The development of this course has been funded by the Curriculum Resource Center (“CRC”) at the Central European
University (“CEU”), whose programs are partially funded by the Higher Education Support Program (“HESP”). The
opinions expressed herein are the author’s own and do not necessarily express the views of CEU.
Lecturer:
Host Institution:
Course Title:
Year of CDC Grant:
Irina Starikova
Novosibirsk State University
Philosophy of Mind
2002 / 2003
1) Audience: MA Philosophy students
2) Course type: optional, special course
3) Course level: beginner
4) Preliminary requirements: at least basic level knowledge in western philosophy
5) Course directives: The course is designed to emphasize a higher level of thinking, to
examine innovative approaches and alternatives, and crisis situations in the area,
engaging students in critical and constructive thinking.
6) How does the course fit into the main program? Besides popular concepts in the field, this
course traces traditional intellectual history, which the students are ready to adopt having taken
courses in History of Philosophy and Analytic Philosophy. Students also have some knowledge
on the phenomenological school of consciousness through the course attended on Continental
Philosophy.
7) Course goals: The main goal of the course is to give an introduction to the area, tracing its
historical lines but also stressing crisis moments in the field.
8) Learning outcomes:
- good orientation in the area (main approaches, figures, books);
- knowledge of the terminology;
- ability to analyze philosophical issues relevant to mind and consciousness.
9) Content. Before each session I explained the relevant class plan, pointing out the main
issues to be discussed. After the class I rewrote the class summary, taking into account
students’ feedback and the advantages and disadvantages of the class we just had.
10) Bibliography. First I thoroughly checked the syllabi I found on the Internet (CDC
syllabus resources, CEU syllabi) and extracted the most appropriate pieces that suited my
goals best. I created a bibliography list corresponding to the resources available.
The course first examined some of the most important contemporary literature in the field
of philosophy of mind. The reading list consisted of two parts: texts in English and in
Russian (mostly contemporary Anglo-American authors translated). The first part was
mainly used during lecturing, while I used some of the most fundamental pieces in
seminars. These texts were mostly assigned to students as self-preparational and selfinstructive materials.
Philosophy of mind has inherent connections not only with philosophical research, but
also (and increasingly) with fields other than philosophy, such as linguistics, artificial
intelligence, computer science, neuroscience and psychology. Providing a conceptual
dictionary and methodology on how to approach the mind, philosophy of mind plays an
integrative and critical role in these spheres. Therefore I also used the literature of
bordering sciences: cognitive psychology, modern psychophysiology, and neurology to
give students a demonstration about the current integrative processes in these areas.
11) Methodology. The methodology of the course combined lecturing and seminars.
- Lecturing. The main goal of lecturing was to acquaint students with the major
directions and the problematic areas in the field. The course intended to reflect upon
both the fundamental theoretical components of the area and modern up-to date
investigations. I made an effort to combine both in every lecture. For example, we
looked at Davidson’s materialistic concept as well as current investigations in
neuroscience, or classical Cartesian dualism but also Chalmers and Searle’s
approaches.
- Seminars.
Seminars included various assignments. First, students prepared their
own reading assignments (including materials in English) with further in-class
discussions.
Then, I had preliminary questions for students. To make discussions effective, prior
to the seminars I gave out a set of questions suitable for bringing about a discussion.
To encourage more activity among students, I asked them to extend the given set of
questions, which made discussions complete and more extensive.
Finally, students were required to submit written assignments. After every theme I
asked students to write a short summary on the most interesting topic, supporting
their argumentation by quotes, examples, relating the content to other fields. The aim
is to help make learning more creative and stimulating.
My main technical problem was that practically all literature on the issue is in English. I
suggested reading, translating and discussing some of the most important pieces in class
together. I found this method very useful as some students do not have a good enough
command in English, and as a result, they understood the terminology and the authors’
ideas in original.
Based on my past experience in the Critical Thinking Laboratory of the American
University of Bishkek I also introduced some creative assignments. For example, instead
of the traditional retelling of articles and books I asked students to write creative
alternatives to the customary essays, such as a book review, or a glossary of the relevant
terms. In addition, I tried to give students more choice in readings. Instead of giving them
the task to read from page A to page B, I required students to read about a particular
problem in several works to see how it was resolved by various authors.
Besides these traditional methods, and in order to meet the objective of learning about the
up-to-date stages in philosophy of mind, students were given the possibility to use special
computer technologies and Internet resources to acquaint with a number of computerbased demonstrations and the simulations of the most curious cognitive phenomena, such
as visual illusions, artificial life, robotics, etc. I collected the relevant Internet links using
my experience gained from participating in summer schools on Cognitive Science and
Consciousness.
12) Evaluation. Class participation 15%, home readings and questions 35%, written
assignments 35%, summarized discussion 15%.
Requirements for class participation: absence no more than three times. Missed classes
may be compensated by extra assignments.
At the final meeting we had an overview discussion to serve as an overall synopsis.
Students were asked to prepare questions for this seminar based on the entire course
content: either on the basic themes and overview mapping, or on specific subtle nuances.
13) Books. I checked all possible bookstores, popular as well as small and hidden ones, and
also libraries (including my friends’ home libraries), and ordered some books via
Internet. At the beginning of the course I gave students a reading list compiled of books I
acquired for the Department Library, and of those available at nearby libraries. I managed
to find quite a few good books on cognitive psychology (translations) that contain
interesting materials on modern investigations on consciousness. There were several
books on the questions of mind by Russian authors (attempts to overcome the former oldfashioned Marxist paradigm). I made copies from the articles on philosophy of mind and
cognitive science from Anglo-American philosophical journals kept in the library of the
Novosibirsk Institute of Philosophy.
14) Readers. I prepared handouts for every class, using what I had at that moment and the
reading materials I was finding (copying from the books I already managed to buy, and
from the libraries). At the same time I tried to follow the course plan. At the end of the
course I reassessed the reading list and created a Reader’s index. Then I compiled a
sample of the Reader, copied it and had it bound.
The main idea of the Reader was to collect and make accessible some of the most
important contemporary literature in philosophy of mind, and presenting the most
important concepts. Its function is to be a guide and organizer, and also an introduction to
the field of philosophy of mind. It contains texts that are absolutely indispensable in
studying philosophy of mind. We worked with these texts very intensively: comparing
approaches, reversing, rereading, and linking parts.
Travel to Bishkek. The Laboratory of Critical Thinking at the American University of
Bishkek was founded by the American Program of Critical Thinking. Critical thinking
means active, constructive, creative and independent thinking. Mastering critical thinking
is fundamentally important for philosophers and for those studying philosophy. Of
course, it is also important for my course examining the modern area of philosophy.
Specialists from the Laboratory - teachers, psychologists – demonstrated the advantages
of critical thinking, as compared with the old traditional teaching methods. I learned
some techniques and then used them in my own teaching (look “Methodology” chapter).
I looked at and copied materials from the Laboratory’s publications and presented some
of them to my students.
For example, the article “Research: Interpretation and Critical Thinking” by A.
Abdrahmanova looks at such important problems as the validation of scientific research.
It is based on active moves: interpretation, comprehension and reflection. This scheme
provided students an orientation to independent and creative research. I also worked out
some assignments based on these principles (see “Methodology”).
15) Feedback. I made the first evaluation at the first class by posing questions such as
“What kind of knowledge and skills do you expect to get from the course? What did you
read on the topic before? What is this topic about? What is your specification in
philosophy?” etc. in order to have more information to determine my course
development.
The second evaluation in the middle of the course was made in order to assess progress:
comprehension, systematic viewpoints, interests, and gaps in students’ knowledge. I
posed these questions: “Which of the studied themes were the most interesting for you?
What themes in your opinion should we discuss in more detail? Which topics should be
dealt with less? What would you like to study more thoroughly in the rest of the course?
How do you assess your work during the previous part of the course?
The last evaluation was done at the last meeting. It was a “Course, Teacher, & Student
Evaluation Form”, which included questions about the course content, methodology,
assignments, and also about my teaching and about how individual students assess their
own knowledge.