The Postmodernist Essay Generator

Have you ever heard of this site? Or of the hoax it memorializes? Check out http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo Here's a sample of a randomly generated postmodern essay. Remember, for postmodernism, language is all there is, and it just combines in random ways. It's up to you, the reader, to impose your meaning upon it. Good luck!
______________________

Rationalism and patriarchialist rationalism

Barbara N. Bailey
Department of Sociolinguistics, University of Oregon

1. Neotextual objectivism and dialectic theory

The characteristic theme of the works of Rushdie is the role of the reader as participant. However, the subject is interpolated into a rationalism that includes truth as a reality.“Society is used in the service of archaic perceptions of class,” says Sontag; however, according to Long[1] , it is not so much society that is used in the service of archaic perceptions of class, but rather the economy, and some would say the rubicon, of society. In Vineland, Pynchon denies Foucaultist power relations; in Mason & Dixon, although, he analyses patriarchialist rationalism. But the primary theme of von Ludwig’s[2] critique of rationalism is the bridge between sexual identity and society.“Consciousness is part of the collapse of culture,” says Lacan. Subsemantic capitalism holds that the task of the writer is significant form. Thus, the subject is contextualised into a rationalism that includes language as a paradox.“Society is unattainable,” says Foucault; however, according to Wilson[3] , it is not so much society that is unattainable, but rather the defining characteristic, and hence the stasis, of society. Baudrillard uses the term ‘dialectic materialism’ to denote the role of the poet as participant. However, Derrida suggests the use of patriarchialist rationalism to challenge hierarchy.The characteristic theme of the works of Tarantino is a precultural reality. Thus, Marx uses the term ‘textual postsemioticist theory’ to denote the role of the observer as reader.The subject is interpolated into a patriarchialist rationalism that includes narrativity as a whole. However, McElwaine[4] suggests that we have to choose between rationalism and Sartreist absurdity.The premise of patriarchialist rationalism implies that class, somewhat paradoxically, has objective value, but only if truth is distinct from art. Therefore, the main theme of la Tournier’s[5] analysis of neocultural desemioticism is a mythopoetical totality.Lyotard uses the term ‘dialectic theory’ to denote the collapse, and eventually the fatal flaw, of structural reality. Thus, Marx promotes the use of Derridaist reading to modify society.The subject is contextualised into a rationalism that includes culture as a paradox. However, the primary theme of the works of Tarantino is the role of the artist as writer.

2. Tarantino and dialectic theory

The characteristic theme of Prinn’s[6] model of rationalism is a deconstructivist whole. Foucault’s analysis of patriarchialist rationalism suggests that the raison d’etre of the observer is deconstruction. Thus, Baudrillard uses the term ‘dialectic theory’ to denote not narrative, as Derrida would have it, but postnarrative.Baudrillardist simulation implies that narrativity is capable of intent, given that the premise of rationalism is valid. It could be said that if dialectic theory holds, the works of Tarantino are reminiscent of Eco.Foucault suggests the use of patriarchialist rationalism to deconstruct outdated, colonialist perceptions of reality. In a sense, in Reservoir Dogs, Tarantino examines rationalism; in Pulp Fiction, however, he deconstructs patriarchialist rationalism.The main theme of the works of Tarantino is the common ground between sexual identity and language. Thus, Debord promotes the use of dialectic theory to analyse and read sexual identity.

3. Narratives of failure

“Narrativity is part of the defining characteristic of culture,” says Lacan. The subject is interpolated into a patriarchialist rationalism that includes narrativity as a reality. Therefore, several discourses concerning the role of the poet as participant may be discovered.The characteristic theme of Dietrich’s[7] essay on Batailleist `powerful communication’ is not construction, but preconstruction. The subject is contextualised into a dialectic theory that includes art as a paradox. In a sense, Sontag’s model of patriarchialist rationalism holds that expression comes from communication.“Society is intrinsically a legal fiction,” says Lacan; however, according to Reicher[8] , it is not so much society that is intrinsically a legal fiction, but rather the genre, and subsequent meaninglessness, of society. Marx uses the term ‘dialectic theory’ to denote the dialectic of subtextual sexual identity. Therefore, many dematerialisms concerning rationalism exist.“Narrativity is part of the futility of language,” says Foucault. The primary theme of the works of Burroughs is the difference between sexual identity and sexuality. In a sense, the subject is interpolated into a patriarchialist rationalism that includes culture as a reality.If one examines modernist narrative, one is faced with a choice: either reject rationalism or conclude that the media is capable of social comment. Several sublimations concerning a self-justifying whole may be found. Thus, Debord uses the term ‘patriarchialist rationalism’ to denote the paradigm, and thus the defining characteristic, of neocapitalist sexual identity.Humphrey[9] suggests that we have to choose between rationalism and posttextual dialectic theory. Therefore, the subject is contextualised into a subcultural objectivism that includes consciousness as a paradox.If rationalism holds, the works of Burroughs are postmodern. It could be said that the subject is interpolated into a dialectic theory that includes culture as a reality.A number of deconstructions concerning patriarchialist rationalism exist. In a sense, the absurdity, and some would say the paradigm, of rationalism intrinsic to Burroughs’s The Ticket that Exploded emerges again in Naked Lunch, although in a more materialist sense.Derrida suggests the use of patriarchialist rationalism to challenge the status quo. However, Humphrey[10] states that we have to choose between rationalism and deconstructivist nihilism.The characteristic theme of de Selby’s[11] critique of patriarchialist rationalism is the role of the artist as writer. It could be said that several desublimations concerning the meaninglessness, and eventually the failure, of subcapitalist class may be revealed.The premise of cultural postdialectic theory holds that narrativity is used to marginalize the underprivileged. Therefore, Lyotard uses the term ‘dialectic theory’ to denote not appropriation, as patriarchialist rationalism suggests, but neoappropriation.

4. Rationalism and Sartreist existentialism

In the works of Fellini, a predominant concept is the distinction between destruction and creation. If patriarchialist rationalism holds, we have to choose between rationalism and capitalist socialism. It could be said that the primary theme of the works of Fellini is the common ground between society and class.Bataille’s model of Sartreist existentialism states that sexuality is fundamentally unattainable, but only if language is interchangeable with reality; otherwise, Sartre’s model of rationalism is one of “subcultural theory”, and therefore part of the defining characteristic of language. But many discourses concerning patriarchialist rationalism exist.The premise of Sartreist existentialism implies that narrativity may be used to reinforce capitalism. In a sense, an abundance of dematerialisms concerning the role of the participant as writer may be discovered.Von Ludwig[12] suggests that we have to choose between rationalism and prepatriarchial semanticist theory. Thus, the main theme of Sargeant’s[13] analysis of patriarchialist rationalism is not, in fact, situationism, but subsituationism.

5. Realities of economy

“Sexuality is intrinsically a legal fiction,” says Debord; however, according to Brophy[14] , it is not so much sexuality that is intrinsically a legal fiction, but rather the futility, and thus the meaninglessness, of sexuality. Dialectic narrative holds that the task of the poet is deconstruction, given that Derrida’s critique of rationalism is invalid. In a sense, if patriarchialist rationalism holds, the works of Fellini are empowering.“Sexual identity is part of the rubicon of art,” says Baudrillard. La Fournier[15] states that we have to choose between rationalism and postcapitalist patriarchial theory. However, the subject is contextualised into a patriarchialist rationalism that includes consciousness as a totality.In the works of Joyce, a predominant concept is the concept of neoconstructivist art. Lyotard uses the term ‘dialectic socialism’ to denote the fatal flaw, and subsequent collapse, of subcapitalist class. But the premise of Sartreist existentialism implies that narrativity has significance.“Class is fundamentally impossible,” says Derrida. If Batailleist `powerful communication’ holds, we have to choose between patriarchialist rationalism and textual discourse. Therefore, a number of narratives concerning rationalism exist.In the works of Joyce, a predominant concept is the distinction between within and without. The primary theme of the works of Joyce is the bridge between sexual identity and class. Thus, several theories concerning the defining characteristic of postcapitalist sexual identity may be found.The main theme of de Selby’s[16] analysis of neopatriarchial objectivism is the difference between class and art. Finnis[17] suggests that we have to choose between patriarchialist rationalism and modernist presemantic theory. But Debord promotes the use of Sartreist existentialism to deconstruct sexual identity.An abundance of dematerialisms concerning Lacanist obscurity exist. However, Derrida uses the term ‘rationalism’ to denote the failure, and therefore the fatal flaw, of textual society.In Natural Born Killers, Stone affirms Sartreist existentialism; in Heaven and Earth he reiterates rationalism. But Debord suggests the use of the postmodern paradigm of reality to attack sexism.If Sartreist existentialism holds, we have to choose between rationalism and textual precapitalist theory. Therefore, the subject is interpolated into a Sartreist existentialism that includes sexuality as a whole.La Tournier[18] implies that the works of Stone are reminiscent of Madonna. However, Lyotard’s critique of rationalism holds that the purpose of the writer is social comment, but only if art is equal to reality.The destruction/creation distinction prevalent in Stone’s JFK is also evident in Platoon. But the subject is contextualised into a patriarchialist rationalism that includes language as a paradox.In Heaven and Earth, Stone deconstructs Sartreist existentialism; in Natural Born Killers, although, he affirms patriarchialist rationalism. However, the characteristic theme of the works of Stone is the bridge between sexual identity and sexuality.Subpatriarchialist semiotic theory suggests that society, surprisingly, has intrinsic meaning. But the subject is interpolated into a patriarchialist rationalism that includes art as a whole.

6. Sartreist existentialism and neodialectic Marxism

In the works of Stone, a predominant concept is the concept of conceptualist narrativity. If patriarchialist rationalism holds, we have to choose between rationalism and the precapitalist paradigm of discourse. Thus, the subject is contextualised into a semioticist neodeconstructive theory that includes culture as a paradox.Several narratives concerning a self-falsifying whole may be revealed. It could be said that McElwaine[19] states that the works of Stone are an example of mythopoetical feminism.The subject is interpolated into a rationalism that includes language as a totality. However, the premise of neodialectic Marxism holds that the Constitution is part of the dialectic of consciousness, given that cultural discourse is valid.Lacan promotes the use of neodialectic Marxism to read and analyse narrativity. But if patriarchialist rationalism holds, we have to choose between neodialectic Marxism and postdialectic cultural theory
.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Long, B. ed. (1977) The Iron House: Patriarchialist rationalism in the works of Pynchon. Harvard University Press
2. von Ludwig, Y. V. C. (1983) Rationalism in the works of Spelling. O’Reilly & Associates
3. Wilson, G. W. ed. (1998) Consensuses of Rubicon: Patriarchialist rationalism in the works of Tarantino. Oxford University Press
4. McElwaine, Q. O. P. (1981) Rationalism in the works of Mapplethorpe. University of Massachusetts Press
5. la Tournier, N. T. ed. (1970) The Circular Door: Patriarchialist rationalism and rationalism. Loompanics
6. Prinn, Q. B. E. (1981) Nationalism, predialectic libertarianism and rationalism. Cambridge University Press
7. Dietrich, O. R. ed. (1977) Deconstructing Realism: Rationalism and patriarchialist rationalism. University of Georgia Press
8. Reicher, Q. T. M. (1991) Patriarchialist rationalism in the works of Burroughs. Loompanics
9. Humphrey, Q. K. ed. (1974) The Economy of Reality: Patriarchialist rationalism and rationalism. Schlangekraft
10. Humphrey, T. K. J. (1983) Rationalism and patriarchialist rationalism. O’Reilly & Associates
11. de Selby, U. ed. (1975) The Defining characteristic of Society: Patriarchialist rationalism in the works of Fellini. Schlangekraft
12. von Ludwig, A. G. (1991) Patriarchialist rationalism and rationalism. Harvard University Press
13. Sargeant, M. ed. (1972) The Context of Fatal flaw: Rationalism in the works of Glass. O’Reilly & Associates
14. Brophy, L. Y. R. (1991) Rationalism and patriarchialist rationalism. University of Illinois Press
15. la Fournier, I. ed. (1988) Reassessing Modernism: Rationalism in the works of Joyce. Schlangekraft
16. de Selby, Z. O. (1993) The textual paradigm of expression, nationalism and rationalism. Loompanics
17. Finnis, U. T. I. ed. (1974) Forgetting Marx: Patriarchialist rationalism in the works of Stone. Cambridge University Press
18. la Tournier, C. (1982) Patriarchialist rationalism and rationalism. And/Or Press
19. McElwaine, P. L. Q. ed. (1991) The Failure of Reality: Rationalism in the works of Joyce. O’Reilly & Associates
-------------------------------------------------------
The essay you have just seen is completely meaningless and was randomly generated by the Postmodernism Generator. To generate another essay, follow this link. If you liked this particular essay and would like to return to it, follow this link for a bookmarkable page.The Postmodernism Generator was written by Andrew C. Bulhak using the Dada Engine, a system for generating random text from recursive grammars, and modified very slightly by Josh Larios (this version, anyway. There are others out there).This installation of the Generator has delivered 2022001 essays since 25/Feb/2000 18:43:09 PST, when it became operational. It is being served from a machine in Seattle, Washington, USA.

More detailed technical information may be found in Monash University Department of Computer Science Technical Report 96/264: “On the Simulation of Postmodernism and Mental Debility Using Recursive Transition Networks”. An on-line copy is available from Monash University.

If you enjoy this, you might also enjoy reading about the Social Text Affair, where NYU Physics Professor Alan Sokal’s brilliant ( but totally meaningless) hoax article was accepted by a cultural criticism publication. See http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/

The Big Bang and the Anthropic Principle

Dan alerted me to this fascinating story this afternoon:

New Images Support 'Big Bang' Theory

By Guy GugliottaWashington Post Staff WriterFriday, March 17, 2006;

Scientists said yesterday they have found the best evidence yet supporting the theory that about 13.7 billion years ago, the universe suddenly expanded from the size of a marble to the size of the cosmos in less than a trillionth of a second.

A team of researchers used data collected by a NASA satellite measuring microwave radiation to offer direct, experimental support for the theory of "inflation" put forth 25 years ago -- that the expansion of the universe, commonly known as the "big bang," began with a single burst of repulsive energy acting in a tiny fraction of time. The expansion continues today but at a much slower rate.

This new image of the universe indicates "warmer" (red) and "cooler" (blue) spots. The white bars show the "polarization" direction of the oldest light. ,,"We can measure the sky to tell what powered this expansion," said Goddard Space Flight Center astrophysicist Gary Hinshaw. "It's really amazing, actually. I was in graduate school when the theory was first proposed, and I've been working on it ever since. It's gratifying to see the idea hold up now.
"
Hinshaw is a member of a team monitoring data from NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe, a satellite launched in 2001. The findings were announced yesterday at a Princeton University news conference and will appear in the Astrophysical Journal.

The theory, developed by Alan H. Guth of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, holds that during the universe's first moments, inflation produced a sudden burst of heat and light that left an afterglow about 400,000 years after the event. The first stars were formed about 400 million years after the big bang.

The original afterglow has been cooled by the universe's expansion until all that is left is a faint microwave "signature.""You're looking out to the edge of space and time," Hinshaw said in a telephone interview. "It's like trying to see a car's headlights through the fog."

It reminded me of an article in First Things by Stephen Barr, entitled "Anthropic Coincidences." Copyright (c) 2001 First Things 114 (June/July 2001): 17-23.

Barr writes,
"Hydrogen has been around since very soon after the Big Bang. But almost all of the other elements were forged later, either in the deep interiors of stars, or in the violent explosions called supernovas with which some stars end their lives. These supernova explosions are also important for life because they spew the elements made within stars out into space where they can form new stars, or planets, or people. Indeed, most of the elements in our bodies were made inside stars that exploded before the sun was born. We are quite literally made of stardust.

For our purposes, it is crucial to note that the elements are formed in a sequential manner by nuclear reactions in which the nuclei of smaller atoms fuse together to make the nuclei of larger atoms. These same “nuclear fusion” reactions also produce the energy radiated by stars (including, of course, the sun), energy that is essential to support life. The first step in the process of forging the elements is the fusing together of pairs of hydrogen nuclei to make something called “deuterium.” Deuterium is the first and vital link in the whole chain. If deuterium had been prevented from forming, none of the later steps could have taken place, and the universe would have contained no elements other than hydrogen. This would have been a disaster, for it is scarcely conceivable that a living thing could be made of hydrogen alone. Moreover, had the deuterium link been cut, the nuclear processes by which stars burn would have been prevented.

Everything thus depends on hydrogen being able to fuse to make deuterium. Here is where the first remarkable anthropic coincidence comes in. The force of nature that cements nuclei together is called the “strong nuclear force.” Had the strong nuclear force been weaker by even as little as 10 percent, it would not have been able to fuse two hydrogens together to make deuterium, and the prospects of life would have been dim indeed. But this is only the half of it. Had the strong nuclear force been only a few percent stronger than it is, an opposite disaster would have occurred. It would have been too easy for hydrogen nuclei to fuse together. The nuclear burning in stars would have gone much too fast. Stars would have burned themselves out in millions of years or less, rather than the several billion years that stars like the sun last. However, the history of life on earth suggests that billions of years are required for the evolution of complex life such as ourselves. The upshot of all these considerations is that the strong nuclear force has just the right strength: a little stronger or weaker and we would not have been here.
Once deuterium is made, deuterium nuclei can combine by fusion processes to make helium nuclei. These steps happen very readily. At this point, however, another critical juncture is reached: somehow, helium nuclei must fuse to make yet larger elements. But all the obvious ways this could happen are forbidden by the laws of physics. In particular, two helium nuclei cannot fuse together. This was quite a puzzle for nuclear theorists and astrophysicists. How did all the elements larger than helium come to be made?

The answer was found by Fred Hoyle, who suggested that nature in effect did a large double step to get past the missing rung in the ladder. When two helium nuclei collide in the interior of a star they cannot fuse permanently, but they do remain stuck together momentarily—for about a hundredth of a millionth of a billionth of a second. In that tiny sliver of time a third helium nucleus comes along and hits the other two in a three–way collision. Three heliums, as it happens, do have enough sticking power to fuse together permanently. When they do so they form a nucleus called “carbon–12.” This highly unusual triple collision process is called the “three–alpha process,” and it is the way that almost all of the carbon in the universe is made. Without it, the only elements around would be hydrogen and helium, leading to an almost certainly lifeless universe...."

Read the rest of this at http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0106/articles/barr.html

Possible Topics for Paper #3

Due: March 24

Choose one, and write 2-3 pages. (Please refer to your handout, “How to Write Philosophy Papers”)

1) In The Republic, Plato’s Socrates proposes a model of the soul which places reason above “high spirited” passion. Evaluate this model, and give your own model of the soul, if necessary.

2) Do you believe the cardinal virtues (justice, wisdom, moderation, courage) are enough to make us good? Enough to make us happy?

3) What do you make of the contradictions that seem to pop up throughout The Republic? Are they real or apparent? If real, do they invalidate Plato's entire project? If apparent, how do you explain them away?

4) Compare, in detail, our own American republic with Plato’s Republic. What are the differences? Are there any similarities? Assess our society from a Platonic perspective.

5) In your opinion, what is Plato’s greatest philosophical insight? Explain in detail.

6) In your opinion, what is Plato’s greatest philosophical weakness? Explain in detail.

7) How do Aristotelian and Platonic characterizations of essence differ?

8) Why does Aristotle think that primary substances are ontologically prior to secondary substances? What do you think of his argument?

Aristotle: Online and Print Sources

div align="left">
As we begin the second half of our course, we turn to Aristotle and will be reading selections from several of his works. One good place to find them is online at

Online Works of Aristotle http://classics.mit.edu/Browse/browse-Aristotle.html

You may prefer to invest in either Richard McKeon's The Basic Works of Aristotle , $31.47 from Amazon, or if you're really feeling flush the two-volume set, Complete Works of Aristotle, edited by Jonathan Barnes, at about $40 a volume.

Select Secondary Sources

1) Reliable Online Sources

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Aristotle’s Logic :
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-logic/

Aristotle on Causality: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-causality/

Aristotle and Mathematics http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-mathematics/

Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Aristotle: General Introduction: http://www.iep.utm.edu/a/aristotl.htm

Motion and its place in nature
http://www.iep.utm.edu/a/aris-mot.htm

Biology http://www.iep.utm.edu/a/aris-bio.htm

Ethics http://www.iep.utm.edu/a/aris-eth.htm

Metaphysics http://www.iep.utm.edu/a/aris-met.htm

Poetics http://www.iep.utm.edu/a/aris-poe.htm

Politics http://www.iep.utm.edu/a/aris-poe.htm

Garth Kemerling’s Philosophy Pages: Aristotle
http://www.philosophypages.com/ph/aris.htm

Chris Howard’s Aristotle and Aristotelianism
http://www.non-contradiction.com/

Radical Academy: Aristotle
http://www.radicalacademy.com/philaristotle1.htm

2) Reliable Print Sources:

Barnes J Aristotle (Past Masters Series: Oxford University Press, 1981):
This volume also appeared along with R.M.Hare’s volume on Plato and Henry Chadwick’s volume on Augustine under the title Founders of Thought (Oxford University Press, 1991)


Ackrill J.L., Aristotle the Philosopher (Oxford University Press, 1981)

Allen D.J., The Philosophy of Aristotle (Oxford University Press, 1952)

Lear J., Aristotle: the Desire to Understand (Cambridge University Press, 1988)

Lloyd G.E.R., Aristotle: the Growth and Structure of his Thought (Cambridge University Press, 1968)

Ross W.D., Aristotle (Methuen, London, 5th Edition 1949)

J. Owens, The Doctrine of Being in the Aristotelian Metaphysics, 3rd ec. Toronto, 1978
------------------------------
You might also want to check out Garth Kemerling’s Online Bibliography:

Richard Hooker's excellent treatment.
a thorough article in * The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Gordon L. Ziniewicz on the physics and metaphysics and the ethics of Aristotle.
William Turner's full treatment in The Catholic Encyclopedia.
articles in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on:
Aristotle's rhetoric by Christof Rapp.
Aristotle's logic by Robin Smith.
Aristotle and mathematics by Henry Mendell.
Aristotle's metaphysics by S. Marc Cohen.
Aristotle's psychology by Christopher Shields.
Aristotle's ethics by Richard Kraut.
Aristotle's political theory by Fred D. Miller, Jr.
The thorough collection of resources at EpistemeLinks.com.
the excellent treatment of virtue ethics from Lawrence Hinman.
The article in the Columbia Encyclopedia at Bartleby.com.
A bibliography of recent articles from S. Marc Cohen.
Björn Christensson's guide to Aristotle studies.
Eric Weisstein's entry in World of Scientific Biography.
Aristotle and the morally excellent brain, from David DeMoss.
A paper on Aristotle's treatment of homosexuality by Guy Bouchard.
an article by D. K. House on whether Aristotle understood Plato.
A literary analysis in The Perseus Encyclopedia.
an account of Aristotle's contribution to mathematics from Mathematical MacTutor
The entry at Biography.com.

IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT: New Classroom Locations

PHL 407 will permanently meet in
M112 on Mondays and Wednesdays and in
L203A on Fridays.

We are officially behind...

Bravely taking on both books 2 and 3, Nicole gave us a thorough digest of them today, complete with a handout outline. (Thanks, Nicole!) A lot happens in these two books, so we will allow another day for our discussion, concluding it on Friday, Feb. 17.
Let's focus on the issue of censorship, true lies vs. lies in words (p. 54)

That means we are a day behind. Accordingly, Nick will present book 4 on 2/20, Joseph book 5 on 2/22, and so on.

Plato's REPUBLIC Assignment

Each student has drawn, by lot, a chapter from the Republic. (See list below.)

Your assignment:

· Read the chapter thoroughly.
· Make a summary or outline of the main points, and be ready to share it with the class. If you’d like to pass out copies or other types of handouts, check with Dan Collins about getting them made. (Please give him at least two day’s notice.)
· Lead the class in discussion for at least 30 minutes.
· For your Paper #2, turn in your summary/outline, proposed discussion questions and a two page evaluation of the discussion, making any clarifications or further observations that might be needed to round out our understanding of the chapter. Please include a bibliography of any works you have used in preparing for the discussion.
· This paper will be due exactly one week after you’ve led your discussion.

Tentative Discussion Schedule:

Book 1: pp. 1-30; Joshua 2/13
Book 2-3: pp. 40-83; Nicole 2/15
Book 4: pp. 84-115; Nick 2/17
Book 5: pp. 117-148; Joseph 2/20
Book 6: pp. 149-176; Brandon 2/22
Book 7: pp. 177-202; Aimee 2/24
Book 8: pp. 203-229; Dan 2/27
Book 9: pp. 230-251; Abby 3/1
Book 10: pp. 251-277: James 3/3

Assignment for Friday, Feb. 10

1) If you haven't already begun, start reading the Republic. Josh will be leading us on Monday in a discussion of Book I.

2) Friday we will finish up Symposium, paying particular attention to Alcibiades as he contrasts with Socrates. Who loves best? Who loves more? Alcibiades or Socrates?

3) If we have time, I will mak some introductory remarks about the Republic, and we can chat about the video.

Philosophical Gourmet Report

So you want to go on to grad school and study philosophy?

Check out this site:
http://www.philosophicalgourmet.com/rankings.htm

It's Blackwell's Philosophical Gourmet Report, which ranks Anglo- American graduate programs using various criteria. Here's a slice:


What the Rankings Mean

The rankings are primarily measures of faculty quality and reputation. Faculty quality and reputation correlates quite well with job placement, but students are well-advised to make inquiries with individual departments for complete information on this score. (Keep in mind, of course, that recent job placement tells you more about past faculty quality, not current.) Due to the time-consuming nature of this Report, it is published only every other year. The Update Service will continue to provide timely updates about important faculty moves.

The conventional demarcation of "analytic" versus "Continental" philosophy has become less and less meaningful. With the demise of analytic philosophy as a substantive research program since the 1960s (see Section II-B below), "analytic" simply demarcates a style of scholarship, writing and thinking: clarity, precision and argumentative rigor are paramount. Thus, "analytic" philosophy is now largely coextensional with good philosophy and scholarship, regardless of topic or figure. (Of course, there is still a good deal more formal work that goes on under the heading of "analytic" philosophy which has no analogue in other traditions.) It is no surprise, then, that the best work on so-called "Continental" figures is done largely by philosophers with so-called "analytic" training.

So, too, "Continental" is an increasingly meaningless label: much of what philosophers do on the European Continent these days is "analytic" philosophy or historical scholarship. While a small minority of philosophers in the U.S. still use the label "Continental philosophy" to demarcate whatever someone suitably obscure has done in Paris recently, the label is best-reserved as a characterization for a group of important historical figures largely in Germany and France in the 19th and 20th centuries; in that respect, the label is much like the labels "medieval philosophy" or "early modern." And as with these other historical groupings, there are some overlapping thematic affinities among the figures so designated, but there are also discontinuities and in some cases profound differences (e.g., Husserl has more in common with Frege than with Nietzsche, and Habermas more in common with Rawls than Marx).

The collapse of a useful analytic/Continental divide led several years ago to dropping the misleading "analytic" from the subtitle of the Report. There is one discipline, philosophy, which includes many topics and figures, and which admits of good and bad work. Certainly there remain differences in styles of philosophical work, but those differences are no longer illuminated by the analytic/Continental divide. This Report tries to capture existing professional sentiment about quality at different programs and in different fields in the English-speaking world. (Lack of reliable information leads me to exclude the non-English-speaking world, though there are thriving philosophical communities in, e.g., the Scandanavian countries, Israel, Germany, etc., but they are beyond the scope of this Report.) Obviously, there will be groups and departments on the margins of the profession-or which used to be at the top of the profession, and whose decline has been charted--who will resent such an evaluation effort, but qualitative assessment remains of great importance to prospective students.
Yet there remain some important differences in how departments approach philosophy. One important difference concerns the priority different departments give to the history of philosophy. You can get a good idea of which programs are most committed to history of philosophy by reviewing the Specialty Rankings, below. Some excellent departments--like Rutgers and MIT--are ranked in hardly any historical areas, while others--like Princeton, Pittsburgh, Berkeley, Oxford, Stanford, and UC Irvine-are ranked in multiple historical areas. Conversely, some programs give less priority to "contemporary," substantive areas (like philosophy of mind or metaphysics) in favor of a strong historical orientation: for example, Chicago, Penn, Boston University, and Emory.

Another significant divide in professional philosophy is marked by those philosophers who are naturalists and those who are not. The naturalists are skeptical that philosophers have any distinctive methods or techniques that allow them to solve problems without the assistance of empirical science; philosophy for the naturalists is just an abstract branch of empirical science, examining and clarifying empircal claims, but not adding any substantive body of knowledge to the task of philosophy. Naturalists differ in their commitment to this approach, but all share the idea of philosophy as a discipline which is simply continuous with empirical science. The non-naturalists, by contrast, do not view empirical science as a relevant constraint upon, or necessary element in, philosophical work. Philosophy remains an essentially a priori discipline, in which intuitions, thought experiments, and conceptual analyses do most of the work.

Some departments have significant naturalist contingents: for example, NYU, Rutgers, Michigan, Arizona, Cornell, UC Davis, CUNY, Maryland, Duke, Connecticut. Others have large non-naturalist (or even anti-naturalist) contingents, like Pittsburgh (Philosophy proper, not HPS), Harvard, Notre Dame, Berkeley, Chicago, Yale, Penn, Colorado, and Johns Hopkins. Most have some mix of the various positions, and even the departments just noted don't speak univocally. Most UK departments tend to be squarely in the non-naturalist camp, many Australasian departments in the naturalist camp..

How to Write Your Papers

I. Description: Your paper should be
A. 2-3 pages, typed

1. this means its going to be a modest essay, not a dissertation
2. this means it will be hard copy, not an attachment

B. on a question chosen from the handout, or one of your own, cleared with me

1. this means I want you to interact more fully with material we’ve been covering in class
2. this means your paper topic will be modest, narrowed down enough to fit the page constraints.

C. making a reasoned defense (argument) for some claim

1. this means your paper will present a thesis, defend it, and address possible criticism(s) of that thesis.
2. this means it will not be a pure research paper.
a. It won’t be the kind you might write for a history or science course, documenting the latest research, or the spectrum of scholarly opinion. You won’t be cutting and pasting lots of lengthy quotations.
b. however, you may need to do some research, and you may need to do some footnotes/endnotes.
3. on the other hand, this means it will not be a work of literature or rhetoric. That is, it won’t be about your feelings or impressions on a topic, nor will it use techniques of persuasion to get your reader to agree with you.b. however, your creativity and originality in the reasoned support of your own thesis, and the reasoned evaluation of other positions is welcomed. Furthermore, correct grammar and spelling will be expected.

II. Evaluation: Your paper will be graded on its
A. Clarity
1. Do you understand what you’re talking about?
2. Have you defined relevant concepts?
3. Have you given sound or cogent arguments in support of your thesis?
4. You must say explicitly what you mean; don’t assume your reader will know.
5. Don’t think that you have to report everything that’s ever been said about the topic. Narrow it down!

B. Conciseness

1. You don’t need to waste time writing a flowery introduction. Avoid “cuteness.”
2. Your paper’s first sentence should be its thesis.3. Edit, edit, edit. Anything that doesn’t directly further your thesis or the arguments relating to it has no business remaining in your paper.

C. Completeness

1. Have you addressed the strongest criticisms of your thesis? Have you anticipated criticisms of your thesis? (Don’t argue against straw men.)
2. Have you used examples and definitions to further your argument? Don’t be afraid to do so. If they’re relevant, they’re well worth the space they take up in your paper.

III. Resources

There are hundreds of books, pamphlets and websites that are available to help you write better philosophy papers. Here are a few of the ones I like:

A. Writing Philosophy Papers, by Colin Allen of Indiana University-Bloomington. Basic, no-nonsense site.http://mypage.iu.edu/~colallen/writing.html

B. Writing a Philosophy Paper, by Peter Horban at Simon Fraser University (Canada). This is my favorite site. Clear, concise and complete.http://www.sfu.ca/philosophy/writing.htm

C. Writing Philosophy Papers, by James Pryor of Princeton University. Extremely thorough, takes you by the hand step-by-step through the process.http://www.princeton.edu/~jimpryor/general/writing.html

D. Writing Philosophy Papers: A Student Guide, at the OSU Philosophy Department website. ( A 108 page manual, maybe more than you ever wanted to know)http://oregonstate.edu/Dept/philosophy/resources/resources/guidestuff/index.html

Syllabus: Plato and Aristotle

Spring, 2006
Beth Bilynskyj, instructor

A 307
MWF 2-2:50pm

Description of Course:

• a seminar introducing and critically examining the thought of Plato and Aristotle. Particular attention will be given to Plato’s Republic and Aristotle’s Nichomachean Ethics.

Purpose of Course:

• To enable students to increase their ability to think rationally, critically and creatively.
• To provide a fundamental part of a Christian liberal arts education, integrating NCC’s biblical and Christian studies with rigorous philosophical study.
• To prepare students for effective and successful roles in teaching and the liberal arts.
• To encourage students to personally grow in virtue (arete) and the contemplation of what is good, true and beautiful.

Course Objectives:

Upon completing this course, you will be able to:

• Analyze and evaluate the claims of Plato and Aristotle by having written five critical essays
• Demonstrate proficiency with relevant concepts and claims by having participated in lively class discussion.
• Compare and contrast Plato and Aristotle’s metaphysics, epistemology, ethics and politics by having completed a final essay exam.
• Describe and use dialogue and dialectic as models for teaching
• Describe and discuss the teleological dimensions of life’s issues and practices.

Textbook and Resource material:

• Plato, Five Dialogues: Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, Meno and Phaedo, translated by G.M.A. Grube and revised by John M. Cooper. 2nd ed. Indianapolis: Hackett, 2002.

• Plato, The Republic, translated by Benjamin Jowett. Mineola, NY: Dover, 2000.

• Aristotle, The Nichomachean Ethics, translated by J.A.K. Thomson, revised with notes and appendices by Hugh Tredennick, introduction and Further Reading by Jonathan Barnes. Further Revised edition. New York: Penguin, 2004.

• Aristotle, Metaphysics selections, available online at http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/metaphysics.html

• Aristotle, Physics selections, available online at http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/physics.html

• Aristotle, On the Soul selections, available online at http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/soul.html

• Handouts and reserve readings, at instructor’s discretion.

Instructor Information:

• Beth Bilynskyj, M.A. Philosophy, University of Notre Dame, 1979.

• 744-9343 (home phone; leave message and best time for me to return your call)

• bethb@valleycovenant.org (probably the best way for us to immediately connect)

• Office Hours: Fridays, 1-2pm; or by appointment

Please feel free to contact me. It is important that we end confusion and answer your questions as soon as possible. I also welcome your comments on the content of the course, and/or any suggestions you have to improve the class. Most of all, I want to get to know you, and have you get to know Plato and Aristotle.

Grading:

1. Attendance, reading, participation (25%)

Philosophy has been described as a “great conversation,” so the focus of our time together will be discussing the day’s assigned readings. Plan to spend at least two hours in preparation for every hour in class. Those who have not read the material will be unable to contribute profitably to the discussion, so their participation scores will suffer. Absence is the greatest damper for discussion, so you should make every effort not to miss class. Everyone has something to contribute, so your presence is important. Please refer to the attendance policy below.

2. Critical Essays (5 worth 10% each)

Emphasizing clear exposition, critical thinking and evaluation, these essays give you an opportunity to interact with Plato and Aristotle’s philosophical claims on a more personal level. You will be given a choice of selected questions upon which to write, or may appeal to the instructor for permission to write using your own question. Each essay should be 2-3 pages in length, and will be graded on the basis of clarity, conciseness and completeness. These are not to be understood as research papers, but rather critical examinations of concepts and/or arguments. The successful student will also attend to proper grammar, diction, and syntax, and turn in his or her work on time. Please refer to Late Work policy below. As I rule I prefer to receive hard copies rather than online copies, so unless you have had prior permission to submit your work virtually, your grade will be reduced.

Due dates:

• First essay due: 2/1
• Second essay due: 2/17
• Third essay due: 3/8
• Fourth essay due: 4/3
• Fifth essay due: 4/21
• Final essay exam: 3:15 pm, Wednesday, May 3.

3. Final Take-home Essay Exam (25%)

Again, clear exposition, critical thinking and evaluation will be expected, but in addition, this final essay will demand that you integrate material from across the entire course. I will use the same standards for grading this essay as I use for the other essays. Length: 6-8 pages.

Academic Policies:

(quotations taken from Mick Bollenbough’s syllabi)

1. Attendance

“There is an expectation that students will come to class on time and be in attendance every day we are scheduled to meet. Students are excused from class only in cases of illness, emergency, and recognized commitments to the College, e.g., NCC days, intercollegiate softball and basketball. Being absent from class more than three times leads to significant grade reductions, i.e. A becomes A-, B+ becomes B, etc. Ten or more unexcused absences will result in automatic failure of the course.”

2. ADA policy

“If you are having difficulty and are in need of academic support because of a documented disability, whether it is psychiatric, learning, physical, or sensory, you may be eligible for academic accommodation through the disability services office in the Dean of Students office.” Please make contact with the Dean of Students within the first two weeks of class, as accommodation cannot be guaranteed if contact is made after this time.

3. Timeliness and Academic Honesty

“Students are expected to submit their work on time. As a general rule, no late work will be accepted. It is expected that all work will be the product of students’ own efforts. Plagarism and academic dishonesty in any form will not be tolerated.”

Final comments:

• While Plato’s dialogues are probably more accessible to students than Aristotle’s drier, discursive format, they are no less demanding. I cannot lie: philosophical texts are difficult. However, it is my hope that you will find our readings stimulating and--at times-- even poetic. If you find the readings difficult, you are not alone. It is my hope that as we will deal with this material together, we will become a community supportive of one another, together engaging in the great conversation which is philosophy. Thank you for being part of this class.

• Here are some ongoing questions we will explore together:

1) There are two conceptions of philosophy. The Sophists saw it as a game or tool, while Plato and Aristotle saw it as a way of life. How do you see it?

2) What does it mean to be human? Is the unexamined life not worth living? Do philosophers have something to contribute to this discussion, or are they dangerous?

3) Which should come first: metaphysics, or epistemology? What difference does it make?

4) Intelligent Design can be seen as a rediscovery of final causality. Should science deal with this?

5) The only explanation available to Plato and Aristotle for evil and “weakness of will” was ignorance. Do you agree, or is there more to be said?

6) What is the relation of a person to the polis/state? Of the polis/state to the person?

7) Unlike most postmodernist idealist and subjectivist thinkers, Plato and Aristotle are realists, holding that there exists a world which we have not constructed, but which we are able to know. Is it possible to still be a realist today?

Patience is the companion of wisdom. --Saint Augustine

Reading furnishes the mind only with materials of knowledge; it is thinking that makes what we read ours. --John Locke

Thomas Carlyle writes, "It is all very well to talk of getting rid of one's ignorance, of seeing things in their reality, seeing them in their beauty; but how is this to be done when there is something which thwarts and spoils all our efforts? This something is sin." --William Barrett

Piety does not dispense with technique. –Etienne Gilson