Syllabus, Philosophy 475, Postmodern Philosophies

Fall 2005; CRN 44340; 10:00 MWF in Forestry 107

J. W. Powell, 101 University Annex, Phone x5753, e-mail jwp2

Office: 9-10 MW, 12-2 Thurs, plus tba at Wildberry’s, plus by appt.

Postmodernism is a group of problems, positions, and methods, influential in the arts and in literature, which have aroused a great deal of controversy among contemporary philosophers. Supposing this group has some coherence, its sources lie in general in European philosophy with Kant, Hegel, existentialism (especially Heidegger), Marxism, and phenomenology as its most visible influences. However, even that claim is arguable–some claim that the crucial ingredients are not those philosophical sources, but instead are responses based on acceptance of attacks against philosophy as being too intellectualized, too politically passive, and too impotent in the face of urgent contemporary political, environmental, educational, and psychological issues. Others claim that postmodernism is what results when philosophers confront the complexity of the modern world and then suffer a failure of nerve, giving up on truth, meaning, knowledge, goodness and instead allowing for anything goes, and then defending it, anything goes, as a virtue–as the only remaining virtue.

We’ll spend some time on background and on methods. The background to Postmodernism is messy and complex. Clarity on this background is essential if we are to do more than just a bare introduction. We are going to do more. We are going to critique as well as articulate some of the main issues, claims, and arguments. Because the status of arguments is one of the main issues between some postmodern philosophers and their opponents, we’ll have to justify any attempts to critique. And because we are going to try to think some of the main problems through, we are not going to do a complete survey. The topic is way too big, even if we were only to try to summarize without worrying.

The archetype of a postmodern philosophy is deconstructionism. After the section on background and our methods, we’ll start with an examination of the horse’s mouth, reading some of Jacques Derrida’s works which have been defining texts, and others which work on applications in various topics. We’ll read some secondary literature and some interviews. A main version of feminism also thinks of itself as postmodern, and we will read some Sandra Harding and other writers associated with her attacks on modernist science and logic. Richard Rorty’s recent rejection of philosophy, and endorsement instead of political activism informed by literary work incorporating the value of ordinary human lives is also postmodernist, and we will read an autobiographical essay of his with an eye toward critiquing it. We’ll consider Austin and Wittgenstein as postmodern philosophers mainly because their questions and methods would seem to make them allies.

Some of the readings are among the most difficult philosophy students are likely to encounter. –Hmmm, the readings also infect readers’ prose styles–witness the previous sentence, which says some readings are ferociously hard, but only after wrapping the point in gas.

Texts and readings: I’m setting up the course so that students can alter our path somewhat based on your interests, but so far you need buy no texts. I’ll provide everything electronically or as photocopies to be handed out in class. Before you rejoice and plan on spending the money you just saved, note that the electronic access is a mixed blessing. If you hate reading on a computer screen, you may find yourself spending both time and money on printing (ink cartridges and paper, though usually you can print these in the computer labs where the printers are faster than most inkjet printers), and you may start thinking of this as another chore.

            Many of the readings will be put on Moodle, which is an Internet-browser-accessible repository run by HSU. I’ll update assignment lists on Moodle regularly so that students can tell what assignments have been made and which we are currently mining. Some of the reading will go vvveeeeerrrrrryyyyy sssllloooooowly. Please give yourself time, and send me e-mail questions.

Grading: There will be four 1500 word essays. Each will be on one of four or five questions distributed a week ahead of its due date. A handout on grading criteria will be distributed with the first set of questions, and advice on how to organize your essays will be online. Your grade for the course will be an average of the essay grades, with a small provision (a third of a grade) for rewarding participation. Missed essays may not be made up, except that there may be an optional extra essay near the end of the course. I do not give Incompletes. Attendance is required; I’ll usually have an attendance sheet in class for you to initial. Reading the assignments is also required. I will call on students at random and expect you to be able to answer questions. I’ll give quizzes if I do not feel students are doing the readings enough to keep discussion going. Poor scores on those quizzes, if I have to give them, may reduce your essay grade average as much as one letter grade.

            The handout on grading criteria emphasizes careful exposition of arguments, providing support for your own ideas, and anticipating and dealing with good objections to your own views. I take these criteria very seriously, though there are always some students who don’t believe it til it’s too late. We will review methods for fulfilling these criteria early in the course.

Schedule (subject to change):

Week of                      Topics, Readings                               Essays assigned, DUE

August 22 Background: Modern philosophy, modernism in literature, I and II from Descartes’ Meditations, Hegel re: history, Rorty’s autobiographical essay as providing reasons for rejection of philosophy.

August 29 Lyotard, from The Postmodern Condition (1992); Margaret Rose, from The Post-Modern and the Post-Industrial: A Critical Analysis (1991)

September 5 (Monday holiday) Derrida, two essays: “Sign, Event, Context,” which is usually abbreviated since as “SEC;” and “Structure, Sign, and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences;”

September 12 Derrida, “Plato’s Pharmacy” from Dissemination: Plato, Phaedrus.

September 19 Derrida, from Of Grammatology: dichotomies which privilege and marginalize (e.g., Allport’s ingroup and outgroup as the logic of prejudice, from The Psychology of Prejudice, or speech vs. writing), the present center which plays King of the Mountain; the obligation to consider alternatives and how that might be done.

September 26 Derrida, Grammatology continued: speech as presence vs. writing as absence, logocentrism, the LOGOS laid up in heaven; signs and signified and what’s behind those two curtains if we erase them.

October 3 Derrida, Grammatology continued: Saussure, Locke, Derrida, Wittgenstein, and Powell, re: signs. The mystical transfiguration of the commonplace. Romanticizing what is present to the mind, marginalizing the physical vehicle of the word, its marks or sounds.

October 10 Derrida and John Searle: from Limited, Inc–“To what extent is language dependent on context?”

October 17 Plagues on both their houses–critique of, not Searle’s or Derrida’s answers but instead of the issue.

October 24 Ordinary language philosophy (OLΦ) as, well, what? postmodern? post-postmodern? post-Buddhist? J.L. Austin, “Three Ways of Spilling Ink,” and “Truth;” Wittgenstein, from The Blue Book.

October 31 OLΦ continued

November 7 Feminist attempts to fix or to shitcan science: Sandra Harding, from Whose Knowledge? Whose Science? Nancy Tuana, on history of science and the rupture co-occurrent with women’s access to power.

November 14 Feminism on formal logic as sexist: from Andrea Nye, Words of Power. Don Levi, “Why Do Illiterates Do Poorly at Logic?”

November 21 (Thanksgiving Break)

November 28  Critique

December 5    Critique

December 12  Finals.