- to help you improve your critical skills;
- to help you identify, construct and assess arguments;
- to help you write clear, well-structured and logically reasoned papers.
- Mr Kyle Fruh
- Ms Judith Nitcy
- Ms April Shaw
Students must register for one of the six recitation groups.
1 Performance in recitation groups will count (20%) towards your final grade. Each session has essential readings (underlined). You must do the essential reading for each of your groups.
2 Disabilities If
you have specific physical, psychiatric, or
learning
disabilities
and require accommodations, please let Professor Oddie know
in the first two weeks of the semester so that your learning needs may
be appropriately met. You will need to provide documentation of
your
disability to the Disability Services Office in Willard 322
(phone
303-492-8671).
Feinberg, Joel and Shafer-Landau, Russ (eds.) Reason and Responsibility: Readings in Some Basic Problems of Philosophy (Belmont CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 2002, 11th edition).
The following is a short introduction to philosophy which I often recommend although it is not a required text.
Thomas Nagel What does it all mean? (New York: Oxford University Press, 1987).
The little book by Nagel is an excellent introduction to a host of interesting problems in philosophy. You could read it in an evening or two—all of it. If you don’t like the kind of stuff in it, then quickly withdraw from this course and take up some other pastime. (It can be easily purchased at Amazon.com for $14.95 new, and from $7.00 used.)
Students sometimes like to look for other philosophical writings
when
they are doing papers. You are welcome to do this, of course, but
note that it really is a crap shoot, there is a lot of rubbish out
there.
And so before you do go looking elsewhere, you should master the
material
in Feinberg first.
Professor Graham Oddie (Old Main 2-43):
Wednesdays, 12.00 am - 1.00 pm.
Teaching Assistants
April Shaw:
Friday 11.30-12.30 in Prufrocks, and other times by appointment.
Judith
Nitcey: to be announced at recitations.
Kyle Fruh: to
be announced.
2 Email addresses and telephone numbers
Instructor:
Prof Graham Oddie: oddie@colorado.edu (492-8571).Teaching Assistants:
- Ms April Shaw (April.Shaw@colorado.edu)
- Mr Kyle Fruh (Kyle.Fruch@colorado.edu)
Drafts: You may submit a draft of your in-class paper to your TA some days prior to the in-class test for some feedback.
- Three in-class papers, each prepared in advance from known questions (25% each for the best two grades of your three papers).
- Your overall attendance at lectures and performance in recitations (20%).
- A final examination (30%).
Attendance at final: If you know in advance that you will not be able to attend the final because of a clash of finals, then you can apply within the first six weeks for an alternative arrangement for sitting the final.
Attendance at in-class papers: If you know in advance that you will not be able to attend an in-class paper, then you can apply at least two weeks in advance for an alternative arrangement for sitting the in-class paper.
Attendance at recitations and lectures: You need to go
both to lectures and recitations. Your attendance record at
recitiation, together with
your performance in recitations, will count 20% towards your final
grade.
Note: these all take place in the lecture room, Eaton 150.
If you get particularly interested in a topic, or intend to write on it, then the optional reading becomes recommended as well. Readings are referred to by author and page numbers (all page references are to the text edited by Feinberg).
1. Introduction:
Some brains in a vat (Monday, Aug 25)
Pollock 152-4
2. Tools
of the trade: arguments (Wednesday, Aug 27)
4. Why is
there
something rather than nothing? (Mon, Sep 8)
Rowe 24-3, Aquinas, 22-23, Clarke 23-24.
5. Apparent
design in the universe (Wednesday, Sep 10)
Paley 40-46, Parfit 34-40.
6. God
and
Evil
(Monday, Sep 15)
Mackie 100-108, Dostoevsky 89-94, Van Inwagen 108-120.
7. Pascal’s
Wager (Wednesday, Sep 17)
Pascal 114-7, Blackburn 140-142.
Note: Your first in-class paper, on God, will be on a
topic of your choosing, written in class on Monday September 29,
without
the
assistance of notes or books or other aids. See
First Paper topics (God) below. Select a topic from the
list and discuss with your TA an outline. You are also encouraged
to write a draft of your paper and discuss it with your TA before the
in-class
test. Before you begin, carefully read section
8: Writing Philosophy Papers.
9. Arguments
for freedom (Wednesday, Sep 24)
Chisholm 492-499.
10. In-class paper 1 (on God) (Monday, Sep 29)
Choose ONE TOPIC from the First
Paper topics (God), and be prepared to write on it (without notes
or
books or other aids) in class. Discuss with your TA an
outline
of the paper. You are also encouraged to write a draft of your
paper
and discuss it with your TA before the in-class test.Note:
Thursday October 5 is part of Fall Break - no class today!
11. Are
freedom and determinism compatible? (Wednesday, Oct 1)
Ayer 481-486, Stace, 486-491.
12. Freedom
and responsibility (Monday, Oct 6)
Frankfurt 523-529.
Note: Your second in-class paper, on Freedom, will be
on a topic of your choosing from the list below (Second
Paper topics: Freedom) on Wednesday Oct 22. Discuss with your
TA an outline of your paper. You are also strongly encouraged to
write a draft of your paper and discuss it with your TA before the
in-class
test. Before you begin carefully read section
8: Writing Philosophy Papers.
14. Dualism
(Monday Oct 13)
Descartes 175-182 (Meditations 1 and 2).
15. Physicalism
1
(Behaviorism)
(Wednesday Oct 15)
Churchland 318-333.
16. Physicalism
2
(The Identity Theory) (Monday Oct 20)
Carruthers 359-361.
17. In-class paper 2 (on Freedom)
(Wednesday Oct 22) Choose ONE TOPIC from the Second
Paper topics (Freedom) and be prepared to write on it (without
notes
or books or other aids) in class.
18. Objections to
Physicalism (Monday Oct 27)
Jackson 333-337, Carruthers 361-368.
19. Scepticism
(Wednesday
Oct 29)
Sextus Empiricus
154-158, Chisholm 143-149
20. Reason
(Monday Nov 3)
Descartes Meditations 2 , 4 and 5, 178-182, 189-196.
21. Experience
(Wednesday Nov 5)
Berkeley Dialogue 1, 217-236, and Dialogues
2 &3, 236-265.
21. Induction
(Monday Nov 10)
Hume especially section IV, 268-274.
22. Science
(Wednesday Nov 12)
Kitcher 321-335, Gish 311-320.
23. In-class paper 3 (on Mind)
(Monday
Nov 17)
Choose ONE TOPIC from the Third
paper topics (Mind) and be prepared to write on it (without notes
or
books or other aids) in class. Before you begin carefully read section
8: Writing Philosophy Papers.
26. Psychological
egoism (Monday Nov 24)
Feinberg 547-559.
27. Ethical
egoism (Monday Dec 1)
Rachels 559-567.
Guest Lecturer: Dr Christopher Kelly
28. Utilitarianism
(Wednesday Dec 3)
Mill 694-708.
Guest Lecturer: Professor Claudia Mills
29. The
Categorical Imperative (Monday Dec 8)
Kant 679-694.
Guest Lecturer: Professor
David Boonin
30. All questions answered! (Wednesday
Dec 10)
1. Look carefully at the topic. Before you begin
writing
your paper ask yourself which problem or which argument is at
issue.
Ask yourself what exactly the question requires. Keep that firmly
in mind as you think about and plan the paper. Do not fasten on
one
or two words (like “God” or “Evil” or whatever) and then proceed write
down everything that those words suggest.
Example A: The topic is:
“State the logical problem of evil and critically discuss one solution.”
Ask yourself: “What is the logical problem of evil?” There are many problems of evil: how to deal with it, how to bear it, how to make a meaningful life in the midst of it. But these are not the logical problem of evil. The logical problem of evil arises from the apparent logical incompatibility of the existence of evil and the existence of the Supreme Being.
Example B: The topic is:
“State and critically evaluate one version of the argument from design.”
Here the problem is generated by an argument for the existence of God, and you are required to state a version (not two or three different versions) of that argument and critically evaluate it. (See notes below on the critical evaluation of arguments.)
In my experience those who write out the topic as worded at the top of the page stick to that topic. Those who substitute their own wording or paraphrase typically wander off the specified topic onto their own chosen topic.
2. Be sure you state the problem or argument at issue as clearly as possible.
Example A:
To state the logical problem of evil you might list and number the various claims which create the logical incompatibility. This makes for clarity and ease of discussion. Make sure you make it clear what the problem is before you start discussing it.
Example B:
Make it clear which version of the argument you want to discuss. This can be done by setting out the premises in the following way:
The version of the design argument which I will discuss has the following premises:
The conclusion of the argument is
There exists an intelligent designer and creator, namely God.
3. If you are discussing a problem, like the problem of evil, run through some possible solutions to the problem. If one of those looks more promising than its rivals, then state that solution as clearly as possible, and then argue for it. Our only tool is argument, and you will have realised by now that philosophers are in the business of constructing arguments and criticizing arguments.
Critical evaluation of arguments:
Note the two features which make an argument sound. An argument is sound provided both (i) and (ii):
(i) The argument is valid
An argument is valid if the truth of the premises guarantees the truth of the conclusion. The conclusion follows from the premises; i.e. it is impossible that the premises be true and the conclusion false.
(ii) The premises are true.
Thus you can show that an argument is unsound in one of two ways. You can argue that the conclusion does not follow from the premises. Or you can argue that the premises are not true. (If you want to completely destroy the argument you can do both!)
Example B: Here you might argue that although premise 1 is true, premise 2 is not true: that sometimes the appearance of design is not best explained by the existence of an intelligent designer and craftsman. (And you might go on to argue that the theory of evolution is a better explanation of some apparent design.) Or you might argue that the conclusion does not follow from the premises. For example, the conclusion involves the claim that God (an all-good being) exists, but the apparent design that we witness around us in nature is compatible with the existence of a morally indifferent designer.
4. Strive to make your writing as simple, as clear, and as succinct as possible. There are no marks for unnecessary complexity, obscurity, or length. If a sentence is long and unwieldy, break it up into smaller sentences. If it is difficult to understand, rewrite it and clarify it. If a sentence merely repeats what you have already said, cut it out. Break your paper up into paragraphs. A good rule is: one thought, one paragraph.
A few remarks about beginnings and endings:
Please do not begin your paper in the following way:
“Ever since the dawn of time mankind has pondered the meaning of existence and the existence of God.”
Just cut to the chase. Don’t waste words like this!
Please do not end your paper in the following way:
“As with all philosophical problems, there are arguments for and arguments against, and this one has no solution and so everyone just has to make up his own mind as to what he believes.”
This is feeble. It is not true that we can learn nothing positive from philosophy or that any position is just as viable as any other. If you have nothing at all positive to show for the four pages you have written then do a new paper!
Length:
Your papers should be around 1000 words (or four pages) long. Excessive shortness and excessive length will both be penalized. Making a point succinctly (and clearly) is part of the discipline of philosophy. So you will not be rewarded for adding words unnecessarily. But to make your point clearly and precisely to someone else it is sometimes necessary to spend quite a lot of time on what might at first appear to be quite a small issue.
5. Quotations
Quotations from sources are likely to be either non-existent
or
very brief in the paper you write in class. (You will not have
access
to any books.) In out-of-class papers (which we won't be
doing in this course) all quotations from
sources must be acknowledged. Put the quotation in quotation
marks,
place a footnote number at the end of the quotation, and (when writing
a paper out of class) list the details under that number either at the
foot of the page, or at the end of the paper. Make the details of
your source clear, including: author, title, publisher/journal,
date
of publication, page numbers. For in-class papers, if you have
memoriized a quotation you should also do your best to memorize the
details of the source.
In many subjects quotations are used to back up a claim or argument. The idea seems to be that some people are authorities and so merely showing that an authority has said such-and-such is good evidence that such-and-such is true. As you will realise by now that use of quotation is out in philosophy. Each claim has to be assessed on its own merits, not on who said it. . In philosophy we are primarily interested in truth and falsity, validity and invalidity, not in who said what. Of course, it is perfectly appropriate to quote a source when attributing a view to someone, or when you feel the point simply cannot be expressed any more clearly.
Long quotations in papers written out of class should be avoided at all costs. One of your main aims in writing the paper is for you to demonstrate that you have grasped the topic and can express your point of view in your own words. Quoting long tracts from what somebody else has written hinders that aim. I will not be able to tell whether you really understand what you are quoting, or whether you are merely parroting somebody else's words.
6. Whether you are preparing for an in-class paper or an out-of-class paper, it is a bad idea to sit down and write out the final version of your paper from scratch. You will need to draft your paper. A good procedure is this.
i. After reading and thinking about the topic you will probably have some idea of what you want to say, what lines of argument you are going to follow, and what kind of conclusion you would like to end up with. Sketch this out in a plan of the paper.
ii. Then write a first draft of the paper, amending and modifying the plan as required. You will often find that actually writing out some point in detail will change your view of the matter somewhat. Put the first draft aside for a while.
iii. A day or two later write out the final version, again making changes and amendments, especially if you feel you need to do so to make the paper clearer.
7. Assessment of your paper will be based on an evaluation of five
different
features. The first four features which will be evaluated are
indicated
in the checklist which accompanies each paper topic. For example,
the first paper topic in section 1 (God) is this:
i. Begin with a clear statement of the logical problem of evil?You will be given a grade for each of these four features. In addition you will also be given a grade for overall style, grammar and spelling. These grades will be combined to give you an overall grade for the paper.
ii. Include a clear outline of an attempt to solve the problem?
iii. Include one or more criticisms of the attempted solution?
iv. Reach a coherent conclusion on the basis of the foregoing discussion?
Choose ONE of the following topics, and be prepared
to write a paper on it in-class. You should discuss a detailed
outline,
or better still, a draft of your proposed essay with your TA.
- Your paper should be around 3-4 pages (or around 1000 words) long.
- Look carefully at the topic and write on that topic alone. Do not waste words on material which does not have a direct bearing on the paper topic.
- Look at the check list under each topic before you write your paper. After you have finished your paper mark with a * if you think you have complied, and a X if you think you have not.
Begin with a clear statement of one version of the cosmological argument? Include a clear outline of one or two major objections to the argument (i.e. either to its validity, or to the truth of the premises). Include a critical evaluation of the strength of the objections? Reach a coherent conclusion on the basis of the foregoing discussion?
Does your paper: