Final grades for this class have been submitted and can be viewed on eGradebook.
Note: if your final grade is listed as, e.g. "B+ => A-", this means that I manually raised your grade from B- to A+ to accommodate natural breaks in the final scores. (I only raise grades to accommodate such breaks; I never lower them.)
The final exam was given.
Raw scores are posted on eGradebook. These will be converted to letter grades shortly. I have also finished grading your papers and will post final grades soon.
Have a great summer!
We had class outside today!!! It was nice.
I collected papers and participation logs.
We finished up our discussion of Quine. Then I had y'all come up with some more questions for the final:
ORDINARY LANGUAGE PHILOSOPHERS
What is Strawson’s contention with Russell?
What did Austin mean by “performative utterances”?
What is the difference between Grice’s logical implications and conversational implicatures?
How do the views of Austin and the later Wittgenstein differ?
What is a Locutionary act?
What is an illocutionary act?
What are Grice’s four maxims?
What is the significance of “cancellability”?
What would be the illocutionary act performed by saying “You are stupid” (presuming I meant it)?
By bringing up an irrelevant topic in a conversation, what maxim are you violating?
According to Strawson, what sorts of things bear meanings? What sorts of things bear truth values? (Sentences, assertions/uses of sentences)
QUINE
What is Quine’s critique of the analytic/synthetic distinction?
What does Quine mean when he says that everything exists?
What are qualia?
How/why does Quine write off qualia?
Give an example of an extensional inference. (X is P. X = Y. So, Y is P.)
Did Quine doubt that there are mental or spiritual entities?
Does Quine agree with Russell on the relevance of ethics in philosophy?
What are Quine’s criticisms of (traditional) empiricism? (I.e. what are his “Two Dogmas”)
What abstract objects does Quine believe in?
What does it mean for two terms to be co-extensional?
We continued our discussion of Quine and watched this exciting video:
There was a quiz at the end of class.
No new reading was assigned.
Reminder: papers and participation logs due Friday!
We finished our summary of ordinary-language philosophy and got started on Quine.
I extended the deadline on the paper to Friday. Participation logs are also due Friday.
For Wed.: finish Chapter 13.
We finished discussing Grice and began summarizing our coverage of ordinary-language philosophy.
Reminder: papers due Wed., participation logs Friday.
For Tues: read pp. 498-502.
We finished our discussion of miracles and started talking about religious and mystical experience.
I handed out a study guide for the final.
Reminder: participation logs due on Friday
For Wed.: read Chapter 5.
We discussed the views of J. L. Austin and Paul Grice.
There was a quiz at the end of class.
For Mon.: read pp. 488-498
We continued our discussion of J. L. Austin, focusing on his account of performative utterances.
If you didn't come to class today, you missed my fabulous Joe Pesci impersonation.
Friday: Monty Python!
For Fri: read pp. 484-488
It was "design your own final" day! We got into groups and came up with potential questions for the final. The results are below. (Note: there will also be questions on the ordinary language philosophers and Quine -- i.e., material we will cover in the remainder of the semester.)
For tomorrow: read pp. 471-483.
MOORE
What is his approach to philosophy? (analytic approach w/ emphasis on common sense)
What is emphasized in his method? (a critical examination of linguistic usage)
Knowledge – We can know something without being able to give an account of what we know
What is Moore’s approach (analytic approach)
What is the analytic approach (break down to atomic elements)
What is the common sense mentality (one modest problem at a time and try to solve it to find truth and resolve conflict)
What is Moore’s primary task of philosophy?
How is Moore’s sense data different from Russell?
What does Moore mean by “Pickwickian”?
RUSSELL
Which is NOT one of Russell’s six themes?
What is “Russell’s Paradox”?
What is Russell’s view on ethics? (not part of philosophy; it is the art of persuasion; only scientific knowledge is real knowledge)
What is his view on language, and how does this differ from Moore’s? (Sees ordinary language as sloppy and misleading)
What is the difference between hard and soft data? Give an example.
EARLY WITTGENSTEIN
Did Witt. Agree with Kant on his distinction of the knowable & unknowable? (Yes)
What is the verifiability principle? (meaning of a proposition is its method of verification)
What is every proposition a truth function of? (elementary propositions)
From what do philosophical problems arise? (confusion about logical structure of language)
What is a common trait of Kant and Witt.? (distinction between what is accessible and inaccessible)
What was the main reasoning behind the Tractatus
A logical picture of facts is a …?
The “picture” theory?
LOGICAL POSITIVISTS
What branch of philosophy did they despise? (metaphysics)
What is the verifiability principle? (meaning of a proposition is its method of verification)
Did the LPs agree with Moore or Russell’s view on ethics in philosophy (Russell)
Which science did the LPs say all other sciences could be broken down to? (physics)
Who were the four main figures in the Vienna Circle?
What is the central argument or core idea of logical positivism?
Would an LP think that murder Is wrong?
Who influenced the LPs?
What is a problem with the verifiability principle? (How can it be verified itself?)
HUSSERL, HEIDEGGER, SARTRE
What theory/philosophy influenced the phenomenological tradition?
Who introduced the “bracketing” technique?
Who was all about Dasein and its meaning? (awareness of consciousness specific to humans)
What did Sartre and Marx agree upon?
What is the basic component of life that the phenomenologists focus on? (consciousness)
Do phenomenologists concern themselves with moral and existential questions?
What do the phenomenologists hold to be indubitable? (experience)
LATER WITTGENSTEIN
How did Witt. determine the meanings of words (usage)
Would the later Witt. agree with the early Witt on the effectiveness of the Tractatus (no)
What was the biggest flaw the later Witt. saw in the Tractatus (the picture theory)
What is family resemblance to the later Witt.? (the blurred social use of concepts is effective enough for definition)
Are there any problems with philosophy?
We finished our discussion of the later Wittgenstein and began on the ordinary language philosophers.
For tomorrow: read pp. 458-468
We began summarizing our discussion of the later Wittgenstein.
For Monday: read pp. 428-440
Professor David Cole gave a guest lecture on the later Wittgenstein.
For Friday: finish Chapter 11
We continued our discussion of the later Wittgenstein.
For tomorrow: read pp. 409-415 + selections from Philosophical Investigations
We finished our discussion of Husserl, Heidegger, and Sartre, and started on the later Wittgenstein.
For Tues: read pp. 401-409
We finished Sartre and began summarizing the phenomenologists (Husserl, Heidegger, and Sartre). Handout on Monday.
Professor David Cole will guest lecture on the later Wittgenstein on Wednesday of next week. Please read the selections I emailed you, and bring them to class that day.
For Mon: read pp. 391-401
We briefly discussed Heidegger and then got started on Sartre.
I also handed out the paper assignment.
For Fri: read pp. 382-390
We divided up into Hindus, Buddhists, Confucians, Taoists, Jews, Christians, and Muslims, and answered some questions about our attitudes toward other religions. It was a great discussion!
For Fri.: read pp. 91-100
We began and finished our discussion of Husserl. Tomorrow: a little bit of Heidegger and a whole lot of Sartre.
For Wed: read pp. 308-12, 358-370
We finished going over my slides on early Wittgenstein and the LPs.
Quiz #7 was given at the end of class.
For Tues: read J & F through p. 298.
We began reviewing Early Wittgenstein and the Logical Positivists (sounds like a good name for a band!).
For Friday: read through p. 286
We discussed some arguments for and against non-cognitivism in ethics.
For tomorrow: read pp. 272-80
We began discussing logical positivism.
For tomorrow: Finish Chapter 7
We discussed the Tractatus and the "early" Wittgenstein.
There was a quiz on Moore and Russell at the end of class.
For Monday: read pp. 232-54.
I went over the main points of our discussions of G. E. Moore and Bertrand Russell.
Reading for Fri.: Jones & Fogelin, pp. 216-232
We discussed Russell's views on ethics, politics, and society.
Reading for Wed.: Jones & Fogelin, pp. 216-232
We finished G. E. Moore and started on Bertrand Russell.
Reading for Tues.: Jones & Fogelin, pp. 207-215
We discussed G. E. Moore's "philosophy of common sense," and evaluated his "Proof of an External World."
Reminder: 2nd participation log due Friday, April 4
Reading for Mon.: Jones & Fogelin, pp. 169-187
We began our discussion of Moore and spent some time on his attempt to refute idealism.
Reading for Fri: Jones & Fogelin, pp. 129-138 (skip over section titled “Ethics”)
I presented a broad overview of some of the most prominent philosophers of the 20th century.
Reading for tomorrow: Jones & Fogelin, pp. 105-119
Reminder: 2nd participation log is due on Friday, April 4
We reviewed Kierkegaard and Nietzsche.
Reading for tomorrow: Jones & Fogelin, pp. 90-105.
They're in eGradebook. Y'all did pretty well, for the most part. Each question was worth ten points. The highest score was 480/500. Here's how the points will convert to grades:
450-500 A-range
400-440 B-range
350-390 C-range
300-340 D-range
0-290 F
The plus and minus cutoffs are to be determined.
The midterm was given today.
No new reading was assigned.
Have a great spring break!
We finished up our discussion of Nietzsche.
We then had a "philosophical battle royale" between the "Kierkegaardians," "Schopenhauerians," and "Nietzscheans" on the topic of "The Ideal Individual". The highlight of the class was Kevin G.'s spot-on impression of Schopenhauer, complete with thick German accent, vigorous gesticulations, and wild, spiky hair!
The midterm is on Friday. It will consist of 40-50 multiple choice questions. Be sure to bring a #2 pencil and know your student ID number. The questions will span everything we have covered up through Nietzsche.
For the Monday after Spring Break: read Jones & Fogelin, Chapter 1.
We talked about Nietzsche's idea of the Overman (Übermensch), focusing in particular on a few salient passages from Thus Spoke Zarathustra (which you can read here).
There was a quiz at the end of class.
Reading for tomorrow: Jones & Fogelin, Introduction.
We started talking about Nietzsche (whose name DOES NOT rhyme with "peachy"), and watched a couple of videos:
First, some not-very-lively footage of the the Übermensch himself (in his last days, after his brains had turned to mush):
Second, English comedian Ricky Gervais (who, incidentally, was a philosophy major) imagines a hypothetical encounter between Nietzsche and Hitler:
For Tues: Finish Chapter 6.
The midterm is on Friday. Here are the potential questions that y'all came up with:
The Age of Reason
What was the basic assumption of the Enlightenment?
What was the mood of the Enlightenment?
What caused the change in the mood of the Enlightenment?
Kant’s Theory of Knowledge
What was Kant’s “Copernican revolution”?
For Kant, in what realm do “cause and effect” exist?
How does Kant define a priori, a posteriori, analytic, synthetic?
Why does Kant think God can be rationally justified?
What does it mean to be synthetic a priori?
What is the difference between the phenomenal and noumenal realms?
The general problem of pure reason is, A priori synthetic knowledge is impossible. What did Kant think about this?
Kant’s Theory of Value
How many of Kant's formulations of the categorical imperative are equivalent?
What is the first (second, third) formulation of the categorical imperative?
What is a good will?
What is a potential problem with the categorical imperative?
Hegel and Schopenhauer
How is Hegel’s view of reality different from Kant’s?
How does Schopenhauer’s view of the will differ from Kant’s?
Explain Hegel’s dialectic method and how it relates to his philosophy of holism.
How does Schopenhauer’s philosophy parallel with Buddhism?
What is Hegel’s “Geist”?
How does Schopenhauer view rationality?
Who was Hegel’s arch-nemesis?
What was the ultimate reality for Hegel?
According to Schopenhauer, what is sainthood?
Did Hegel accept Kant’s noumenal/phenomenal distinction?
What philosopher was Hegel most influenced by, and how did he disagree with this philosopher?
What makes up Hegel's triad?
How was Schopenhauer influenced by Buddhism?
Utilitarians, Comte, and Marx
Does science play a role in solving social problems for Utilitarians/Comte/Marx?
What is the main objection raised in class to the Greatest Happiness Principle?
What, for Marx, was the main problem brought about by industrial work?
As objections to utilitarianism, what do the “problem of rights” and “problem of omniscience” state?
In what way did Marx feel the proletariat were alienated in capitalism?
Who formulated the “Greatest Happiness Principle”?
State an objection to utilitarianism.
What did Schopenhauer and Comte have in common?
How does Utilitarianism differ from Kant's view?
How did Mill use GHP to justify political liberty?
Kierkegaard
What is the cure for misery?
How do you go from the ethical to the religious stage?
What was Kierkegaard’s main objection to Hegel?
We got into groups of 4-5 and came up with potential questions for the midterm.
I will compile all the questions and post them here soon. My aim will be to draw most, if not all, of the questions on the midterm from the ones you suggested.
Reading for Mon.: Jones through p. 256
We talked more about Kierkegaard, and went off on some tangents about various religions and religious beliefs (including the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster).
On Friday we will come up with some potential questions for the midterm. Also, I will provide you with the questions that were asked in Quizzes 1-3 (in case you didn't write them down).
Reading for Fri.: Jones through p. 253
Today we continued our discussion of Kierkegaard. We also watched a couple of "philosophical attack ads":
Reading for Wed.: Jones through p. 246
We finished up our summary of the Utilitarians, Comte, and Marx, and started on Kierkegaard.
Reading for Tues.: Jones through p. 243
We continued our review of the social philosophers of the 19th century (the utilitarians, Comte, and Marx).
Quiz #4 was given at the end of class.
Reading for Monday: Jones through p. 234
We talked about Darwin's influence on philosophy and society in general. As an illustration of this influence, and an example of how Darwin's views are often seen as being incompatible with religious beliefs, we watched a chapter from Inherit the Wind (one of my favorite films).
We then got started on summarizing the main points of the chapter.
Reading for Fri.: Jones through p. 224
Today we had the debate between the "Utilitarians," "Comteans" (who got their ideas "straight outta Comte"), and "Marxists." The Utilitarians advocated European-style democratic socialism, the Comteans advocated a centralized, planned society run by social engineers, and the Marxists (predictably) advocated violent overthrow of the capitalist system, followed by a dictatorship of the proletariat (which would be only temporary, of course).
Reminder: The midterm exam will be given on Friday, March 14 (the day before Spring Break).
Reading for Wed.: Read Jones through p. 219
Today we talked about good ol' Karl Marx.
We then got into three groups, the "Utilitarians," the "Comteans," and the "Marxists," and discussed the following questions (from their respective points of view):
1) What is wrong with society?
2) What should we do about it?
Tomorrow we will continue this discussion, and perhaps have a little debate.
Reading for Tues.: Read Jones through p. 208
We finished discussing the utilitarians and moved on to Comte.
Quiz #3 was given at the end of class.
Increment #1 of the participation log was collected.
Reading for Mon.: Jones through p. 198
We finished up Chapter 4 and started on Chapter 5
Reading for Fri.: Jones through p. 186
We just about finished our discussion of Hegel and Schopenhauer.
Reading for Wed., Feb. 20: Jones through p. 173
We finished up our discussion of Hegel and started on Schopenhauer.
Reminder: participation logs due this Friday.
Announcement: midterm will be on Friday Mar. 14 (last day before Spring Break).
For Tues:
Read Jones through p. 164
We finished up our overview of Kant and got started on Hegel (yuck).
I admitted that I can't stand Hegel (worst ... philosopher ... ever), but nevertheless tried to present his views in a somewhat sympathetic light. On Monday we will finish up Hegel and move on to his bitter rival Schopenhauer (whom I like quite a bit).
There was a quiz at the end of class.
Reading for Mon.: finish Chapter 4.
Today I tried to summarize Kant's philosophical views in 50 minutes -- not an easy task!
For Friday: read Jones pp. 140-144 (we are skipping over pp. 124-140)
We discussed Kant's (rather perplexing) account of free will, as well as his views on God and immortality.
Tomorrow we will summarize our discussion of Kant, emphasizing the points and concepts that are most important to understand and remember.
For tomorrow: read Jones through p. 124.
We covered the 2nd and 3rd formulations of the Categorical Imperative, and got started on Kant's account of free will.
For tomorrow: read Jones through p. 117 (feel free to skim over the poetry)
For ambitious students who like to read ahead: note that we will be skipping over pp. 124-140
After reviewing Kant's Categorical Imperative (first formulation), we got into small groups and discussed some ways in which it might be considered problematic or defective. (Be sure to record small group participation in your participation log!)
For Mon.: read Jones through p. 99
We got started on Kant's theory of value.
There was a quiz at the end of class.
Reading for Friday: Jones through p. 90.
We finished up our discussion of Kant's theory of knowledge, making as much sense of it as we could.
Reading for tomorrow: Jones through p. 78.
Today we continued our discussion of Kant's attempted solution to the "general problem of pure reason". In particular, we talked about Kant's view that certain synthetic a priori judgments are not justified by experience, but rather are necessary conditions for experience.
Reading for tomorrow: finish Jones, Chapter 2.