| Icon Key: | ||||
 Video |
 Video Transcription |
 Instructor Picture |
 Instructor Bio |
 Course Syllabus |
[Visual users only Expand All] | [Visual users only Collapse All]
Grading basis/credits:
Equivalencies:
Description: Have you ever heard an argument that you knew wasn't any good, but you didn't have the tools you needed to show what was wrong with it? This course will give you those tools. We will look at many different kinds of arguments and we will identify the patterns of good and bad arguments. You will learn a method for describing and analyzing these patterns so that you will be able to evaluate even very complicated arguments in a straightforward way. Armed with these abilities you will be able to diagnose the problems with faulty arguments and you will be better equipped to come up with excellent arguments of your own. Your writing will become clearer, better argued, and more forceful. And most of all, your will become a clearer and more reasonable thinker. Logic cannot teach you what to think, but it will teach you how to think, and thinking logically is a crucial skill for you as a student and a citizen.
Instructor: STAFF
Grading basis/credits:
Equivalencies:
Description: Logic and logical are words that we use every day with a variety of meanings, but you may still wonder what a course in logic is actually about. It might be easiest to make an analogy to arithmetic: on a relatively simple level, arithmetic is about numbers and relationships between numbers (addition, subtraction, etc.). Similarly, on a relatively simple level, logic is about sentences and relationships between sentences. What does that mean? Humans' primary means of communicating information is through language, and language is embodied in sentences. However, when we receive information via sentences, we can reason about the information contained in those sentences. So, if you hear someone is an orphan, you would infer that that person's parents died and he or she probably grew up with relatives. Alternatively, if you hear that someone is from the United States, you would infer that that person speaks English. These seem like reasonable inferences to make. Logic provides an explanation for why these inferences are reasonable. That is, logic is the study of reliable methods of drawing conclusions from given information. What do I mean by reliable? Information is valuable based on whether it is true or false. So, logicians are interested in the patterns between sentences, which are patterns of truth and falsehood. For example, if everything I have been told by someone is true, what else can I figure out that will be true as well? The earlier examples demonstrate this kind of reasoning (although some of the information is not expressed explicitly). Alternatively, another pattern we can consider is whether it is possible for a set of sentences to be true at the same time. This last relation most often comes into play when we suspect that someone is lying to us. For instance, if Bill says he was at work until five and was home at six, but his commute takes at least two hours, then we would know (not just suspect) that at least one of Bill's statements was a lie. That is, all of those three sentences could not be true at the same time. So, reliable methods of reasoning will be those that give us an answer about the truth or falsity of something - and guarantee that answer. The above examples show that logical reasoning is something we all do naturally, and something we naturally do quite well. However, it is something we can do better. This is an introductory course, so we will consider only the most basic and most reliable forms of reasoning. The world is a very complicated and messy place - not everything is black and white, true or false. However, I strongly believe that logic can help us navigate through the vast amounts of information presented to us every day by giving us solid rules that let us observe our own and others' reasoning more carefully.
Class URL: http://www.cce.umn.edu/odl
Class Time: This is a printed correspondence section.
Work Load: 2 exams, 7 homework assignments.
Grade: 20% mid exam, 20% final exam, 60% written homework. For complete grading information see the downloadbale syllabus.
Instructor: Berrier,Monica Jean
Grading basis/credits:
Equivalencies:
Description: Student may contact the instructor or department for information.
Instructor: Sawyer,Nate
Grading basis/credits:
Equivalencies:
Description: Student may contact the instructor or department for information.
Instructor: Munoz-Hutchinson,Danny Joseph
Grading basis/credits:
Equivalencies:
Description: Are all human actions selfish and only selfish? What response should we make when people act badly? Are forgiveness and mercy genuine moral virtues? What is the moral value of personal attachments such as love and friendship? In this course you learn what ethics is by exploring these and related questions. You also become acquainted with such standard ethical theories as act and rule utilitarianism and Kantianism..
Instructor: STAFF
Grading basis/credits:
Equivalencies:
Description: This is a fully online section offered through Online and Distance Learning (ODL), College of Continuing Education. Visit "Class URL" for ODL policies, including fee and financial aid information. This course is an introduction to ethics, or moral philosophy. The word ethics is derived from the Greek word for habits or character traits. The word moral comes from the Latin root mores, which means customs or practices. So a course in ethics is about our character or tendency to act in certain customary ways. It tries to help us determine how to conduct our life, or how to live. Within this broad topic, many specific questions arise: What is a good action? What should we do in a certain situation? What are we obligated to do? When should we not do something? When are we to blame for doing something? When are others to blame? The study of ethics also raises the questions: Is the study of ethics even possible? How can we study and discuss ethics when there is so much disagreement about ethical questions? This course will study three ethical theories--as presented in John Stuart Mill?s Utilitarianism, Immanuel Kant?s Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, and Aristotle?s Nicomachean Ethics--that try to address how we should live. It will examine these theories by focusing on how they each answer one key question: What makes an action the right thing to do? The study of ethics consists of both learning information and developing the skills needed to use that information. In this course, the information is the three ethical theories that we will cover, and, to understand and apply them, you will need to develop certain philosophical skills. The study questions and written assignments are designed to help you develop those skills. The goals of this course are straightforward: I hope that you will learn to appreciate three classic philosophical works and that you will reread them in the future with deepening understanding. It isn?t reasonable to expect you to master these theories; there are rooms full of scholarly writing and controversy about each of them, testifying to their power, difficulty, and complexity. However, you should begin to understand why all this controversy exists. The authors of these classic works aimed to help the reader make better decisions and become a better person. Although this is not a guaranteed out?come, after you complete this course you may want to ask yourself whether studying these theories has improved your ability to make ethical choices.
Class URL: http://www.cce.umn.edu/odl
Class Time: 100% Web Based.
Work Load: 5 homework assignments. --Course completion calendar (required extra credit)
Grade: 100% written homework. You must complete 5 assignments, although 1 will not be graded. Your grade is determined by the total number of points you earn on the graded submissions (of 1,000 pts): 1 assignment @ 200 pts. 2 assignments @ 250 pts. 1 assignment @ 300 pts.
Instructor: Brito,Marisol
Grading basis/credits:
Equivalencies:
Description: Student may contact the instructor or department for information.
Instructor: Doyle,Tom
Grading basis/credits:
Equivalencies:
Prereq: [1st or 2nd] yr student or instr consent
Description: Every day we are bombarded by information derived from scientific research on issues such as genetic engineering and global warming. These claims are directly related to technologies that shape our modern society (e.g., genetically modified food and modes of transportation), and are also central components of contentious public policy discussions. Sometimes the claims appear contradictory, such as those about nutritional benefits: are red wine and chocolate really good for us? What makes claims about these topics 'scientific'? What is the form of the reasoning that supports them? How does 'science' relate to 'technology'? How can we make informed evaluations of scientific claims and their technological outcomes in order to participate knowledgeably in our society's political process and make the best choices in our everyday life? This course addresses these questions (and more) through an introductory analysis of the nature of scientific reasoning. We will evaluate characteristics of theoretical, causal, and statistical hypotheses by exploring a variety of case studies from past and present scientific research. Along the way we will apply our discoveries to contested domains such as reports about extraterrestrials or astrological inference and consider models of decision making that inform our choices about the use of technology, especially when we lack or are unable to secure relevant scientific information. This course is designed for students of all majors with an interest in the topic.
Class URL: http://www.tc.umn.edu/~aclove/teaching.htm
Class Time: 80% Lecture, 20% Discussion.
Work Load: ~25 pages reading per week, ~7 pages writing per term, 3 exams, 3 papers, 7 homework assignments.
Grade: 25% final exam, 24% reports/papers, 24% quizzes, 1% attendance, 2% class participation, 24% problem solving. Attendance/Class participation percentages pertain to discussion sections, not lectures
Exam Format: Short answer
Instructor:
Love,Alan C
|
Instructor Photo
|
Syllabus
Grading basis/credits:
Equivalencies:
Prereq: [1st or 2nd] yr honors student or instr consent
Description: Every day we are bombarded by information derived from scientific research on issues such as genetic engineering and global warming. These claims are directly related to technologies that shape our modern society (e.g., genetically modified food and modes of transportation), and are also central components of contentious public policy discussions. Sometimes the claims appear contradictory, such as those about nutritional benefits: are red wine and chocolate really good for us? What makes claims about these topics 'scientific'? What is the form of the reasoning that supports them? How does 'science' relate to 'technology'? How can we make informed evaluations of scientific claims and their technological outcomes in order to participate knowledgeably in our society's political process and make the best choices in our everyday life? This course addresses these questions (and more) through an introductory analysis of the nature of scientific reasoning. We will evaluate characteristics of theoretical, causal, and statistical hypotheses by exploring a variety of case studies from past and present scientific research. Along the way we will apply our discoveries to contested domains such as reports about extraterrestrials or astrological inference and consider models of decision making that inform our choices about the use of technology, especially when we lack or are unable to secure relevant scientific information. This course is designed for students of all majors with an interest in the topic.
Class URL: http://www.tc.umn.edu/~aclove/teaching.htm
Class Time: 80% Lecture, 20% Discussion.
Work Load: ~25 pages reading per week, ~7 pages writing per term, 3 exams, 3 papers, 7 homework assignments.
Grade: 25% final exam, 24% reports/papers, 24% quizzes, 1% attendance, 2% class participation, 24% problem solving. Attendance/Class participation percentages pertain to discussion sections, not lectures
Exam Format: Short answer
Instructor:
Love,Alan C
|
Instructor Photo
|
Syllabus
Grading basis/credits:
Prereq: Concurrent registration is required (or allowed) in 1004W
Description: Student may contact the instructor or department for information.
Instructor: Doyle,Tom
Grading basis/credits:
Prereq: freshman
Description: Despite what you may have heard, classical music isn?t just a dry, arid landscape of interest only to culture snobs. The great masterpieces are supreme products of the human imagination touching on all aspects of the human condition?comic, tragic, sacred, profane. This is music that has moved generations of listeners to laughter and to tears, while at the same time inviting them to contemplate and reflect on its inner order and architectural grandeur. This seminar will present some of the great works of the classical tradition along with an explanation of what makes them so remarkable. No prior knowledge about music is required?just bring an open mind.
Instructor: Kac,Michael B
Grading basis/credits:
Description: The course will study the beginnings of philosophy in the Western world. The ancient Greek philosophers to be studied include Heraclitus, Parmenides, Gorgias, Socrates , Plato, Aristotle, and Sextus Empiricus. The course will reflect on some of the answers those thinkers gave to such questions as 'What is there?', 'What can we know about it?' and 'What should we do about it?' In studying these philosophers, we will also consider the question what they thought philosophy was. The course is for both majors and non-majors. Readings will be some fragments of the PreSocratics, several dialogues of Plato's, selections from Aristotle's writings, and Sextus Empiricus' 'Outlines of Scepticism'.
Class Time: 5% Lecture, 95% Discussion.
Work Load: 40 pages reading per week, 18 pages writing per term, 0 exams, 5 papers. consistent attendance in class
Grade: 80% reports/papers, 20% class participation.
Instructor:
Peterson,Sandra Lynne
(CLA Distinguished Tchg Awd)
Grading basis/credits:
Prereq: One 1xxx course in philosophy
Description: Student may contact the instructor or department for information.
Instructor: Frank,Matthew Alan
Grading basis/credits:
Description: Student may contact the instructor or department for information.
Instructor: Monahan,Liam M
Grading basis/credits:
Equivalencies:
Description: Student may contact the instructor or department for information.
Instructor: Stoner,Ian M
Grading basis/credits:
Description: The course deals with a number of typical problems encountered in the area of medical ethics--problems related to brain death, the persistent vegetative state, partial-birth abortion, informed consent, confidentiality, organ donation and retrieval, patients' rights, physician-assisted suicide, medical futility, human and animal research, medical errors, health-care rationing, managed care, involuntary commitment, forcible treatment, cloning, genetic enhancement, and so on. Attendance is required. There will be three examinations, each covering a different part of the course.
Class Time: 85% Lecture, 15% Discussion.
Work Load: 3 exams, 0 papers.
Grade: Each exam counts for approximately one-third of the semester grade.
Exam Format: varies
Instructor: Hopkins,Jasper
Grading basis/credits:
Description: This course explores four questions: What is good learning (good education)? What is good work (or what is vocation)? What is a good life? What is a good society? The method of inquiry used in the course is philosophical. It is alert to noticing and bringing into the open hidden assumptions and presuppositions. The course will use an approach to learning which goes by various names: ?circle of inquiry,? ?circle of culture,? ?community of inquiry,? "learning circles." This is an approach to learning in which a group learns collaboratively by (i) each member contributing his or her own voice and ideas, and listening to the voices and ideas of others in the group, and (ii) inviting into the circle and listening to other voices--the voices of writers or speakers who by virtue of life experience and thoughtfulness contribute to the inquiry which is centered in the in-class circle of inquiry. A further essential aspect of the approach to learning in the course is that each student in the course will do work in the community to meet human needs for at least three hours per week throughout the semester. This course carries 4 credits and meets two of the CLE theme requirements: Citizenship/Public Ethics and Cultural Diversity.
Class Time: 15% Lecture, 85% Student Presentation.
Work Load: 45 pages reading per week, 20 pages writing per term, 0 exams, 5 papers.
Grade: 50% reflection paper, 50% class participation.
Instructor: Wallace,John R
Grading basis/credits:
Description: What reason, if any, is there to do what morality requires? Why care if our actions are morally good or bad, right or wrong, display a virtue or a vice? And might not the factors that contribute to our behaving in one way versus another be, in any case, beyond our control -- leaving attitudes such as guilt, resentment, and blame without any rational foundation? Such questions are among those that contemporary moral theory tries to answer. In this course, we will study what some contemporary philosophers answer to such questions and ourselves reflect on the philosophical problems raised by such topics as: the rationality of morality, the character of moral deliberation and motivation, the nature of moral responsibility, and the significance of moral attitudes toward ourselves and others. In doing so, we will focus on work that views the study of ethical thought, action, and attitudes as requiring a better understanding of their specifically practical rational grounding. Our ultimate aim will be to assess the theoretical reasons these philosophers offer in defense of their answers to our practical questions and, where we find them lacking, to try out some answers of our own. Among the contemporary authors we will read are: Bernard Williams, David Gauthier, Christine Korsgaard, T. M. Scanlon, P. F. Strawson, Warren Quinn, Philippa Foot, and John McDowell.
Class URL: http://cla.umn.edu/michelle_mason
Instructor: Mason,Michelle N
Grading basis/credits:
Prereq: credit will not be granted if credit already received for: Phil 4521
Description: If theological claims are not empirical hypotheses, then what cognitive status do they have? Is there a satisfactory answer to Hume's attack on the credibility of belief in miracles? What is the strongest argument against the claim that God exists? The strongest argument in favor of this claim? Is theism a reasonable belief, irrespective of whether it is a true belief? These and cognate questions are explored in the course. There will be three in-class examinations, each over a different portion of the course. ATTENDANCE REQUIRED.
Class Time: 85% Lecture, 15% Discussion.
Instructor: Hopkins,Jasper
Grading basis/credits:
Prereq: One course in philosophy or natural science
Description: This course is concerned with the nature of scientific thought and inquiry. We shall read works on philosophical issues about science written by philosophers, scientists, and historical and sociological observers of the sciences. We will motivate the philosophical issues by examining the debate between evolutionary biologists and those who argue that applying the true methods of science would support creationism, not evolution. We will study accounts of the methods of science and the nature of scientific objectivity, examine strange theories yielded from applying these methods to various domains (physical, biological, and social) and consider how seriously and how literally these theories should be taken.
Class Time: 66% Lecture, 34% Discussion.
Work Load: 50 pages reading per week, 20 pages writing per term, 0-2 exams, 2 papers. And one re-write
Grade: 10% mid exam, 20% final exam, 50% reports/papers, 20% class participation. Attendance is required. Students are allowed three unexcused absences. Each additional unexcused absence will lower the student's course grade by 1/3 letter grade per absence.
Instructor: Waters,C. Kenneth
Grading basis/credits:
Description: The word 'evolution' is enough to transform a civil discussion into an acrimonious debate. Inevitably, the name of Darwin and the label 'Darwinism' are utilized alternatively as badges of honor or pejorative invectives. The same holds for design and the label 'Intelligent Design'. The purpose of this course is to wade into the fundamental issues surrounding 'Darwin and design' that seem to generate so much more heat than light and make sense of the relevant arguments. We begin by looking at design arguments from select junctures in the history of philosophy. Then we focus on the 19th century context from which Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection emerged. This historical journey will include a brief stop in antiquity, discussions in geology and philosophy from the early 1800s that surrounded the key question of 'organic origins', a study of Darwin's own writings, and a survey of some reactions (scientific, philosophical, and religious) to Darwin's evolutionary theory. Having grounded ourselves in the basic structure of design arguments and the 19th century context of Darwin's discovery, we will fast forward to the present. First, a brief sketch of some developments in evolutionary biology over the past 150 years will help us better comprehend the evolving nature of 'Darwinism'. The remainder of the course will investigate various arguments, criticisms, and responses surrounding the so-called 'creation-evolution' debate, especially as they pertain to the concept of design and 'Intelligent Design'. Our strategy will be to look at this contemporary controversy in the light of historical issues with a number of philosophical questions in mind. (1) What is a scientific theory? What is 'evolutionary theory'? What is Darwinism? (2) How is evidence related to theories in biological science? What is the nature of scientific explanation? How are scientific controversies resolved? (3) What is the design argument? (4) What is best way to characterize the relation between science and religion? This course is intended for a diversity of majors in different colleges, including anthropology, biology, education, geography, history, philosophy, psychology, and sociology.
Class URL: http://www.tc.umn.edu/~aclove/teaching.htm
Class Time: 60% Lecture, 40% Discussion.
Work Load: ~80 pages reading per week, ~25 pages writing per term. Most writing assignments are 1-2 pages long (due weekly). One final paper (~5 pages long).
Grade: 25% reports/papers, 44% written homework, 2% attendance, 27% reflection paper, 2% class participation.
Instructor:
Love,Alan C
|
Instructor Photo
|
Syllabus
Grading basis/credits:
Prereq: instr consent, dept consent, college consent
Description: Students may contact the instructor or department for information.
Instructor: STAFF
Grading basis/credits:
Prereq: 3005 or instr consent
Description: The Amsterdam Jewish community banished the twenty-four year old Benedict (originally Baruch) de Spinoza for his supposed impiety in 1656. Thirty Calvinist synods of the Netherlands had condemned him for his alleged blasphemous Theological-Political Treatise (1670) by 1676. Understandably he decided to wait to have his main work The Ethics (1677) published after his death. Three and a half centuries later Spinoza's views still excite controversy, as you will learn from our study of his (a) interpretation of scripture, (b) plea for freedom of thought and expression, and (c) argument for the unity of God and nature, thought and body, freedom and necessity, reason and emotion, and morality and happiness. Join me as we examine this important philosophy in the context of that of his contemporaries Anne Conway, Rene Descartes, and Gottfried Leibniz. Both non-philosophy and philosophy majors are welcome.
Class Time: 33% Lecture, 67% Discussion.
Work Load: 40 pages reading per week, 22 pages writing per term, 0 exams, 3 papers.
Grade: 80% reports/papers, 20% class participation.
Instructor:
Lewis,Douglas E
(Arthur Motley Exemplary Tch Aw; John Tate Award Ugrad Adv)
Grading basis/credits:
Prereq: 1001 or instr consent
Description: Epistemology is the theory of knowledge. It is concerned with questions like: What is knowledge? What is the extent of our knowledge? Do we have knowledge of the external physical world? What is skepticism about knowledge? Are there good arguments for skepticism? If so, how should we respond to these arguments? We'll address these and related questions through the study of historical and contemporary texts.
Instructor: Hanks,Peter William
Grading basis/credits:
Equivalencies:
Description: This course focuses on a family of approaches to education that has shown promise in moving societies in several parts of the world toward greater justice, democracy, peace-mindedness, self-understanding and environmental responsibility. This family of approaches is known by various names, including ?popular education,? ?democratic education? and ?participatory education.? The course integrates a seminar, focusing on theory, with a practicum at various places in the Twin Cities, including the Jane Addams School for Democracy, the Southside Family Charter School, the Franklin Library, the Minneapolis Public Libraries Conversation Circles and other places where democratic education is being practiced. The purpose is to provide students a theory-rich apprenticeship in democratic education, an apprenticeship that weaves together first-hand field participation at a democratic education site with the study of theories about and case studies of democratic education. A student will emerge from the course with an understanding of the theory of democratic education, with an appreciation of contexts in which this approach to education has been used in various parts of the world, with a practical understanding of what it takes to function as a democratic educator and to design and facilitate democratic education settings. This course counts toward two liberal education theme requirements: Cultural Diversity and Citizenship and Public Ethics. The course carries 4 credits.
Class Time: 15% Lecture, 70% Discussion, 15% Service Learning.
Work Load: 30 pages reading per week, 25 pages writing per term, 0 exams, 5 papers.
Grade: 50% reflection paper, 50% class participation.
Instructor: Wallace,John R
Grading basis/credits:
Prereq: Courses in [philosophy or biology] or instr consent
Description: Student may contact the instructor or department for information.
Instructor: Waters,C. Kenneth
Grading basis/credits:
Prereq: one course in philosophy or instr consent
Description: Our concern is with the nature of mind with alleged differences between mind and body, and with a number of recent attempts to integrate mind into the natural order. This course has three parts. In part A, we discuss some traditional conceptions of mind and body and how these have come under attack from materialists and behaviorists. In part B, we examine the view of mind that is dominant in contemporary cognitive theory. This view has two components: first, it incorporates the notion that representation is central, that having a mind is primarily having a representational system--being able to represent one's environment and being able to operate on such representations to infer, to plan actin, etc. Second, certain well known systems exhibit this kind of representational capacity--computers--and so they provide us with a new model of what it is to have a mind. To have a mind is to satisfy a certain kind of very powerful program. In a sense, we are no more than sophisticated automata, and if on e wants to understand the working of such an automaton one studies its program. To gain some real understanding of such phenomena as vision, linguistic understanding, try to design a program for a system so that it, too, can be said to see and understand. our final part consists of an examination of Wittgenstein's later philosophy, the most most radical challenge to all traditional and contemporary theories of mind.
Class Time: 75% Lecture, 25% Discussion.
Work Load: 2-3 exams.
Grade: 100% reports/papers.
Instructor: Owens,Joseph I
Grading basis/credits:
Prereq: instr consent, dept consent, college consent
Description: Student may contact the instructor or department for information.
Instructor: STAFF
Grading basis/credits:
Prereq: 3005 or instr consent
Description: The Amsterdam Jewish community banished the twenty-four year old Benedict (originally Baruch) de Spinoza for his supposed impiety in 1656. Thirty Calvinist synods of the Netherlands had condemned him for his alleged blasphemous Theological-Political Treatise (1670) by 1676. Understandably he decided to wait to have his main work The Ethics (1677) published after his death. Three and a half centuries later Spinoza's views still excite controversy, as you will learn from our study of his (a) interpretation of scripture, (b) plea for freedom of thought and expression, and (c) argument for the unity of God and nature, thought and body, freedom and necessity, reason and emotion, and morality and happiness. Join me as we examine this important philosophy in the context of that of his contemporaries Anne Conway, Rene Descartes, and Gottfried Leibniz. Both non-philosophy and philosophy majors are welcome.
Class Time: 33% Lecture, 67% Discussion.
Instructor:
Lewis,Douglas E
(Arthur Motley Exemplary Tch Aw; John Tate Award Ugrad Adv)
Grading basis/credits:
Prereq: 1001 or instr consent
Description: Student may contact the instructor or department for information.
Instructor: Cook,Roy Thomas
Grading basis/credits:
Prereq: instr consent, dept consent, college consent
Description: Student may contact the instructor or department fo information.
Instructor: STAFF
Grading basis/credits:
Description: The course will consider Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. A background question will be: what does each of these ancient philosophers think philosophy is? The focusing question of the course will be: what exactly, according to each of these ancient philosophers, is the question and answer conversation called "dialectic" and what does it have to do with philosophy? We will get our view of Socrates from his portrayal in Plato?s works, including the Apology, Euthyphro, Laches and Theaetetus. We will arrive at our understanding of Plato by considering his portrayal of Socrates and other characters. We will study parts of Aristotle?s Topics, which is a collection of rules for a certain kind of dialectic, and parts of Aristotle?s Metaphysics, especially his discussion of the law of non-contradiction.
Instructor:
Peterson,Sandra Lynne
(CLA Distinguished Tchg Awd)
Grading basis/credits:
Prereq: [5201, 5205] or instr consent
Description: Student may contact the instructor or department for information.
Instructor: Cook,Roy Thomas
Grading basis/credits:
Prereq: 4310 or 4320 or 4330 or instr consent
Description: Although there is a long tradition of philosophical writing about love (consider, for example, Plato?s Phaedrus and Symposium, Aristotle?s writings on philia, and so on), the topic has not received serious treatment in contemporary analytic philosophy until fairly recently. In large part, renewed philosophical interest in love has arisen in the context of its relevance for questions in the philosophy of action (e.g., Frankfurt) and in moral theory (e.g., Velleman). The seminar will present an intensive survey of the best of recent work on love, with an eye toward its relevance to broader questions of interest to students of the philosophy of action and of moral theory. Among the questions the instructor is most interested to press is the question of whether recent philosophical attempts to reconcile the (apparently) arational features of love with the conviction that there are normative reasons for love (such that, love for one?s child, for example, is appropriate whereas love for one?s lawn is not) can succeed while retaining a conception of love as the arresting emotion that it is.
Instructor: Mason,Michelle N