This is an excellent video on social norms pertaining to representations of the female body. You will see a lot of connections to Bluest Eye, although the speaker touches on race only superficially, and those are actually some of the weaker parts. Highly recommended. Also, notice the "related videos" that Google pulls up on the right side.
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Saturday, November 29, 2008
Toni Morrison on her newest book
Video interview here. You might have to make a New York Times login and password to view it. (I'm not sure because my browser automatically runs all the password cookies my wife puts in when she looks at news websites for her job.)
Notice Morrison overlaps one of the points I made in class last week, which is that the modern version of racism didn't really exist prior to the 1700s. This doesn't mean people weren't a**holes back then, but they were certainly a**holes in a very different way.
The other thing that's interesting is that you can see how she has widened the historical scope you get in her earlier books, like Bluest Eye and Song of Solomon. In Beloved, Jazz, and Paradise, which are her best books, either the flashbacks or the main plots spend a lot of time in the 1800s. Apparently this new book, A Mercy, is mostly set in the 1600s. If there's one thing we've learned in this course, it's that ideas can be very deeply rooted. One way to challenge deeply rooted ideas, as we discussed last week is to show how they are artificial, in other words how they are just certain ideas you might have rather than the absolute true ideas that "everyone" has. Another way is to write what we might call corrective or revisionist histories of the origin of those ideas. Because one of the main ways that any ideology justifies itself - and racism is a good example - is to pretend that it has always existed, that it is a natural norm, and to erase the evidence that there was a time before it existed, when people thought about things differently.
Notice Morrison overlaps one of the points I made in class last week, which is that the modern version of racism didn't really exist prior to the 1700s. This doesn't mean people weren't a**holes back then, but they were certainly a**holes in a very different way.
The other thing that's interesting is that you can see how she has widened the historical scope you get in her earlier books, like Bluest Eye and Song of Solomon. In Beloved, Jazz, and Paradise, which are her best books, either the flashbacks or the main plots spend a lot of time in the 1800s. Apparently this new book, A Mercy, is mostly set in the 1600s. If there's one thing we've learned in this course, it's that ideas can be very deeply rooted. One way to challenge deeply rooted ideas, as we discussed last week is to show how they are artificial, in other words how they are just certain ideas you might have rather than the absolute true ideas that "everyone" has. Another way is to write what we might call corrective or revisionist histories of the origin of those ideas. Because one of the main ways that any ideology justifies itself - and racism is a good example - is to pretend that it has always existed, that it is a natural norm, and to erase the evidence that there was a time before it existed, when people thought about things differently.
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Thanksgiving Break Reminders
1) Paper #3 working draft... I strongly recommended that you finish this on Sunday night... technically, these only count for homework credit, but as you know you can't very well write a good final draft without doing the working draft all the way through... if you're worried about the homework credit, make sure your working draft is into the dropbox by Wednesday morning
Clarifying thought on paper #3 that came to me as I was doing conferences today... This paper is about what, how, and why. What is the difference between the two endings that you are identifying, how does Austen use literary technique to achieve this difference, to make the revised ending strike the reader in a particular way, and why does she feel it necessary to make the change. The what should be established in your intro, the how is the majority of your paper, and the why is an issue you must settle by the end. (I would recommend that the why find its way back into the initial thesis because it's not good to make surprise endings in analytical essays.
2) Course Guide 78-90 is a good brush-up on how to construct a working draft, which is something you have to do without my help this time.
3) Read Bluest Eye 61-183 and have something to say about study questions Autumn 1, 3, 8, 18, Winter 1, 5, and Spring 3, 9, 12.
4) See if Van Sant's / Morrison's concept of "thinking through the body" applies to Thanksgiving dinner.
p.s. Dessert ?
Friday, November 21, 2008
Class #24 Reminders
Signup for conferences... remember, you can opt for written comments instead of a conference. It's one or the other.
The more you can do on your ideas draft, the more I can help you!
Post ideas draft to the dropbox. Due Sunday night at 9pm for Monday conferences and "written comments" and Tuesday at 1pm for Wednesday conferences. The guidelines are on the post below this one if you lost your handout.
Post the Friday afternoon homework below (observations of details from the two endings).
And don't forget to read the first 57 pages of Bluest Eye!
p.s. Better photos of Bath... don't get the impression from my photo that it's just a dingy cave. That's the Roman-era baths that archaeologists have excavated. The 19th century era baths are obviously more ornate, in keeping with the luxury idea.
The more you can do on your ideas draft, the more I can help you!
Post ideas draft to the dropbox. Due Sunday night at 9pm for Monday conferences and "written comments" and Tuesday at 1pm for Wednesday conferences. The guidelines are on the post below this one if you lost your handout.
Post the Friday afternoon homework below (observations of details from the two endings).
And don't forget to read the first 57 pages of Bluest Eye!
p.s. Better photos of Bath... don't get the impression from my photo that it's just a dingy cave. That's the Roman-era baths that archaeologists have excavated. The 19th century era baths are obviously more ornate, in keeping with the luxury idea.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Class #23 Reminders (a.k.a. the Ideas Draft post)
Most of this will be repeated in class on Friday, but some of you were looking for an early start, so I'm posting it now.
I read the Paper 3 Prompt today, and I also talked to Monique & Kiyomi in office hours to try to get a sense of what it looked like from the student's perspective.
There are two things in particular that I want to change about the prompt.
A) The prompt asks you to argue that he published ending of the book is "better" than the unpublished ending, and support that thesis with relevant details. I find this focus highly problematic. I think it will lead to most of the papers being basically the same, and to most of them being pure opinions or evaluations rather than analysis. Here's my reworded thesis question: Why might Austen have chosen to revise the original ending in this particular way?
B) This is a lesser concern, but still an important one. The prompt focuses almost exclusively on what we would call narratology (e.g. pacing, point of view). It's like the prompt is saying, "your paper must be about tomato sauce." For my section, your paper does not necessarily have to be about tomato sauce, although this is a good topic. As I said, you can focus on other elements as your basis for comparison (e.g. setting, e.g. character(s), e.g. satire, e.g. the depiction of emotional reactions or behaviors, e.g. the parallel between the social relationships between the characters and British society as a whole, or whatever else we talked about or didn't talk about). Cheese, peppers, onions, mushrooms, pepperoni, sausage, pineapples, broccoli (!?!), whatever you like. But as I said today, your paper does need to have a particular focus. The one thing you really shouldn't write about is the use of dashes and ampersands (&)... it isn't clear at what stage Austen abandoned the draft, but these are in all likelihood remnants of her usual drafting process that she would have polished out had this actually been published. So this would be the equivalent of writing about the box the pizza came in, I guess.
In sum, here's the formula for your thesis: Austen made changes X, Y, Z in order to better convey themes A, B, C. Don't take the number of my variables literally... you don't need three of each. Nor my use of the word "theme" if that word means something really specific to you from your previous English classes. I'm just saying you need to relate particular details to the whole of the book.
IDEAS DRAFT
-----------
1) Write a brief Austen style character analysis of someone you know. You can choose what level of satire to use, how sympathetic you are to this person, etc. But try to use irony and free indirect discourse at some point.
2) Make a list of broad similarities and differences between the two endings... we may do this in class on Friday.
3) Choose a new keyword that occurs repeatedly in the ending (one version or both), and use the OED to figure out the different/changing/competing meanings that word would have had to an 1814 reader.
4) Choose three short passages, somewhere between a 1/2 page and a page in length. Perhaps two from the published ending and one from the unpublished ending. Do a close analysis of these passages in which you identify at least one weird or notable thing about each. Just like today I chose a passage and used Ann blushing as a weird or notable detail. It could be a minor plot point, a turn of phrase, an element of scenic description, an instance of FID, or whatever. Remember, we got a whole conversation out of an exclamation point the other day, and Leah & Stephanie got one out of a variant spelling. It might help if the detail recurs more than once within the passage.
5) Scavenger hunt. Find at least three other instances of each of the three details in the rest of the assigned pages, probably two in the published ending and one in the unpublished ending.
6) Decision time. Which one of these details is your paper going to be about? It obviously helps to choose one that:
-occurs repeatedly in the book
-occurs in both versions of the ending
-might be a bit different in the two versions
-links in some interesting way to the overall themes of the novel
I found this really great olive. It's not like other olives that are usually on pizza. It's really interesting to compare different olives, isn't it? We can learn a lot about pizza in general by thinking about olives.
7) Thesis time. You need to relate the olives to the pizza. Here's the formula again: Austen made changes X, Y, Z in order to better convey themes A, B, C. Or, "Austen changed the purple kalamata olives in the original ending to green pecholine olives in the published ending, because she wanted to make the pizza saltier."
8) Scavenger hunt, the revenge... rescavengation. Whatever detail you chose, find three more similar/different uses of it in the published ending, two in the unpublished ending, and two elsewhere in the book. I suppose, given today's lecture, that the mere absence of it might be interesting.
9) Outline time. You need to create an order for the presentation of details in your body paragraphs. By this point you have gathered a list of particular passages and sentences from Persuasion. I won't bother to count how many... it's a bunch. Discard your findings from pt. 4 & 5 above that aren't about olives, in other words that are about other details that you're not focusing on. Now create an order for the rest. Here's a rough formula, please feel free to change it.
I read the Paper 3 Prompt today, and I also talked to Monique & Kiyomi in office hours to try to get a sense of what it looked like from the student's perspective.
There are two things in particular that I want to change about the prompt.
A) The prompt asks you to argue that he published ending of the book is "better" than the unpublished ending, and support that thesis with relevant details. I find this focus highly problematic. I think it will lead to most of the papers being basically the same, and to most of them being pure opinions or evaluations rather than analysis. Here's my reworded thesis question: Why might Austen have chosen to revise the original ending in this particular way?
B) This is a lesser concern, but still an important one. The prompt focuses almost exclusively on what we would call narratology (e.g. pacing, point of view). It's like the prompt is saying, "your paper must be about tomato sauce." For my section, your paper does not necessarily have to be about tomato sauce, although this is a good topic. As I said, you can focus on other elements as your basis for comparison (e.g. setting, e.g. character(s), e.g. satire, e.g. the depiction of emotional reactions or behaviors, e.g. the parallel between the social relationships between the characters and British society as a whole, or whatever else we talked about or didn't talk about). Cheese, peppers, onions, mushrooms, pepperoni, sausage, pineapples, broccoli (!?!), whatever you like. But as I said today, your paper does need to have a particular focus. The one thing you really shouldn't write about is the use of dashes and ampersands (&)... it isn't clear at what stage Austen abandoned the draft, but these are in all likelihood remnants of her usual drafting process that she would have polished out had this actually been published. So this would be the equivalent of writing about the box the pizza came in, I guess.
In sum, here's the formula for your thesis: Austen made changes X, Y, Z in order to better convey themes A, B, C. Don't take the number of my variables literally... you don't need three of each. Nor my use of the word "theme" if that word means something really specific to you from your previous English classes. I'm just saying you need to relate particular details to the whole of the book.
IDEAS DRAFT
-----------
1) Write a brief Austen style character analysis of someone you know. You can choose what level of satire to use, how sympathetic you are to this person, etc. But try to use irony and free indirect discourse at some point.
2) Make a list of broad similarities and differences between the two endings... we may do this in class on Friday.
3) Choose a new keyword that occurs repeatedly in the ending (one version or both), and use the OED to figure out the different/changing/competing meanings that word would have had to an 1814 reader.
4) Choose three short passages, somewhere between a 1/2 page and a page in length. Perhaps two from the published ending and one from the unpublished ending. Do a close analysis of these passages in which you identify at least one weird or notable thing about each. Just like today I chose a passage and used Ann blushing as a weird or notable detail. It could be a minor plot point, a turn of phrase, an element of scenic description, an instance of FID, or whatever. Remember, we got a whole conversation out of an exclamation point the other day, and Leah & Stephanie got one out of a variant spelling. It might help if the detail recurs more than once within the passage.
5) Scavenger hunt. Find at least three other instances of each of the three details in the rest of the assigned pages, probably two in the published ending and one in the unpublished ending.
6) Decision time. Which one of these details is your paper going to be about? It obviously helps to choose one that:
-occurs repeatedly in the book
-occurs in both versions of the ending
-might be a bit different in the two versions
-links in some interesting way to the overall themes of the novel
I found this really great olive. It's not like other olives that are usually on pizza. It's really interesting to compare different olives, isn't it? We can learn a lot about pizza in general by thinking about olives.
7) Thesis time. You need to relate the olives to the pizza. Here's the formula again: Austen made changes X, Y, Z in order to better convey themes A, B, C. Or, "Austen changed the purple kalamata olives in the original ending to green pecholine olives in the published ending, because she wanted to make the pizza saltier."
8) Scavenger hunt, the revenge... rescavengation. Whatever detail you chose, find three more similar/different uses of it in the published ending, two in the unpublished ending, and two elsewhere in the book. I suppose, given today's lecture, that the mere absence of it might be interesting.
9) Outline time. You need to create an order for the presentation of details in your body paragraphs. By this point you have gathered a list of particular passages and sentences from Persuasion. I won't bother to count how many... it's a bunch. Discard your findings from pt. 4 & 5 above that aren't about olives, in other words that are about other details that you're not focusing on. Now create an order for the rest. Here's a rough formula, please feel free to change it.
I. Introduction
-My aren't there a lot of olives in this pizza.
-Olives are the key to understanding this pizza, or at least provide an interesting perspective on this pizza.
-Why are olives important in this pizza? Because they make it salty.
-When Austen made her first pizza, there were either no olives in it, or olives that weren't salty enough. Or olives that clashed with the other ingredients. Or whatever.
-Thesis: Austen changed the type/number of olives to strengthen the saltiness.
II. Olives in the other slices of this pizza (earlier chapters.)
-Details/analysis: kalamata olives, picholine olives, other olives
III. Olives in the unpublished final slice
-Details/analysis: kalamata olives, picholine olives, other olives
IV. Olives in the revised final slice
-Details/analysis: kalamata olives, picholine olives, other olives
V. Conclusion
-restate thesis
-some kind of twist or new idea (don't actually deal with this until final draft)
ALTERNATE
I. same as above
II. same as above
III. kalamata olives
-in the other parts of the pizza
-in the unpublished final slice
-in the revised final slice
IV. picholine olives
-in the other parts of the pizza
-in the unpublished final slice
-in the revised final slice
V. other olives
-in the other parts of the pizza
-in the unpublished final slice
-in the revised final slice
V. Conclusion
-restate thesis
-some kind of twist or new idea
ALTERNATE
rearrange the order of the "rest of the book," "unpublished," and "published" sections... you could, for instance, begin with the published ending, then backtrack to the rest of the book, then discuss the unpublished ending... or whatever
More keywords in Persuasion
Words that take on multiple or contested meanings... some may be relevant to your paper.
Propriety, Politeness, Indifference, Impertinence, Gentleness, Intimacy, Calculations, Eligibility, Instrumental, Interest, Recollection, Profession, Manners, Management, Attachment, Offices, Worldly, Discomfited, Deranged, Retrenchment
Propriety, Politeness, Indifference, Impertinence, Gentleness, Intimacy, Calculations, Eligibility, Instrumental, Interest, Recollection, Profession, Manners, Management, Attachment, Offices, Worldly, Discomfited, Deranged, Retrenchment
Monday, November 17, 2008
Class #23 Reminders
Read the last three chapters of Persuasion and the alternate ending in Appendix A.
Post the class exercises here (questions and answers both).
Leftover halloween candy:
This is the movie I was talking about today.
This is an interesting New York Times article on an archaeological discovery that sheds light on the historical origins of the Mediterranean concept of the soul.
This is an article that reflects on Descartes' legacy and its relevance to contemporary U.S politics.
And now, I'm off to persuade my connexions that they should help me accomplish an independence.
Friday, November 14, 2008
Class #21 Reminders
-Read Persuasion to pg. 224... in other words, everything but the last three chapters... note that Van Sant told us she was doing full spoilers on Monday... but I already ruined the ending anyway
-Discovery Task #2... turn it in to the Dropbox by Monday morning... I'm not sure if this pertains directly to Paper #3 or not; I have to ask at the next staff meeting... I know that the main reason that Core requires these assignments is to teach you good research skills in preparation for a big paper that you write in the spring
-Blog homework... post below... I assigned each of you a character in the book... rate their social/economic status 1-10 and give me a corroborating textual reference (paste quote and give page number)... then rate their satiric status 1-10 and give me a corroborating textual reference (paste quote and give page number).
Have a nice weekend! If you happen to go to the Cobb, be careful of the steps or you might fall down.
p.s. #1 Which character from Persuasion are you?
I was Admiral Croft.
p.s. #2 A thought occurred to me as I was walking from class back to the office. The thought was that Austen probably isn't quite as socially progressive as we were making her out to be today. On the one hand, she does seem to be pitching in for taking risks, looking to new sources of knowledge, some form of self-determination, and new model of marriage as an emotional and intellectual joint partnership. On the other hand, it's not like Anne marries an actual capitalist, like a merchant or someone like that. The military is much more merit-based (meritocratic) than the aristocracy. But it still has a kind of traditional status. I mean, literally speaking, the military is where the original aristocratic titles and real estate all came from, right? William the Conqueror williamtheconquered England and gave land and titles to all the dudes in his army. That's the equivalent of Captain Wentworth winning prize money for sinking French ships. Err, but then again, money is different from land and the navy is different from the army. Bears further thought.
p.s. #3 How you can tell when a character is being satirized... we've been talking about Austen and her use of irony. Since I mentioned The Office today, it bears saying that there is a very clear hierarchy on that show between who is "in" on the joke and who is not. Jim and Pam always look at the camera in alliance with the viewer; you could compare that to the kind of narrator function Van Sant has been talking about. Some of the other characters look at the camera, in particular Michael, but their effort to be part of the "in" group with the viewers fails. Indeed if you look at Michael on the show, one of the things that defines his character is his desire to be part of a social in-group, particularly with Jim and Pam. The camera isn't passive on the show; it renders judgments, just like Austen's narrator.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Class #20 Review and Reminders
-Read Course Guide 59-65
-Read my further Descartes comments on the Nov. 3 post and the Nov. 5 post.
-Read Persuasion Ch. 1-10 (to page 121) with the three baldies in mind
-Be ready to discuss study questions 3, 6, 7, 10, 13, 16
I think that was everything. (The photo is me in Bath in 2001 (on the left) with Charles & Mary Musgrove and Anne Eliot... this was the only one I had because it rained all freaking day. We're in the excavated Roman baths... so as you see, people went there for R & R going back nearly 2000 years.)
Monday, November 10, 2008
Two resources for grammar & style
As long as I'm already getting fired for the whiskey, viva la underwear metaphor.
Another instructor recommends this website for grammar & style brush-ups.
Plus, the editor of Easy Writer (the spiral bound grammar & style guide that was mandatory for this class) will be doing a Forum in the lecture hall on Friday at 11:00, presumably to talk about related issues.
Friday, November 7, 2008
Class #19 Review and Reminders
In the next class, we will move on to Austen and try to build a conceptual bridge over from Descartes.
So these are the things you need to do between now and then:
-Exchange your paper, in its most recent form, with your peer reviewer by Monday 8 p.m. Be sure to include three specific questions that you want them to use to guide their reading of the paper. And then re-exchange the papers back when you get the comments. Use the EEE dropbox: Working Draft 2, Shared Student Files.
-Peer review pairs: Christine/Jeffrey, Kate/Wes, Alec/Rosemary, Kiyomi/Florence, Jessica/Jie, Ariana/Monique, Ivan/Roselaine, Shae/Hannah/Mari (divide it up somehow), Leah/Stephanie
-Final draft #2 due to turnitin.com with acknowledgements & reflections, Tuesday 9 p.m.
-Finish all unfinished Descartes blog homework (last chance)
-Read Chapters 1-4 of Austen's Persuasion.
Special bonus editing & peer-reviewing tip... change the zoom level on your document depending on what kind of editing you're doing. If you're editing at the sentence level (grammar, etc.), zoom to 200%. If you're editing at the paragraph level, use a regular 100% or 125% zoom. If you're looking at the paper "globally," i.e. at its overall argument and organization, zoom to 75% or smaller. I find that this substantially changes the way that I think as I read something, and I use it when editing students papers.
So these are the things you need to do between now and then:
-Exchange your paper, in its most recent form, with your peer reviewer by Monday 8 p.m. Be sure to include three specific questions that you want them to use to guide their reading of the paper. And then re-exchange the papers back when you get the comments. Use the EEE dropbox: Working Draft 2, Shared Student Files.
-Peer review pairs: Christine/Jeffrey, Kate/Wes, Alec/Rosemary, Kiyomi/Florence, Jessica/Jie, Ariana/Monique, Ivan/Roselaine, Shae/Hannah/Mari (divide it up somehow), Leah/Stephanie
-Final draft #2 due to turnitin.com with acknowledgements & reflections, Tuesday 9 p.m.
-Finish all unfinished Descartes blog homework (last chance)
-Read Chapters 1-4 of Austen's Persuasion.
Special bonus editing & peer-reviewing tip... change the zoom level on your document depending on what kind of editing you're doing. If you're editing at the sentence level (grammar, etc.), zoom to 200%. If you're editing at the paragraph level, use a regular 100% or 125% zoom. If you're looking at the paper "globally," i.e. at its overall argument and organization, zoom to 75% or smaller. I find that this substantially changes the way that I think as I read something, and I use it when editing students papers.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Class #18 Review and Reminders
First things first, conference signup for Friday. The schedule is a bit weird because I have a doctor's appointment and I have to sub for another section.
I think we are going to need one more day on Descartes. It won't be Monday, for obvious reasons, but perhaps we can integrate Descartes and Austen somehow next Wednesday. Let's cross that bridge when we get to it.
Right now, other than the Aristotle courage paper, you should be focusing on three things: a) How is Descartes different than Aristotle?, b) What is the basic structure of the Meditations, like can you follow the main argument? and c) What are some of the consequences of redefining philosophy in such a way.
*Paper 2 working draft due tonight... late... I dunno, 11, 12, 1, 2. Whatever your definition of late tonight is if you promise you'll do the Descartes stuff on Thursday.
*Re-read Meditations 4-6
*Take the midterm survey if you haven't.
*Do the last homework if you haven't... post it to the Class #17 entry... give either an attack against Descartes (that he blasphemes Christianity or undermines Aristotle) or a defense of Descartes (that he puts Christianity or Aristotle on a sounder philosophical foundation)
*Do today's homework... which one of D's two proofs of God do you find more convincing and why? You may find it necessary to restate in your own words. Then answer in what respects the God you derive from this proof resembles or does not resemble the Christian God. (Or some other God; a comparison might be interesting.)
I think we are going to need one more day on Descartes. It won't be Monday, for obvious reasons, but perhaps we can integrate Descartes and Austen somehow next Wednesday. Let's cross that bridge when we get to it.
Right now, other than the Aristotle courage paper, you should be focusing on three things: a) How is Descartes different than Aristotle?, b) What is the basic structure of the Meditations, like can you follow the main argument? and c) What are some of the consequences of redefining philosophy in such a way.
*Paper 2 working draft due tonight... late... I dunno, 11, 12, 1, 2. Whatever your definition of late tonight is if you promise you'll do the Descartes stuff on Thursday.
*Re-read Meditations 4-6
*Take the midterm survey if you haven't.
*Do the last homework if you haven't... post it to the Class #17 entry... give either an attack against Descartes (that he blasphemes Christianity or undermines Aristotle) or a defense of Descartes (that he puts Christianity or Aristotle on a sounder philosophical foundation)
*Do today's homework... which one of D's two proofs of God do you find more convincing and why? You may find it necessary to restate in your own words. Then answer in what respects the God you derive from this proof resembles or does not resemble the Christian God. (Or some other God; a comparison might be interesting.)
Clarification on Midterm Grades
This will save us the trouble of discussing it in class or office hours. You know who you are. 58->61 (D becomes D+), 60->63 (D+ remains D+), 70->73 (C remains C)... 76->79 (C+ remains C+)... 78->81, 79->82 (C+ becomes B-)... 81->84, 82->85 (B- becomes B)... 83->86 (B remains B)... 85->88, 86->89 (B becomes B+)... 87->90, 88->91, 89->92 (B+ becomes A-)... 92->95 (A- becomes A). Please note that if you are able to see your grade on EEE, it is probably all screwed up because I can't get the interface to work the way I want it to. Yet.
p.s. Speaking of marks, why does Van Sant favor "Maker's Mark" over "Trademark"? Could it be because she grew up in Kentucky with thousand-legged worms? (Fine print so I don't get fired: I do not endorse immoderate drinking, and neither does Van Sant or Descartes.)
Monday, November 3, 2008
Class #17 Review & Reminders
-Add 3% to your exam grade... this will raise the letter grade for some, but not all of them
-Working draft 2 due to EEE dropbox Wednesday at 11 p.m.
-Take this midterm survey on EEE.
-Re-read Meditations #1-3... recommended study questions from Core website #s 1, 7, 9, 13, 18
-Each group from today should post three arguments for the Catholic Church v. Descartes trial. (Group A: Descartes' sins against Aristotle, Group B: Descartes' sins against God, Group C: defense of Descartes as a good Aristotlean, Group D: Defense of Descartes as a good Christian)
Here's Badiou, by the way. Like Descartes, he uses methodological "doot" to construct a philosophical system that can actually stand up to doot, although he is obviously dealing with newer kinds of doot that have developed in more recent philosophy:
-Working draft 2 due to EEE dropbox Wednesday at 11 p.m.
-Take this midterm survey on EEE.
-Re-read Meditations #1-3... recommended study questions from Core website #s 1, 7, 9, 13, 18
-Each group from today should post three arguments for the Catholic Church v. Descartes trial. (Group A: Descartes' sins against Aristotle, Group B: Descartes' sins against God, Group C: defense of Descartes as a good Aristotlean, Group D: Defense of Descartes as a good Christian)
Here's Badiou, by the way. Like Descartes, he uses methodological "doot" to construct a philosophical system that can actually stand up to doot, although he is obviously dealing with newer kinds of doot that have developed in more recent philosophy:
Sunday, November 2, 2008
Model Answers for Midterm
Question Alpha:
"A symposium is a gathering of men, in which they come together to drink and party. Each man speaks to praise or discuss a particular thing. Plato uses the form not only as a discussion at a party, but to develop a better understanding of a concept. His purpose is to build upon each speaker's speech about love, to bring about a better, more intellectual understanding of love."
For this question, it was especially important to recognize that Plato's symposium is different than a regular symposium. The answer above is brief, but it hit all the majors points and thus received 12 of 12 possible points.
Question Beta:
Only one person answered this question! I bet you were all scared of the two part phrasing.
To me, the point of the ending is that we needn't produce a sharp contrast between thinking and pleasure. Socrates has so much fun at the party that he "thinks" the other men under the table. Likewise, comedies are fun; why shouldn't they be taken seriously too?
Question Gamma:
"The point of Socrates refusing Alcibiades' seduction is not to prove that Socrates is not attracted to Alcibiades sexually, but to prove that Socrates has found something more interesting to devote his time to at that moment. Socrates is sexually attracted to Alcibiades, but he would rather pursue his time with knowledge. To Socrates (and Plato), knowledge is most important, and coming up with a better concept than the men started with is Socrates' main focus at the Symposium. One's devotion to knowledge is higher on the "stairs" presented by Diotima (and Socrates) than the devotion to a hot and beautiful boy."
This answer received 12 of 12 possible points. One thing that makes it good is that it does not make Socrates out to be an ascetic, a person who attempts to negate physical desires. Too many of the answers I got trended in that direction; just because thinking is good does not mean sex or drinking is bad. It just means they should be moderated by reason and shouldn't be one's highest goals.
Question Delta:
"Aristotle believes that nature can be put into causes, namely the material cause, the formal cause, the efficient, and the final cause. The material cause has to do with the types of matter used to create something. The formal cause is its structure that it forms in accordance to the materials. The efficient cause is who, or what, is responsible for the construction. The final cause is its purpose. For example, let's take a cookie
It's clear to me that all of you get the gist of the four causes, but too many of you went straight to the example without actually giving a general definition of the causes. This answer received 11 of 12 points; it would have been better if it had started with a broader view of the theory, like "Aristotle is a teleological thinker; he believes that everything that occurs in the universe happens for a purpose. Four causes define the purpose of any object." Etc.
Question Epsilon:
"Aristotle defines the differences between humans, animals, and plants to show that living things have different souls and different purposes. He explains plants to have a vegetative soul, which includes the abilities of reproduction, growth, and nourishment. Animals have [those] the same as plants but also desire, emotion, and locomotion. Humans have all the above, additionally intellect and reason. He shows how there is a hierarchy of importance when it comes to our souls. Therefore, human beings are more important than plants and animals. Also, we all have different virtues that we are to possess and different means of happiness."
This answer is worded in a kinda funny way, but unlike many answers it identifies both the larger purpose of Aristotle's contrast between types of souls and gives a good account of the differences. So it got 12 of 12. Many of you had difficulty differentiating animals and plants; the key is sensation and/or emotion. Locomotion is less important, since plants actually do move. For humans, you could cite ethics along with reason, since they go together. It could also be argued that the hierarchy is one of increasing complexity and/or one of increasing self-sufficiency. Anyhow, I kept thinking of this as I was grading the answers to this question.
Question Zeta:
"Happiness, according to Aristotle, is based on two things. First, it is the greatest good because it is pursuing one's excellence and building one's virtue to the highest of her ability. To Aristotle our life is only good through acquiring virtue. We can acquire virtue through the choices we make every day. But not just any choices, these choices must be based on reason, and not passion. The choices also should not just fulfill our pleasures, in the moment, but the greater good for people in a lasting way. Like Sappho, who brings her "irrational" emotions into line with her rational thoughts. We must not be heedless in our practice but practice some constraint, ultimately leading to a good life. Secondly, Aristlte also believes that we all have a different telos, we were all meant to do different things, and we must practice and do our telos, and actualize our arete. For instance, my arete could be to be the greatest dancer I can be, so I should practice and watch other people's work to help me grow my abilities to pursue my craft."
The key to this question was linking the concepts of telos, arete, and reason in some kind of logical way, instead of just randomly listing them. This answer received 12 of 12 because I think it accomplished that. It also addressed the issue of the general telos of humans versus the specific telos given by individual talents. I'm surprised anyone could write that much in six minuted, geez. One grumble... we don't really "acquire" virtue as if it were an external object, we actualize it from our internal potential. This isn't a video game.
Question Eta:
"Aristotle thinks an excellent thinker can and should be an excellent doer. Aristotle believes that all should try to live to be the most excellent person they can be. To do this, epople have to tune their virtues to attain excellence. To tune one's virtue, one must make good choices. To make good choices, one must use reason to think logically about how to pick the best choice. So if one is an excellent thinker, one can use reason to make good choices to tune the virtues and to have an excellent life, which is being an excellent doer."
This answer received 12 of 12 because it explained, rather than merely stating, why excellent action requires excellent thought, and why excellent thought actualizes itself in excellent action.
Question Iota:
Successful answers used the term ontology, correctly summarized and contrasted two or more philosophical positions, and gave examples and/or analysis of them. We will revisit ontology with Descartes; it turns out that ontology really depends on epistemology. This is the third major branch of philosophy... its central question is how do we know what we know?
Question Theta:
Successful answers used the term ethics, correctly summarized and contrasted two or more philosophical positions, and gave examples and/or analysis of them. Something nearly all of you are having trouble grasping is that ethics, especially Aristotlean ethics, is not limited only to "should I or shouldn't I" type problems. Ethics asks what a person should do to live a good life, more generally. Thus nearly everything you do is an ethical choice. You are mainly thinking of ethics in a criminal context, as a deontologist might be inclined to do.
Question Kappa:
This essay was clearly more difficult, but as we know, facing and fearing the right things can develop our excellence. I thought a few of you might want to follow up on Schwab's last lecture, and I was right. The better answers defined specific challenges and solutions for a revival of Aristotlean thought, while the less-better answers were either vague (doing little beyond restating the question) or meandered from point to unrelated point. Most of the answers argued for the continuing relevance of A's ethics, but there was some disagreement as to whether A's physics could be reconciled with modern physics. But it's also worth asking whether A's ethics really works if you remove its ontological basis. This will be a concern as we move to Descartes.
"A symposium is a gathering of men, in which they come together to drink and party. Each man speaks to praise or discuss a particular thing. Plato uses the form not only as a discussion at a party, but to develop a better understanding of a concept. His purpose is to build upon each speaker's speech about love, to bring about a better, more intellectual understanding of love."
For this question, it was especially important to recognize that Plato's symposium is different than a regular symposium. The answer above is brief, but it hit all the majors points and thus received 12 of 12 possible points.
Question Beta:
Only one person answered this question! I bet you were all scared of the two part phrasing.
To me, the point of the ending is that we needn't produce a sharp contrast between thinking and pleasure. Socrates has so much fun at the party that he "thinks" the other men under the table. Likewise, comedies are fun; why shouldn't they be taken seriously too?
Question Gamma:
"The point of Socrates refusing Alcibiades' seduction is not to prove that Socrates is not attracted to Alcibiades sexually, but to prove that Socrates has found something more interesting to devote his time to at that moment. Socrates is sexually attracted to Alcibiades, but he would rather pursue his time with knowledge. To Socrates (and Plato), knowledge is most important, and coming up with a better concept than the men started with is Socrates' main focus at the Symposium. One's devotion to knowledge is higher on the "stairs" presented by Diotima (and Socrates) than the devotion to a hot and beautiful boy."
This answer received 12 of 12 possible points. One thing that makes it good is that it does not make Socrates out to be an ascetic, a person who attempts to negate physical desires. Too many of the answers I got trended in that direction; just because thinking is good does not mean sex or drinking is bad. It just means they should be moderated by reason and shouldn't be one's highest goals.
Question Delta:
"Aristotle believes that nature can be put into causes, namely the material cause, the formal cause, the efficient, and the final cause. The material cause has to do with the types of matter used to create something. The formal cause is its structure that it forms in accordance to the materials. The efficient cause is who, or what, is responsible for the construction. The final cause is its purpose. For example, let's take a cookie
It's clear to me that all of you get the gist of the four causes, but too many of you went straight to the example without actually giving a general definition of the causes. This answer received 11 of 12 points; it would have been better if it had started with a broader view of the theory, like "Aristotle is a teleological thinker; he believes that everything that occurs in the universe happens for a purpose. Four causes define the purpose of any object." Etc.
Question Epsilon:
"Aristotle defines the differences between humans, animals, and plants to show that living things have different souls and different purposes. He explains plants to have a vegetative soul, which includes the abilities of reproduction, growth, and nourishment. Animals have [those] the same as plants but also desire, emotion, and locomotion. Humans have all the above, additionally intellect and reason. He shows how there is a hierarchy of importance when it comes to our souls. Therefore, human beings are more important than plants and animals. Also, we all have different virtues that we are to possess and different means of happiness."
This answer is worded in a kinda funny way, but unlike many answers it identifies both the larger purpose of Aristotle's contrast between types of souls and gives a good account of the differences. So it got 12 of 12. Many of you had difficulty differentiating animals and plants; the key is sensation and/or emotion. Locomotion is less important, since plants actually do move. For humans, you could cite ethics along with reason, since they go together. It could also be argued that the hierarchy is one of increasing complexity and/or one of increasing self-sufficiency. Anyhow, I kept thinking of this as I was grading the answers to this question.
Question Zeta:
"Happiness, according to Aristotle, is based on two things. First, it is the greatest good because it is pursuing one's excellence and building one's virtue to the highest of her ability. To Aristotle our life is only good through acquiring virtue. We can acquire virtue through the choices we make every day. But not just any choices, these choices must be based on reason, and not passion. The choices also should not just fulfill our pleasures, in the moment, but the greater good for people in a lasting way. Like Sappho, who brings her "irrational" emotions into line with her rational thoughts. We must not be heedless in our practice but practice some constraint, ultimately leading to a good life. Secondly, Aristlte also believes that we all have a different telos, we were all meant to do different things, and we must practice and do our telos, and actualize our arete. For instance, my arete could be to be the greatest dancer I can be, so I should practice and watch other people's work to help me grow my abilities to pursue my craft."
The key to this question was linking the concepts of telos, arete, and reason in some kind of logical way, instead of just randomly listing them. This answer received 12 of 12 because I think it accomplished that. It also addressed the issue of the general telos of humans versus the specific telos given by individual talents. I'm surprised anyone could write that much in six minuted, geez. One grumble... we don't really "acquire" virtue as if it were an external object, we actualize it from our internal potential. This isn't a video game.
Question Eta:
"Aristotle thinks an excellent thinker can and should be an excellent doer. Aristotle believes that all should try to live to be the most excellent person they can be. To do this, epople have to tune their virtues to attain excellence. To tune one's virtue, one must make good choices. To make good choices, one must use reason to think logically about how to pick the best choice. So if one is an excellent thinker, one can use reason to make good choices to tune the virtues and to have an excellent life, which is being an excellent doer."
This answer received 12 of 12 because it explained, rather than merely stating, why excellent action requires excellent thought, and why excellent thought actualizes itself in excellent action.
Question Iota:
Successful answers used the term ontology, correctly summarized and contrasted two or more philosophical positions, and gave examples and/or analysis of them. We will revisit ontology with Descartes; it turns out that ontology really depends on epistemology. This is the third major branch of philosophy... its central question is how do we know what we know?
Question Theta:
Successful answers used the term ethics, correctly summarized and contrasted two or more philosophical positions, and gave examples and/or analysis of them. Something nearly all of you are having trouble grasping is that ethics, especially Aristotlean ethics, is not limited only to "should I or shouldn't I" type problems. Ethics asks what a person should do to live a good life, more generally. Thus nearly everything you do is an ethical choice. You are mainly thinking of ethics in a criminal context, as a deontologist might be inclined to do.
Question Kappa:
This essay was clearly more difficult, but as we know, facing and fearing the right things can develop our excellence. I thought a few of you might want to follow up on Schwab's last lecture, and I was right. The better answers defined specific challenges and solutions for a revival of Aristotlean thought, while the less-better answers were either vague (doing little beyond restating the question) or meandered from point to unrelated point. Most of the answers argued for the continuing relevance of A's ethics, but there was some disagreement as to whether A's physics could be reconciled with modern physics. But it's also worth asking whether A's ethics really works if you remove its ontological basis. This will be a concern as we move to Descartes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
