| Program Covenant |
| Program Description |
|
 |
I. Weekly writing
II. Fall Quarter Assignments (most recent to earlier)
Thursday, Dec. 7
At 9:00 all portfolios are due that were not submitted earlier. We will continue our seminar discussion of the quarter's work. In the afternoon, we will watch a film of "Candide," the musical by Leonard Bernstein.Tuesday, Dec. 5
At 9:30, Brian Walter will talk about Leibniz's work in mathematics. In the afternoon, we will seminar on the quarter's work overall.Monday, Dec. 4
At 9:30 those with conferences scheduled for Friday, Dec. 8, should turn in their portfolios. Chuck will lecture on Leibniz (also play some music if time permits). We will seminar in the afternoon on Leibniz, all readings so far.
Thursday, Nov. 30
For the morning seminar, read "Monadology," pp. 267-281 in the Oxford Leibniz anthology.Tuesday, Nov. 28
For the afternoon seminar, read "Principles of Nature and Grace, Based on Reason," pp. 258-266 in the Oxford Leibniz anthology.Monday, Nov. 27
Due at 9:30 am: fourth essay, for Seminar Group B: distribute copies of your essay to everyone in your Writing Group (including Chuck). Also, please post your essay on the Web-x discussion site found on our Academic Program Discussion Group page.In the morning, I will show some images, offer a thought or two about "appearance and reality" as 17th c. artists were exploring it, play a tune or two...
In the afternon, we will begin our work on Leibniz, using "Critical Remarks Concerning the General Part of Descartes' Principles," pp. 22-41 (handout), and Discourse on Metapysics, pp. 53-93 (Oxford edition). Also, please read the "Editor's Introduction," pp. 5-49.
At the end of our encounter with Socrates in Theaetetus, following prolonged and unsuccessful inquiry into what knowledge might be, Socrates asks Theaetetus, “And does our midwifery declare that everything we produced was still-born and that there was nothing worth keeping,” to which Theaetetus responds, “Absolutely.”
Two millennia later, Renatus (the narrator who tells his story in the Meditations on First Philosophy) reports, at the beginning of the second Meditation, “So serious are the doubts into which I have been thrown as a result of yesterday’s meditation that I can neither put them out of my mind nor see any way of resolving them.”
These two works take us down quite different paths. Descartes’ is far shorter! The Prompt: Do these paths lead to importantly different impasses? Whatever resolutions we encounter later on, how should we compare Socratic Aporia to Cartesian Doubt?
In the afternoon, we will have our fourth seminar on Descartes, Meditations on First Philosophy. Be prepared with close work on "Objections and Replies [Selections]," pp. 63-115
In The Novum Organon, Bacon discusses illusions or idols that bar the way to an adequate understanding of nature. He outlines a method of “true induction,” which he illustrates in his study of heat, in Book II.
How will Bacon’s method lead to a better understanding of nature? Why does he think that “true induction” will correct for or lead us past the illusions of sense and understanding he has characterized as idols? Focus your discussion on his arguments, and your critique as well. Comparing conclusions – yours with his, or his with anyone else we have read – might prove interesting, but only in the context of assessing Bacon’s arguments.
In the afternoon, we will have our first seminar on Descartes, Meditations on First Philosophy.
Come with an overview of the entire volume and with close work on at least the first two meditations. this week we'll work through all six mediations. Next week we'll work with all this as well as the "Objections and Replies," pp. 65-115 in the Cambridge edition
Tuesday, Oct. 31
Group B rewrites of the second essay. Please give a copy to Chuck, together with a brief account of how your revision differs from the orginal read by your writing group.
In the afternoon, we will have our second seminar on Bacon. Read Book II, Aphorisms I - XX, pp. 102-135.
Monday, Oct. 30 third essay, for Seminar Group A: distribute copies of your essay to everyone in your Writing Group (including Chuck). Topics:With either of the following topics, spell out Aristotle’s argument through specific references to Metaphysics. If you work with secondary sources, provide clear, useable citations so that readers can readily identify what these are and how you have used them.
(1) Introduce and present one of Aristotle’s arguments against Plato’s “Theory of Forms.”
(2) Show how Aristotle compares with Plato in his approach to Heraclitean Flux and whether and how we can know anything about what there is, about sensible things, about "primary substances."In the afternoon, we will have our first seminar on Bacon. Read all of the introductory material in the Cambridge edition of The New Organon, then read Book I, pp. v-xxxv, 1-101.
Thursday, Oct. 26
In the morning, we will have our last seminar on Aristotle. Be sure you're underway with Bacon.The afternoon writing group will discuss the Seminar B essays distributed on Monday.
Tuesday, Oct. 24
The morning writing group will discuss the Seminar B essays distributed on Monday.
Group A rewrites of the second essay. Please follow the link above, "Rewriting Short Essays." Since the idea rewriting groups was cooked up on Thursday of last week, Group A writers from the Tuesday workshop may be working on their own.
Andrew Reece will lecture in the first part of our session. We will break out into seminars for the time remaining. Bring your texts. From now on, we will use Tuesday afternoons for seminar unless a guest speaker can meet with us only during this time.
Monday, Oct. 23 second essay, for Seminar Group B: distribute copies of your essay to everyone in your Writing Group (including Chuck). Topics:(1) The same topic assigned last week to Seminar Group A, or
(2) Introduce and present one of Aristotle’s arguments against Plato’s “Theory of Forms.” Spell out Aristotle’s argument, with specific references to Metaphysics. If you use any secondary sources, provide clear, useable citations so that readers can readily identify what these are and how you have used them.In the afternoon, we will have our third seminar on Aristotle. This week, we will concentrate on Metaphysics, Books VII, IX and XII, pp. 65-129 in the Signet Classics edition.
Thursday, Oct. 18
In the afternoon, we will have our second seminar on Aristotle.The afternoon writing group will discuss the Seminar A essays distributed on Monday.
Tuesday, Oct. 17
The morning writing group will discuss the Seminar A essays distributed Monday.
Group B rewrites of the first essay. Please bring three copies. You will be paired with someone from Group B during the workshop. Everyone should bring a copy of Rosenberg.
Monday, Oct. 16
Due at 9:30 am: second essay, for Seminar Group A: distribute copies of your essay to everyone in your Writing Group (including Chuck). Topic:In this essay, focus your work on Theatetus from 187b on. Approach the text with the intention of making the best of what a reader encounters there. Effective criticism presupposes this.
Choose one of the principal conclusions Socrates and Theatetus arrive at in the course of their discussion, e.g. at 200d Socrates says, “The fact is that a satisfactory understanding of knowledge is prior to the possibility of knowing about false belief”; at 208b9 Socrates says, “It follows, my friend, that it is possible for true belief to be accompanied by a rational account and still not be entitled to the name of knowledge.” Present the argument that leads to this conclusion. You may find more than one. Determine how they fit together. Are they successive or is one a sub-argument within a larger argument? If you do find successive arguments, pick the one that’s most important in the discussion.
Your objective is to show how an adept reader should understand the argument that leads to the conclusion you have chosen. Your exposition will position the reader to assess the argument, whatever opinion they might hold about the conclusion. The leading question is not whether the conclusion is right or wrong, but whether or not the argument has any force. This assessment requires the reader to understand clearly what the argument actually is. You must help your reader understand what are the stated premises and steps along the way, what additional premises are assumed or left unstated, and what is the form of the argument. (The first chapters of Rosenberg’s book can help with this, if you’re not clear about “form”, “content,” “valid” or “sound.”)
Emphasize exposition of the argument. Once you’re confident the reader understands the argument, offer what you see to be its strengths and weaknesses. This part can be suggestive and fairly brief. Your own opinions about the conclusion are not important in this essay.
In the afternoon, we will have our first seminar on Aristotle. Be prepared to discuss "Categories," "On Interpretion, " pp. 134-160 in the Signet Classic edition. Also read the "General Introduction" (pp. xi - xxxv) and the "Introduction" (pp. 130-133. Then go on to "Metaphysics," Books I, II, and IV, pp. 3-58, which begins with another "Introduction."Thursday, Oct. 12
In the afternoon, we will have our third seminar on Theatetus.The afternoon writing group will discuss the essays distributed on Monday.
Tuesday, Oct. 10
The morning writing group will discuss the essays distributed on Monday.Due at 12:30 pm: Group A rewrites of the first essay. Please bring three copies. You will be paired with someone from Group B during the workshop. Everyone should bring a copy of Rosenberg.
Monday, Oct. 9
Due at 9:30 am: first essay, for Seminar Group B: distribute copies of your essay to everyone in your Writing Group (including Chuck). Topic:In Meno the title character has an extended encounter with Socrates. (Shall we compare it to the encounter Meno’s slave has with Socrates?) How is Meno changed by the events Plato relates? (Possible addition, for those who care to take it on: the reader's point of view differs from Meno's; how does this matter in the way Plato seeks to change his readers?)
Ground your case on specific passages drawn from the dialogue.Please bring Theatetus to the morning session, which will begin at 9:30 for everyone.
In the afternoon, we will have our second seminar on Theatetus. Be prepared to discuss the entire dialogue.
Thursday, Oct. 5
In the morning we will have our first seminar on Plato's Theatetus. Be prepared for a discussion of the text at least to 187b7. The afternoon writing group will discuss the essays distributed on Monday.Tuesday, Oct. 3
The morning writing group will discuss the essays distributed on Monday. In the afternoon, we will work at bringing together the insights both seminars have come to about Meno.Monday, Oct. 2
Due at 9:30 am: first essay, for Seminar Group A: distribute copies of your essay to everyone in your Writing Group (including Chuck). Topic:Consider the demonstration of “remembering” with Meno’s slave in Meno. Socrates offers a theory to account for what the slave is able to “remember.”What is this theory? What gives it any plausibility whatsoever, and why have many found it difficult to accept? Offer a different theory that might compete with Socrates’. What are the advantages of the theory (either Socrates’ or the alternative you have introduced) you contend to be the more plausible? How will you defend this theory against the charge of implausibility?
In the afternoon, we will have our third seminar on Meno.
Thursday, Sept. 28
In the morning we will have our second seminar on Plato's Meno. In the afternoon, we will work through chapters 4-6 of Rosenberg, The Practice of Philosophy.Please write up a journal entry for one of the sessions we had on Tuesday, make a half-dozen copies or so and bring them to our Thursday afternoon session. We’ll find time to share your entries in small groups.
Tuesday, Sept. 26
In the morning we will have our first seminar on Plato's Meno. In the afternoon, we will work through the first three chapters of Rosenberg, The Practice of Philosophy.