Steven
G. Smith smithsg
Home
phone 354‑2290
Philosophy 3010
HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY, FI
ANCIENT THROUGH MEDIEVAL
Fall 2004
In studying the history of
philosophy, we confront philosophical problems as they first arise and as they
get restated and reconsidered by outstanding thinkers. We are not merely learning a historical
record: this is an indispensable and
fruitful way of doing philosophy ourselves.
Moreover, in the practice of philosophical reason‑seeking we seek
to become more mature intellectually and more skillful and responsible in
communication.
Philosophy 3010 moves from
the rise of philosophy among the ancient Greeks to the development
of Western European "scholastic" philosophy in the later Middle
Ages. The root questions animating the
literature we will study are, I think, these:
What is real in the world and in ourselves? How is it possible to establish this?
Grading will be based on a
History of Philosophy Notebook (35%), a critical study (25%), a take‑home
final exam (25%), and class participation, including an argument review (15%).
P R O J E C T E D
S C H E D U L E
In the READ assignments,
although I refer to the titles of the original works, all page numbers are in
our readers, i.e. Philosophic Classics, Vol. 1 for the ancient thinkers
and Vol. 2 for the medievals. In addition, always read the editors'
introductions to the thinkers.
Week of
Aug. 25 Introduction to class. Background of Greek
philosophy.
F-M-W week starting
Aug. 27 Pre‑Socratics. Physis, logos, on.
READ: Thales, Anaximander, and Anaximenes, 1-10; Heraclitus, Parmenides, and Zeno of
Sept. 3 Socrates and Plato on the soul.
READ: Apology,
Phaedo
"
10 Plato
on knowledge.
READ: Meno, Republic VI-VII (276-288)
"
17 Plato's
Republic, cont.
READ: Republic
I-V, 216-276
"
24 Problems
with the Forms. Plato's
theological arguments in Laws.
READ: Parmenides;
from Laws X (handout)
Oct. 1 Aristotle on knowledge and the soul.
READ: From Posterior
Analytics, On the Soul
"
8 Aristotle
on substance and nature.
READ: Metaphysics,
Physics
"
15 Aristotle
on the good life.
READ: Nicomachean Ethics
MIDTERM BREAK.
"
22 Epicureanism
and Stoicism.
READ: Epicurus, “Letter to Menoeceus,”
473-477, and “Letter to Herodotus,” 459-473;
Epictetus,
Encheiridion
"
29 The
problem of time.
READ: Aristotle, Physics
(handout); Augustine, Confessions, 104-114
Nov. 5 Plotinus and
Augustine.
READ: Plato, Timaeus, 307-310; Plotinus,
Enneads, 542-548, 548-561; Augustine, On the Free Choice of the Will, 72-99
"
12 Boethius. The problem of universals.
READ: Boethius, The Consolation of Philosophy, 151-159;
Abelard and Ockham on
universals, pp. 180-188, 471-476
"
19 Anselm's
and Aquinas' arguments for God's existence.
READ: Anselm, Proslogion, 171-177; Aquinas, Summa Theologica, 345-350
CRITICAL ESSAY DUE NOV. 24.
"
26
Philosophical theology, continued: the problem of divine attributes.
THANKSGIVING BREAK.
READ: Maimonides, Guide to the Perplexed, 263-276;
Aquinas, Summa Theologica 352-356
Dec. 3 Conclusion.
FINAL
EXAM DUE DEC. 6.
Philosophy 3010
GUIDELINES FOR THE CRITICAL ESSAY
1. The essay should be 6-7 pages in length. It should be typed or word processed, with
adequate margins to receive written comments.
2. The essay will be devoted to one problem, or
a set of closely related problems, as they are treated in the writings of one
philosopher (or, exceptionally, more than one).
Here are some sample topics:
Plato's theory of knowledge as
recollection
Aristotle's conception of happiness
Augustine's argument for the reality of
God
Ibn Rushd (Averroes) on the relation
between faith and reason
Ockham's theory
of universals
The project should be defined
in consultation with the instructor. A
project not conforming to this model might be approved, depending on the
student's interest and the available of appropriate materials.
3. The GOAL of the essay is to advance our
understanding of a philosophical issue by improving our understanding of
specific philosophers' arguments. The
essay must, therefore, carefully establish what a philosopher's reasoning is on
a given problem, and also evaluate that reasoning.
(a) In the part of the essay
that is devoted to making your author's own case, you must decide which of your
author's arguments are most relevant to the problem that interests you, and
which of them you can explain to your reader.
(In a short paper you can never deal with all relevant
materials.) Be sure you explain the
reasoning of your author; do not merely say what a philosopher believed,
without showing why the belief was held.
(b) In the evaluative part of your essay, do not
merely agree or disagree with your author.
Offer reasons of your own for thinking that the author's treatment of
the given problem is right or wrong, adequate or inadequate. You can be a philosophical partner to the
author and be creative and honest at the same time.
(c) You must make effective use of the relevant primary
material, that is, your author's own argument, but in this paper you must also
make effective use of at least one significant secondary source--some
other philosopher who has written on the problem you are interested in. Whether or not you agree with this
philosopher's way of expounding or critiquing your primary author, there will
be something significant for your purposes in this fellow reader's
interpretation.
4. A note on secondary sources: Generally you can find useful collections of
good writings about well-known philosophers and the main problems they deal
with (The Cambridge Companions are good examples), plus you can shop for
interesting articles using Philosopher's Index (under Search Tools >
Research Databases on the Millsaps library webpage). Inter-Library Loan items often come amazingly
fast, but still, give yourself adequate lead time on this project so you're not
stuck at the last minute with whatever you can lay your hands on. One purpose of this assignment is to get you
used to looking around in the philosophical scholarly literature.
4. CITATIONS.
The purpose of citations is to give the reader adequate information about
the text you are using and, so far as possible, adequate help in finding your
references in other editions. Your
secondary aim is to do this unobtrusively.
When you quote from a work not originally
in English, be sure to mention the name of the translator in the first note
along with a full bibliographic report, e.g.:
1.
Augustine, Confessions, trans. Rex Warner (New York: New American Library, 1963), p. 100.
A subsequent reference would
look like this:
Ibid., p.
102.
or
Augustine, p. 102.
or
Augustine, Confessions, p. 102.
depending on what needs to be said to avoid confusing different
sources.
When all references are to one book, or
there are many references in a row to one book, you can put page numbers in
your text in parentheses at the ends of sentences, footnoting only the
first. That first footnote will
conclude, "Page references in the text are to this edition."
With the texts of Plato and Aristotle it
is customary to cite the pagination of a standard edition that is given in the
margins of all edition, e.g:
Republic 501a
Nicomachean
Ethics 1148b
Philosophy 3010 Fall 2004
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY OF SECONDARY LITERATURE
ESPECIALLY USEFUL FOR EXPLANATION
General
Multi‑volume histories of
philosophy:
Emile
Brehier, The
History of Philosophy
Frederick
Copleston, A
History of Philosophy
Ralph
McInerny, A
History of Western Philosophy
One‑volume histories of philosophy:
Julian
Marias, History of Philosophy
Bertrand
Russell, A History of Western Philosophy
Samuel Stumpf, Socrates to
Sartre
Online sources:
The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (www.iep.utm.edu)
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
(plato.stanford.edu)
The Pre‑Socratics
F. M. Cornford, From
Religion to Philosophy
G. S. Kirk, J. E. Raven, & M. Schofield, The
Pre‑Socratics
Socrates and Plato
R. M. Hare, Plato
Paul Shorey, What
Plato Said
Aristotle
Jonathan Barnes, Aristotle
W. D. Ross, Aristotle
Plotinus
Emile Brehier, The Philosophy of Plotinus
Augustine
Etienne Gilson, The
Christian Philosophy of
Medieval Philosophy
Gordon Leff, Medieval
Thought.
Aquinas
Etienne Gilson, The
Christian Philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas
A good starting point for
feminist critique
Genevieve Lloyd, The
Man of Reason
Philosophy 3010, Fall 2004
THE HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY NOTEBOOK‑‑GUIDELINES
For your course notebook, a
loose‑leaf binder is strongly recommended. This will make it easier to hand in and take
back your entries, and also to keep handouts together.
Once a week (normally) you
will be asked to bring to class a new entry in your History of
Philosophy Notebook--about 2 or 3 pp., if typed double-space--in which you
discuss the week's work (readings and discussions) both positively and negatively.
Positively, you will attempt to draw out of the week's
work the elements that you most want to
include in your own metaphysical toolkit--ideas and arguments that are, you think, valid and worth
remembering and benefiting from in the future.
You are encouraged to develop
ideas and arguments in ways that suit your own purposes.
Negatively, you will attempt to identify the mistakes
or otherwise unhelpful elements in the
week's work. (You are not committing
yourself to rejecting anything! You can change your mind later about your
earlier "mistake" calls! So
be bold!)
The History of Philosophy
Notebook is an important learning tool that will enable you to keep track of
what our class comes up with in a cumulative way. The class meetings at which Notebook entries
are due will generally be devoted to examination of them.
Several times in the semester
you will be asked to write a response to a peer's entry in the same
positive-and-negative way.
Individual Notebook entries
and responses will be graded unsatisfactory (-), satisfactory (\/), or very good
(+) depending on the attentiveness and thoughtfulness they show. The Notebook as a whole will get a letter
grade.
THE ARGUMENT REVIEW
At least once in the semester
you will provide guidance to class discussion by preparing a 1-page handout for
us in which you address such questions as these: What basically is going on in the assigned
reading? What do you think is a
particularly important passage? How does
the argument of the reading seem to fit into our group's discussion so
far? How does it speak to your concerns
in particular? What is most obscure in
it or controversial about it?
Philosophy 3010, Fall 2004
SOME COU
1. Class Attendance. Being in class, being engaged with the work
of the class, and behaving courteously are all expected. One discourtesy to avoid is coming into class
late. Better late than
never, definitely; but lateness counts as half an absence.
One percent of the course grade will be
lost for each absence from class for any reason, beginning with the fourth
absence. (For example, someone who
missed class 8 times would thereby lose 5% of the course grade, or half a
letter grade.) The reason for this: our in‑class inquiry is a crucial and
irreplaceable part of the substance of the course.
2. Late papers. Written assignments turned in late will lose
a letter grade or equivalent. Homework
may not be turned in more than one week after its due date. No work of any kind will be accepted after
the last day of final examinations.
Exceptions to this policy will only be granted to the victims of
unforeseeable and uncontrollable circumstances.
3. Plagiarism. Using the words or ideas of others without
acknowledgement‑‑that is, passing them off as your own‑‑is
a fraudulent practice called plagiarism.
Plagiarized work will receive no credit and will be referred to the
college Honor Council.
4. Incompletes. An "Incomplete" grade for the
course will only be given to students who, due to unforeseen and uncontrollable
circumstances, find themselves unable to complete course requirements during
the term and can reasonably be expected to complete them within a few weeks
after the term's end. The
"Incomplete" must be requested and appropriately justified before
the end of final examinations.
5. Disabilities.
Philosophy 3010, Fall 2004
ACADEMIC HONOR CODE of
An Honor Code is not simply a
set of rules and procedures governing students' academic conduct. It is an opportunity to put personal
responsibility and integrity into action.
When students agree to abide by an Honor Code, they liberate themselves
to pursue their academic goals in an atmosphere of mutual confidence and
respect.
The success of the Code
depends on the support of each member of the community.
The pledge signed by all
students upon entering the College is as follows:
As
a
Each examination, quiz, or
other assignment that is to be graded will carry the written pledge: "I
hereby certify that I have neither given nor received unauthorized aid on this
assignment. (Signature)" The abbreviation
"Pledged" followed by the student's signature has the same meaning
and may be acceptable on assignments other than final examinations.
It is the responsibility of
students and faculty to report offenses to the Honor Code Council in the form
of a written report. This account must
be signed, the accusation explained in as much detail as possible,
and submitted to the Dean of the College.
THE
HONOR COUNCIL 2004-2005
Megan Holcomb, Chair Dr. Kristy Stensaas,
Jamie Holcomb, Vice Chair Dr. Bill Brister
Chris Spear, Sergeant at Arms Dr. James Bowley
Maggie Baumgartner
Dana Van Deman
Four graduate student positions and one
non-voting freshman position will be filled at the beginning of the fall term.