Contemporary Analytic Philosophy, by James Baillie (Recommended)
August:
- 25: Introduction to Analytic Philosophy
- 27: "The Refutation of Idealism", G.E. Moore {K}
September:
- 01: "The Refutation of Idealism" continued
- 03: "A Defense of Common Sense", G.E. Moore {K}
- 08: "A Defense of Common Sense" continued {Presentations begin}
- 10: "Proof of an External World", G.E. Moore {K}
- 15: "Proof of an External World" continued
- 17: "Descriptions", Bertrand Russell {A}
- 22: "Descriptions" continued
- 24: "What There Is", Bertrand Russell {A}
- 29: "What There Is" continued
October:
- 01: "Facts & Propositions", Bertrand Russell {K}
- 06: "Facts & Propositions" continued
- 08: "The Elimination of Metaphysics", A.J. Ayer {A}
- 13: "The Elimination of Metaphysics" continued
- 15: "The Principle of Verification", A.J. Ayer {A} {Statement of intention due}
- 20: "The Principle of Verification" continued
- 22: "Testability and Meaning", Rudolf Carnap {A}
- 27: "Testability and Meaning" continued
- 29: "Problems & Changes in the Empiricist Criterion of Meaning", Carl Hempel {A}
November:
- 03: "Problems & Changes..." continued
- 05: "Two Dogmas of Empiricism", W.V. Quine {K}
- 10: "Two Dogmas of Empiricism" continued
- 12: "On What There Is", W.V. Quine {K}
- 17: "On What There Is" continued
- 19: "Analytic Philosophy: What is it and why should one engage in it?", Dagfin Follesdal {G}
- 24: Thanksgiving break
- 26: Thanksgiving break
December:
- 01: "Analytic Philosophy..." continued
- 03: "Was Russell an Analytic Philosopher?", Ray Monk {G}
- 08: "Was Russell..." continued
- 10: "The Rise of 20th Century Analytic Philosophy", P.M.S. Hacker {G}
- 15: "The Rise of..." continued
- 17: Review, Discussion, Presentations. Paper due
Course requirements:
Quizzes. There will be a short quiz each Thursday, in class. The subject matter of each quiz will be announced in class on the Tuesday directly preceding the quiz. Each will be worth 10 points, and the one lowest quiz score will be dropped. There will be no make-ups on quizzes.
Research Paper. A research paper (5-8 pages) is due on the last day of regular classes (i.e., our last class). The subject matter must have something to do with one or more of the topics discussed in class. You are allowed to make minmal use of course readings and the bulk of your research must come from outside sources. The paper must be typed (10-12 point type, one side of page only), double-spaced, 1" inch margins all around. A statement of intention is due 15 October, in class. In this statement you should: a) Briefly sketch out the topic of your paper, b) List 2-3 of the outside sources you are using in your research. Number of points for the paper = 100.
Weekend Questions. There will be three sets of weekend questions during the course of the semester. Each set will be posted on the Web on a Thursday and will be due the next Tuesday. The address is: www.humboldt.edu/~mfg1/assignments.html. You can click on the link for this page at the course Webpage address listed above. I will let you know when you can expect to have a weekend question assignment. Full directions will be included. Typically, there will be 2-3 questions in each set and you will be asked to write on one; maximum length 3 pages, typed, double-spaced, etc. Late turn-ins are always accepted, with the penalty being a 4 point reduction in grade for each calendar day late. Number of points = 35 each.
Please make use of "Editing Notation" for writing both the weekend questions as well as your research paper. You can access a copy of this document on the Web at the following address: www.humboldt.edu/~mfg1/ednotes.html.
In Class Presentation. Each student will do one primary in class presentation and one secondary in class presentation. The primary presentation (10-15 minutes) will consist in the student presenting an important argument found in a paper we are reading, with the following requirements:
- Present the argument in English
- Present as much of the logical structure of the argument as possible
- Discuss the importance of the argument
- Assess the argument [Is it acceptable or not? Explain. Define 'acceptability'.]
- Use the chalkboard or give handouts.
- Turn in a written version of your presentation
- Give a copy of the written presentation to the secondary presenter 5 calendar days before the presentation.
If you wish, you may read from notes for your presentation, or you may read from a script, or you may "wing it". The grade will be based primarily (80%) on the written version, but the presntation must be coherent, to the point, and within the time limit. Number of points = 30.
The secondary in class presentation (5 minutes) is to be a comment on an individual's primary presentation, with the following requirements:
- Critcally assess the content of the primary presentation.
- Criticism must contain both positive and negative elements.
- Specifically: Assess presenter's ideas about the acceptability of the argument.
- Specifically: Do you agree with the presenter's version of the argument? Explain.
- Specifically: Do you agree with the presenter's assessment of the significance of the argument? Explain.
- Turn in a written version of your comments.
The main purposes of the secondary presentation are 1) to assist the primary presenter to improve her/his ideas regarding the subject matter and 2) to give some positive feedback on the ideas presented. It is important that one not attack the presenter personally but rather to attack (where appropriate) the ideas being presented. Number of points = 15.
It is quite all right, even preferrable, for the primary and secondary presenters work together from the beginning of the project and, as it were, "choreograph" the presentations. One limitation: If X is the secondary presenter for Y's primary presentation, then Y cannot be the secondary presenter for X's primary presentation.
I have made a list of readings in analytic philosophy which may be of interest to you in writing your research paper. You can find this list on the Web at www.humboldt.edu/~mfg1/anaread.html.
The format for this course is lecture/discussion. I have no intention of coming into class each day and lecturing for 1.5 hours. That's not how I like to teach; I get uncomfortable when one person runs the show. However, I do like to say a few words about the reading for the day at the beginning of each class. This should take only 15-20 minutes (sometimes a little more). After that, then I expect the members of the class to have comments and questions for the rest of us. You must have read the material assigned for the day of class, before coming to class.
I like to go to the text a lot, see what's being said. There are a number of questions I ask when I'm doing philosophy:
- 1. What do you mean? (the semantic question)
- 2. How do you know that what you're saying is true? (the evidential question)
- 3. What follows from what is said? (the logical question)
Many times the meaning is fairly clear. I find sometimes that we can beat the semantic question to death and get little or nothing of merit from doing so. On the other hand, not to ask the question would seem to me sort of soft in the head, for unless we get at least somewhat clear (this may mean only that we will come to some consensus) as to what is meant, then we cannot continue to the evidential question. The importance of the evidential question cannot be measured, so far as I can see. It goes something like this. G.E. Moore says, for example, "There exists at present a living human body, which is my body. This body was born at a certain time in the past, and has existed continuously ever since, though not without undergoing changes; it was, for instance, much smaller when it was born, and for some time afterwards, than it is now." Well, if he is claiming to know all this, I ask, "How does he know all this?" And if he is claiming only to believe all this, then I ask, "What is the basis of his beliefs?" I'm asking for evidence of the truth of what he claims. Did his mom tell him all this? Was she a good person who wouldn't deceive any of her children as to the nature of birth, growth and changes? And, did she herself know the truth, or was it that she only believed it true? In either case, what was her evidence? Perhaps, though, he gained his knowledge/beliefs about his body through his own empirical observations. The question becomes then the adequacy of empirical observation of these sorts of phenomena (e.g., Do I ever observe my body changing?).
The third question is wide open. What follows? When we ask this question, we take the two previous questions as tacitly answered to our satisfaction (at least provisionally). This is much like saying, "Let's assume, for a moment, that the semantic and evidential questions are answered to our satisfaction." Or, "Let's assume that Moore is right in what he says about the body." So, we know what he means and we think his evidence is satisfactory (again, provisionally). Well, one thing which follows is that we would have to reject many of Bishop Berkeley's claims, if we took Moore to mean that the body exists on it's own outside any mind. We can then ask, "Are we prepared to reject Berkeley?"
Of course, many questions will come up for us, as we read the philosopher's work. The three I've chosen are not sacred, but they are those with which I am first concerned. All questions asked in this class will be respected. Some will be answered to our mutual satisfaction, some will not. Hopefully, no question will receive a flippant answer from any person in the room. From that perspective, one should not be shy to say, "I don't understand this sentence." Or, "I don't understand his reasoning here." These sorts of comments are treated by me as a "can we help each other understand?" Greater understanding of the analytic movement in philosophy will be the wider purpose of this course.
_______________________________________________
___________________________________________
_____________________________________
________________________________
__________________________
_____________________
_______________
__________
______
___
Modified: 23 August 1998