Paper Topics

No Exercise due this Wednesday.

The paper topics are below. A version that will print out better is available from the Lectures and Assignments page.

Exercise due Wed 3/4

At Metaphysics I.9 991b5, Aristotle argues against the claim made in the Phaedo, that “the Forms are the causes both of being and of coming to be”. Try to reconstruct his argument.

Reading for Weds, 3/4

Metaphysics I.3-9; Metaphysics IV.

Exercise due Wed 2/25

Exercise

From Republic IV 436b to 441c, Socrates leads Glaucon “through a sea of argument” (441c) aimed at establishing that the soul has three parts: an appetitive part, a spirited part, and a rational part.

Lay out that argument in premise/conclusion form. (The argument depends on one key principle about opposites and parts, and then several examples that are designed to allow us to distinguish, on the basis of that principle, the three parts of the soul.)

Second Graded Paper

Due on Wednesday, February 18th.

In no more than 660 words or 2 pages, doublespaced, 1 inch margins, ordinary 12 pt font (e.g., Times):

At Phaedo 72b, Socrates says:

Socrates: If the two processes of becoming did not always balance each other as if they were going round in a circle, but generation proceeded from one point to its opposite in a straight line and it did not turn back again to the other opposite or take any turning, do you realize that all things would ultimately be in the same state, be affected in the same way, and cease to become?

He then applies that reasoning to death and birth (72d)

…if everthing that partakes of life were to die and remain in that state and not come to life again, would not everything ultimately have to be dead and nothing alive?

From this he concludes (72d):

Coming to life again in truth exists, the living come to be from the dead, and the souls of the dead exist.

Present, as clearly and carefully as possible, the argument Socrates gives in this passage. Be sure to clearly identify the conclusion, clearly identify the premises—i.e., the principles and assumptions Socrates and Cebes are making—and explain how the conclusion is supposed to follow from the premises.

Is the argument sound? If you think it is, identify the weakest point in the argument and defend it. If you think it is not sound, identify the fallacy that makes it invalid or the false premise that you reject, and defend your claim that that premise is false, or that the inference you identified is fallacious.

Exercise

Due next Wednesday, Feb 4th. 

In the Euthyphro, Socrates asks Euthyphro what piety is, demands a certain kind of answer, and claims that Euthyphro is no expert on piety unless he can provide that kind of answer. What kind of answer is he demanding? Is he right that, if Euthyphro can’t provide that  kind of answer, he is not an expert?

Snow day

In light of the weather report, I am going to cancel class tomorrow, Wednesday, January 28th.

Three quick points:

• I will post some lecture notes tonight or tomorrow morning on Parmenides. On Friday, I will skip quickly through them so we can spend most of our time on Socrates. So read them, and be ready if you have questions.
• You can turn your exercise in on Friday.
• I’ll likely be coming in for other reasons, so I’ll likely be available for my usual office hours.

Best,

David

Second Exercise

At Euthyphro 10d, Socrates concludes that “the god-loved is not the same as the pious […] nor the pious the same as the god-loved […] but one differs from the other.” This is the conclusion of an argument that starts at Euthpyhro 9e.

Lay out that argument in premise/conclusion form, and consider whether or not the argument is sound.

Due next Wednesday, January 28th.

Grades on Carmen

Grades for the first exercise (everyone who turned something in passed) are now posted to Carmen. (One of the things that I don’t like about Carmen: it doesn’t allow deep links.)

Lectures Online

Lectures are here: http://davidsanson.com/phil301w2009/