Aristotle

This course will consist of two (roughly) equal parts: First we will study the work of Aristotle, focusing especially upon his contributions to the central metaphysical and epistemological problems; second, we will examine the work of numerous Medieval philosophers on the very same issues, focusing attention on those Medievalist who attempted to integrate Aristotle's theories into there own world view. Consequently, this course will largely concern such questions as: "What is the nature of reality?", "Does God exist?", "What is the relation between mind and matter?", etc.. (Ethics and social/political issues will not be our main concern, therefore.) Our goal will be not only to understand the points that these philosophers were making, but also to see how their views have profoundly influenced ours on a variety of issues, particularly those problems concerning the nature of reality, mind and matter, and science and knowledge.

Requirements:

One in-class midterm (25%), in-class final (25%), a bibliography and outline of the term paper (10%), term paper (30%), and class participation and attendance (10%). The paper is 10-15 pages double-spaced, on a topic checked with the instructor. The due dates of the exams, paper, and bibliography, are provided below. Although not required, I strongly encourage that you give me rough drafts of your paper, since it will greatly increase the chances of getting a good grade. The midterm and final are of the multiple-choice, true/false, and short answer or essay type. I will provide more detailed information on the requirements for the paper on the web page and later in the course.

Dates for the midterm and final are as follows:

Midterm: Thursday, March 1

Final exam: Monday, April 30, 10:30AM-12:30PM.

The tests will mainly cover the notes I give in class (which are based on the readings), so it is important to show up each day! People who don't show up for class will fair poorly on that 10% of the overall grade.

Tentative Class Schedule:

The primary readings will be fairly extensive, and the material difficult, but the secondary readings should be helpful (i.e., Robinson and Weinberg). The class notes/discussion will be one the main sources for elucidating this material, needless to say. I will daily assign the readings for each upcoming class, as well as what will be accomplished during each week. Thus, showing up for class each day is not only essential for getting the notes, but for getting the daily reading assignments, as well.

Week 1 (Jan. 9-11): Introduction/overview of Ancient Philosophy.

Week 2-8 (Jan. 16-March 1): Aristotle; Read all of Robinson; various readings from Irwin and Fine. Midterm, March 1.

Week 9-16 (March 13-April 26): Medieval Philosophy; various readings from Schoedinger. Also, read the entire Weinberg. Paper outline due, April 12.

Final exam, and Term Paper due; Monday, April 30, 10:30AM-12:30PM.

Web Page:

Information on the course will be posted on a web page (although the page won't be ready until around the end of the first week of class). The information will pertain to: syllabus, description of paper assignment, and tips for writing a philosophy paper. The address is: http://course1.winona.edu/eslowik

Term Paper

Aristotle and Medieval Philosophy 202 WSU

The papers should be typed, double spaced, and from 10 to 15 pages in length (10 page minimum, but no maximum). The papers are due on the day of the final exam. I highly recommend that you turn in rough-drafts of the paper, so that I can get it back to you with comments (and you can turn in as many rough-drafts as you like). The Bibliography and Outline is due April 12th.

There are many ways to write a philosophy paper (which, I believe, is called a "position" paper). But, you will need to accomplish the following: (1) Choose a specific philosophical problem or issue; (2) discuss in great detail both sides of the debate (what they believe and why); (3) offer any problems or criticisms that you can think of (or have researched) for both sides of this debate--this is important: you must spend time critically examining both sides of the dispute; (4) what is your overall assessment of the philosophical problem and the competing views that you have examined--which is the stronger position, and why? You may want to offer your own views on other issues related to your topic, but this is not required; however, make sure you explain why you favor a particular viewpoint if you do say what you personally believe. Try not to pick a topic that is too large: it is always better to choose a smaller topic and investigate it in great length. People are free to write on most subjects. Yet, I want all students to check their topics with me. Also, I encourage all students to submit rough drafts of their papers for critical comments. Students who work with me on their papers usually receive the best grades.

1) Pick an issue from the material that we are not going to cover and examine both sides of the issue (or as many viewpoints as are represented). That is, you will need to critically examine the issue in detail and offer any problems and counter-replies that you can think of during your discussion.

2) You can pick an issue from the material that we have already discussed in class, but did not have time to cover in depth. However, only pick this option if you have something original to say. I don't want people merely repeating what they have in their notes or what Robinson or Weinberg state in their books--I want you to examine aspects of the debate that we haven't discussed, or have barely discussed, and from your personal perspective.

3) Pick a topic that is covered in the class that relates to a modern philosophical (or historical) problem, and explain how Aristotle and/or the Medievalists dealt with the problem, and how this compares with the modern treatment of the problem. If you do choose an historical issue, make sure you critically analyze the philosophical issues: that is, write a philosophy paper, not a history paper.

Specialized projects: (These are just suggestions, since there are many such topics.)

4) Explain Aristotle's theory of ethics, and any problems you can raise concerning it.

5) Explain Aristotle's social and political philosophy, and any problems concerning it.

6) Compare and contrast Plato's and Aristotle's theory of knowledge (that is, Plato's Forms vs. Aristotle's forms).

7) Explain how the Medievalists or Aristotle tried to resolve the problem of Universals.

8) Explain the problem of motion and change as developed by the Medievalists or Aristotle.

9) Explain one of the arguments for God's existence as covered in this course. How is the argument developed? What problems can be raised against the argument?

Tips for Writing a Philosophy Paper

The main point of most undergraduate philosophy papers is to present positions backed by reasons and arguments. Even if you are simply giving a philosopher's views on an issue, you need to be able to present the arguments he or she relied on. Indeed, mere opinions, whether your own or those of a well-known philosopher, are worthy of a serious hearing only when backed by reasons.

Thus a philosophy paper is not just a series of opinions spouted by its author, nor a straightforward reporting of events, nor a “book report” or capsule summary of some famous person's views. It involves giving, and weighing, arguments. If this seems intimidating, you should know that there are some easily understood tips and techniques for writing philosophy papers. They do not eliminate the work involved in writing the paper—nothing will do that for you—but they can help you systematically approach your topic. And with enough practice, you will find yourself applying them almost automatically. (Incidentally, the plain fact is that most people who are good at this kind of thing were not born that way, but got that way by practice.)

Getting started.

A common mistake made by undergraduates is choosing a very large topic, one that calls for much more discussion than can be provided in a paper of six, eight, or even twelve pages. In general, it is better to say a lot about a narrow topic, than to say a little about each aspect of a broad topic. (Thus, for example, it is more productive to discuss in detail a single argument for the existence of God, like the Argument from Design, than to run quickly but superficially over the many different arguments for the existence of God.)

Once you have found a suitable topic, formulate to yourself a claim about it that you wish to defend. For example, if your topic is the Argument from Design, then your claim might be that this argument does not succeed in establishing God's existence. Or, if your topic is the distinction between primary and secondary qualities, your claim might be that Locke was right about this distinction, and that Berkeley, who disagreed with Locke, was wrong.

Once you have formulated your claim, try to think of arguments that support it, and also arguments that seem to undercut it. This sounds hard, but recall that, if your topic was discussed in your philosophy class in the first place, then probably there was also some discussion of arguments for it or against it. Moreover, it is perfectly acceptable to use arguments drawn from other philosophers. You must, however, show that you understand these arguments and are not just “parroting” someone, and you must acknowledge your source for the argument. Failure to credit sources properly is plagiarism, and will result in a failing grade for the course.

One of the most impressive things you can do in a paper, besides giving good arguments in support of your claim, is to anticipate objections (the “arguments that seem to undercut it,” mentioned above), and to show that they do not succeed. Moreover, it is a grave error to ignore or overlook undercutting arguments that have actually been presented in your class or in assigned readings. If you disagree with them, you should say why; but to simply omit them is to ask for a bad grade.

As for evaluating such supporting and undercutting arguments, that is a skill that cannot be imparted here in a paragraph or two. The way to learn it is to see how others do it (particularly in class, but also in philosophy books and articles), and to try to do it yourself. Some of the appropriate techniques are: (1) to assess whether the argument uses key terms properly; (2) to see whether the argument rests on one or more premises that are questionable; and (3) to see whether the argument, if accepted, leads to consequences which do not square with known facts or credible theories.

Showing understanding.

How do you show that you are not just “parroting” someone? The main way is to put things in your own words. It is all too easy to think that you understand something just because you can regurgitate some buzzwords. Real understanding typically goes hand in hand with formulating things for yourself, in your own words. Several rules of thumb are helpful here. One is to avoid jargon where possible; if you must use it, be sure to give a definition. Jargon, for our purposes, is wording that rarely or never arises in ordinary conversation, or that is being used in some non-ordinary way. Another rule of thumb is to write as if you were explaining something to someone who is intelligent, but is not a specialist in the subject, e.g. a favorite grandparent. Do not, in particular, write with jargon in the hope that your professor will like it better or will understand it better (even if you don't).

Another key technique for achieving, and showing, understanding is to come up with your own examples to illustrate key points. Many philosophical positions, though highly abstract and general, readily lend themselves to concrete illustrations. For example, Hume's ethical claim that no `ought' can be derived from an `is', comes alive when fleshed out as the claim that nowhere among the facts about what happens when I cut off Joe's head is there anything that tells me whether I ought not to cut off his head. (Hume himself knew this, of course; indeed, he gives even more hair-raising examples.)

Note, however, that examples illustrate and hence clarify, but that they do not take the place of arguments. Thus you still need to be able to explain the underlying principles in words—you still need to be able to explain why the example is an example.

Finally, do not leave things unclear or make sloppy statements and then say to the professor, “Aw, c'mon, you know what I meant!” Your professor can't read your mind, and will probably assume from previous experience with other students that you yourself do not know what you mean. The safest course is, naturally enough, to say just what you mean.

Writing with clarity.

It is crucial, not just to have something to say, but to say it effectively. The most effective presentation usually follows the old saying: “Tell 'em what you're gonna tell 'em; tell 'em; then tell 'em what you told 'em.” That is, begin with an introductory paragraph in which you say what you take yourself to be doing in the paper; then, after you have presented your case, close with a conclusion which says what you have done. If you do not say up front, in the introduction, what you will be doing in the body of the paper, your reader will probably conclude that you do not know what you are up to in your paper. (This is an all-too-frequent situation, especially for students who put off papers until the last minute.)

This does not mean that you must write your introduction first. On the contrary, it is typically better to launch into writing the body of the paper first, since the writing process often brings insights and changes of opinion that you didn't expect. So it is prudent to wait until you are happy with the body of the paper, and then go back and write an introduction that spells out in a nutshell what you are doing in the body. The same goes for the conclusion, of course.

You may be tempted to avoid “tipping your hand” at the beginning of your paper, so that your reader is led suspensefully and dramatically to the eventual unveiling of your key points. Avoid this temptation. It is much more difficult to pull off than you might imagine, and your reader will appreciate much more the up-front approach, pedestrian as it may seem.

A final point about introductions and conclusions is that they should not include grandiloquent phrases. Avoid saying things like, “Throughout history, people have struggled with the question of what makes an action good,” or “Aristotle was the greatest philosopher who ever lived, and his influence is still being felt today.” Your reader, far from being impressed, will be thinking, “Cut to the chase.” Remember, you're not actually writing for your grandparent; you should merely put things as clearly and simply as if you were.

Structure and grammar.

Proper structure at all levels of your paper will help immensely in getting your points across. Choose words in a way that avoids ambiguity. For example, if you use the word “it”, be sure that it is clear to which “it” you are referring. It can help to have a friend read your paper, looking for ambiguities that you might have overlooked. Likewise, you should avoid run-on sentences or incomplete sentences, which can be very confusing to read.