-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.)
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.
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.
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.)
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.)
-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:
"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.
