|Phil 200: Proseminar||Fall Quarter, 2015|
|Professor: Eric Watkins||Thursday 1:00-3:50, H&SS 7077|
|Office Hours: Thursday 11:00-12:00 and by appt.||E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org|
|Office: H&SS 8062||Tel: (858) 822-0082|
I. Course Description:
The proseminar is for first year philosophy graduate students only. Instead of having a single topic, it covers a wide range of central issues in mainstream analytic philosophy from the past several decades. A UCSD Philosophy faculty member will visit the class each week to provide an expert's perspective on each topic. In addition to providing familiarity with "classic" or at least important articles, it is designed to help students hone their reading, writing, presentation, and thinking skills to a level that is sufficient for graduate course work.
II. Reading Assignments (subject to change)
|Oct. 1||Introduction||Student Presenters
||Guest Faculty Member|
|Oct. 8||Harry Frankfurt, "Alternate Possibilities
and Moral Responsibility"
Peter F. Strawson, "Freedom and Resentment"
|1. Nate Greely
2. Henry Argetsinger
|Oct. 15||G.F.W. Hegel, "Introduction" Phenomenology
Eric Watkins, "Hegel's Critique of Kant"
Roderick Chisholm, "The Problem of the Criterion"
|1. Leo Moauro
2. Joe Stratmann
3. Max Edwards
| David Lewis, "Causation"
Barry Loewer, "Humean Supervenience"
|1. Joe Stratmann
2. Rosalind Chaplin
|Oct. 29||W.V.O. Quine, "Two Dogmas of Empiricism"
Gila Sher, "Is There a Place for Philosophy in Quine's Theory?"
|1. Tom Kirkpatrick
2. Max Edwards
|Nov. 5|| Jonathan Schaffer,
"On What Grounds What"
Thomas Hofweber, "Ambitious, yet Modest, Metaphysics"
|1. Henry Argetsinger
2. Jon Ross
| Hannah Arendt, The Life of the Mind,
Introduction (pp. 1-16)
-----, Thinking, chapters 19-21 (pp. 197-216) & Willing, chapter 6 (pp. 3-39)
-----, Willing, chapters 11-12 (pp. 113-46)
|1. Justin Lawson
2. Anncy Thresher
3. Nate Greely
|Nov. 19|| Bernard Williams,
"Internal and External Reasons"
Peter Railton, "Facts and Values"
David Brink, "The Significance of Desire"
|1. Jon Ross
2. Emma Duncan
3. Rosalind Chaplin
| James Pryor, "The Skeptic and the
Susanna Siegel, "Cognitive Penetration and Perceptual Justification"
|1. Anncy Thresher
2. Leo Moauro
|Dec. 3||John Rawls, "Justice as Fairness"
John Rawls, "Two Concepts of Rules"
R. M. Hare, "The Archangel and the Prole"
|1. Tom Kirkpatrick
2. Justin Lawson
3. Emma Duncan
Required: All texts will be made
Six Short Papers (60%): Each paper should focus on clarifying the main thesis and central argument(s) of one of the assigned articles. It may well also be necessary to explain distinctions and to state objections and replies to objections. In addition to being accurate, it is of the utmost importance that papers be clear, precise, and well-organized. Each paper should be no less than 1000, but no more than 1200 words. (With normal fonts and margins, this will be roughly 4 pages). You may write more than six papers and drop your lowest grade. You may also write a paper on an article that you are responsible for presenting in class. Papers are due by midnight the day before class. They should be sent to me as an attachment to an e-mail (Word or PDF format).
For some helpful tips on writing philosophy papers, I would recommend the following web-page: http://www.jimpryor.net/teaching/guidelines/writing.html
Class Presentation (25%): Each student will be responsible for two 15-minute presentations. A sign-up sheet will be distributed the first day of class.
A presentation consists of setting out some central argument(s) in a portion of the assigned reading (typically an article or book excerpt), together with raising questions and framing discussion. The actual time spent initially presenting the material should be no longer than 15 minutes, although the presenter should be prepared to help guide the subsequent discussion. It is often helpful to prepare a handout. Presenters should feel free to meet with me some time in the week before their presentations. The presentation grade will be based on either the second presentation alone or on the average of the two presentations, whichever grade is higher. I will also try to provide written feedback on both presentations.Class Participation (15%): An ideal participant will contribute to the discussion with helpful questions (clarificatory or otherwise) and objections or suggestions that are useful and to the point. Frequency of participation can vary significantly even among ideal participants. For example, one person can make an excellent contribution with a few well-timed and very insightful comments, and another can make an excellent contribution by more frequent comments and clarificatory questions that help solidify and deepen our understanding of the material. These are just examples; there are many ways to contribute. The main thing is not to be afraid to speak up. At the same time, we have a number of participants, so you should never feel that you have to “take over” the discussion either. Please feel free to talk me any time during the term about how you are doing in this area.