HONORS INTRODUCTION TO PHILOSOPHY II
I. Basics
Meeting time: Tuesday / Thursday 11:10am-12:25pm
Meeting place: HSS 120
Professor: E.J. Coffman
E-mail address: ecoffma1@utk.edu
Course website: http://online.utk.edu
Office: 816 McClung Tower
Office Hours: 12:30-1:30pm Thursday; 2:30-3:30pm Friday; by appointment
II. Texts
1. Joel Feinberg and Russ Shafer-Landau (eds.) Reason and Responsibility: Readings in Some
Basic Problems of Philosophy, 12th/13th edition (Belmont, CA: 2005/2008)
2. Online course packet available at our course’s site at Online@UT (http://online.utk.edu)
▪ Throughout this course, you’ll need to access Online@UT, as well as receive e-mail sent to your
UT e-mail account.
If you need assistance with this stuff, visit the OIT website
(http://oit.utk.edu), or give OIT a call at 974-9900.
III. Course Overview
A. Two main things we want
1. To explore a handful of perennial philosophical questions about human knowledge and
behavior
▪ Philosophical questions (PQs) differ from other kinds of questions (e.g., scientific questions) in
that they combine these three features:
▫ PQs concern certain abstract yet deeply interesting and important concepts:
Knowledge, Intellectual Justification, God, Personhood, Freedom, Moral Accountability,
Justice, and so on.
▫ The main intellectual tool we use to explore PQs is our power of reason or rational
insight (a kind of “sixth sense” that’s distinct from the five “empirical” senses).
▫ PQs resist final, definitive solution: as we’ll see both in assigned readings and in class
discussion, it’s often very difficult to achieve widespread agreement on the best answer to
a given PQ.
▪ In class, we’ll focus on some main questions in Epistemology (the branch of Philosophy that
focuses on the concepts of knowledge and intellectually justified belief), Philosophy of Religion
(which focuses on philosophical questions about religious belief), and Philosophy of Mind
(which focuses on human minds and behavior).
1
▪ Two paper assignments will give you the opportunity to interact with a couple of highly
influential contemporary works in Ethics (the branch of Philosophy that focuses on moral
concepts and principles).
2. To hone our critical thinking, reading, writing, and discussion skills
a. Ability to find, understand, and evaluate arguments developed by others
b. Ability to present and defend arguments of our own
▪ We’ll follow standard usage of the word ‘argument’ in the academic world. Here, an argument
is a line or chain of reasoning, a set of claims or statements related to each other in this way: one
of the statements—the conclusion—is supposed to be rationally supported by the remaining
statements—the premises.
▪ Fortunately, our goals for this course do not include fully resolving all the philosophical debates
we’ll be exploring. Rather, our main aims are somewhat more modest: in addition to cultivating
your critical thinking and discussion skills, I want you to (1) understand some of the main
arguments philosophers have presented about the questions we’ll be exploring and (2) develop
your own reasoned—though not necessarily final—verdicts about the strength of those
arguments.
▪ We’ll warm up by trying to figure out what (if anything) is wrong with an intriguing and
influential recent argument for the conclusion that your feelings never affect your behavior.
▪ We’ll then spend the rest of our course exploring these three fundamental philosophical
questions:
▫ Are there any facts we really know to be true?
▫ Is anyone ever intellectually justified in believing that God exists?
▫ Do we ever deserve moral praise or criticism for our actions?
▪ Here are the main things you’ll have a better understanding of at the end of our course:
▫ some main arguments for the conclusion that we don’t know many—if any—of the
things we believe, and some main replies to these arguments;
▫ two main deductive arguments for God’s existence, and the main objections to these
arguments;
▫ two main arguments for the conclusion that no one is ever intellectually justified in
believing that God exists, and the main replies to these arguments;
▫ the main argument for the conclusion that we never deserve moral praise or criticism for
our actions, and the main defenses of and objections to this argument.
▪ In addition, the two paper assignments will give you the opportunity to explore some highly
influential recent work on the following questions:
▫ Is “charitable giving” morally obligatory?
▫ Is nonhuman suffering “morally equivalent” to human suffering?
2
B. How we’ll get what we want
1. In class: Interactive lecture; group discussion; 2 essay exams (15% each = 30% of final
grade); attendance (5% of final grade)
2. Outside class: Reading assignments; 10 Critical Notes (10 @ 2.5% each = 25% of final
grade); 2 papers (2 @ 20% each = 40% of final grade)
C. Grade scale
A = 90 ↑
B+ = 87 ↑
B = 80 ↑
C+ = 77 ↑
C = 70 ↑
D = 60 ↑
F = 59 ↓
D. Explanations
▪ Reading assignments
Your three main goals when reading material assigned for this course are to: (1) Identify the main
claims the author is arguing for; (2) Understand how the author argues for those claims; and (3)
Determine how strong those arguments are. If you try hard to do these three things, there will be
at least three good results: (1) You'll be familiar with the arguments discussed in class, and you’ll
be poised to make valuable contributions to our discussion (in a typical lecture, I’ll try to
explain—then raise some questions about or objections to—what I take to be the main arguments
developed in the day’s assigned readings); (2) You'll be able to do things like correct my attempts
to explain our readings’ main arguments, draw attention to important stuff I missed, and so on;
and (3) You’ll strengthen your ability to find, understand, and evaluate all kinds of arguments
(not just those about the particular topics we’ll explore in this course).
I’ll do a variety of things to help you achieve the three reading goals above. For starters, we’ll
spend the first couple weeks studying some essays that offer advice about how to find,
understand, and evaluate arguments in texts from any discipline. Those essays will also give
advice about studying Philosophy texts in particular. I’ll also use our course’s online discussion
board—which is accessible through Online@UT—to help you achieve the three reading goals.
There, I’ll post various things that will help you get the most out of the time you spend on a
particular reading, including (1) my reasons for assigning that reading; (2) a brief overview of the
reading; and (3) some questions to guide you to the most important things that happen in the
reading.
▪ Critical Notes (10 @ 2.5% each = 25% of final grade)
This requirement serves three important purposes: (1) It’ll help you achieve the three reading
goals mentioned above; (2) It’ll help prepare you to contribute to in-class discussion of the ideas
we’re exploring; and (3) It’ll strengthen your ability to clearly and concisely express questions
about and/or objections to arguments of all kinds.
3
Each Critical Note (CN) you submit will earn a grade of ‘Exemplary’, ‘Satisfactory’, or
‘Unsatisfactory’. A Satisfactory CN will be at least 100—but not more than 200—words, and
will raise either (i) a question about or (ii) an objection to something that happens in a particular
assigned reading. An Exemplary CN will fall within the same word limits, and will raise a
significant question about or objection to a central or crucial part of the selected reading. To
ensure that I understand how your question or objection engages the material you’re writing
about, you’ll need to provide some context by briefly summarizing the part of the reading your
question or objection concerns. (See the end of the syllabus for two sample Exemplary CNs.)
Here are six important rules about CNs:
▫ CNs must be typed.
▫ Each CN must include a word count.
▫ A CN on a particular reading must be submitted before or at the first class where
we discuss that reading—i.e., once we’ve started talking about a particular reading, it’s
too late to submit a CN about it.
▫ Each of your CNs must engage a different reading assignment—i.e., no more than one
CN on a given reading assignment.
▫ CNs can’t be “replaced”: if you submit a CN, the grade it earns will be one of your ten
CN grades.
▫ All CNs are due by the last class meeting.
I encourage you to draw on your CNs in class discussion: share your questions with us, try out
your objections on us, and so on. “Anonymized” CNs may sometimes be used as springboards
for class discussion.
▪ Exams (2 @ 15% each = 30% of final grade)
Each exam will consist of 2-3 essay questions drawn from a list of several possible questions.
The possible questions will derive entirely from material covered in class. I’ll distribute a list of
possible questions several days before each exam. A typical essay question will ask you to lay
out a particular argument/theory, present a standard objection to that argument/theory, provide a
possible reply to that objection, and (finally) offer your own reasoned verdict about the relevant
debate.
▪ Papers (2 @ 20% each = 40% of final grade)
Each paper will be 4-5 pages long. I’ll distribute a detailed general rubric for papers. Further,
each paper assignment will include its own detailed instructions. Finally, each assignment comes
with a “re-write” option that works like this: After I return comments on a paper, you’ll be able to
submit a revised version of it. Improved papers will rise one “grade level” (e.g., an improved
paper that initially earned a ‘B+’ will rise to an ‘A-’). I’ll strongly encourage you to discuss ideas
with me before you start writing your papers, so that I can be maximally helpful to you and your
paper.
4
▪ Discussion
One of my main goals this semester is to help us fruitfully discuss the ideas we’ll be exploring.
By participating in discussion, you can do at least three important things:
(1) Challenge “the Prof”—and thereby help all of us!—by, e.g., questioning my
explanations of arguments from assigned readings, or my evaluations of those arguments;
(2) Gain a deeper understanding of the material this course covers;
and
(3) Strengthen your ability to participate in rational discussion about topics of all kinds.
I’ll do various things to help foster discussion both inside and outside the classroom. For
example, the reading aids posted at our course’s online discussion board will help you get a good
handle on the main arguments developed in assigned readings so that you can fruitfully question
my and/or others’ explanations and evaluations of those arguments. I’ll often put condensed
lecture notes (in the form of PowerPoint slides) on our course’s website in advance of class.
Critical Notes can play an important role in sparking class discussion.
Of course, I understand that some of us find it easier to participate in discussion than others. If
you’re especially uncomfortable with the idea of in-class discussion, please talk to me about that;
I may be able to suggest some relatively painless ways to get into the flow of class discussion.
And please do keep three important facts in mind: (1) Nobody here knows everything (including
me, as you’ll soon learn!); (2) Everybody here knows something, and so has something to
contribute to discussion; and (3) Any question or point that occurs to you in class is almost
certainly occurring to someone else at the same time—knowing that should help you become less
hesitant to ask questions or raise points in class.
IV. Key Dates
1/10 (R): First class meeting
2/12 (T): 1st paper assigned
3/6 (R): Mid-term review guide distributed
3/7 (F): 1st paper due [by 5pm]
3/13 (R): Mid-term exam
3/17-3/21 (M-F): Spring Break
3/25 (T): 2nd paper assigned
3/28 (F): Revised 1st paper due [by 5pm]
4/17 (R): Class canceled (EJ at conference in Chicago)
4/24 (R): Last class meeting (final review guide distributed; all CNs due)
4/25 (F): 2nd papers due [by 5pm]
5/1 (R): Final exam [10.15am-12.15pm]
5/12 (M): Revised 2nd papers due [by 9am]
V. Tentative Reading Schedule [CP = Course packet]
A. Preliminaries: Philosophical Terminology and Methods
1. E.J. Coffman, “Finding, Clarifying, and Evaluating Arguments” [CP]
2. Jim Pryor, “Philosophical Terms & Methods” [CP]
3. Hugh Lafollette, “Reading Philosophy” [CP]
5
4. Jim Pryor, “Guidelines on Reading Philosophy” [CP]
B. Warming Up: Do Our Feelings Ever Affect Our Actions?
1. Frank Jackson, “The Qualia Problem”
C. Are There Any Facts We Really Know to be True?
1. Rene Descartes, First Meditation and Second Meditation
2. Peter Unger, “An Argument for Skepticism”
3. G.E. Moore, “Proof of an External World”
4. G.E. Moore, “Hume’s Theory Examined” [CP]
D. Is Anyone Ever Intellectually Justified in Believing that God Exists?
1. The Cosmological Argument
a. Thomas Aquinas, “The Five Ways”
b. Samuel Clarke, “A Modern Formulation of the Cosmological Argument”
c. William Rowe, “The Cosmological Argument”
2. The Ontological Argument
a. Anselm, “The Ontological Argument”
b. Gaunilo, “On Behalf of the Fool”
c. William Rowe, “The Ontological Argument”
3. What’s Required for Intellectually Justified Belief in God?
a. W.K. Clifford, “The Ethics of Belief”
b. William James, “The Will to Believe”
c. Antony Flew, “The Presumption of Atheism” [CP]
d. Kelly James Clark, “Without Evidence or Argument”
4. The Problem of Evil
a. J.L. Mackie, “Evil and Omnipotence”
b. Richard Swinburne, “Why God Allows Evil”
E. Do We Ever Deserve Moral Praise or Criticism for Our Actions?
1. The Problem of Moral Responsibility
a. Introduction to Part IV
b. Roderick Chisholm, “Human Freedom and the Self” (only sections 1 and 2)
2. Does Responsibility Require Freedom?
a. Thomas Nagel, “Moral Luck”
b. Harry Frankfurt, “Alternate Possibilities and Moral Responsibility”
3. Do We Ever Act Freely?
a. A.J. Ayer, “Freedom and Necessity”
b. Walter Stace, “The Problem of Free Will”
c. Susan Wolf, “Sanity and the Metaphysics of Responsibility”
6
VI. Appendix: Two Sample Exemplary CNs
A. Question CN
One of Coffman’s main aims in this syllabus is to give us a clear sense of the questions and issues
we’ll explore in this course. Unfortunately, he sometimes slips into using unfamiliar
terminology. One important place this happens is when Coffman tries to describe the two
arguments for God’s existence we’ll be exploring. Here, he uses the expression ‘deductive
argument’: “…the two main deductive arguments for God’s existence…” ‘Deductive argument’
is not an “everyday” or “ordinary” expression: the typical person on the street probably won’t
know exactly what a deductive argument is. Rather, this unfamiliar term seems to be one that’s
defined and used primarily within the field of Philosophy. So, my question: What’s a deductive
argument? (117 words)
B. Objection CN
According to Coffman, the “main intellectual tool” we use to explore philosophical questions is
what he calls the “power of reason or rational insight”. Coffman distinguishes what he calls
‘reason’ or ‘rational insight’ from the “five senses” (vision, touch, taste, smell, hearing).
Apparently, then, Coffman thinks that we can gain knowledge and/or intellectually justified
beliefs using something other than the five senses. I don’t buy this vaguely “spooky” idea.
Instead, it seems to me that whatever knowledge we have comes only from the five senses. So, it
looks like either Coffman is wrong about the proper way to explore philosophical questions or
Philosophy turns out to be a pretty dubious discipline. Either way, Coffman seems to be wrong
about Philosophy. (120 words)
7