to learn what you need to know. My research on performance of previous classes shows that each missed class costs you about a point on your final average. That adds up. Missing one class each week, on average, lowers your final grade 15 pointsfrom an A to a C+, for example, or from a B+ to a C-.Grades in this class use plusses and minuses in accord with University policy. The general pattern: A: 93100; A: 9093; B+: 8790; B: 8387; B: 9083; etc.Please review safety and evacuation procedures in case of an emergency. If you will need assistance in such a circumstance, please let me know in advance.University of Texas Honor CodeAs a student of The University of Texas at Austin, I shall abide by the core values of the University and uphold academic integrity.The core values of The University of Texas at Austin are learning, discovery, freedom, leadership, individual opportunity, and responsibility. Each member of the university is expected to uphold these values through integrity, honesty, trust, fairness, and respect toward peers and community.Your papers must be your own work. You must not use material without citing your sources.It can be tempting to plagiarize when youre under time pressure. Its easy to copy and paste. But that means its also easy for us to catch you. Dont do it! If you need extra time, ask for it. We will say yes.UTs Academic Honesty Policy can be found at more on how to avoid plagiarism, see and HolidaysReligious holidays will be respected in accordance with University policy.Disabilities Students with disabilities may request appropriate academic accommodations from the Division of Diversity and Community Engagement, Services for Students with Disabilities, 471-6259 (voice) or 232-2937 (video phone).University Resources for StudentsThe Sanger Learning Center helps more than one-third of UT undergraduate students each year to improve their academic performance. All students are welcome totake advantage ofthe Centers classes and workshops, private learning specialist appointments, peer academic coaching,and tutoring for more than 70 courses in 15 different subject areas. For more information, please visit or call 512-471-3614 (JES A332).The University Writing Centeroffers free, individualized, expert help with writing for any UT student, by appointment or on a drop-in basis. Consultants help students develop strategies to improve their writing, foster their resourcefulness and increase their self-reliance. The Counseling and Mental Health Center provides counseling, psychiatric consultation, and prevention services that facilitate students' academic and life goals and enhance their personal growth and well-being. Emergency Services: helps with technology: help is available 24/7 at you have concerns about the safety or behavior of fellow students, TAs or Professors, call BCAL (the Behavior Concerns Advice Line): 512-232-5050. Your call can be anonymous. If something doesnt feel right, it probably isnt. Trust your instincts and share your concerns.UTAUSTIN Fall 2017 Introduction to PhilosophyPoliciesmailto:bonevac@austin.utexas.edumailto:bonevac@austin.utexas.edu Fall 2017 Introduction to PhilosophyCourse MapThe ProfessorDaniel Bonevac, WAG 403, 512232-4333, bonevac@austin.utexas.eduOffice Hours: M 35Daniel Bonevac is Professor of Philosophy at The University of Texas at Austin. His book Reduction in the Abstract Sciences received the Johnsonian Prize from The Journal of Philosophy. The author of five books and editor or co-editor of four others, Professor Bonevac's articles include Against Conditional Obligation (Nos), "Sellars v. the Given" (Philosophy and Phenomenological Research), "Reflection Without Equilibrium," (Journal of Philosophy), "Free Choice Permission Is Strong Permission" (Synthese, with Nicholas Asher), "The Conditional Fallacy," (Philosophical Review, with Josh Dever and David Sosa), The Counterexample Fallacy (Mind, also with Dever and Sosa), A History of Quantification (Handbook of the History of Logic, Volume 11), A History of the Connectives (Handbook of the History of Logic, Volume 11, with Josh Dever), Fictionalism (Handbook of the Philosophy of Mathematics, Volume 4), The Argument from Miracles and Two Theories of Analogical Predication (Oxford Studies in the Philosophy of Religion), Heideggers Map and Heideggers Wrong Turn (Academic Questions), Arguments from Reference, Content, and Knowledge, in T. Dougherty and J. Walls (ed.), Two Dozen (or so) Arguments for God: The Plantinga Project (Oxford: Oxford University Press), Quantifiers Defined by Parametric Extensions (Journal of Philosophical Logic, with Hans Kamp), Defaulting on Reasons (Nos), and Free Choice Reasons (Synthese).


View more >