Philosophy
10: Introduction to Philosophy
Spring
2005
Instructor: Tony Dardis Phone: x3 5432
e-mail: phiabd@hofstra.edu
Office: 207 Heger Hall Office
Hours: TT 9-11
Philosophy is about the big
picture. It asks: what is there in the world? how can we know about what there
is? how should we live? what can we hope for in this life on earth, and for
life after this one?
Philosophy’s method is
thinking and reasoning. We look around and see what we think the big picture
is. We try to say what the big picture is—is there a God? do we have another
life to look forward to after we die? does science have all the answers? Right
away we run into problems, difficulties, puzzlement, bewilderment. It’s very
hard to come up with answers to all those questions. So we try to come up with
reasons for preferring one answer to another. We run into problems again, and
seek reasons to believe those
reasons. Three things happen. First, we learn more about what we think the big
picture is like, as we come up with reasons for and against various
alternatives. Second, sometimes, we make real discoveries about how things are.
Finally, no matter what we discover, we’ve been thinking hard about hard
questions, and that’s exactly what we need to do in order to live and thrive.
We will focus on three
issues: (a) in the discussion between religion and science, does religion
really conflict with science? Can science explain everything? Can religion
explain everything? (b) What is knowledge? What does it mean to say someone
knows something? Is it possible to know anything at all? (c) how is your mind
related to your body? is your mind a separate thing, or is it (somehow) just
(part of?) your body? do we ever act freely, or are we puppets in a clockwork
world?
Requirements:
(a) Four papers (3-4 pp.), exercising your skills in discerning,
describing and evaluating arguments.
(b) Two in-class exams.
(c) There will be 6 debates in class. You will be required to
participate in one debate.
(d) The debate team
performance will receive a single grade, which each member will receive; this
will be worth 10% of your final grade. The four papers and two exams are each
worth 15% of your final grade.
Texts:
Sober, Elliot, Core Questions in Philosophy: A Text with Readings FOURTH edition
(Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall)
Dardis, Anthony,
"Philosophy, Argument, and Logic," Xerox-ed handout available from
me.
Harvey, Gordon, Writing with Sources (Hackett Publishing
Company)
Class structure:
Most class sessions will be
a combination of lecture and discussion. I will present an argument or a
position, and you, the members of the class, and I will together consider its
merits. The argument or position will be drawn from our text.
We will organize six
debates around the questions raised by the readings in the text. A few days
before the debate, I will write a so-called “debate resolution” on the board (a
single sentence stating the position to be debated; for instance, the first
debate resolution is this: “God exists.”) Six people will sign up for the
debate. The six will divide into two groups of three, one group to argue that
the resolution is true, one to argue that it is false. The debaters should meet
with me sometime before the debate, during my office hours or at a time to be
arranged. The point of this meeting is, first, to make sure everyone
understands exactly what are the issues to be debated; second, for you to
present your ideas on the issues to me and to the rest of the debaters. This
will enable the other debaters to see what you are thinking, and it will enable
me to suggest new ways to think about the issues.
There will be two exams,
which should take about an hour. There will usually be 3 to 5 essay questions.
For each, I will ask you to describe
and evaluate a philosopher’s argument
for a certain conclusion. Describing
means stating the philosopher’s reasons for believing the conclusion. Evaluating means discussing how good the
arguments are. Almost without exception the philosophers will tell you what
their reasons are, so to describe well you must simply read the texts
carefully. The hard work is to figure out whether the arguments are good. To do
this well you have to think about the arguments. You should ask yourself a
series of questions and work out the answers as you read:
(a) what is the structure of the argument I’m reading? what’s the
conclusion? what reasons support it? how are the reasons connected to each
other and to the conclusion?
(b) are the reasons true? what can I say for and against believing
them? what will other people say for and against believing them? what will the
philosopher most likely say for them?
(c) if the reasons were true, would that be a good reason to believe
the conclusion? if you can’t imagine any way to believe the reasons and deny
the conclusion, then the reason is good; if you can see how to accept the
reasons and still say the conclusion is false, then the reason is bad.
So to give a good
evaluation of an argument is to give a complete set of answers to these
questions. The process and mechanics of evaluating arguments are described in
the handout, “Philosophy, Argument, and Logic” and in Lectures 2 and 3 of our
text. Class sessions will be occupied for the most part in working out detailed
descriptions and evaluations of particular arguments in the texts we read.
Papers:
Your paper will present your thinking about the philosophical
issues. I will ask you either to write about specific arguments that are made
in our readings, or on philosophical problems or puzzles that arise as we think
about these readings. I want you to think hard about the argument or problem or
puzzle, and to call on your imagination and insight to work out a thoughtful
response to it. One good strategy for writing a paper is to describe and
evaluate an argument to a conclusion. Since philosophy is about thinking and
reasoning about the big picture, most philosophical writing consists in giving
reasons to believe some conclusion about the big picture, and showing the
reader that they are good reasons.
Good papers have three
features: good mechanics (spelling,
grammar); good understanding
(accurate and insightful description of philosophical reasoning, especially
from texts); good thinking
(interesting, insightful, accurate critical response to the reasoning).
Your paper must include at
least one bibliographic reference, in the form of a footnote or an endnote. I
do not have any preferences about the form of the reference, except one: the
reference should as far as possible uniquely identify what you are talking
about, by specifying the city of publication, the year of publication, the
publisher, the page, and (where appropriate) the “standard pagination” of the
text to which you are referring.[1]
You should also include a reference if you find yourself using or discussing
the ideas of others, for instance ideas that have come up in class from me or
from your classmates.[2]
One of the required texts for the course is Gordon Harvey’s Writing with Sources which you should
read and use while writing and using sources, both in this class and in your
other classes at Hofstra University. Also consult Hofstra University policies
on use of the work of others without citation, i.e., plagiarism.
All papers must be typed,
using standard margins (1” all around) and standard typefaces and fonts. A
standard page has from 250 to 275 words on it. Keep a copy of the file from
which your paper is printed. Computer problems will not be accepted as an
excuse for late work.
Policies:
·
No late papers
will be accepted.
·
Exams must be
taken at the time and date specified below.
·
Excuse clause: of
course, things happen. If for some reason you are unable to hand in work or
take an exam, I must be informed about it as early as possible and in some
cases I will require documentation.
·
A paper with no
bibliographic references will never receive a grade higher than a “B”. A paper
which uses someone else’s words or ideas without acknowledgment (i.e.,
plagiarism) will receive the grade of “F” and a request for a meeting with me
(if possible). If you meet with me and rewrite the paper, giving proper credit
where it is due, your grade will be changed, if appropriate.
·
If you carry a
phone or a beeper, make sure it doesn’t ring during class.
·
If you must leave
class early, please inform me before class starts. If you cannot attend class,
please inform me.
·
If you are absent
more than 4 times with no excuse you will receive the grade of “F”
Schedule:
Our text (Elliot Sober’s Core
Questions in Philosophy: A Text with Readings) includes a series of “Lectures”
by Elliot Sober, who is a contemporary philosopher (he is Professor of
Philosophy at the University of Wisconsin, Madison), and selections from the
writings of several extraordinary philosophers, ranging in time from Plato (427
BCE—347 BCE) to J.C.C. Smart, who is an actively working philosopher. Each
class session we will work on one of Elliot Sober’s lectures, and as
appropriate read historical texts that go along with the lectures. Do the
reading before class. Figure it out. If there’s something you don’t think you
understand, try to state in writing for yourself as clearly as you can what it
is that is puzzling. Sometimes just trying to state what is puzzling will lead
you to the answer. Sometimes you will find what looks like a real problem. Feel
free to email me your questions.
Above all, argue with the reading.
If you
simply read the texts and don’t attempt to decide for yourself whether the
author has got it right, you will be missing the main point of philosophy. If
you are finding that you can’t even begin to explain why you think you don’t
understand the reading, come talk to me. Don’t wait; just come talk.
|
Date |
Topic |
Special |
|
1/27 |
Introduction;
what philosophy is; the idea of an argument; Sober,
Lecture 1: What is Philosophy? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
2/1 |
Lecture
2: Deductive Arguments |
|
|
2/3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2/8 |
Lecture
3: Inductive and Abductive Arguments |
|
|
2/10 |
Lecture
4: Aquinas’ First Four Ways; read Aquinas, Five Ways to Prove That God Exists |
|
|
|
|
|
|
2/15 |
|
|
|
2/17 |
Lecture
5: The Design Argument; read Paley, The
Design Argument |
Debate # 1 |
|
|
|
|
|
2/22 |
(President’s Day – no
class) |
|
|
2/24 |
Lecture 6:
Evolution and Creationism; read Hume, Critique
of the Design Argument |
|
|
|
|
|
|
3/1 |
Lecture
7: Can Science Explain Everything? |
Debate # 2 |
|
3/3 |
First in-class exam |
|
|
|
|
|
|
3/8 |
Lecture 12: What
is knowledge?; read Plato, Knowledge is
Something More than True Belief |
First Paper due |
|
3/10 |
Lecture
13: Descartes’ Foundationalism; read Descartes, Meditations on First Philosophy, Synopsis, Meditations 1 and 2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
3/15 |
Lecture
14: The Reliability Theory of Knowledge |
Debate #3 |
|
3/17 |
Lecture
15: Justified Belief and Hume’s Problem of Induction; read Hume, Induction Cannot be Rationally Justified
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3/22 |
|
Second paper due |
|
3/24 |
(Spring Recess – no class) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
3/29 |
(Spring Recess – no class) |
|
|
3/31 |
(Spring Recess – no class) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
4/5 |
Lecture
19: Dualism and the Mind/Body Problem; read Descartes, Meditations on First Philosophy, Meditation 6 |
|
|
4/7 |
Lecture
20: Logical Behaviorism; read Russell, Other
Minds are Known by Analogy from One’s Own Case |
Debate #4 |
|
|
|
|
|
4/12 |
Lecture
21: Methodological Behaviorism |
|
|
4/14 |
Lecture
22: The Mind/Brain Identity Theory; read Smart, Mental Processes are Physical |
|
|
|
|
|
|
4/19 |
Lecture
23: Functionalism; read Turing, Computing
Machinery and Intelligence |
Debate #5 |
|
4/21 |
Second in class exam |
|
|
|
|
|
|
4/26 |
Lecture
23: Freedom, Determinism, and Causality |
Third paper due |
|
4/28 |
Lecture 24: A
Menu of Positions on Free Will |
|
|
|
|
|
|
5/3 |
Read
Campbell, Has the Self “Free Will”?
|
Debate # 6 |
|
5/5 |
Lecture
25: Compatibilism; read Hume, Of
Liberty and Necessity |
|
|
|
|
|
|
5/10 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5/19 |
Fourth Paper due by 12
noon. |
|