Stephen Makin. Autumn Semester Course Information

Transcription

1 ` PHI 120: The Earliest Greek Philosophers (10 credits: half module) Stephen Makin Autumn Semester Course Information

2 2 Contents Information on unfair means p.3 Course details p.4 Week by week course outline p.5 Tutorials p.6 Assessment p.7 Essay Questions p.8 Micro Essays p.9 Tutorial and Micro-Essay Topics p.10

3 3 Plagiarism and unfair means It is extremely important that you are aware of what counts as Unfair Means (Plagiarism) in assessed work, and that you are aware of the serious consequences of using unfair means in your work. The University and Department take a strong stand against plagiarism, since we believe that it is unfair and disadvantages honest students (the overwhelming majority). The following four examples of unfair means are serious academic offences and may result in penalties that could have a lasting effect on your career, both at University and beyond. Plagiarism (either intentional or unintentional) is the stealing of ideas or work of another person (including experts and fellow or former students) and is considered dishonest and unprofessional. Plagiarism may take the form of cutting and pasting, taking or closely paraphrasing ideas, passages, sections, sentences, paragraphs, drawings, graphs and other graphical material from books, articles, internet sites or any other source and submitting them for assessment without appropriate acknowledgement Submitting bought or commissioned work (for example from internet sites, essay banks or mills ) is an extremely serious form of plagiarism. This may take the form of buying or commissioning either the whole assignment or part of it and implies a clear intention to deceive the examiners. The University also takes an extremely serious view of any student who sells, offers to sell, or passes on their own assignments to other students. Double submission (or self plagiarism) is resubmitting previously submitted work on one or more occasions (without proper acknowledgement). This may take the form of copying either the whole assignment or part of it. Normally credit will already have been given for this work. Collusion is where two or more people work together to produce a piece of work, all or part of which is then submitted by each of them as their own individual work. This includes passing on work in any format to another student. Collusion does not occur where students involved in group work are encouraged to work together to produce a single piece of work as part of the assessment process. In any essay or exam answer submitted for assessment, all passages taken from other people's work, either word for word, or with small changes, must be placed within quotation marks, with specific reference to author, title and page. No excuse can be accepted for any failure to do so, nor will inclusion of the source in a bibliography be considered an adequate acknowledgement. If the marker decides that plagiarism has occurred, it becomes a matter of report to a University Committee. The student may be judged to have failed the essay and/or exam and/or module (depending on the degree of severity). The plagiarism will also be recorded on the student's record.

4 4 Course Details Lecturer: Steve Makin Tel: Office: Room C05, Department of Philosophy, 45 Victoria Street. Office hours: Mondays Lectures: Monday Venue Hicks Building LT A Tutorials: There will be four tutorials for this module, held in weeks 4, 6, 9 and 11. Reading week: Course Outline: Week 7 of the Autumn Semester (11-15 November 2013) is a writing week. There will be no lectures or discussion seminars in the department that week. We will study five early Greek philosophers in this module: Parmenides, Zeno, Melissus, Leucippus and Democritus. These philosophers have been chosen so that you can see how some of their arguments might fit together with one another. For more detail on the topics covered, see the week-by-week course outline below You will be provided with a collection of primary texts relevant to the philosophers you are studying. This is available via the module MOLE 2 site.

5 5 Week by Week Course Outline Wk 1 = Monday 30 Sep: Wk 2 = Monday 7 Oct: Wk 3 = Monday 14 Oct: Introduction. Texts and sources. Problems of access to the Presocratic philosophers. Parmenides part I: The Two Ways Parmenides part II: The argument against Not-Being Tutorial A (wk 4 = week starting 21 October): Parmenides Two Ways Wk 4 = Monday 21 Oct: Wk 5 = Monday 28 Oct: Parmenides part III: The Way of Being. Zeno part I: The Limited/Unlimited argument. Tutorial B (wk 6 = week starting 4 November): Zeno s Limited/Unlimited argument Wk 6 = Monday 4 Nov: Wk 7 = Monday 11 Nov: Wk 8 = Monday 18 Nov: Zeno part II: The Large/Small argument. Writing Week No Lecture Zeno part III: the arguments about motion Tutorial C (wk 9 = week starting 25 November): Zeno s Large/Small argument Wk 9 = Monday 25 Nov: Wk 10 = Monday 2 Dec: Melissus part I: the argument against motion. Melissus part II: the arguments for monism. Tutorial D (wk 11 = week starting 9 December): Melissus on motion and empty space Wk 11 = Monday 9 Dec: Wk 12 = Monday 16 Dec: The Atomists part I: indivisible atoms The Atomists part II: knowledge and scepticism

6 6 Tutorials In addition to the lectures for PHI 120 there are also tutorials. A tutorial is a small, discussion-oriented meeting (run by a tutor, rather than a lecturer). You must sign up to a tutorial group (since it is your tutor who grades your work; and if your work is not graded then you will not receive credit for the module), and you are required to attend those meetings. If, for some reason, you need to miss a tutorial meeting, please contact your tutor or the Director of 1st Year Studies (George Botterill: g.botterill@sheffield.ac.uk). How do I Join a Tutorial Group? You should register for a tutorial group which fits in with the rest of your timetable. You register for PHI 124 tutorials via MOLE 2 (My Online Learning Environment) on or after the Monday of week 2 of the semester (Monday 7 October) There is a wide range of times available and students join groups on a first-come-firstserved basis. So, to maximise your choice of sessions, you should register as soon as possible after registration opens on the Monday of week 2. If you are unable to make any of the sessions listed, please contact the Departmental Office, or the Director of 1st Year Studies (George Botterill: g.botterill@sheffield.ac.uk). Tutorial Topics You will find prepared tutorial topics for PHI 120 in this booklet. They provide subjects for tutorial discussion which fit in with the lectures, combined with associated questions for discussion. NOTE: In advance of your first tutorial (week 4 = week starting 21 October) you should prepare the first tutorial topic for that tutorial (see week-by-week course outline above: Parmenides Two Ways) Discussion in tutorials is one of the most important ways in which you can develop your feeling and expertise for philosophical debate. The main rules for successful and profitable tutorial meetings are: Don t be afraid to say something; Put in the necessary background work; Respect other people s opinions.

7 7 Assessment PHI 120 is a ten credit half module. Your initial mark for the module is fixed by a single essay due in at 4.00 on Tuesday 21 January 2014 (= Tuesday of week 13 = Tuesday of first week of the Autumn examining period). Essays must be between 1000 and 1500 words in length. Essays should be typed, double-spaced and single-sided. Your essay gives an initial mark for the module. As you final mark, you get 100% of this initial mark if you pass all of your micro essays, but will lose marks for any late, failed for missing micro-essays. Each late, failed or missing microessay will result in the loss of 10 marks on PHI 120 (a half module) THIS MEANS THAT YOU COULD LOSE 30 MARKS IF YOU DON T DO THE MICRO-ESSAYS!! NOTE: you will pass a micro-essay as long as it is a reasonable attempt to address the topic. Essays are marked anonymously, so there should be no record of your name on the essay itself. Please make sure that your registration number is at the top of your essay instead. Two copies of your essay should be submitted. One paper copy should be handed in to the Departmental Office (not to any member of staff) together with a signed plagiarism declaration by the 4.00 deadline on Tuesday 21 January. One electronic copy should be submitted through MOLE, which can be assessed through your MUSE web page. You should go to the Turnitin Assignment Link of the relevant module page and upload your essay following the simple instructions. Be sure to press the submit button. The paper copy will be returned to you via the departmental pigeon holes with comments and a mark, the electronic copy will be scanned by the Turnitin system to check for plagiarism and then retained by the department and made available to the External Examiner. For detailed information concerning extensions please see 37 of our INFORMATION FOR FIRST-YEAR STUDENTS, booklet, which you can download from (see right hand link) If an essay is submitted late and you have not been granted an extension, a penalty of 5% of the mark will be deducted for each working day AFTER the submission date. The 5 working day deadline for late submission is absolute and any work submitted AFTER the 5 working day period without a special dispensation will receive ZERO.

8 8 Essay Questions Choose one of the following. (1) Explain as clearly as you can the main arguments from Parmenides fragment DK 28 B8 (2) Choose one of Zeno s arguments concerning motion [Dichotomy, Achilles, Arrow, Moving Rows]. Explain what the argument is. Then consider at least one response and one counter-response to the argument you have explained. (3) What is monism? How did Melissus argue for monism? (4) According to Leucippus and Democritus the universe is made of atoms. Why is it, according to their way of thinking, that one of these atoms can t be broken into pieces? Is it just that each atom is very very hard? (5) How does Democritus atomism lead him to scepticism? The best place to start with reading for each topic is with the lecture notes/handouts from the relevant part of the module. You should then look at the relevant chapter of Warren Presocratics (Acumen, Stocksfield, 2007), which is available electronically via the Reading List link on the module MOLE site and the relevant entries in Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Finally, for further reading on the different essay questions (which will typically be in electronic form), go via the Reading List link on the module MOLE site to the Library s myresource list for the module

9 9 Micro-Essays After your first tutorial meeting, your discussions will be based around micro-essays (300 words) that you should write in advance of each tutorial, on a topic set by the lecturer (for details see below). These micro-essays are focused on asking you to learn how to do some of the things you will be expected to do in Levels Two and Three: extracting arguments from complex texts; explaining issues in your own words; expressing your own considered opinion about an issue; making an argument or thinking up a counterexample; thinking about the other side of an argument; presenting an issue orally; and above all, writing clearly. Although these micro-essays are not given a mark individually, the submission of these micro-essays does count towards your mark for the module, as explained above. You can receive either a pass or a fail on these micro-essays. You will be given a pass as long as the micro-essay is handed in on time (that is, before the tutorial) and is of reasonable quality. Since you are required to write a micro-essay for each tutorial after the first (week 4), and since there are four tutorials for a half-module such as PHI 124, you will be required to write THREE micro-essays for PHI 124 (for tutorials in weeks 6, 9 and 11) The purpose of micro-essays is that some of them can be chosen by tutors for discussion at tutorials. Therefore they must be submitted in advance of tutorials. In other words, if a student s tutorial group is on Tuesday, starting at then is the deadline by which the student must submit the micro-essay. This should be done through MOLE, and submission will be checked by tutors in much the same way as take the register for the tutorial. Students should also bring a paper copy of their micro essays to tutorials for discussion.

10 10 Tutorial and micro-essay topics Tutorial 1 (week 4) Parmenides Two Ways Read passages DK 28 B1- DK 28 B7 in Section I (Parmenides) of the module Some Ancient Texts booklet. Don t worry if they seem baffling and mysterious. Read Warren Presocratics chapter 5 Can you say in your own words how Parmenides image of two roads of enquiry shapes the argument of his poem? Parmenides calls one road it is not and continues that, I tell you, is a track beyond all tidings (DK 28 B2). Can you make some shot at outlining what you think he might be getting at here A more general perspective. Parmenides raises some murky questions about that which is not (DK 28 B2). It is not clear exactly what he is getting at. What would your first thoughts be on the seemingly simpler question: can we talk about what does not exist? Don t worry about Parmenides being difficult, and these questions seeming unmanageably large. The aim is to see questions in Parmenides which are still engaging. Tutorial 2 (week 6): Micro-essay topic. Zeno s Limited/Unlimited Argument Look at passage DK 29 B 3 in Section II (Zeno) of the module Some Ancient Texts booklet: DK 29 B3, Simplicius Commentary on Aristotle s Physics onwards In proving once again that, if there are many things, the same things are limited and unlimited, Zeno s own very words are as follows If there are many things, it is necessary that they are just as many as they are, and neither more nor less than that. But if they are as many as they are, they will be limited If there are many things, the things that are are unlimited; for there are always others between the things that are, and again others between those. And thus the things that are are unlimited

11 11 Read the entry in either Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy =1# or the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on Zeno For your micro-essay What is the general structure of the Limited/Unlimited argument? According to Simplicius, who is the argument as a whole aimed against? If the argument as a whole were successful, would it be a powerful argument against those opponents? For further discussion: The argument comes in two parts: (i) if there are many things... they are limited; (ii) if there are many things... they are unlimited. Pick just one of those parts, and try and explain that part of the argument in your own words as clearly as possible. Would it be a fair objection to this type of argument in general to say that Zeno is arguing for opposed conclusions, and so there is sure to be something wrong with his argument (be careful here, and make sure you get the structure of Zeno s overall argument right) Tutorial 3 (week 9): Micro-essay topic. Zeno s Large/Small Argument Look at passages DK 29 B2 and B1 in Section II (Zeno) of the module Some Ancient Texts booklet: DK 29 B2 Simplicius Commentary on Aristotle s Physics onwards In this argument [Zeno] proves that what has neither magnitude nor solidity nor bulk would not even exist. He says For if it were added to something else that is, it would make it no larger; for if it were of no magnitude, but were added, it could not increase in magnitude. And thus what was added would in fact be nothing. If when it is taken away the other thing is no smaller, and again when it is added will not increase, it is clear that what was added was nothing nor again what was taken away And Zeno says this, not by way of abolishing the One, but because each of the many infinite things has magnitude, since there is always something in front of what is taken, because of infinite division; and this he proves having first proved that it has no magnitude since each of the many is the same as itself and one

12 12 DK 29 B1, Simplicius Commentary on Aristotle s Physics onwards Unlimitedness in magnitude [Zeno] proved earlier by the same method of argument. For having first proved that if what is had no magnitude it would not even exist, he goes on But if it is, it is necessary for each to have some magnitude and thickness, and for the one part of it to be away from the other. And the same argument holds about the part out in front; for that too will have magnitude and a part of it will be out in front. Indeed it is the same thing to say this once and to go on saying it always; for no such part of it will be last, nor will there not be one part related to another. Thus if there are many things, it is necessary that they are both small and large; so small as not to have magnitude, so large as to be unlimited. Once again read the entry in either Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy =1# or the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on Zeno For your micro-essay: This is a complicated report by Simplicius. At the end he reports Zeno s summary of his own argument: Thus if there are many things, it is necessary that they are both small and large: so small as not to have magnitude, so large as to be unlimited. Can you identify and display that argument structure in Simplicius reports (eg by adding numbering to the text in order to show the different moves in the overall argument)? For further discussion: Zeno raises a puzzle about the infinite divisibility of extended magnitude. What would your intuitive ( common sense ) answers be to the following questions (imagine Zeno raising the issues for you) (i) is it true that any spatial area contains two sub-areas as parts (ii) how many parts does a given spatial area contain: would it be alright to answer a finite number? (iii) puzzle: if a finite number, then why that many and not a few more (iv) how many parts does a given spatial area contain: would it be alright to answer an infinite number? (v) puzzle: if an infinite number, how can each of them also have some size?

13 13 Tutorial 4 (week 11): Micro-essay topic Melissus on motion and empty space Look at the passage DK 30 B7 in Section III (Melissus) of the module Some Ancient Texts booklet DK 30 B7, Simplicius Commentary on Aristotle s Physics : quoting Melissus [1] In this way, then, it is eternal and unlimited and one and all alike. [2] And it will not lose anything nor become larger nor be rearranged, nor does it suffer pain or anguish; for if it were affected by any of these, it would no longer be one. For if it alters, it is necessary that what is should not be alike, but that what was earlier perishes and what is not comes into being. Indeed, if it were to become different by a single hair in ten thousand years, it will all perish in the whole of time [3] But neither is it possible for it to be rearranged. For the arrangement which was earlier does not perish, nor does an arrangement which is not come into being. And since nothing is added or destroyed or altered, how might anything that is be rearranged? For if it became different in any respect, it would thereby be rearranged. [4] Nor does it feel pain. For it would not be entire if it were in pain, for a thing in pain could not be always; nor has it equal power with what is healthy; nor would it be alike if it were in pain, for it would be in pain in virtue of something s passing from it or being added to it, and it would no longer be alike. [5] Nor could what is healthy be in pain, for then what is would perish and what is not would come into being. [6] And the same argument applies to anguish as to pain. [7] And nothing of it is empty. For what is empty is nothing. Well, what is nothing could not very well exist. Nor does it move. For it cannot give way at any point, but is full. For if there were such a thing as empty it would give way into what was empty; but since there is no such thing as empty, it has nowhere to give way. [8] Dense and rare will not exist. For what is rare cannot be as full as what is dense, but what is rare thereby becomes emptier than what is dense [9] And this is the criterion for distinguishing between what is full and what is not full: if something gives way or accommodates, it is not full; but if it neither gives was nor accommodates, it is full. [10] So it must be full, if there is no such thing as empty. Now if it is full, it does not move.

14 14 For your micro-essay: Melissus was one of the first to make an influential connection between the existence of motion and the existence of empty space. Can you locate and display Melissus argument in the passage above? What was Melissus purpose in claiming that the existence of motion requires the existence of empty space? Do you think he succeeds in his purpose? For further discussion: Put Melissus purposes to one side. Do you agree with him that the existence of motion does require the existence of empty space? Aristotle (sensibly) held that lots of things move around. He also held that there is no such thing as empty space. Indeed he claimed that the existence of empty space would render motion impossible (if anyone is intrigued see Aristotle Physics 4.8). Is this a logical mistake on his part?