Philosophy 5: Critical Thinking and Composition

Los Angeles Pierce College

Department of History, Philosophy, & Sociology

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lecture Notes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lecture Notes for Week Fifteen

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0) Assignments

 

 

1) Russell's "The Argument from Analogy for Other Minds"

 

 

2) Group Exercise

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1) Russell's "The Argument from Analogy for Other Minds"

   

We feel and think & others feel and think. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

Analogy    

"It is clear that we must appeal to something that may be vaguely called 'analogy.'  The behaviour of other people is in many ways analogous to our own, and we suppose that it must have analogous causes." 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Inference

"This is a boring lecture," uttered by a colleague of yours, would be said by you if you had the thought that this lecture is boring, and so you infer that they too think that this lecture is boring. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

Behavior  

Your colleague yawns, and this too is evidence that they are bored, as you have yawned when you are bored.  

 

"There are, in short, very many ways in which my responses to stimuli differ from those of 'dead' matter, and in all these ways other people resemble me."

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Similar Causes

Thoughts cause, in a law-governed way, my behavior. 

 

And "it is natural to infer that the same is true of the analogous behaviour of my friends."

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Knowledge        

Russell's goal is to determine what kind of knowledge we can have of others' thoughts, feelings, and thoughts.   

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Doubt       

Here, we will be dealing with levels of doubt, not certitude.  

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Behavior is Insufficient     

Notice that human behaviors can occur in the (immediate, at least) absence of a live human: MP3 players, televisions, and the like all evince human behavior, but they often times like an immediate live human.   

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Robots      

And we can imagine (easily now-a-days) very lifelike robots that evince all sorts of human behavior that are nevertheless not backed, so to speak, by a living human. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

But How Do You Know?     

And how do we know that an MP3, heard through an MP3 player, is not evidence of occurrent thought by some living human (or humanlike creature)? 

   

Behavioral Differences      

Well, there are behavioral differences between the two

        

The Difference

"One of the most notable peculiarities of human behaviour is change of response to a given stimulus."

   

But

That difference is not enough to prove that "there are 'thoughts' connected with living bodies other than my own."

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

External Observation Materialism

"It is probably possible theoretically to account for the behaviour of living bodies by purely physical causal laws, and it is probably impossible to refute materialism by external observation alone."

   

Inner Observation

Taking inner observation into consideration, we must appeal to inferences from the relationship between our own thoughts and behaviors to others' thoughts corresponding to their observable behaviors. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

Rational Connection

We need a rational connection between behaviors we externally observe in others, and the thoughts, beliefs, feelings, and experiences we cannot externally observe in others. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

Self Observation       

"We know, from observation of ourselves, a causal law of the form 'A causes B,' where A is a 'thought' and B a physical occurrence." 

 

When I think to myself, "I am fat," that causes me to suck in my gut. 

 

A:  thought "I am fat"

 

Causes

 

B:  behavior of sucking in gut

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Other Observation    

I see a colleague sit up and suck in his gut when I enter a room. 

 

I infer the thought "I am fat" in my colleague

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

Evidence  

The more evidence I observe, the less doubtful my inference.

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

Certitude

For me to have certain knowledge, my inference would have to conclude that I had isolated the only cause behind my colleague's behavior.

 

But there are other, possible causes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

   

Probability        

"Or, if we are content to infer that A is probable, it will suffice if we can know that in most cases it is A that causes B."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

        

Evidence & Probability       

Our inference is more probable when we find complementary evidence.

 

My colleague, for instance, could utter at the very same time that he sucks his gut in, "I feel so fat."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

   

Inference w/Certitude      

"From subjective observation I know that A, which is a thought or feeling, causes B, which is a bodily act, e.g. a statement.  I know also that, whenever B is an act of my own body, A is its cause.  I now observe an act of the kind B in a body not my own, and I am having no thought or feeling of the kind A.  But I still believe, on the basis of self-observation, that only A can cause B; I therefore infer that there was an A which caused B, though it was not an A that I could observe."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

   

Conclusion        

"On this ground I infer that other people's bodies are associated with minds, which resemble mine in proportion as their bodily behaviour resembles my own."

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Doubts     

 

Yet,

 

"We cannot be sure that, in our subjective experience, A is the only cause of B." 

 

"And even if A is the only cause of B in our experience, how can we know that this holds outside our experience?"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

Mere Probability Is Sufficient    

"It is not necessary that we should know this with any certainty; it is enough if it is highly probable."

   

   

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

Inference w/Probability   

"If, whenever we can observe whether A and B are present or absent, we find that every case of B has an A as a causal antecedent, then it is probable that most B's have A's as causal antecedents, even in cases where observation does not enable us to know whether A is present or not."

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

Conclusion        

"This postulate, if accepted, justifies the inference to other minds, as well as many other inferences that are made unreflectingly by common sense."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2) Group Exercise

 

 

 

Group Work Summary: In groups discuss your final essay's purpose, and parts.   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Step 0 (in one minute): Identify yourself as being in position 1, 2, or 3.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Position 1: I know what the purpose and parts of my final essay are. 

Position 2: I know what the purpose or parts of my final essay are, but not both. 

Position 3: I do not know what the purpose and parts of my final essay are. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Step 1 (ten minutes): Individually, write out your final essay's purpose on a piece of paper.  As best you can, distinguish parts of your essay that will by synthesized to achieve your purpose.  Invent what you don't have. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Step 2 (ten minutes):  In groups (corresponding to your position), discuss your individual essay's purpose, in turn. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Step 3 (ten minutes): In the same groups, discuss your individual essay's parts, in turn. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Step 4 (ten to twenty minutes):  In your original (pre-group) seats, we collectively discuss the fruits of our labor.  Did you change your position? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lecture Notes for Week Fourteen 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0) Assignments

 

 

1) Sequence Reading: "Chapter 4:  Argument Synthesis"

 

 

2) Analogical Arguments

 

 

3) Implicit Bias in the News

 

 

4) On the Problem of Empathy & Edith Stein

 

 

5) Group Exercise

 

 

 

 

 

 

1) "Chapter 4"     "Argument Synthesis"

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

Support    

The ability to persuade frequently depends on the ability to support one's conclusions. 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Synthetic 

In synthetic arguments, multiple sources are employed. 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Theses Needed

The thesis in an argumentative synthesis "is a claim about which reasonable people could disagree."

 

"It is a claim with which–given the right arguments–your audience might be persuaded to agree."

   

"The strategy of your argument synthesis is therefore to find and use convincing support for your claim."

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"The Elements of Argument"      "Claim, Support and Assumption"

   

Claim        

"A claim is a proposition or conclusion that you are trying to prove."

   

Support    

"You prove your claim by using support in the form of fact, statistics, or expert opinion." 

   

Assumption      

"Linking your supporting evidence to your claim is your assumption about the subject." 

 

An assumption in this context "is an underlying belief or principle about some aspect of the world and how it operates." 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Logic        

"For the most part, arguments should be constructed logically so that assumptions link evidence (supporting facts, statistics, and expert opinions) to claims." 

   

"The Three Appeals of Arguments"     "Logos, Ethos, Pathos"

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Academic Settings    

"[I]n academic writing, the appeal to logic (logos) is by far the most commonly used appeal." 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Logos       

"Logos is the rational appeal, the appeal to reason." 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Effectiveness    

"If writers and speakers expect to persuade their audiences, they must argue logically and must supply appropriate evidence to support their case." 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Forms       

Deductive ≠ Inductive Reasoning

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Deductive

"The deductive argument begins with a generalization, then cites a specific case related to that generalization from which follows a conclusion." 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Inductive 

The inductive argument begins with "several pieces of specific evidence" and then concludes on the basis of that evidence. 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ethos        

"Ethos, or the ethical appeal, is based not on the ethics relating to the subject under discussion, but rather on the ethical status of the person making the argument." 

   

Presenter's Credibility       

"A person making an argument must have a certain degree of credibility: That person must be of good character, have a sound sense, and be qualified to argue based either on expert experience with the subject matter or on carefully conducted research." 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Composition Students' Credibility      

"Students writing in academic settings establish their appeal to ethos by developing presentations that are well organized, carefully reasoned, and thoroughly referenced with source citations." 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pathos      

Pathos is an appeal to emotions. 

   

Academic 

It is rarely employed well in academic settings, and is usually found in popular arguments. 

   

"The emotional appeal becomes problematic only when it is the sole or primary basis of the argument." 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Limits       

Logos is frequently insufficient in the goal of persuasion. 

 

"In the real world, arguments don't operate like academic debates." 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Comparing and Contrasting       

Sometimes it is valuable to compare and contrast, either when executing an explanatory synthesis or an argumentative synthesis. 

   

Here, you "examine two subjects (or sources) [or cities] in terms of one another." 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subtleties

Frequently you will end up illuminating subtleties with your "multifaceted analysis" in comparing and contrasting. 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Criteria     

You'll need criteria for analysis, and this frequently comes from reading sources about the entities being compared and contrasted. 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Criterion  

In this case, a "criterion is a specific point to which both of your authors refer and about which they may agree or disagree." 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Best Criteria     

The best criteria allow you, of course, to do the comparing and contrasting, "but also to plumb deeper, exploring subtle yet significant comparisons and contrasts among details or subcomponents, which you can then relate to your overall thesis." 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Orphan     

Comparing and contrasting should not be abandoned; it is an effort that should almost always serve a different purpose, either to explain, persuade, or analyze. 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Organizing        

There are two main ways of comparing and contrasting: organization by source as opposed to organized by criteria. 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

By Source

When you organize by source you summarize the things you are comparing and contrasting first, in order, and then discuss their similarities and their differences.

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

By Criteria        

When you organize by criteria you "discuss two sources simultaneously, examining the view of each [source] point by point (criterion by criterion), comparing and contrasting these views in the process." 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2) Analogical Arguments

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

        

Analogical Arguments       

 

" ... declare a relationship between two things, a parallel connection, usually between two ideas or a set of ideas." 

 

"analogical arguments compare things that are alike in all essential respects and are then claimed to be alike in some further respect." 

        

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

E.G. Copernicus         

 

"It was analogical thinking that led Copernicus to conceive of a heliocentric rather than a geocentric solar system.  One day while Copernicus was drifting down a river in a boat, he experienced the illusion that the bank was moving while his boat remained still.  The idea suddenly struck him that it could also be an illusion that the sun moved around the earth while the earth remained stationary; perhaps it was the earth that revolved around the sun.  He verified his analogy by experimental device, and revolutionized our conception of the universe." 

        

E.G. Watchmaker           

 

E.G. State/Soul     

        

E.G. / Camel, Lion, Toddler    

        

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

        

Effectiveness    

 

Follow the rules

        

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rule One  

 

1) "The two cases must be alike in all essential respects, and the greater the similarities the more probable the argument." 

 

"we want to be sure that we have numerous characteristics that are alike in the cases compared." 

        

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rule Two  

 

2) "The greater the number of cases compared, the stronger the probability of the conclusion." 

        

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rule Three        

 

3) "The greater the dissimilarity of the cases used as the base of the analogy, the higher the probability of the conclusion." 

 

"we are concerned to diversify the cases themselves so that we are not using just one type as a foundation for the analogy." 

        

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3) Implicit Bias in the News

 

Stoltze's "3 Things to Know about Police Bias and the LAPD" article from November 16, 2016

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4) On the Problem of Empathy & Edith Stein

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Section 5(m)

"The Correction of Empathic Acts"

 

"If he clenches his fist or utters an oath as he blushes, I see that he is angry.  If he has just stooped or walked quickly, I empathize a causal context instead of a motivational one." 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Section 5(p)

"The Significance of the Foreign Individual's Constitution for the Constitution of Our Own Psych Individual"

 

"To consider ourselves in inner perception, i.e., to consider our psychic 'I' and its attributes, means to see ourselves as we see another and as he sees us." 

 

"And, in principle, it is possible for all the interpretations of myself with which I become acquainted to be wrong." 

 

"It is possible for another to 'judge me more accurately' than I judge myself and give me clarity about myself." 

 

"This is how empathy and inner perception work hand in hand to give me myself to myself." 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Section 5(k)

"Causality in the Structure of the Individual"    

 

 

"Let us try to make this clear by examples of what we having in mind."

 

"A deliberate decision on a problem put to me continues to direct the course of my action long after the actual decision without my being 'conscious' of this as present in current action."

 

"Does this mean that an isolated past experience determines my present experience form that time on?  Not at all."

 

"This volition that remained unfulfilled for a long time has not fallen 'into forgottenness' during this time, has not sunk back into the stream of the past, become 'lived life' in Scheler's terms."

 

"It has gone out of the mode of actuality over into that of non-actuality, out of activity into passivity."

 

"Part of the nature of consciousness is that the cogito, the act in which the 'I' lives, is surrounded by a marginal one of background experiences in each moment of experience." 

 

"These are non-actualities no longer or not yet cogito and therefore not accessible to reflection, either."

 

"In order to be comprehended, they must first pass through the form of the cogito, which they can do at any time."

 

"They are still primordially present, even if not actually, and therefore have efficacy."

 

"The unfulfilled volition is not dead, but continues to live in the background of consciousness until its time comes and it can be realized."

 

"Then its effect begins."

 

"Thus it is not something past which affects the present, but something that reaches into the present."

 

"Therefore, we quite agree that a reproduction of the volition does not set the action in motion."

 

"And, indeed, we will go even further and say that volition would not be in a position to do this at all."

 

"A forgotten volition cannot have an effect, and a 'reproduced' volition is not an alive one, either, but a represented one."

 

"As such it is unable to affect any behavior (as little as in a dark room we can produce the fantasy of a burning lamp to provide the necessary light for reading)."

 

"It must first be relived, lived through again, in order to be able to have an effect." 

 

"Future events which 'throw their shadows in advance' are no different.  Scheler gives an example of James who, under the influence of an unpleasant logic course he had to teach afternoons, undertook many unnecessary activities the entire day before simply so that he would find no time for the burdensome preparation.  Yet he did not 'think about it.'  ... Rather, it remains 'in the background' and influences our entire conduct.  As a non-actual experience not specifically direct, this fear has its object in the expected event.  This is not completely present, but constantly tends toward going over into actual experience, toward pulling the 'I' into itself.  The fear constantly resists giving itself into this cogito.  Its recue is in other actual experiences that are sill blocked in their pure course by that background experience.  And of what finally concerns the efficacy of the whole life on every moment of its existence [Daseins] we must say: Everything living into the present can have an effect, irrespective of how far the initiation of the affective experience is from 'now.'  Experiences of early childhood can also endure into my present, even though pushed in the background by the profusion of later events.  This can be clearly seen in dispositions toward others persons.  I do not 'forget' my friends when I am not thinking of them.  They then belong to the unnoticed present horizon of my world.  My love for them is living even when I am not living in it.  It influences my actual feelings and conduct.  Out of love for someone, I can abstain from activities which would cause displeasure without 'being conscious' of this.  Likewise, animosity against a person, inculcated into me in my childhood, can make an impression on my later life.  This is true even though this animosity is pushed entirely into the background and I do not think of this person at all any more.  Then, when I meet the animosity again, it can go over into actuality and be discharged in an action or else be brought to reflective clarity and so be made ineffectual.  On the contrary, what belongs to my past, what is temporarily or permanently forgotten and can only come to givenness to me in the character of representation by reminiscence or by another's account, has no effect on me.  A remembered love is not a primordial feeling and cannot influence me.  If I do someone a favor because of a past preference, this inclination is based on a positive opinion of this past preference, not on the represented feeling."   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5) Group Exercise

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Group Work Summary: In groups discuss your individual essay's argument, and then work on coming up with an objection to either your thesis or your support for your thesis. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Step 0 (in one minute): Identify yourself as being in position 1, 2, or 3.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Position 1: I have a well-developed argument, and I stand in need of a colleague who has one too, so that we may engage in objection-finding activities together.  At the appropriate time, find two like you. 

Position 2: I think I know what I'mma gonna argue.  At the appropriate time, find three you.

Position 3: I do not have an argument–period.  At the appropriate time, find four like you.    

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Step 1 (ten minutes): Individually, write out your argument on a piece of paper.  As best you can, distinguish your conclusion from your premise(s).  If you don’t have an argument, invent one. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Step 2 (ten minutes):  In groups (corresponding to your position), discuss your individual arguments, in turn. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Step 3 (ten minutes): In groups, offer your colleagues, in turn, possible objections to either their theses or their support for their theses.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Step 4 (ten to twenty minutes):  In your original (pre-group) seats, we collectively discuss the fruits of our labor.  Did you change your position? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lecture Notes for Week Thirteen

 

 

 

 

0) Assignments

 

 

1) Sequence Reading: "Chapter 5:  Analysis"

 

 

2) On the Problem of Empathy & Edith Stein   

 

 

3) Quiz

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0) Assignments

 

 

Fourth Essay Due Thursday, December 1

 

 

Final Essay Due Thursday, December 15

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1) Sequence Reading: "Chapter 5:  Analysis"

 

The Action  Analysis is "a type of argument in which you study the parts of something ... to understand how it works, what it means, or why it might be significant." 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Analytic Tools   

Analyzers use "an analytic too: a principle or definition on the basis of which the subject of study can be divided into parts and examined." 

   

The Results       

The results of analysis depend on the tool used. 

 

The same subject of study can be analyzed in different ways, with different analytic tools. 

 

Inasmuch, the "choice of an analytic tool simultaneously creates and limits the possibilities of analysis." 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lens Analogy    

"It's as if the writer of an analysis who adopts one analytic tool puts on a pair of glasses and sees an object in a specific way."

 

"Another writer, using a different tool (and a different pair of glasses, sees the object differently." 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Power of Analysis       

" ... it's ability to reveal objects or events in a way we would not otherwise have considered." 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Locate and Apply an Analytic Tool"

   

General Purpose       

By now it should be clear: "The general purpose of all analysis is to enhance one's understanding of the subject under consideration." 

   

Evaluating Analyses

"A good analysis provides a valuable–if sometimes unusual or unexpected–point of view, a way of seeing, a way of interpreting some phenomenon, person, event, policy, or pattern of behavior that otherwise may appear random or unexplainable." 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Writing     

The authors give this advice for those who are tasked with writing an analysis: "consider these to general strategies:

 

"[1] Locate an analytic tool–a principle or definition that makes a general statement about the way something works, and

 

"[2]" Systematically apply this principle or definition to the subject under consideration." 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Clarity      

"[W]hatever discipline you are working in, the first part of your analysis will clearly state which (and whose) principles and definitions you are applying." 

 

"For audiences unfamiliar with these principles, you will need to explain them; if you anticipate objections to their use, you will need to argue that they are legitimate principles capable of helping you conduct the analysis." 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Practical Advice

1: "Create a context for your analysis.  Introduce and summarize for the readers the object, event, or behavior to be analyzed.  Present a strong case for why an analysis is needed: Give yourself a motivation to write, and give readers a motivation to read.  Consider setting out a problem, puzzle, or question to be investigated." 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Practical Advice

2. "Locate an analytic too: a principle or definition that will form the basis of your analysis.  Plan to devote an early part of your analysis to arguing for the validity of this principle or definition if your audience is not likely to understand it or if they are unlikely to think that the principle or definition is not valuable." 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Practical Advice

3.  "Analyze your topic by applying your selected analytic tool to the topic's component elements.  Systematically apply elements of the analytic tool to parts of the activity or object under study.  You can do this by posing specific questions, based on your analytic principle or definition, about the object or phenomenon.  Discuss what you find part by part (organized perhaps by questions (, in clearly defined subsections of the paper." 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Practical Advice

4.  "Conclude by stating clearly what is significant about your analysis.  When considering your analytic paper as a whole, what new or interesting insights have you made concerning the object under study?  To what extent has your application of the definition or principle helped you to explain how the object works, what it might mean, or why it is significant." 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Formulate a Thesis"

   

Theses       

The thesis for an analysis essay "compresses into a single sentence the main idea of your presentation." 

 

For me, a thesis must be original, interesting, and argumentative. 

 

For me, theses must be clearly stated. 

 

For me, theses must not only be clearly stated, but also preferably in the first paragraph (for shorter essays at least). 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Write an Analysis, Not a Summary"

   

Mistake to Avoid        

"The most common error made in writing analysis–an error that is fatal to the form–is to present readers with a summary only." 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Success    

"For analyses to succeed, you must apply a principle or definition and reach a conclusion about the object, event, or behavior you are examining." 

   

The Role of Summarizations      

"Summary is naturally a part of analysis; you will need to summarize the object or activity being examined and, depending on the audience's needs, summarize the principle or definition being applied." 

 

"But in analysis, you must take the next step and share insights that suggest the meaning or significance of some object, event, or behavior." 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Answer the 'So What?' Question"

   

What Have You Learned?  

"Have you learned anything significant through the analysis?" 

 

"If not, neither will readers, and they will turn away." 

 

"If you have gained important insights through your analysis, communicate them clearly." 

 

"At some point, pull together your related insights and say, in effect, 'Here's how it all adds up.'"

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"When Your Perspective Guides the Analysis"

   

Personal Perspective

"In some cases a writer's analysis of a phenomenon or a work of art may not result from anything as structured as a principle or definition [held by others].  It may follow from the writer's cultural or personal outlook, perspective, or interests." 

   

Clarity      

"If you find yourself writing an analysis guided by your own insights, not by someone else's, then you owe your reader a clear explanation of your guiding principles and the definitions by which you will probe the subject under study." 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2) On the Problem of Empathy & Edith Stein  

to the end of Chapter II

 

 

 

 

 

 

Empathy is Analogous to Memory      

"The memory of joy is primordial as a representational act now being carried out, though its content of joy is non-primordial." 

 

"This act has the total character of joy which I could study, but the joy is not primordially and bodily there, rather as having once been alive (and this 'once,' the time of the past experience, can be definite or indefinite)."

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I Now ≠ I Then         

In memory, the I remembering faces the I remembered.

 

I remembering is primordially given.

 

I remembered is non-primordially given.

   

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Self-Surrogate

"[I]t is possible for me to represent a past situation to myself and be unable to remember my inner behavior in this situation.  As I transfer myself back into this situation, a surrogate for the missing memory comes into focus." 

 

You've asked yourself before, haven't you, "What was I thinking?" 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Empathy  

Similar to memory, in empathy we see "an act which is primordial as present experience though non-primordial in content."

 

Empathic act: primordially present

 

Empathized content: non-primordially present

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Object / Content / Subject / Understanding       

E.G.: The empathic object is another's sadness.

 

The empathic content is that about which the other is sad.

 

The empathic subject: 

"I am now no longer turned to the content but to the object of it, am I at the subject of the content in the original subjects' place"

 

The empathic understanding of the content is something even further. 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Levels      

"These are (1) the emergence of experience, (2) the fulfilling expectation, and (3) the comprehensive objectification of the explained experience."

   

Alterity     

"The subject of the empathized experience, however, is not the subject of the empathizing, but another." 

 

"These two subjects are separate and not joined together, as previously [in memory], by a consciousness of sameness or a continuity of experience." 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Non-Primordiality as Empathic Subject      

"And while I am living in the other's joy, I do not feel primordial joy." 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Other's Primordiality         

"This other subject is primordial although I do not experience it as primordial."

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Empathy So Far         

"Empathy, which we examined and sought to describe, is the experience of foreign consciousness in general, irrespective of the kind of the experiencing subject or of the subject whose consciousness is experienced."

 

"This is how human being comprehend the psychic life of their fellows."

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lecture Notes for Week Twelve  

 

 

 

 

 

To Do:

 

0) Daryl Davis & the KKK: "'When Two Enemies are Talking, They're Not Fighting': Meet the Black Man who has Made a Career Out of Befriending Members of the KKK"

 

 

1) Sequence Reading: "Chapter 3:  Explanatory Synthesis"

 

 

2) On the Problem of Empathy & Edith Stein   

 

 

3) Quiz

 

 

4) Group Exercise

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0) Daryl Davis & the KKK: "'When Two Enemies are Talking, They're Not Fighting': Meet the Black Man who has Made a Career Out of Befriending Members of the KKK"

 

 

 

 

"Davis is credited with dismantling the Maryland KKK because the group's structure 'fell apart' after he began making inroads with the men."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"All these relationships and experiences have been documented in Davis' book, Klan-Destine Relationships, in which he concludes that the best way to break down barriers and improve race relations is for people who disagree to sit down and talk."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"'Invite your enemy to talk - give them a platform to talk because then they will reciprocate,' he said."

 

"'Invite your enemies to sit down and join you."

 

"'One small thing you say might give them food for though, and you will learn.'"

 

"'Establish dialogue. It’s when the talking stops that the ground becomes fertile for fighting.'"

 

"'When two enemies are talking, they're not fighting.'"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1) Sequence Reading: "Chapter 3:  Explanatory Synthesis"

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

"A synthesis is a written discussion that draws on two or more sources."

 

"In a synthesis, you make explicit the relationships that you have inferred among separate sources." 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

Summarizing Sources       

"Readers will frequently benefit from at least partial summaries of sources in your synthesis essays." 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Beyond Summaries  

"At the same time, you must go beyond summary to make judgements–judgements based on your critical reading of your sources ... ." 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Inferences        

"In a synthesis, you go beyond the critique of individual sources to determine the relationship among them," via inference. 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Parts        

In synthesizing sources, you seldom will synthesize all of a source. 

 

Rather, you select parts for synthesis. 

 

Which parts?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

Purpose   

Your purpose in writing determines which parts of a source you will synthesize. 

 

"Some relationships among the material in your sources must make them worth synthesizing."

 

"Your purpose determines which sources you research, which ones you use, which parts of them you use, at which points in your paper you use them, and in what manner you relate them to one another." 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Types of Synthesis    

 

Explanatory Synthesis ≠ Argumentative Synthesis

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Analogy    

"The easiest way to recognize the difference between the two types [of synthesis] may be to consider the difference between a news article and an editorial on the same subject." 

 

Just as news articles seek, primarily, to inform, explanatory syntheses seek to impartially inform. 

 

And just as editorials seek, primarily, to interpret information or events, argumentative syntheses present information to prove some point or interpretation. 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Writing a Synthesis  

Identify your purpose. 

 

Select sources accordingly. 

 

Formulate your thesis. 

 

Summarize the relevant parts of your sources. 

 

Revise your synthesis as needed, recursively. 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Purpose v. Thesis      

"The difference between a purpose and a thesis is primarily a difference in focus."

 

"Your purpose provides direction to your research and gives a focus to your paper."

 

"Your thesis sharpens this focus by narrowing it and formulating it in the words of a single declarative statement." 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thesis Placement      

"When you write your synthesis drafts, you will need to consider where your thesis fits in your paper."

 

"Sometimes the thesis is the first sentence, but more often it is the final sentence of the first paragraph." 

 

I argue that it is best placed in the middle of your first paragraph, so that you can introduce your reader to the argument you'll use to support your thesis in the rest of the first paragraph.

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Recursively       

"The writing of syntheses is a recursive process, and you should accept a certain amount of backtracking and reformulating as inevitable." 

 

"[T]hrough backtracking and reformulating, you will produce a coherent, well-crafted paper."

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Concluding       

Here is a concluding thought on explanatory syntheses: "Your job in writing an explanatory paper–or in writing the explanatory part of an argumentative paper is not to argue a particular point, but rather to present the facts in a reasonably objective manner." 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2) On the Problem of Empathy & Edith Stein  

 

 

"Chapter Two: The Essence of Acts of Empathy"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

Givenness         

How are acts of empathy given to us? 

 

A phenomenological answer is called for.  

 

The phenomenological reduction is first needed. 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Abeyance

So, we put in abeyance the actual existence of things: the actual existence of things will not play a premise role in our thinking.

 

So, not the actual existence of ourselves as psycho-physical beings, not the actual existence of other psycho-physical beings, and not the world "out there."

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Retained  

What's left over after this suspension? 

 

"[M]y experience of the thing (the perception, memory, or other kind of comprehension)," "together with its correlate, the full 'phenomenon of the thing' (the object given as the same in series of diverse perceptions or memories)."

 

 

"Thus there remains the whole 'phenomenon of the world' when its positing has been suspended." 

 

"And these 'phenomena' are the object of phenomenology."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

Am "I" suspended?   

Have we gone too far? 

 

My "empirical 'I,'" with its particular history any with my various, peculiar and unique idiosyncrasies, is suspended, but

 

"'I,' the experiencing subject who considers the world and my own person as phenomenon, 'I' am in experience and only in it, am just as indubitable and impossible to cancel as experience itself."

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Description of Empathy in Comparison with Other Acts       

"A friend tells me that he has lost his brother and I become aware of his pain." 

 

"What kind of awareness is this?" 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Outer Perception?     

"I have no outer perception of the pain." 

 

Objects of outer perception are spatio-temporal beings concretely embodied.

 

Objects of outer perception come to me with "embodied givenness."

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Embodied Givenness

 

Having "embodied givenness" means having "the quality of being there itself right now."

 

The facing side of this cup has embodied givenness.

 

The facing side of this cup is "primordially there."

 

The non-facing side of this cup is not.

 

The non-facing side of this cup is "co-perceived."

 

The non-facing side of this cup is "averted."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pain

Pain is not like a cup.

 

Pain does not have a primordial side that can have embodied givenness.

 

While the cup has non-primordially side that are averted, the non-primordially given sides can be primordially given.

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A Limited Parallel Between Outer Perception & Empathy    

But just as we can gain clarity about the cup by turning it about.

 

We can gain some clarity about the pain by investigating it.

 

But, "in principle, I can never get an 'orientation' where the pain itself is primordially given."

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Empathy & Primordiality   

While objects of both outer perception and empathy have objects "present here and now."

 

Empathy lacks the primordiality possible in outer perception.

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Primordiality "Within"       

But pain can be experienced primordially, if it is our own.

 

"[O]ur own experiences as they are given in reflection have the character of primordiality."

   

    But not all of our pain is experience primordially.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Remembered pain is not primordially present.

 

"It is possible for every experience to be primordially given, i.e., it is possible for the reflecting glance of the 'I' in the experience to be there bodily itself.  Furthermore, it is possible for our own experiences to be given non-primordially in memory, expectation, or fantasy."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3) Quiz

 

 

Name:

Date:

Question: When someone says "empathy" what do you usually think they mean?

 

 

 

 

 

 

4) Group Exercise

 

 

 

 

 

Each group summarizes one of the significant parts from the following excerpts, and then provides an explanation to help someone understand the excerpt–and an example if you have time.

 

 

 

a) "It is possible for every experience to be primordially given, i.e., it is possible for the reflecting glance of the 'I' in the experience to be there bodily itself.  Furthermore, it is possible for our own experiences to be given non-primordially in memory, expectation, or fantasy."

b) "Experiences of early childhood can also endure into my present, even though pushed into the background by the profusion of later events.  This can clearly be seen in dispositions towards other persons." "I do not 'forget' my friends when I am not thinking about them.  They then belong to the unnoticed present horizon of my world."

c) "Part of the nature of consciousness is that the cogito, the act in which the 'I' lives, is surrounded by a marginal zone of background experiences in each moment of existence."

d) "[I]f there were no possibility of empathy, of transferring the self into the other's orientation, their statements about their phenomenal world would always have to remain unintelligible, at least in the sense of a complete fulfilling understanding in contrast with the mere empty understanding of words."

e) "And, in principle, it is possible for all the interpretations of myself with which I become acquainted to be wrong."  "It is possible for another to 'judge me more accurately' than I judge myself and give me clarity about myself."

f) "Future events which 'throw their shadows in advance' are no different.  Scheler gives an example of James who, under the influence of an unpleasant logic course he had to teach afternoons, undertook many unnecessary activities the entire day before simply so that he would find no time for the burdensome preparation.  Yet he did not 'think about it.'  ... Rather, it remains 'in the background' and influences our entire conduct."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lecture Notes for Week Eleven

 

 

 

 

To Do:

 

0) Reading Schedule Change

 

1) Second Essay Return  

 

2) Third Essay Discussion  

 

3) Group Exercise

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Second Essay Returned/Being Returned

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Third Essay Due Thursday, November 10th Sunday, November 13th by 11:59PM

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In six pages (that is, in no fewer than six pages, and no more than six and a half pages), using what we've learned from the first, second, and seventh chapters of The Sequence for Academic Reading:

 

 

 

 

 

 

1) explain Alexander's presentation of the difference between implicit and explicit race bias (from the first and second page of the assigned excerpt from week eight) and how that difference can play a role in her broader argument as she expresses it in the assigned parts of her New Jim Crow, Chapter Five;

 

 

 

 

 

 

2) explain Brentano's claims about the type of knowledge we can have of ourselves and have of others, as he presents it in the assigned parts of his Psychology from an Empirical Standpoint; 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3) explain the relevance and implications of evidence about a) the existence or non-existence of implicit bias, b) the types of awareness we can or cannot have of ourselves, or c) the type of awareness that we can or cannot have of others that you have discovered in a peer-reviewed article;

 

 

 

 

 

 

4) argue for the importance of your research for Alexander or Brentano (for instance, if your research is skeptical about the existence of implicit biases, then you could support Brentano's approach, or if your research affirms the existence of implicit biases, then you could argue that Brentano's approach–so far as you know it–is too limited); and

 

 

 

 

 

 

5) defend either your thesis or your argument in support of your thesis against someone who could disagree with it.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Group Exercise

 

 

 

Group Work Summary: In groups discuss your individual essay's argument, and then work on coming up with an objection to either your thesis or your support for your thesis. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Step 0 (in one minute): Identify yourself as being in position 1, 2, or 3.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Position 1: I have a well-developed argument, and I stand in need of a colleague who has one too, so that we may engage in objection-finding activities together.  At the appropriate time, find two like you. 

Position 2: I think I know what I'mma gonna argue.  At the appropriate time, find three you.

Position 3: I do not have an argument–period.  At the appropriate time, find four like you.    

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Step 1 (ten minutes): Individually, write out your argument on a piece of paper.  As best you can, distinguish your conclusion from your premise(s).  If you don’t have an argument, invent one. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Step 2 (ten minutes):  In groups (corresponding to your position), discuss your individual arguments, in turn. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Step 3 (ten minutes): In groups, offer your colleagues, in turn, possible objections to either their theses or their support for their theses.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Step 4 (ten to twenty minutes):  In your original (pre-group) seats, we collectively discuss the fruits of our labor.  Did you change your position? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lecture Notes for Week Ten 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Research and Naysayer Avenues

 

 

 

 

 

Farhad Manjoo's September 14th 2014 "Exposing Hidden Bias at Google" from The New York Times is a nice introduction to Google's issues with bias. 

 

Richard Felonis' February 11th 2016 "Here's the Presentation Google Gives Employees on How to Spot Unconscious Bias at Work" from Business Insider includes a link to Google's own research on the subject. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

John Hayward's October 8th 2016 "Implicit Bias: The New 'Original Sin'" from Breitbart represents a naysayer. 

 

 

 

 

 

"In his vice-presidential debate, Governor Mike Pence took a swing at one of the Left’s most cherished beliefs: 'implicit bias.  The police officers who support Donald Trump, he said, 'hear the bad mouthing, the bad mouthing that comes from people that seize upon tragedy in the wake of police action shootings as a reason to use a broad brush to accuse law enforcement of implicit bias or institutional racism.' Hillary Clinton sees 'implicit bias' not just in the police force, but in 'everyone in the United States,' Pence declared."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Liberals cannot brook criticism of their precious 'implicit bias' theory, which is a new rationalization for totalitarian power, for rule by the progressive Elect whose Ivy League training has equipped them to sniff out the witch of hidden racism."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Part of the problem with this 'implicit bias' theory is that it’s so unwilling to come to terms with the idea that everyone makes judgments. In fact, that’s the essence of being human–the ability to understand data, share experiences, calculate probability and respond rationally to best protect themselves and their loved ones."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Whether trying to avoid crime, to enjoy romance or to profit from gambling, to succeed in work or to avoid car-crashes, humans must make quick judgements based on limited information, and they do it by learning from books and experience. They can’t approach each new problem as if they are a blank-sheet baby free off any bias or preferences–or else they’ll be mugged, dumped, broke, unemployed and car-less in very short order."

 

 

 

 

 

 

"We’ll doubtless be arguing about police bias and profiling for many years to come, but on this topic, the hard truth is that some portion of that 'implicit bias' is logical. The Left is driving our society insane by forcing it to ignore blatant realities of urban crime known by every rookie cop." 

 

 

 

 

 

Linked from that Hayward article is Steve Sailer's October 17th 2016 "Gladwellian Implicit Association Testing is Just Another Example of Psychology's Replication Crisis" from The Unz Review.  It includes a skeptical review of some of the cognitive research studies that claim to show implicit bias: "Over the last decade, the Establishment has celebrated the Implicit Association Test as a way to scientifically uncover those who are hiding Implicit Bias so they can be put through the re-education process. But does it really work?"  This article discusses and links to Carlsson and Agerström's April 24th 2016 "A Closer Look at the Discrimination Outcomes in the IAT Literature" from the Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, and to Blanton, Jaccard, Strauts, and Tetlock's January 2015 "Toward a Meaningful Metric of Implicit Prejudice" from the Journal of Applied Psychology. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lecture Notes for Week Nine

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

To Do:

 

1) Third Essay Prompt

 

2) Library Visits and Peer-Reviewed Articles

 

3) Brentano's Consciousness

 

4) Group Exercise

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1) Third Essay Prompt: http://www.christopherlay.com/criticalcompositionthirdessayprompt.html

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2) Library Visits and Peer-Reviewed Articles

 

a) "Conscious Efforts to End Unconscious Bias: Why Women Leave Academic Research"

 

b) "Black and Blue: Exploring Racial Bias and Law Enforcement in the Killings of Unarmed Black Male Civilians"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3) Brentano's Consciousness

 

 

 

 

 

 

Brentano's distinctions:

 

 

 

 

 

Phenomena ≠ causes of phenomena. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mental phenomena are characterized by intentionality.  

 

Physical phenomena lack that characteristic. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

All mental phenomena are "perceived in inner consciousness." 

 

Physical phenomena are only the objects of "external perception." 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

We can ask "whether there are any mental phenomena which are not objects of consciousness.  All mental phenomena are states of consciousness; but are all mental phenomena conscious, or might there also be unconscious mental acts?" 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Could it be that some unconscious mental phenomena cause us to have some experiences? 

 

 

Could it be that some unconscious mental phenomena are caused by our experiences? 

 

 

Could it be that if we appeal to unconscious mental phenomena as necessary for conscious mental phenomena we end up with "infinite complexity of mental states"? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Brentano's Problem:

 

mental Phenomena are a) intentional (directed, or about something), and mental phenomena are b) the objects of inner perception. 

 

 

 

Is inner perception1 a mental phenomenon?  Yes. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If inner perception1 is a mental phenomenon, then it is the object of inner perception2. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If inner perception2 is a mental phenomenon, then it is the object of inner perception3. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If inner perception3 is a mental phenomenon, then it is the object of inner perception4. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If inner perception4 is a mental phenomenon, then it is the object of inner perception5. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If inner perception5 is a mental phenomenon, then it is the object of inner perception6. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If inner perception6 is a mental phenomenon, then it is the object of inner perception7. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This would mean that we would have an infinite regress of inner perceptions necessary to account for the inner perception of one single mental phenomenon. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The path Brentano admits could exist, but the path he does not want us to go down: Brentano admits that you could solve this problem by saying that there is awareness of the directedness of a mental phenomenon because it is the object of a distinct inner perception, but that you are not aware of the inner perception because inner perception itself is not normally the object of some other inner perception. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Brentano's Preferred Answer: The directedness of mental phenomena includes self-directedness, and this self-directedness does not result from some distinct, separate mental phenomenon. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If the inner perception is the result of a distinct, directed mental phenomenon then you have two choices: an infinite regress, or two distinct mental phenomena with only one of them being conscious.  But Brentano argues that inner perception is not the result of a distinct directed mental phenomenon–it is the result of one mental phenomenon with self-direction. 

 

 

 

 

 

4) Group Exercise

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Each group summarizes one of the significant parts from the following excerpts, and then provides an explanation to help someone understand the excerpt–and an example if you have time.

 

a) "If the attempt to observe the anger which stirs us becomes impossible because the phenomenon disappears, it is clear that an earlier state of excitement can no longer be interfered with in this way. And we really can focus our attention on a past mental phenomenon just as we can upon a present physical phenomenon, and in this way we can, so to speak, observe it. Furthermore, we could say that it is even possible to undertake experimentation on our own mental phenomena in this manner. For we can, by various means, arouse certain mental phenomena in ourselves intentionally, in order to find out whether this or that other phenomenon occurs as a result. We can then contemplate the result of the experiment calmly and attentively in our memory."

b) "To be sure, this procedure, which we could call observation in memory, is obviously not fully equivalent to genuine observation of present events. As everyone knows, memory is, to a great extent, subject to illusion, while inner perception is infallible and does not admit of doubt. When the phenomena which are retained by the memory are substituted for those of inner perception, they introduce uncertainty and the possibility of many sorts of self- deception into this area at the same time. And once the possibility of deception exists, its actual occurrence is not far off, for that unbiased frame of mind which the observer must have is hardest to achieve in connection with one’s own mental acts."

c) "In addition to the direct perception of our own mental phenomena we have an indirect knowledge of the mental phenomena of others. The phenomena of inner life usually express themselves, so to speak, i.e. they cause externally perceivable changes.  They are expressed most fully when a person describes them directly in words. Of course such a description would be incomprehensible or rather impossible if the difference between the mental lives of two individuals was such that they did not contain any com- mon element. In that case their exchange of ideas would be like that between a person who was born blind and another who was born without the sense of smell trying to explain to one another the color and the scent of a violet. But this is not the case."

d) "Less perfectly, perhaps, but often in a sufficiently clear way, mental states can be manifested even without verbal communication.  In this category belong, above all, human behavior and voluntary action. The conclusions that we can draw from them concerning the inner states from which they derive are often much more certain than those based on verbal statements ... .  Besides these voluntary ones, there are also involuntary physical changes which naturally accompany or follow certain mental states. Fright makes us turn pale, fear induces trembling, our cheeks blush red with shame."

e) "Every mental phenomenon is characterized by what the Scholastics of the Middle Ages called the intentional (or mental)† inexistence of an object, and what we might call, though not wholly unambiguously, reference to a content, direction toward an object9 (which is not to be understood here as meaning a thing),10 or immanent objectivity. Every mental phenomenon includes something as object within itself, although they do not all do so in the same way. In presentation something is presented, in judgement something is affirmed or denied, in love loved, in hate hated, in desire desired and so on. ... .  We can, therefore, define mental phenomena by saying that they are those phenomena which contain an object intentionally within themselves."

f) "Another characteristic which all mental phenomena have in common is the fact that they are only perceived in inner consciousness, while in the case of physical phenomena only external perception is possible. ... .  [W]hen we say that mental phenomena are those which are apprehended by means of inner perception, we say that their perception is immediately evident."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lecture Notes for Week Eight   

 

 

 

 

Note: Library visits. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Chapter 7" "Locating, Mining, and Citing Sources"     

Behrens, Laurence and Leonard J. Rosen.  A Sequence for Academic Writing. 5th Ed. 

 

 

The Research Question     

Your research question should fulfill the relevant requirements and should be of interest to you. 

   

The Research Answer        

When you arrive at an answer to your research question, you have the thesis to your research paper. 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Healthy, Initial  Naēveté    

"By working with a research question (as opposed to a thesis) early in the research process, you acknowledge that you still have ideas and information to discover before reaching your conclusions and beginning to write." 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Searching

 

1) "Focus on a noun"

 

2) Narrow with another noun, or modifier

 

3) Substitute words

 

4) "Use 'advanced' features to refine your research"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"As a [general] rule [of thumb], use several search services ... in any given search to ensure that you don't miss important sites and sources of information."

 

"Because each service uses a different method to catalog Web sites, each service will return a different results list for searches on the same term." 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Alexander's The New Jim Crow

 

 

" A survey was conducted in 1995 asking the following question: "Would you close your eyes for a second, envision a drug user, and describe that person to me?" The startling results were published in the Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education. Ninety-five percent of respondents pictured a black drug user, while only 5 percent imagined other racial groups.39 These results contrast sharply with the reality of drug crime in America. African Americans constituted only 15 percent of current drug users in 1995, and they constitute roughly the same percentage today. Whites constituted the vast majority of drug users then (and now), but almost no one pictured a white person when asked to imagine what a drug user looks like. The same group of respondents also perceived the typical drug trafficker as black."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Decades of cognitive bias research demonstrates that both unconscious and conscious biases lead to discriminatory actions, even when an individual does not want to discriminate.41 The quotation commonly attributed to Nietzsche, that "there is no immaculate perception," perfectly captures how cognitive schemas—thought structures—influence what we notice and how the things we notice get interpreted.42 Studies have shown that racial schemas operate not only as part of conscious, rational deliberations, but also automatically—without conscious awareness or intent.43 One study, for example, involved a video game that placed photographs of white and black individuals holding either a gun or other object (such as a wallet, soda can, or cell phone) into various photographic backgrounds. Participants were told to decide as quickly as possible whether to shoot the target. Consistent with earlier studies, participants were more likely to mistake a black target as armed when he was not, and mistake a white target as unarmed, when in fact he was armed.44 This pattern of discrimination reflected automatic, unconscious thought processes, not careful deliberations."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Most striking, perhaps, is the overwhelming evidence that implicit bias measures are disassociated from explicit bias measures.45 In other words, the fact that you may honestly believe that you are not biased against African Americans, and that you may even have black friends or relatives, does not mean that you are free from unconscious bias. Implicit bias tests may still show that you hold negative attitudes and stereotypes about blacks, even though you do not believe you do and do not want to.46"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Banaji Interview Transcript  

 

 

 

 

MAHZARIN BANAJI: So just to go back a little bit to the beginning, in the late 1990s, I did a very simple experiment with Tony Greenwald in which I was to quickly associate dark-skinned faces - faces of black Americans - with negative words. I had to use a computer key whenever I saw a black face or a negative word, like devil or bomb, war, things like that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MAHZARIN BANAJI: And likewise, there was another key on the keyboard that I had to strike whenever I saw a white face or a good word, a word like love, peace, joy. I was able to do this very easily. But when the test then switched the pairing and I had to use the same computer key to identify a black face with good things and white faces and bad things, my fingers appeared to be frozen on the keyboard.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MAHZARIN BANAJI: I literally could not find the right - the right key. That experience is a humbling one. It is even a humiliating one because you come face to face with the fact that you are not the person you thought you were.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Brentano's Psychology from an Empirical Standpoint

 

 

Book I, Chapter Two, §1

Observational Awareness

Incidental Awareness

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Book I, Chapter Two, §2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Book I, Chapter Two, §3

Observational Awareness in Memory / Temporal Mediation

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Book I, Chapter Two, §4

Verification and Analogy

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Book I, Chapter Two, §5

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Book I, Chapter Two, last paragraph: 

"What we have said is sufficient to show from which areas the psychologist gains the experiences upon which he bases his investigation of mental laws. We found inner perception to be his primary source, but it has the disadvantage that it can never become observation. To inner perception we added the contemplation of our previous mental experiences in memory, and in this case it is possible to focus attention on them and, so to speak, observe them. The field of experience which up to this point is limited to our own mental phenomena was then extended, in that expressions of the mental life of other persons allow us to gain some knowledge of mental phenomena which we do not experience directly. Certainly the facts which are important for psychology are thus increased a thousand-fold. This last type of experience, however, presupposes observation through memory, just as the latter presupposes the inner perception of present mental phenomena. Inner perception, therefore, constitutes the ultimate and indispensable precondition of the other two sources of knowledge. Consequently, and on this point traditional psychology is correct as against Comte, inner perception constitutes the very foundation upon which the science of psychology is erected."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lecture Notes for Week Seven  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

To Do:

 

1) Second Essay Prompt

 

2) Writing Tips and Generic Margin Comments

 

3) Bill Nye on Philosophy–and specifically Descartes ("Transcript" only)

 

4) Descartes' Fourth Meditation

 

5) Group Exercise

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1) Second Essay Prompt http://www.christopherlay.com/criticalcompositionsecondessayprompt.html

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In five pages (that is, in no fewer than five pages, and no more than five and a half pages), using what we've learned from the first and second chapters of The Sequence for Academic Reading, and drawing on your own college experiences:

 

a) explain Descartes's Method of Doubt and his immediate goal in employing it;

 

b) summarize Nye's "beef" with philosophy (from the transcript found here: http://bigthink.com/videos/bill-nye-on-philosophy), then explain how Nye's challenge could be applied to Descartes's Method of Doubt; 

 

c) explain how Descartes could reply to the Nye challenge from 2), above;

 

d) argue in favor of either Descartes or Nye as you have presented them above; and

 

e) consider how a naysayer could reply to your argument from 4), above.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2) Writing Tips and Generic Margin Comments http://www.christopherlay.com/EssayWritingTips.htm /  http://www.christopherlay.com/GenericMarginComments.htm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No Objection Introduced: Will you consider an objection, as the prompt requires?  If so it is good to introduce your reader to what that objection is, and how you might reply to it–however briefly.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Objection Without Argument: Your objection deserves an argument.  As I have advised in class, consider putting the objection to your argument in its own paragraph so that you make sure it is fully argued for.  Then have your reply in its own paragraph so that you are more likely to have a fully developed response.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Too Many Objections: When you present your reader with a possible objection you want the objection to sound persuasive, and the best way to make it sound persuasive is to provide an argument for why it is a good objection.  As I have advised in class, consider putting the objection to your argument in its own paragraph so that you make sure it is fully argued for.  Then have your reply in its own paragraph so that you are more likely to have a fully developed response. This means that you don't really have room to consider more than one objection.  Instead of two or more objections half argued for, you should have one objection fully argued for.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3) Bill Nye on Philosophy–and specifically Descartes ("Transcript" only) http://bigthink.com/videos/bill-nye-on-philosophy

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"And to make a philosophical argument that they may not be real because you can’t prove — like, for example, you can’t prove that the sun will come up tomorrow. Not really, right. You can’t prove it until it happens. But I’m pretty confident it will happen. That’s part of my reality. The sun will come up tomorrow. And so philosophy is important for a while, but it’s also — I get were Neil and Richard might be coming from, where you start arguing in a circle where I think therefore I am. ... . And ... this gets into the old thing if you drop a hammer on your foot, is it real or is it just your imagination? You can run that test, you know, a couple of times and I hope you come to agree that it’s probably real." 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

4) Fourth Mediation       "Of Truth and Error"

   

   

 

 

 

Recall:  

 

Meditation One: The Method of Doubt leads us to see that all the objects of our thought amount to mere dubitable knowledge regarding their actual causes (thanks to the possibility of an evil genie). 

 

Meditation Two: Doubting that one doubts proves the absolutely certain existence of thinking.  Clarity and distinctness goes with thinking, not bodies (thanks to the wax example). 

 

Meditation Three: The idea of God's existence (which has objective reality) entails God's actual existence external to Descartes (which has formal reality), thanks to an argument from elimination.  Since God exists external to Descartes, we can conclude that God would not allow the existence of an evil genie.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So God exists, but so do some deceptions. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

God the Deceiver?     

 

The idea of god does not include imperfection. 

 

A deception is an imperfection.   

 

The idea of god does not include deception. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

God Given Faculties

 

The faculty of judging is god given. 

 

Would god give me a defective faculty of judging? 

 

God would not give a faculty that, when properly employed, would always lead to error. 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Whence Error?

 

I do suffer from bad judgements.

 

Is god to blame for such bad judgments? 

 

That would make god a deceiver, but deception is not in the idea of god.   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Error Shouldn't Surprise Us       

 

Humans seem to be in the middle of a spectrum of perfection, god being at one end, and nothingness being at the other end.   

 

So we have perfection or total being on the one hand, and nothingness or total non-being on other hand. 

 

Since I participate in nothingness, non-being–that is, in non-perfection–it should not surprise me that I sometimes "fall into error."

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Finite        

 

My not being infinite in nature has something to do with my capacity for error.

 

"[M]y being deceived arises from the circumstance that the power which God has given me of discerning truth from error is not infinite."

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Willing & Understanding

 

God implants in us the faculties of understanding and willing. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Error from Mismatching Willing & Understanding

 

When in error, I am in want of knowledge that I do not have.  

   

Errors come from a mixture of the activities of understanding and the will. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Understanding

 

 

Understanding merely entertains ideas.   

 

Alone, understanding is not the source of error.

   

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Willing

 

In willing "we are able to do or not to do the same thing."

 

When taken in hand with understanding, willing entails affirming or denying what is proposed by understanding.   

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Matching and Mismatching

 

The faculties of understanding and willing in themselves are good. 

 

Our application of those faculties, however, is not god's doing, but our own.

 

Errors occur when we apply the faculty of willing beyond the faculty of understanding.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Whence, then, spring my errors? They arise from this cause alone, that I do not restrain the will, which is of much wider range than the understanding, within the same limits, but extend it even to things I do not understand, and as the will is of itself indifferent to such, it readily falls into error and sin by choosing the false in room of the true, and evil instead of good."

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Epistemological Maxim      

 

"[T]he knowledge of the understanding ought always to precede the determination of the will."

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The source of error is human, not divine. 

 

"[I]n truth it is no imperfection in Deity that he has accorded to me the power of giving or withholding my assent from certain things of which he has not put a clear and distinct knowledge in my understanding; but it is doubtless an imperfection in me that I do not use my freedom aright, and readily give my judgment on matters which I only obscurely and confusedly conceive."

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On the Understanding of that which is Clearly & Distinctly Understood        

 

"as often as I so restrain my will within the limits of my knowledge, that it forms no judgment except regarding objects which are clearly and distinctly represented to it by the understanding, I can never be deceived; because every clear and distinct conception is doubtless something, and as such cannot owe its origin to nothing, but must of necessity have God for its author–God, I say, who, as supremely perfect, cannot, without a contradiction, be the cause of any error; and consequently it is necessary to conclude that every such conception [or judgment] is true."

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Group Work Summary: In groups of three, discuss your second essay's argument and then work on coming up with an objection (or naysayer) to either your thesis or your support for your thesis. 

 

 

Step 1 (ten minutes): Individually, write out your argument on a piece of paper, clearly distinguishing your conclusion from your premise(s).

Step 2 (ten minutes):  In groups, discuss your individual arguments, in turn. 

Step 3 (ten minutes): In groups, offer your colleagues, in turn, possible objections to either their theses or their support for their theses.

Step 4 (ten minutes):  In your original (pre-group) seats, we collectively discuss the fruits of our labor. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lecture Notes for Week Six 

 

 

 

 

To Do:

 

1) Second Essay Prompt

 

2) Writing Tips and Generic Margin Comments

 

3) Bill Nye on Philosophy–and specifically Descartes ("Transcript" only)

 

4) Descartes' Third Meditation (metaphysics of ideas, causes, and god)

 

5) Interlude: Group Explanations utilizing "The Structure"

 

6) Argument from Elimination (false trilemma)

 

7) Naysayers (objection and reply)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1) Second Essay Prompt http://www.christopherlay.com/criticalcompositionsecondessayprompt.html

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2) Writing Tips and Generic Margin Comments http://www.christopherlay.com/EssayWritingTips.htm /  http://www.christopherlay.com/GenericMarginComments.htm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3) Bill Nye on Philosophy–and specifically Descartes ("Transcript" only) http://bigthink.com/videos/bill-nye-on-philosophy

 

 

 

 

 

   

4) Descartes' Third Meditation: "Of God: That he Exists"

   

 

 

 

 

 

Recall all we have so far:

 

Method of Doubt

If something has deceived in the past, it cannot be trusted to provide infallible certitude.

 

Cogito

"I am a thinking (conscious) thing" is known with infallible certitude. 

   

Clearly & Distinctly   

And we have established that whatever is understood clearly and distinctly is understood to be true

 

"I may now take a general rule, that all that is very clearly and distinctly apprehended (conceived) is true"

 

 

 

 

 

   

Seemingly Clear & Distinct     

But what about those seemingly clear and distinct mathematical ideas we have? 

 

Oh yes, they could be (it is possible) implanted in us by an evil genie

   

But isn't it a "manifest contradiction" that 2 + 3 should = 4 or 6?

   

God a Deceiver?  

Would god allow an evil genie? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

God's Role

So we need to see if there is a god, and if there is, would she permit wholesale deception. 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Division of Thoughts     

Let's divide our thoughts to discern which are susceptible of truth, and which of error

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Consider judgements:

 

In judgements we can wonder "the ideas which are in us are like or conformed to the things that are external to us."

 

In some cases, we have found differences. 

 

This leads us to wonder where our ideas come from.

 

Can we match our ideas of a cup with cup "out there in the real world," itself? 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

Ideas can appear to be

 

a) innate (placed within, usually from the beginning),

 

b) adventitious (happening by chance from something other than ourselves), and

 

c) invented (by us). 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Idea of God        

Descartes idea of god:  "eternal, infinite, [immutable], all-knowing, all-powerful, and the creator of all things that are out of himself ... ."

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Cause of the Idea of God

But what could cause me to have an idea of the infinite? 

 

"Now, it is manifest by the natural light that there must at least be as much reality in the efficient and total cause as in its effect ... ."

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Causes & Realities    

 

The idea of the infinite in god is caused by something.

 

The idea of the infinite in god, the effect, must draw its reality from the cause of that idea.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The effect cannot have more reality in it than the cause.

 

Ideas have objective reality.  

 

Causes have formal reality.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

The Ideas & Realities of God      

The formal reality corresponding to the idea of the infinite in god causes the objective reality of the idea of the infinite in god. 

 

"But in order that an idea may contain this objective reality rather than that, it must doubtless derive it from some cause in which is found at least as much formal reality as the idea contains of objective;"

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The idea of the infinite in god could rest on some other idea, but not infinitely. 

 

There must be some source to this idea of the infinite in god.   

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

5) Interlude: Group Explanations utilizing "The Structure"

 

 

Recall that "The Structure" is a template paragraph structure for explaining things like difficult quotes. 

 

Introduce your reader to the task of the paragraph. 

Paraphrase the quote.

Definition of relevant term(s) from that quote. 

What that quote means (obviously). 

Why it obviously means that. 

What the quote doesn't mean X (where x is something semi-obvious).

Why the quote doesn't mean X. 

What else the quote doesn't mean, say Y (where y is something less obvious)

Why the quote doesn't mean Y. 

What your reader should think as a result of having read the structure of the quote

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Let's do another experiment in attaining 1) the mythical ideal of college education (where you are confronted by different perspectives had by your peers and thus foreshadow your experiences in a deliberative democracy), and 2) a marketable skill.     

 

 

In seven different groups, explain the following seven different quotes utilizing the so-called Structure. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

a) (from Meditation Three) Descartes is not Alone  

"if the objective reality [or perfection] of any one of my ideas be such as clearly to convince me, that this same reality exists in me neither formally nor eminently, and if, as follows from this, I myself cannot be the cause of it, it is a necessary consequence that I am not alone in the world, but that there is besides myself some other being who exists as the cause of that idea;"

 

b) (from Meditation Three) God Exists    

"There only remains, therefore, the idea of God, in which I must consider whether there is anything that cannot be supposed to originate with myself. By the name God, I understand a substance infinite, [eternal, immutable], independent, all-knowing, all-powerful, and by which I myself, and every other thing that exists, if any such there be, were created. But these properties are so great and excellent, that the more attentively I consider them the less I feel persuaded that the idea I have of them owes its origin to myself alone And thus it is absolutely necessary to conclude, from all that I have before said, that God exists."

 

c) (from Meditation Three) Descartes is Finite         

"For though the idea of substance be in my mind owing to this, that I myself am a substance, I should not, however, have the idea of an infinite substance, seeing I am a finite being, unless it were given me by some substance in reality infinite."

 

d) (from Meditation Three) From Self-Knowledge   

"All that is here required, therefore, is that I interrogate myself to discover whether I possess any power by means of which I can bring it about that I, who now am, shall exist a moment afterward: for, since I am merely a thinking thing (or since, at least, the precise question, in the meantime, is only of that part of myself), if such a power resided in me, I should, without doubt, be conscious of it; but I am conscious of no such power, and thereby I manifestly know that I am dependent upon some being different from myself."

 

e) (from Meditation Three) Deception's Source       

"And the whole force of the argument of which I have here availed myself to establish the existence of God, consists in this, that I perceive I could not possibly be of such a nature as I am, and yet have in my mind the idea of a God, if God did not in reality exist–this same God, I say, whose idea is in my mind–that is, a being who possesses all those lofty perfections, of which the mind may have some slight conception, without, however, being able fully to comprehend them, and who is wholly superior to all defect [and has nothing that marks imperfection]: whence it is sufficiently manifest that he cannot be a deceiver, since it is a dictate of the natural light that all fraud and deception spring from some defect."

 

f) (from Meditation Two) If Deceived, then Existing

"But there is I know not what being, who is possessed at once of the highest power and the deepest cunning, who is constantly employing all his ingenuity in deceiving me. Doubtless, then, I exist, since I am deceived; and, let him deceive me as he may, he can never bring it about that I am nothing, so long as I shall be conscious that I am something. So that it must, in fine, be maintained, all things being maturely and carefully considered, that this proposition (pronunciatum ) I am, I exist, is necessarily true each time it is expressed by me, or conceived in my mind."

 

g) (from Meditation One) Evil Genie

"I will suppose, then, not that Deity, who is sovereignly good and the fountain of truth, but that some malignant demon, who is at once exceedingly potent and deceitful, has employed all his artifice to deceive me; I will suppose that the sky, the air, the earth, colors, figures, sounds, and all external things, are nothing better than the illusions of dreams, by means of which this being has laid snares for my credulity; I will consider myself as without hands, eyes, flesh, blood, or any of the senses, and as falsely believing that I am possessed of these;"

 

Steps to Achieve Group Success

 

1) Get into your groups (per in-class instructions) ASAP

2) Get to know your fellow group members (in less than two minutes)

3) Listen to your designated reader read the quote to be explained. 

4) Pick the part of the quote that you want to explain, if the entire quote is too much. 

4) Explain the quote or part of the quote in terms of the structure. 

5) Designate a presenter and a question-caller-uponer.

6) Present your findings to the class. 

 

 

 

   

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6) Argument from Elimination (false trilemma)

 

 

 

(from Meditation Three) Whence the Idea of God   

 

But has Descartes nevertheless somehow produced this idea of god in himself, or is the idea innate? 

 

The idea is not "drawn from the senses."

 

The idea is not "presented to [him] unexpectedly."

 

The idea is "not even a pure production or fiction of my mind, for it is not in [his] power to take from or add to it."

 

The idea is, from elimination, innate.

   

 

 

   

   

 

 

 

 

 

7) Naysayers (objection and reply)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lecture Notes for Week Five

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In the same groups from last week, answer the following questions (on a piece of paper with today's date and all of your group members' names on it):

 

1) how did the deception happen?

 

2) when the deception occurred, did the subject know it was a deception? 

 

3) how did the subject discover that the deception was a deception? 

 

4) how does the subject now handle similar instances? 

 

 

 

 

Recap of Descartes' First Meditation

 

 

 

 

 

"Chapter 2" "Critique" Behrens, Laurence and Leonard J. Rosen.  A Sequence for Academic Writing. 5th Ed. 

 

 

"Evaluating Persuasive Writing"        

"You can assess the validity of an argument and its conclusion by determining whether the author has (1) clearly defined key terms, (2) used information fairly, and (3) argued logically and not fallaciously." 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

"Avoiding Logical Fallacies"       

Loaded terms

Against the person

Causation ≠ correlation

False dichotomies

Hasty generalizations

False analogy

Begging the question

Non Sequitur

Oversimplification

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Q2    "(2) To what extent do you agree with the author?" 

   

   

Agreeing, disagreeing, or both, to some extent or another

   

Either Way  Begin with a summarization.

 

Express your position. 

 

Explain why you have that position. 

 

Argue for why having the position you have is the correct way to go. 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Support    

"Any [position] that you express is effective to the extent you support it by supplying evidence from your reading (which should be properly cited), your observation, or your personal experience." 

   

W/Out Support

Without that support, you merely have an opinion. 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reasons   

There are a number of reasons for agreeing or disagreeing.

   

Assumptions     

Good arguments that rest atop bad assumptions aren't that good. 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"How do you determine the validity of assumptions once you have identified them?  In the absence of more scientific criteria, you start by considering how well the author's assumptions stack up against your own experience, observations, reading, and values–while remaining honestly aware of the limits of your own personal knowledge." 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Critique    

Suppose you've found an underlying assumption that you object to.  How to critique and argument with a questionable assumption? 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A critique is "a systematic evaluation." 

 

"Is the information accurate?"

 

"Is the information significant?"

 

"Has the author defined terms clearly?"

 

"Has the author used and interpreted information fairly?"

 

"Has the author argued logically?"

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Descartes' Second Meditation

 

 

Thinking exists with absolute certitude. 

 

 

 

 

 

Body may or may not exist, it is not known with absolute certitude. 

 

 

 

 

 

Clarity and Distinctness as an epistemological standard. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Certain existence should go with clarity and distinctness. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wax thought experiment goes shows that certain existence goes with clarity and distinctness. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lecture Notes for Week Four

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Individually, spend ten minutes writing out how you have once been deceived by your senses. 

 

 

 

 

 

In groups, spend ten minutes explaining to your group members, in turn, how you were once deceived by your senses. 

 

 

 

 

 

In the same groups, decide which deception will be your group's exemplar. 

 

 

 

 

In the same groups, answer the following questions (on a piece of paper with today's date and all of your group members' names on it):

 

1) how did the deception happen?

 

2) when the deception occurred, did the subject know it was a deception? 

 

3) how did the subject discover that the deception was a deception? 

 

4) how does the subject now handle similar instances? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Consider Bill Nye's consideration of Descartes: http://bigthink.com/videos/bill-nye-on-philosophy

 

 

 

 

 

 

Descartes' Method of Doubt

 

 

 

 

 

What is a method?  When does one use a method?

 

What is doubt?  When should one be doubtful?

 

 

 

 

 

Second Essay ...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lecture Notes for Week Three 

 

 

 

 

"Chapter 1" "Summary, Paraphrase, and Quotation" Behrens, Laurence and Leonard J. Rosen.  A Sequence for Academic Writing. 5th Ed. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Good Summaries

 

A) Objective: do not misrepresent that which is summarized

 

 

 

 

 

B) Purpose: focus on central idea

 

 

 

 

 

 

C) Brevity: exclude superfluous details

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Guidelines   "These pointers are not meant to be ironclad rules; rather, they are designed to encourage habits of thinking that will allow you to very your technique as the situation demands." 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Write a thesis–a one- or two-sentence summary of the entire passage"         Crystalize the main point of what you are summarizing. 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Write the first draft of your summary"    

 

Add only the details needed to explain/support your crystallization. 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Check your summary against the original passage"   

Use this too often overlooked step to ensure objectivity. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Chapter 6" "Chapter 6: Writing as a Process" Behrens, Laurence and Leonard J. Rosen.  A Sequence for Academic Writing. 5th Ed. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Writing & Thinking       

 

Sometimes thoughts precede writing, and sometimes writing produces thoughts. 

 

The same sometimes applies to asking questions in class: you can raise your hand with a question in mind, but discover that as you ask your question you actually end up asking a different question. 

   

 

 

 

 

 

So what? 

 

The point is that by writing, or asking a questions in class, without first having a fully developed thought can be good as the process of writing and asking questions can help develop thought. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Stages       

 

"Stages of the Writing Process"

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Understanding the task"      

 

"Read–or create–the assignment.  Understand its purpose, scope, and audience." 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Gathering data" 

 

"Locate and review information–from sources and from your own experience–and formulate an approach. 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Invention"

 

"Use various techniques (e.g., listing, outlining, freewriting) to generate promising ideas and a particular approach to the assignment.  Gather more data if needed.  Aim for a working thesis, a tentative (but well-reasoned and well-informed) statement of the direction you intend to pursue." 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Drafting"  

 

"Sketch the paper you intend to compose and then write all sections necessary to support the working thesis.  Stop if necessary to gather more data.  Typically, you will both follow you plan and revise and invent a new (or slightly new) plan as you write.  Expect to discover key parts of your paper as you write." 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Revision"  

 

Rewrite in order to make the draft coherent and unified."

 

"Revise and the global level, reshaping your thesis and adding to, rearranging, or deleting paragraphs in order to support the thesis.  Gather more data as needed to flesh out paragraphs in support of the thesis."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Revise at the local level of paragraphs, ensuring that each is well reasoned and supports the thesis."

   

 

 

 

 

 

"Editing"     "Revise at the sentence level for style and brevity.  Revise for correctness: grammar, punctuation, usage, and spelling." 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That was from the Sequence text.  What follows are some of my thoughts on paraphrasing: http://christopherlay.com/GenericMarginComments.htm

 

 

 

Introductions: Other than supplying the reader with the barest amount of information needed to understand the thesis, and other than supplying the reader with the thesis, your first, introductory paragraph should also include what I call a roadmap.  A roadmap tells your reader, explicitly, how you will explain and defend your thesis.  It is something you say after positing your thesis, and before you begin to explain and defend it.  As such, it introduces your reader to how you will support your thesis.  And insofar as you support your thesis by considering and responding to an objection, it is sometimes (very often in fact) useful to introduce your reader to the objection you'll consider before concluding. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Plato's Apology

 

 

 

Truth         

 

 

Socrates, in his defense against the charges, purports to speak the truth

   

Old Reputation    

 

 

Socrates was known (amongst the Athenians) as one who

 

1) makes (reckless) speculations about the heavens and earth,

 

2) makes "the worse appear the better cause," and

   

3) teaches such things to others

   

   

Socrates' Defense         

 

"the simple truth is, O Athenians, [is] that I have nothing to do with physical speculations" 

 

 

 

 

 

Socrates' Reputation as a Sophist   

 

 

Socrates has an inaccurate reputation as being a Sophist that he also seeks to disprove

 

A sophist is one who charges money to teach people how to make "the worse appear the better cause"

 

"As little foundation is there for the report that I am a teacher, and take money; this accusation has no more truth in it than the other"

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Human Instruction       

 

 

Beyond denying that he is a sophist, Socrates denies that teaching itself exists

 

Instructing humans, he says, would be an honorable thing–if it was even possible

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wise

 

Socrates states: 

"this reputation of mine has come of a certain sort of wisdom which I possess"

 

This is not the "superhuman wisdom" claimed to be had by the sophists

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The God of Delphi         

 

Socrates appeals to a god as a witness

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"None Wiser"      

Socrates gives the following account: "Chaerephon, as you know, was very impetuous in all his doings, and he went to Delphi and boldly asked ... the oracle to tell him whether anyone was wiser than I was, and the Pythian prophetess answered, that there was no man wiser"

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Socrates' Response       

 

Yet Socrates knows that he has "no wisdom, small or great"

 

Was the god's proclamation a riddle? 

 

It could not have been a lie as gods don't do that

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Experiment, Tests, and Socratic Inquiry   

 

To discern the nature of the god's proclamation, Socrates tested it

 

"I reflected that if I could only find a man wiser than myself, then I might go to the god with a refutation in my hand"

 

"I should say to him, 'Here is a man who is wiser than I am; but you said that I was the wisest'"

 

Hence we have Socrates' procedure of inquiry, of testing claims

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

Testing a Politician        

E.g.: "When I began to talk with him, I could not help thinking that he was not really wise, although he was thought wise by many, and still wiser by himself; and thereupon I tried to explain to him that he thought himself wise, but was not really wise; and the consequence was that he hated me, and his enmity was shared by several who were present and heard me"

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

Wisdom     

 

As a result of examining the politician Socrates concludes:

 

"I am better off than he is,–for he knows nothing, and thinks that he knows; I neither know nor think that I know. In this latter particular, then, I seem to have slightly the advantage of him."

   

   

   

This Can't End Well      

 

"the result of my mission was just this: I found that the men most in repute [those engaged in political actives, which surely includes members of his audience] were all but the most foolish; and that others less esteemed were really wiser and better"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wisdom vs. Pretense to Knowledge 

 

Socrates asserts that he'd gladly not have the knowledge they have if it includes having their ignorance too

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

Hence Socrates' Negative Reputation       

 

Such inquiry proved dangerous for Socrates, earning him enemies

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Worth of Human Wisdom / The Oracle Interpreted        

 

Folks call Socrates wise as they take Socrates to have the wisdom he seeks in others

 

But, "God only is wise," Socrates argues

 

And when the god speaks of Socrates as wise, he only shows that "the wisdom of men is worth little or nothing"

 

When the god speaks of Socrates as wise, he is only using Socrates as an example of human wisdom, and how little knowledge that wisdom includes 

 

Here's how Socrates interprets the god's proclamation: "He, O men, is the wisest, who, like Socrates, knows that his wisdom is in truth worth nothing"

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Socrates' Days    

 

And it is in this way that Socrates busies himself, leaving him no time for any type of public office–or for earning money

   

Teaching?   The sons of the rich nevertheless willingly follow Socrates about

 

They enjoy the way in which Socrates exposes those who claim to have knowledge

 

Those sons enjoy the way in which the examined become angry with Socrates instead of themselves

 

The anger of the examined takes the form of the repeating "the ready-made charges which are used against all philosophers"

 

And Meletus represents the anger of the examined with his charges:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Contemporary Charges According to Meletus, Socrates

 

1) "is a doer of evil" 

 

2) "corrupts the youth"

 

3) "does not believe in the gods of the state"

 

4) "has other new divinities of his own"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yet Socrates recognizes that he will not likely be able to sway the Athenian rabble

 

He predicts that his destruction will come from "the envy and detraction of the world"

 

But if he knows he's to die, shouldn't he be ashamed at not trying to save himself?

 

Socrates replies: "a man who is good for anything ought not to calculate the chance of living or dying; he ought only to consider whether in doing anything he is doing right or wrong–acting the part of a good man or of a bad"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On the Fear of Death    

 

To be afraid of death is to claim knowledge about it

 

But about what happens after death, or even during death, we know nothing

 

The fear of death is thus a pretense to wisdom, but not itself wise

 

 

 

 

 

   

Disobedience       

While Socrates admits that he knows very little, he does know that disobedience to the state is evil, but that disobedience to a god is a greater evil

 

There is a possible good to obeying the state, but a certain evil to disobeying a god, and Socrates states that he "will never fear or avoid a possible good rather than a certain evil"

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Soul 's Primacy      

 

Socrates considers a scenario where he is let off on the condition that he cease his enquiries

 

Socrates says he reports to gods over men, and that he would/will continue to chastise, via examination, his fellow Athenians for improperly valuing money, honor, and reputation over wisdom and truth

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Socrates on the Fear of Death        

 

"When I do not know whether death is a good or an evil, why should I propose a penalty which would certainly be an evil?" 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why not Exile?    

 

Socrates will not propose that he is put in exile, as this would mean that he disobeys the god

 

"if I tell you that to do as you say would be a disobedience to the God, and therefore that I cannot hold my tongue, you will not believe that I am serious; and if I say again that daily to discourse about virtue, and of those other things about which you hear me examining myself and others, is the greatest good of man, and that the unexamined life is not worth living, you are still less likely to believe me" (emphasis mine)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Quiz: Why can't Socrates express a fear of death without sounding like a hypocrite? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Your first essay needs to be argumentative. 

 

 

Premise ≠ Conclusion

 

 

 

Thesis qua conclusion

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Disagreements & Agreements

 

 

 

 

 

 

How to handle generalizations, exceptions, and counter-examples? 

 

 

Recall Delbanco: "It is a pipe dream to imagine that every student can have the sort of experience that our richest colleges, at their best, still provide. But it is a nightmare society that affords the chance to learn and grow only to the wealthy, brilliant, or lucky few. Many remarkable teachers in America's community colleges, unsung private colleges, and underfinanced public colleges live this truth every day, working to keep the ideal of liberal education for all citizens alive."

 

 

 

How can exceptions prove a rule? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Here are relevant comments to avoid getting on your first essay (from http://www.christopherlay.com/GenericMarginComments.htm): 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I need to know not just what you'll argue, but also how you'll argue.  More detail in your thesis, however brief, is needed.  Sometimes, the shorter the essay, the more detailed your thesis needs to be.  Your thesis statement needs to include evaluative terms to show that it is the conclusion to your argument, and a brief explanation as to why you are making that argument. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In such a short essay I need to see one sustained argument.  Insofar as you have more than one argument, you've painted yourself into a corner, so to speak.  By presenting so many small arguments, you've taken from yourself the space you need to support one argument, which is all that a short essay like this one can do. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just agreeing with the author does not count as acceptable evaluation, if it does not include critical evaluation.  Critical evaluation would pose an objection to the thesis agreed with, and then a possible response to that objection.  Such evaluation doesn't merely repeat what the author writes. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Your objection deserves an argument.  As I have advised in class, consider putting the objection to your argument in its own paragraph so that you make sure it is fully argued for.  Then have your reply in its own paragraph so that you are more likely to have a fully developed response.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

When you present your reader with a possible objection you want the objection to sound persuasive, and the best way to make it sound persuasive is to provide an argument for why it is a good objection.  As I have advised in class, consider putting the objection to your argument in its own paragraph so that you make sure it is fully argued for.  Then have your reply in its own paragraph so that you are more likely to have a fully developed response. This means that you don't really have room to consider more than one objection.  Instead of two or more objections half argued for, you should have one objection fully argued for.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Group Work Summary: In groups of three, discuss your essay's argument and then work on coming up with an objection to either your thesis or your support for your thesis. 

 

 

Step 1 (ten minutes): Individually, write out your argument on a piece of paper.  As best you can, distinguish your conclusion from your premise(s).

Step 2 (ten minutes):  In groups, discuss your individual arguments, in turn. 

Step 3 (ten minutes): In groups, offer your colleagues, in turn, possible objections to either their theses or their support for their theses.

Step 4 (ten to twenty minutes):  In your original (pre-group) seats, we collectively discuss the fruits of our labor. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lecture Notes for Week One & Two

 

Delbanco presents us with the difference between the college ideal and the college reality. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For some folks, the college ideal is a reality. 

 

Delbanco: "For a relatively few, college remains the sort of place that Kronman, a former dean of Yale Law School, recalls from his days at Williams College, where his favorite class took place at the home of a philosophy professor whose two golden retrievers slept on either side of the fireplace 'like bookends beside the hearth' while the sunset lit the Berkshire hills 'in scarlet and gold.'"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For some folks, the reality of their college experience is not the college ideal. 

 

Delbanco: "But for many more students, college means the anxious pursuit of marketable skills in overcrowded, under-resourced institutions, where little attention is paid to that elusive entity sometimes called the 'whole person.'"

 

"For still others, it means traveling by night to a fluorescent-lit office building or to a classroom that exists only in cyberspace."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Delbanco argues that the college ideal should become a reality for more people. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

        

Experiment

In "College at Risk" Andrew Delbanco claims that one of the ideals of college education is in part achieved when you directly interact with your colleagues.     

           

Delbanco

As he puts it: "A well-managed discussion among peers of diverse interests and talents can help students learn the difference between informed insights and mere opinionating."

 

"It can provide the pleasurable chastisement of discovering that others see the world differently, and that their experience is not replicable by, or even reconcilable with, one's own."

 

"It is a rehearsal for deliberative democracy."    

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Let's do an experiment in attaining 1) the mythical ideal of college education (where you are confronted by different perspectives had by your peers and thus foreshadow your experiences in a deliberative democracy), and 2) a marketable skill.       

 

 

In groups of five, each group member presents one thing they hope to attain from an ideal college experience, and one thing from about their current college experience (about the college itself) that might get in the way of attaining that ideal college experience.  Then the group decides which (one) of the five things they hope to attain to present to the class, and which (one) of the five things about the current college experience that might get in the way of attaining that ideal. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Chapter 1" "Summary, Paraphrase, and Quotation" Behrens, Laurence and Leonard J. Rosen.  A Sequence for Academic Writing. 5th Ed. 

   

Paraphrase       

When you paraphrase, you express someone else's words with your own words. 

   

Not a Summary         

Whereas summaries condense material down, paraphrases do not. 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reasons to Paraphrase      

 

A) Original wording is "dense, abstract, archaic, or possibly confusing"–to clarify what might be unclear

 

B) Help yourself understand the words you are paraphrasing

 

C) To "maintain a consistent tone and level in your essay"

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Substitution

Try substituting different words, making sure that you understand the definitions of the original words and the words you substitute them with.  

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sentence Order

"Sentence structure, even sentence order, in the paraphrase need not be based on that of the original." 

 

That was from the Sequence text.  What follows are some of my thoughts on paraphrasing: http://christopherlay.com/GenericMarginComments.htm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Paraphrasing Over Quotes: Paraphrasing is, in general, better than quoting.  Here is a good, general guide for when to paraphrase instead of quoting:  if you can convey the same information in your own words without loss of meaning, then a paraphrase is usually better.  Readers of your paper tend to understand you better than they understand academic articles.  When grading your papers, graders need to see that you understand what it is that you are representing.  If you can properly paraphrase passages, then it shows your grader that you understand the material better than someone who can only find the correct passage and quote it.  And if a paraphrase won't do, whenever you quote, you should also explain the quote to the reader, to help them understand it (and to show your grader that you yourself understand the quote).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Quoting is usually necessary when:

    1) attributing something controversial to the person quoted,

    2) you are pointing out something that is too easily overlooked, or

    3) your entire thesis depends on particular wording, or

    4) there just simply is no better way of putting it. 

Bad quoting occurs, in my mind, when it seems like:

    1) you have nothing to say and so are throwing in quotes,

    2) you are using long quotes to fluff up your essay, or

    3) you are afraid to commit to a paraphrase, when a paraphrase would convey the same information.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Now, "The Structure," a paragraph structure that you can use to explain a key concept.]

 

Statement, quote, paraphrase, example, or analogy. 

Definition of relevant term(s) from that statement. 

What that statement means. 

Why is means that. 

What the statement doesn't mean X (semi-obviously).

Why the statement doesn't mean X. 

What else the statement doesn't mean, say Y (less obviously)

Why the statement doesn't mean Y. 

What your reader should think as a result of having read the paragraph

 

[Now, if you have space and need, a follow-up paragraph structure.] 

Example of what it means. 

Explanation of why that example exemplifies what you say it exemplifies.

Explain what the example doesn't show. 

Explain now how the statement and the example are relevant to your thesis. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

        

 

 

 

 

Experiment

Let's do another experiment in attaining 1) the mythical ideal of college education (where you are confronted by different perspectives had by your peers and thus foreshadow your experiences in a deliberative democracy), and 2) a marketable skill.     

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Each group paraphrases one of the following sentences, and then provides an explanation to help someone understand the quote–and an example if you have time.

A) "Seen in that long view, the distinctive contribution of the United States to the history of liberal education has been to deploy it on behalf of the cardinal American principle that all persons have the right to pursue happiness, and that 'getting to know,' in Matthew Arnold's much-quoted phrase, 'the best which has been thought and said in the world' is helpful to that pursuit." 

B) "Knowledge of the past, in other words, helps citizens develop the capacity to think critically about the present–an indispensable attribute of a healthy democracy."

C) "These ideals and achievements are among the glories of our civilization, and all Americans should be alarmed as they come to be regarded as luxuries unaffordable for all but the wealthy few."

D) "But for many more students, college means the anxious pursuit of marketable skills in overcrowded, under_resourced institutions, where little attention is paid to that elusive entity sometimes called the 'whole person.'"

E) "To succeed in sustaining college as a place where liberal learning still takes place will be very costly."  "But in the long run, it will be much more costly if we fail."

F) "What parents want for their children is not just prosperity but happiness. ... And though it is foolish to deny the linkage between the two, they are not the same thing."

G) "A class should be small enough to permit every student to participate in the give-and-take of discussion under the guidance of an informed, skilled, and engaged teacher."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Quiz #1:

 

As implied by Delbanco, what two main goals should a "'whole person'" in college have?