These posts are in reverse-order, so the newest posts will always be at the top. The dates are when the post was first made.
Readings are in a restricted part of this site. The username and password for these will be announced in class and on Canvas.
Here is a sparser evolving index of all the handouts, webnotes and readings we’ve used during the course. Or you could look under the Canvas “Modules” tab.
Here is feedback on our third quiz.
There is no class on Monday. For next Wednesday, make sure you’ve read the:
Also read:
Peter van Inwagen was an important metaphysician based at Syracuse and Notre Dame, but is now retired from teaching. He now has an affiliation as a “Research Professor” at Duke, and in recent years has sometimes led grad seminars there.
Note that his family name is “van Inwagen.” Some people’s surnames/family names are made up of more than one word. For example, when you refer to the Colombian author Gabriel García Márquez, you don’t say “Márquez said so-and-so.” You refer to him as “García Márquez.” There are various and sometimes complicated histories of how people get compound surnames like this. Sometimes it’s the result of taking a compound name upon marriage (Kim Kardashian West). Sometimes it’s the result of the person’s parents keeping different surnames from each other. Sometimes the explanation lies several generations back (Helena Bonham Carter). In European-derived names, a common pattern is for surnames to begin with “von” (German) or “van” (Dutch) or variations on “de” (several Romance languages). These initial words are part of the surname. You don’t talk about the painters Gogh or Vinci, or the actors Niro or Sydow or Damme, or the director Palma. You talk about van Gogh, da Vinci, De Niro, von Sydow, Van Damme, and de Palma. Sometimes the person (or their parents or more distant ancestors) chose to capitalize the initial “De” or “Van,” other times not. In van Inwagen’s case, the “van” is not capitalized. (You can capitalize it at the start of a sentence.) If you’re going to refer to him, you should use his full name “Peter van Inwagen” or his surname, which is “van Inwagen.” Not “Inwagen” or “Vaninwagen.”
Our reading is from van Inwagen’s book Metaphysics. The whole selection I’ve linked is long and complex, and we’re not reading it all at once. The linked PDF has three parts. First there’s an “Introduction to Part 3,” where van Inwagen contrasts “rationality” to some ways of understanding “intelligence,” and explores what’s included in our concept of “rational.” Next is Chapter 10 of his book, which distinguishes two large proposals about “what kind of thing” rational beings like us are. These are views that we’re calling “Dualism” on the one side, and “Physicalism” or “Materialism” on the other. The initial parts of Chapter 10 explain what these competing proposals say, and then from p. 230 to p. 245 discuss four arguments that are supposed to support the Dualist side. In fact van Inwagen mentions “five arguments,” but the fifth is in part of his Chapter 11 that I’ve left out of the selection. The PDF resumes again later in Chapter 11, on p. 260, where van Inwagen discusses four arguments that are supposed to support the Physicalist side.
For next week, we’re only reading up to the explanation of what Dualism and Materialism say.
We’re going to read further in each of these two texts over the next few weeks.
As I said in class, on Wednesday we’ll also form argument teams to make a case for the Dualist or the Materialist side. The point is not for you to read ahead and gather slogans you don’t understand yet. But to try to explain in a persuasive way, in your own words and briefly, reasons for thinking we do or don’t have souls.
For Wednesday, read these two webnotes, which cover the ideas I introduced you to in today’s class:
If you want to read ahead a bit, this is where we’re going with these ideas. This will be the main focus of Wednesday’s class:
There is no reading for Monday. I’ll post the next quiz soon, the online part of which will be due before Monday’s class, and the in-class part of which you’ll do in class.
Here are webnotes about the Godfrey-Smith reading: Notes from meeting 7.
If you want to read more about various topics that came up in today’s discusion (these are entirely optional):
Here are webnotes from last week’s meetings:
Remember for Wednesday we are reading Godfrey-Smith, Other Minds, Chapter 3.
I posted the grades for (both components of) our Quiz 2. Here is some feedback about the in-class part.
Earlier I had said we were going to read Jamieson, “What do animals think?” for Wednesday. This is an article that you wouldn’t be able to fully process at this point in your learning these issues. But I thought there would still be value in your reading it, and seeing what parts you could follow. Our discussion in class could explain some of the parts you needed more context for (but not all of them). Reflecting on it more carefully this weekend, though, I’ve decided this would generate more confusion than we’re ready for. So instead, for Wednesday, I want you to proceed to the next reading on our list: Searle, “Animal minds”.
This paper will also be more complex than anything we’ve looked at so far in the class, and don’t be anxious if you’re not able to follow every single sentence. It will still be helpful for you to look at these selections to help orient you to doing this kind of reading:
Monday of next week is Labor Day (no class). For Wednesday of next week, read Godfrey-Smith, Other Minds, Chapter 3.
Here are the webnotes on today’s meeting.
I will post the at-home portion of our next quiz by tomorrow; it will be due before our next class. Then we’ll have the in-class portion at the end of Monday’s meeting.
The reading for Monday is this short piece: Andrews, “Can there be belief without language?”, and for next Wednesday we’ll be reading this more complex piece: Jamieson, “What do animals think?”.
That paper for next Wednesday will be somewhat harder than the things we’ve been reading so far. Have a look at these selections to help orient you to doing this kind of reading:
I realize these contrasts between episodic versus standing/dispositional, on the one hand, and qualitative/phenomenal versus representational, on the other, may be confusing concepts. Also philosophers disagree about how the two contrasts relate to each other, and whether each contrast gives us two separate buckets, or whether there are in-between or overlapping cases. I explain some of that in the webnotes.
But also in the picture I drew on the board at the end of Monday’s class, I contributed myself to the confusion. I think what I actually drew on the board looked like this:
| episodic | standing | |
|---|---|---|
| qualitative | ||
| representational | X |
| episodic | standing | |
|---|---|---|
| qualitative | X | |
| representational |
Here are the webnotes on today’s meeting.
Here again is the new assigned reading for Wednesday: selections from Dr Dolittle’s Delusion.
If you want to read ahead, for Monday of next week we’ll be reading this short piece: Andrews, “Can there be belief without language?”, and for Wednesday of next week we’ll be reading this more complex piece: Jamieson, “What do animals think?”.
Here is the handout from the start of class:
Here is a Review sheet for our course, listing some vocabulary and ideas we’ve encountered so far. I’ll add more material to that page as the course progresses.
For Monday of next week, read Colin Allen, “Star Witness” and come to class ready to discuss. The “Reader Assignment” at the end of the reading is just part of the original text. It’s not a written assignment for our course. Also, for our purposes, it’s not important to sort out the legal issues raised in the reading, such as whether witnesses need to be cross-examined. We’re reading and discussing this text just to get leverage on what mental/coggnitive capacities it’s reasonable to think a parrot might have.
For Wednesday, read these selections from Dr Dolittle’s Delusion.
I posted the first Quiz, look for it under the Assignments tab in Canvas.
You can take the at-home part anytime between now and 2 hours before our meeting tomorrow. Once you begin the Quiz, you have one hour to complete it. You can backtrack to earlier questions, but once you press “Submit” at the end, that’s it. After you Submit the quiz, you’ll be shown a page that gives the correct answers (at the bottom it shows which answers you chose and when they were wrong), and talks through explanations of why some of the wrong answers were wrong. Aim to understand all this, and formulate questions to help you get clearer about the parts you don’t understand. What we’ll be testing in-class on Wednesday will depend on that understanding.
After you dismiss the Results page, if you later want to come back and read it again, just go to the Assignments tab and click on the same Quiz again. The system will know that you’ve already submitted the quiz, and so it will give you the option to re-read the Results.
If you missed yesterday’s class, here are two handouts:
As I say in the course guide, devices are generally not allowed during our classroom meetings.
There are three exceptions to this policy:
Handwritten notes on a tablet. I will also permit tablets to be used as a substitute for a paper notebook when they are being used for handwritten note-taking with a stylus. This exception only applies to using a tablet in that way; it is not permission for general tablet use during class.
I recognize that this draws a line that isn’t perfectly principled. I am not claiming that handwriting is educationally superior to typing, or that a tablet used with a stylus cannot itself be distracting or used for other purposes. In principle, a student using a laptop conscientiously for typed notes might create no more distraction than a student writing notes on a tablet.
The device policy is a practical classroom rule, rather than a judgment that every prohibited use of a device is itself distracting. In my experience, unrestricted laptop and tablet use too easily turns into browsing, messaging, homework, games, and other activities, and trying to distinguish responsible from irresponsible uses during class makes device use itself a recurring classroom issue. Using a tablet flat on the desk as digital paper for handwritten notes seems close enough to using a paper notebook, and makes the permitted activity relatively easy to distinguish from other device use, that I’m willing to make this narrow exception.
If you use this exception, please keep the tablet in handwritten note-taking mode during class. Typing, browsing, messaging, or using other apps remain disallowed.
Our first class meeting is today. I’ll introduce you to our course topics and talk about what philosophical activity looks like — what kinds of tools and strategies philosophers use for answering questions.
There is no reading assigned before our first meeting. But there is a chunk of reading you’ll need to do before our second meeting, on Wed Aug 19, and you’re welcome to start early. This reading starts with the group of web pages at this link:
That link leads to a list of five pages; the most important for now are the first three. Skim the fourth too, but it may be harder and we’ll come back to it and discuss it more carefully in a few weeks. The last page is a Glossary that I hope will be useful but you don’t need to memorize.
There will be an online quiz about this material that you need to take before our Wednesday meeting, and you should be ready to discuss/ask questions about the quiz and the reading material when we meet.
Those pages already have developed explanations of many of the concepts we’ll be relying on this semester, and I’m not planning to repeat/summarize them in class. But I will be glad to answer questions about it on Wednesday.