Reading and Assignment Schedule

(1) What is Philosophy? [show]

(1) What is Philosophy? [hide]

WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW HOW TO DO

• Identify defining features of philosophy as a discipline

• Identify traditional areas of philosophy

• Explain the concepts of cognitive dissonance and belief perseverance.

• Explain the difference between knowledge, justified belief, and mere opinion.

• Explain the difference between proving X and having evidence for X.

READINGS:

• Naragon, §§1-3

OTHER RESOURCES:

• Walt Whitman, “A Noiseless Patient Spider” (audio)

• Video: Monty Python, “The Philosopher’s Song” [video]

• Video/YouTube: AAP, “What is Philosophy?” (15m 49s) [video]

•[EC] Essay: Mercier and Sperber, “Why Do Humans Reason? Arguments for an Argumentative Theory” (Behavioral and Brain Science, 2011) [text]

• Video: “Our Place in the Universe” [video/.avi] [video/.mpg]

•[EC] Video: Physicist David Deutsch on our place in the universe (19m 0s) [web video]

(2) Analyzing Arguments [show]

(2) Analyzing Arguments [hide]

WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW HOW TO DO:

• Describe and explain Plato’s “Allegory of the Cave”

• Describe and evaluate Postman’s point in his brief essay

• Distinguish sentences, statements, propositions

• Identify simple and complex statements

• Identify premises and conclusions

• Identify necessary and sufficient conditions

• Identify and complete enthymemes

• Diagram extended arguments

READINGS:

• Naragon, §§4-5

• Plato’s “Allegory of the Cave” (early 4th c. BCE)

• Neil Postman “Darkness and the Light” (1995)

OTHER RESOURCES:

• Text/Video: Monty Python, “Argument Clinic” [text] [video]

• Video: YouTube versions of Plato’s “Allegory of the Cave” [long and serious] [short and less serious]

• Illustration/Description: Marc Cohen, “Allegory of the Cave” [web page]

• YouTube Video: “The Matrix and Plato’s Cave” [video (5m 1s)]

•[EC] Audio: Simon Blackburn on Plato's Cave (Philosophy Bites) (13m 42s) [audio]

• Slide Presentation: Dona Warren (Philosophy Department, The University of Wisconsin – Stevens Point) has prepared a useful set of presentations on argument recognition, analysis, evaluation, and construction.  Students still struggling with these issues might want to watch her presentation (about 40 minutes total) [slides with narration].

(3) Deductive Logic [show]

(3) Deductive Logic [hide]

WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW HOW TO DO:

• Explain Russell’s view of the value of philosophy

• Define soundness and validity

• Use the method of counter-example to show invalidity:

- alternate scenario method

- substitution method

• Identify basic forms of deductive arguments (and two invalid forms)

READINGS:

• Naragon, §6

• Bertrand Russell, “The Value of Philosophy” (1912)

OTHER RESOURCES:

• Slide Presentation: Dona Warren (Philosophy Department, The University of Wisconsin – Stevens Point) has prepared a useful set of presentations on argument recognition, analysis, evaluation, and construction.  Students still struggling with these issues might want to watch her presentation (about 40 minutes total) [slides with narration].

(4) Inductive Logic [show]

(4) Inductive Logic [hide]

WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW HOW TO DO:

• Distinguish inductive from deductive arguments

• Define cogency and strength

• Identify and evaluate different kinds of inductive argument

- generalization

- authority

- analogy

- hypothetical induction

READINGS:

• Naragon, §7

OTHER RESOURCES:

(5) On Belief [show]

(5) On Belief [hide]

WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW HOW TO DO:

• Describe the central aspects of American Pragmatism

- Fact/Value Continuity

- Fallibilism

- Theory of meaning

- Account of truth

• Explain and evaluate the highlights of Peirce’s essay

- Nature of doubt, belief, and inquiry

- What it means to “fix a belief”

- Four methods for fixing a belief

• Explain and evaluate the highlights of Clifford’s essay

- Clifford’s thesis

- Justified beliefs vs true beliefs

- Beliefs and their consequences

• Distinguish “a reason for P’s truth” (being justified in believing P) from “a proof of P’s truth” (knowing that P is true).

• Distinguish justifying a belief to oneself and justifying that belief to another

READINGS:

• C. S. Peirce, “Fixation of Belief” (1877)

• W. K. Clifford, “The Ethics of Belief” (1877)

OTHER RESOURCES:

•[EC] Essay: Mercier and Sperber, “Why Do Humans Reason? Arguments for an Argumentative Theory” (Behavioral and Brain Science, 2010) [text]

•[EC] David Deutsch, “A New Way to Explain Explanation” (16m 39s) [web video]

•[EC] Film: Twelve Angry Men (1957; Dir.: Sydney Lumet; 1h 36m) [trailer]

•[EC] Film: American History X (1998; Dir.: Tony Kaye; 1h 58m) [trailer]

(6) Plato’s Apology: The Role of the Philosopher [show]

(6) Plato’s Apology: The Role of the Philosopher [hide]

WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW HOW TO DO:

• Describe the beginning of philosophy with the Presocratics

- Appearance and reality

- Naturalism

• Compare Socrates and the Sophists

- Who were the sophists?

- Why was Socrates thought to be a sophist?

- How did they differ?

• Recognize and describe Socratic irony

• Describe and evaluate Socrates’ understanding of the philosophical way of life

- The nature and value of truth

- The human epistemic condition

- The philosopher’s role in society

• Discuss the relationship of Sartre’s short story to Plato's Apology

READINGS:

• Naragon, §§9-10

• Plato, Apology (early 4th c. BCE)

• Jean-Paul Sartre, “The Wall” (1939)

OTHER RESOURCES:

• Reading: Bertrand Russell on Socrates (9m 58s) [YouTube]

• Website: The Last Days of Socrates (Clark University): Plato’s dialogues with images and many helps for the beginning student. [web]

•[EC] Film: Cool Hand Luke (1967; Dir.: Stuart Rosenberg; 2h 7m) [trailer]

•[EC] Film: Malcolm X (1992; Dir.: Spike Lee; 3h 21m) [trailer]

•[EC] YouTube: Harry Frankfurt on Bullshit. [interview (9m 59s)] [interview (2m 18s)]

(7) Plato’s Meno: The Benefits of Philosophy [show]

(7) Plato’s Meno: The Benefits of Philosophy [hide]

WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW HOW TO DO:

• Describe each of the three levels of reading Plato

- As a piece of litarature

- Substantive claims

- Methodological claims

• Describe the various substantive claims made in the Meno:

- difference between knowledge and “true belief”,

- the theory of Forms,

- the Learner's Paradox,

- the Theory of Recollection

• Describe the various methodological claims made in the Meno:

- defining one's terms,

- the benefits of the elenchus,

- the hypothetical method.

READINGS:

• Naragon, §11

• Plato, Meno (early 4th c. BCE)

OTHER RESOURCES:

•[EC] Poem: Thomas Gray, “Ode on a Distant Prospect of Eton College” (1747) [text]

(8) Plato’s Euthyphro: The Nature of Definitions [show]

(8) Plato’s Euthyphro: The Nature of Definitions [hide]

WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW HOW TO DO:

• Describe these substantive claims made in the Euthyphro:

- anthropomorphism

- religious epistemology

- religion and morality

• Describe these concepts related to the nature of definition:

- Necessary and sufficient conditions (see §4 for review)

• Describe the proper form of a definition (and the way in which the other forms fail)

- Ostensive definition

- Definition by subclass

- Definition by superclass

- Definition by genus and difference

READINGS:

• Naragon, §12

• Plato, Euthyphro (early 4th c. BCE)

OTHER RESOURCES:

•

(9) The Citizen and the State [show]

(9) The Citizen and the State [hide]

WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW HOW TO DO:

• Describe the basic features of a state

• Explain and evaluate these substantive claims in the Crito

- “It is better to be harmed than to do harm.”

- “The State is like one’s parents.”

• Explain and evaluate the methodological claims in the Crito:

- Listen to the experts

• Describe and evaluate the relationship between the citizen and the state

• Explain the following concepts from King’s “Letter from a Birmingham Jail”:

- Negative and positive peace.

- Just and unjust laws.

- The myth of time.

- Civil disobedience.

READINGS:

• Naragon, §13

• Plato, Crito (early 4th c. BCE)

• Martin Luther King, Jr., “Letter from a Birmingham Jail” (1963)

OTHER RESOURCES:

•[EC] Text: Henry David Thoreau, “Essay on Civil Disobedience” (1848) [text]

•[EC] Film: Gandhi (1982; Dir.: Richard Attenborough; 3h 11m) [trailer]

•[EC] Film: V for Vendetta (2005; Dir.: James McTeigue; 2h 13m) [trailer]

•[EC] Film: Brazil (1985; Dir.: Terry Gilliam; 2h 23m) [trailer]

•[EC] Film: Cradle Will Rock (1999; Dir.: Tim Robbins; 2h 14m) [trailer]

•[EC] Film: Why We Fight (2006; Dir.: Eugene Jarecki; 1h 39m) [trailer]

(10) Why Be Moral? [show]

(10) Why Be Moral? [hide]

WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW HOW TO DO:

• Explain the difference between ethics and morality

• Identify and evaluate possible sources of morality

• Distinguish ethics-based morality from conventional morality, etiquette, the law, and prudence

• Describe what it means for an action to be morally required, supererogatory, prohibited, or neutral

• Explain the usefulness of moral theory

• Describe and evaluate Glaucon’s challenge to Socrates

• Describe the Prisoner’s Dilemma, and the lesson Singer draws from it

READINGS:

• Naragon, §45

• Plato, “Ring of Gyges” (from The Republic; early 4th c. BCE)

• Peter Singer, “The Prisoner’s Dilemma” (1981)

OTHER RESOURCES:

•[EC] Text: Natalie Angier, “Why We’re So Nice” [text]

•[EC] Text: Olivia Judson, “The Selfless Gene” [text]

• Film: Lord of the Flies (1990; director: Harry Hook; 1h 30m) [trailer]

•[EC] Film: High Noon (1952; director: Fred Zinnemann; 1h 51m) [trailer]

•[EC] Film: Crash (2005; director: Paul Haggis; 2h 2m) [trailer]

•[EC] Film: Paradise Now (2005; director: Hany Abu-Assad; 1h 31m) [trailer]

(11) From Moral Intuition to Moral Theory [show]

(11) From Moral Intuition to Moral Theory [hide]

WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW HOW TO DO:

• Explain the following and how they are related: moral intuitions, judgments, principles, and theories

• Explain and evaluate the social-intuitionist model of moral judgment

• Explain the three forms of moral disagreement

• Explain the nature of a moral dilemma

• Explain what it means for one moral principle to override another

• Explain the three dimensions of morality and the corresponding moral theories

READINGS:

• Naragon, §46

• Mark Twain, selection from The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn (1885)

OTHER RESOURCES:

•[EC] Text: Jonathon Haidt, “The New Synthesis in Moral Psychology” [text]

•[EC] Video: Jonathon Haidt on our Five Basic Moral Traits, and the difference between Liberals and Conservatives [web video]

•[EC] Text: Paul Bloom, “How do Morals Change?” (Nature, 2010) [text]

•[EC] Text: Franz de Waal, “Do Humans Alone ‘Feel your pain’?” [text]

•[EC] Text: Hugh LaFollette and Niall Shanks, “Util-izing Animals” [text]

•[EC] Film: Dead Man Walking (1995; director: Tim Robbins; 2h 2m) [trailer]

•[EC] Film: Sophie’s Choice (1982; director: Alan Pakula; 2h 30m) [trailer]

•[EC] Film: Erin Brockovich (2000; director: Steven Soderbergh; 2h 12m) [trailer]

(12) Ethical Subjectivism [show]

(12) Ethical Subjectivism [hide]

WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW HOW TO DO:

• Distinguish normative ethics from metaethics

• Distinguish ethical subjectivism from ethical objectivism

• Describe and evaluate simple subjectivism

• Describe and evaluate divine command

• Describe and evaluate ethical relativism

• Describe the difference between cultural relativism and ethical relativism

• Describe the difference between ethical relativism and ethical universalism

READINGS:

• Naragon, §47

• Jesse Prinz, “Morality is a Culturally Determined Response” (2011)

OTHER RESOURCES:

•[EC] Ruth Benedict, “Anthropology and the Abnormal” (1934) [text]

•[EC] Film: Amistad (1997; director: Steven Spielberg; 2h 35m) [trailer]

•[EC] Film: Thank You for Smoking (2006; director: Jason Reitman; 1h 32m) [trailer]

•[EC] Film: The Lord of the Flies (1990; director: Harry Hook; 1h 30m) [trailer]

•[EC] Film: Do the Right Thing (1989; director: Spike Lee; 2h 0m) [trailer]

•[EC] Text: Franz de Waal, “Fair Play: monkeys share our sense of injustice” (2009) [text]

•[EC] Text: Bruce Bower, “Morality Play” (2009) [text]

•[EC] Text: Desmond Stewart, “The Limits of Trooghaft” [text]

•[EC] Audio: Walter Sinott-Armstrong, “Morality without God” (Philosophy Bites)(13m 39s) [audio]

•[EC] Audio: Simon Blackburn on Moral Relativism (Philosophy Bites)(14m 14s) [audio]

•[EC] Sam Harris: Science can answer moral questions (23m 7s) [web video]

(13) Aristotle’s Virtue Ethic [show]

(13) Aristotle’s Virtue Ethic [hide]

WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW HOW TO DO:

• Describe Aristotle’s account of science

• Explain Aristotle’s account of the good

• Explain the difference between final and instrumental goods

• Explain Aristotle’s distinction between theoretical and practical reason

• Explain Aristotle’s discussion of precision

• Explain how the good, happiness, function, and the parts of the human soul are connected in Aristotle’s ethics

• Describe Aristotle’s account of intellectual and moral virtue

READINGS:

• Naragon, §50

• Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics (4th c. BCE) (selection)

OTHER RESOURCES:

•[EC] Film: Shane (1953; director: George Stevens; 1h 58m) [trailer]

•[EC] Film: Crimes and Misdemeanors (1989; director: Woody Allen; 1h 47m) [trailer]

•[EC] Film: Sling Blade (1996; director: Billy Bob Thornton; 2h 37m) [trailer]

•[EC] Barry Schwartz: On Our Loss of Moral Wisdom (20m 48s) [web video]

•[EC] Audio: Myles Burnyeat on Aristotle on Happiness (Philosophy Bites)(12m 15s) [audio]

(14) Mill’s Utilitarianism [show]

(14) Mill’s Utilitarianism [hide]

WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW HOW TO DO:

• Explain Mill’s Greatest Happiness Principle, and how it is related to the following:

- Theory of the Right

- Consequentialism

- Hedonism

- Impartiality

• Describe and evaluate problems with utilitarianism

- practical and theoretical problems

- “Swine's Morality”

- Calculating consequences

- Violations of duties

- Theory of the Good

READINGS:

• Naragon, §§51-52

• John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism (1863) (selection)

• Ursula Le Guin, “The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas” (1973)

OTHER RESOURCES:

•[EC] Film: Jacob the Liar (1974; Dir.: Frank Beyer; 1h 36m).  There’s also a later version, in English, with Robin Williams [trailer].

•[EC] Audio: Peter Singer on Animals (Philosophy Bites)(16m 43s) [audio]

•[EC] Audio: Brad Hooker on Consequentialism (Philosophy Bites)(13m 24s) [audio]

•[EC] Audio: Roger Crisp on Utilitarianism (Philosophy Bites)(13m 7s) [audio]

(15) Kant’s Deontologism [show]

(15) Kant’s Deontologism [hide]

WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW HOW TO DO:

• Explain the good will and its relationship to duty

- What is a will?

- What is reason?

- What is the good will?

• Explain how Mill and Kant differ regarding the moral relevance of the consequences of actions

• Explain the different conceptions of moral value found in Kant

- Intrinsic vs extrinsic value

- Final vs instrumental value

• Explain Kant’s understanding of duty

- Actions conforming with duty and motivated by duty

- Perfect and imperfect duties

• Explain Kant’s Categorical Imperative, and its first two formulations

- The Categorical Imperative as a meta-rule

- Categorical vs hypothetical imperatives

READINGS:

• Naragon, §§53-55

• Immanuel Kant, Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals (1785) (selection) [text]

OTHER RESOURCES:

•[EC] Onora O’Neill, “A Simplified Account of Kant’s Ethics” (1986) [text]

•[EC] Film: Dogville (2004; Dir.: Lars von Trier; 2h 57m) [trailer]

•[EC] Film: Life is Beautiful (1998; Dir.: Roberto Benigni; 1h 58m) [trailer]

(16) Believing and Disbelieving in God [show]

(16) Believing and Disbelieving in God [hide]

WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW HOW TO DO:

• Explain what it means to “believe in God”

• Explain the difference between theism, atheism, and agnosticism

• Explain why belief in God might be thought problematic

- “God of the Gaps”

- Plurality of religions

- Problem of evil

• Explain Durkheim’s explanation of religious belief

• Explain Freud’s explanation of religious belief

READINGS:

• Naragon, §§36-37

• Raymond Smullyan, “Conversation with God” (1977)

• Albert Einstein, “Religion and Science” (1930)

OTHER RESOURCES:

• Web Site: America’s Four Gods [web]

• YouTube: Bertrand Russell on Belief in God (3m 26s)[web video]

• YouTube: Raymond Smullyan, in perhaps another conversation with God (3m 51s)[web video]

•[EC] Text: Fyodor Dostoyevsky, “The Grand Inquisitor” (from The Brothers Karamazov) [text]

•[EC] Text: Stephen Pinker, “God and Science” (from the John Templeton Foundation series: “Does science make belief in God obsolete?” [2009]) [text]

•[EC] Film: Oh, God! (1977; Dir.: Carl Reiner; 1h 44m) [trailer]

•[EC] Film: Bruce Almighty (2003; Dir.: Tom Shadyac; 1h 42m) [trailer]

•[EC] Video: Sam Harris, “The View from the End of the World” (58m) [web video]

•[EC] Video: Walter Isaacson, “Einstein’s God” (5m 27s) [web video]

•[EC] Text: Jerome Groopman, “God on the Brain” [texts]

(17) Faith and Reason [show]

(17) Faith and Reason [hide]

WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW HOW TO DO:

• Explain the traditional understanding of the word ‘faith’

• Describe natural and revealed religion

• Describe general and special revelation

• Explain and evaluate Rousseau’s arguments against revealed religion

• Explain the kinds of proofs of God’s existence, and the philosophical positions regarding these

READINGS:

• Naragon, §38

• Jean-Jacques Rousseau, “The Creed of the Priest of Savoy” (1762)

OTHER RESOURCES:

•[EC] Newspaper: Ft. Wayne Mother Kills her Demon-Possessed Toddler (27 May 2011) [article]

•[EC] Text: The Seventh Seal (transcript) [text]

•[EC] Video: Bill Moyer’s Journal interview with Karen Armstrong (13 March 2009) [web video]

•[EC] Film: The Seventh Seal (1957; Dir.: Ingmar Bergman; 1h 36m) [trailer]

•[EC] Film: Breaking the Waves (1996; Dir.: Lars von Trier; 2h 36m) [trailer]

•[EC] Film: The Apostle (1998; Dir.: Robert Duvall; 2h 14m) [trailer]

•[EC] Text: Jerome Groopman, “God on the Brain” [texts]

(18) The Argument from Design [show]

(18) The Argument from Design [hide]

WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW HOW TO DO:

• Describe Aquinas’ Fifth Way

• Describe Paley’s argument for God’s existence

• Explain the difference between the teleological argument and the argument from design

• Explain the features of a “machine-like structure” (MLS) and the nature of purpose.

• Explain how evolutionary biology weakens the argument from design

• Describe Begley’s understanding of the relationship between religion and science

READINGS:

• Naragon, §41

• William Paley, Natural Theology (1802) (selection)

• Sharon Begley, “Science finds Religion” (1998)

OTHER RESOURCES:

•[EC] Film: Inherit the Wind (1960; Dir.: Stanley Kramer; 2h 13m) [trailer]

• YouTube clip from Inherit the Wind (8m 35s) [web video]

•[EC] Text: William Phillips, “Science and Religion” (from the John Templeton Foundation series: “Does science make belief in God obsolete?” [2009]) [text]

•[EC] Text: Daniel Gilbert, “Vagaries of Religious Experience” [text]

• Video: Evolution of the Eye (PBS)(4m 8s) [video]

•[EC] Audio: Stewart Sutherland on Hume on Design (Philosophy Bites)(11m 18s) [audio]

•[EC] Video: Biologist Richard Dawkins on biological evolution [if you write on this, you will need to focus on just a portion of his lengthy (but wonderfully clear) talk] (1h 19m 8s) [web video]

•[EC] Video: Brian Eno and Will Wright on Generative Systems (1h 38m 40s) [web video]

• Video: Physicist George Smoot on the design in the universe [too complicated to offer for EC, but too cool not to post here] (19m 0s) [web video]

(19) The Problem of Evil [show]

(19) The Problem of Evil [hide]

WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW HOW TO DO:

• Describe the basic features of a theodicy: What is it and why is it needed?

• Explain the difference between viewing evil as an instrumental good and as a by-product of the good

• Describe and evaluate the logical argument from evil

• Describe and evaluate the evidential argument from evil

• Describe the free will defense

• Explain why Leibniz believed that we live in “the best of all possible worlds”

• Explain Ivan Karamazov’s comment that he is “returning his ticket”

• Explain Wittgenstein’s account of religion as a “form of life”

READINGS:

• Naragon, §§42, 44

• Fyodor Dostoyevsky, “Rebellion” (from The Brothers Karamazov) (1880)

OTHER RESOURCES:

•[EC] Bertrand Russell, “Why I am not a Christian” (1927) [text]

•[EC] Text: David Hume, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion (selection) [text]

•[EC] Film: Shadowlands (1993; Dir.: Richard Attenborough; 2h 13m) [trailer]

•[EC] Audio: A. C. Grayling on Atheism (Philosophy Bites)(12m 51s) [audio]

•[EC] Audio: Stephen Law on the Problem of Evil (Philosophy Bites)(14m 23s) [audio]

•[EC] Video: Reverend Tom Honey on making sense of God in the presence of evil (19m 33s) [web video]

(20) What Can I Know? [show]

(20) What Can I Know? [hide]

WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW HOW TO DO:

• Describe the differences between Aristotelian science and modern science

• Describe the central features of modernity

- The new science

- Emphasis on the individual

- Questioning tradition and authority

• Explain the traditional understanding of knowledge and belief

• Describe the two basic models of justification

- Coherentism

- Foundationalism

• Explain why Descartes thinks the sciences need a new foundation

• Explain Descartes’ skeptical approach, and how it is related to the following:

- Methodological doubt

- Dreams and demons

- Radical skepticism

READINGS:

• Naragon, §§14-16

• René Descartes, Meditations on First Philosophy, “First Meditation” (1641)

OTHER RESOURCES:

•[EC] Film: Rashomon (1950; Dir.: Akira Kurosawa; 1h 29m) [trailer]

•[EC] Film: The Matrix (1999; Dir.: Larry Wachowski; 2h 24m) [trailer]

•[EC] Film: A Beautiful Mind (2001; Dir.: Ron Howard; 2h 16m) [trailer]

•[EC] Film: Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004; Dir.: Michael Gondry; 1h 48m) [trailer]

•[EC] Film: Open Your Eyes (1997; Dir.: Alejandro Amenabar; 1h 57m) [trailer]

•[EC] Film: Solaris (2002; Dir.: Steven Soderbergh; 1h 39m) [trailer]. The 1972 Tarkovksy film of the same name is preferable, but rather longer (2h 49m) [trailer]

•[EC] Text: Hubert Dreyfus and Stephen Dreyfus, “The Brave New World of The Matrix” [text]

•[EC] Text: David Chalmers, “The Matrix as Metaphysics” [text]

• Video/YouTube: Mark Steel on Descartes’ Doubt (6m 18s) [video] More Steel on Descartes: [1/3 (9m 24s)] [2/3 (9m 39s)] [3/3 (10m 8s)]

• Audio: A. C. Grayling on Descartes’ Cogito (Philosophy Bites)(12m 50s) [audio]

•[EC] Audio: Barry Stroud on Skepticism (Philosophy Bites)(12m 51s) [audio]

(21) Cartesian Dualism [show]

(21) Cartesian Dualism [hide]

WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW HOW TO DO:

• Explain Descartes’ “Cogito Argument”

• Explain Borges’ story, and how Descartes would understand it

• Explain Descartes’ answer to the question: What am I?

- Explain what he means by Res cogitans

• Describe Descartes’ reconstruction of the world

- Solipsism

- Proving God’s existence

- Intellectual error

- Clear and distinct ideas

• Explain Cartesian Dualism and its puzzles

- Two kinds of substance

- Human beings as mind/body complexes

- Problem of mind/body interaction

READINGS:

• Naragon, §§17-19

• René Descartes, Meditations on First Philosophy, “Second Meditation” (1641)

• Jorge Luis Borges, “The Circular Ruins” (1940)

OTHER RESOURCES:

• W. B. Yeats, “The Second Coming” (audio)

• Video/YouTube: Claymation version of Borges, “The Circular Ruins” (6m 18s) [video]

• (Plus: see the resources listed in the previous module.)

(22) Locke’s Empiricism [show]

(22) Locke’s Empiricism [hide]

WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW HOW TO DO:

• Describe the basic features of the physiology of perception

• Distinguish rationalism and empiricism

• Describe Locke’s view of the human mind at birth

• Describe innate ideas, and arguments for and against their existence

• Describe atomism

• Explain Locke’s distinction between qualities and ideas

• Explain the importance of distinguishing ideas from their causes

- representational theory of ideas

- real objects and sensible objects

• Explain the difference between primary and secondary qualities

READINGS:

• Naragon, §§20-21

• John Locke, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1690) (selection)

OTHER RESOURCES:

• Animation: Mark Newbold’s Animated Necker Cube [web]

• Video: Five Pretty Cool Optical Illusions [YouTube]

•[EC] Text: Howard Hughes Medical Institute, “Seeing, Hearing, and Smelling the World” (1995) [pdf]

•[EC] Text: Richard Gregory, “Brainy Mind” (1998) [text]

•[EC] Text: Frederick Lepore, “When Seeing is Not Believing” (2002) [text]

•[EC] Video: Steven Pinker, “Chalking it up to the Blank Slate” (2003) (22m 42s)[web video]

•[EC] Video: Henry Markham, “Building a Brain in a Supercomputer” (2009) (14m 51s)[web video]

(23) Minds, Brains, and Selves [show]

(23) Minds, Brains, and Selves [hide]

WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW HOW TO DO:

• Discuss the relationship between the mind and the self

• Distinguish the dualist and physicalist models of the mind

• Distinguish the following physicalist models

- Mind/Brain identity theory

- Functionalism

• Describe blindsight, phantom limbs, and their implications for our understanding of the mind

READINGS:

• Naragon, §§25-27

• René Descartes, Discourse on Method (1637) (selection)

• Stephen Law, “Could a Machine Think?” (2003)

• YouTube Videos: Alex the Parrot [PBS clip/Alan Alda (3m 11s)] [Video 2 (2m 6s)] [Video 3 (3m 29s)]

OTHER RESOURCES:

• Video: Irene Pepperberg on Parrot Intelligence (Animal Planet, July 2008), (9m 57s)[web video]

• YouTube Videos: V. S. Ramachandran on the Brain [Blindsight (8m 58s)] [Episode 1, pt. 1 (10m 0s)] [Episode 1, pt. 2 (10m 0s)] [Episode 1, pt. 3 (10m 6s)]

• Video: Robert Sapolosky, “The Uniqueness of Humans” (2009) (37m 26s)[web video]

•[EC] Film: Awakenings (1990; Dir.: Penny Marshall; 2h 0m) [trailer]

•[EC] Text: Atul Gawande, “The Itch” (2008) [text]

•[EC] Audio: David Papineau on Physicalism (Philosophy Bites)(15m 50s) [audio]

•[EC] Audio: Tim Crane on Mind and Body (Philosophy Bites)(10m 45s) [audio]

(24) Minds and Machines [show]

(24) Minds and Machines [hide]

WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW HOW TO DO:

• Describe Artificial Intelligence

• Describe a Turing machine

• Discuss how we might distinguish minds from non-minds

- Descartes’ two tests

- The Turing test

• Explain Searle’s arguments against AI, and Dennett’s response

- Searle’s “Chinese Room”

- “Syntax without semantics”

- “Simulation is not duplication”

- Dennett’s “systems” reply to Searle

READINGS:

• Naragon, §28

• Terry Bisson, “They’re Made out of Meat” (1991)

• John Searle, “The Myth of the Computer” (1982)

OTHER RESOURCES:

•[EC] Video: Rodney Brooks, “The Robots are Coming” (2003) (18m 44s)[web video]

•[EC] News Item: Belle Dumé, “Organic Transistor Mimics Brain Synapse” (28 Jan 2010) [web page]