Course Description, including course relation to the major and to the Department:
             This is the first in our department's series of courses in the history of Western Philosophy. It meets requirements for the major in philosophy. It provides a good introduction to philosophy, since the fundamental issues are still central to the discipline. It provides an introduction to the culture of Western Civilization, and to the extent that Western Civilization has contributed to world culture this course may illuminate that. --And, with a properly critical eye, perhaps we can also see some grounds for criticizing the culture of Western Civilization. The course is organized more or less chronologically, but we will be able to take a problems approach during most of the course. We’ll eavesdrop as philosophy is invented or discovered by the Pre-Socratics, watch as many of the issues and methods are articulated by Plato, and follow Aristotle’s systematic work to provide answers (and a framework for further answers) to philosophical problems. Throughout, we will focus on what we can still use, which is remarkably much. In particular, we will see how central problems in logic, theory of knowledge, ethics, metaphysics, language, theory of God, and investigations into the purpose of human existence all take forms which are still current.

Course Methods: This is a seminar. That means students carry a substantial part of the burden of teaching the course. There will be mixed lectures, discussions, student presentations (oral and written), and e-mail discussions. Our methods are traditional seminar methods except for the addition of the e-mail. Several parts of the course will typically involve my offering short lectures followed by class discussions. The reading load is fairly heavy, and some of the reading is very compressed or is difficult in other ways. While the readings make the core of the course, the classroom lectures and discussion are absolutely central as well, since we will not only be working to figure out what these writers are saying but also whether they are right. Because essay assignments will be set up to require using insights developed in class, students who skip classes will find themselves unable to write good essays.
              In my experience some seminars have been the most joyful and exciting parts of my education. Some others have been dreadful, boring, useless, maddening, and stupid. For this to work the students as well as the teacher have to be smart and engaged; you and I both have to work.

Texts and Materials: This is a relatively expensive course for philosophy. Standard editions of Plato’s works and Aristotle’s works, which most of you will keep til you die, are not cheap. The Wheelwright anthology of the Pre-Socratics is less expensive. If you cannot afford new texts, they may be available more cheaply used through Powell’s Books (no relation to the professor) in Portland, OR, or Smith Family Books in Eugene, OR, or otherwise on the Web, e.g. on Ebay or ABE.com, etc. There will be handouts along the way, some of them summaries by students, some by the professor. Some of the handouts will be posted on the HSU open-source learning management system, Moodle. All these handouts are part of the course and the paper ones should be kept til the last assignments are made--premature ceremonial fires may be a cause for regret.

              Philip Wheelwright, ed., The Presocratics (Macmillan, NYC: 1966)

              John M. Cooper, ed., Plato; Complete Works (Hackett Publishing, Indianapolis: 1997)

              Richard McKeon, ed., Basic Works of Aristotle (Random House, NYC: 1941)

Course Requirements and Grading: Students will be graded on attendance and participation (which includes quizzes), three papers and presentations to the class, and a final paper or essay. The main part of your course grade will be an average of the grades on your written essays and oral presentations and the final paper, all four of which will count the same.
         There is also an attendance requirement, which lowers your grade for missing classes, and a provision for raising your grade through participation (for example, in discussion or in e-mail). I sometimes take attendance. If you miss more than five of those classes (out of a total of roughly forty-five class sessions), your grade will be reduced by one third of a grade point (e.g. from a B+ to a B, or from a B- to a C+), and if you miss more than ten your grade will be reduced by one letter. I will not remind you of this, and you are free to stay in denial about the consequences of missing classes. I sometimes give quizzes (basic, five to ten multiple choice questions over main points in the readings). I do not hand these back but I do put keys up on Moodle. If you score less than 60% on a quiz I mark you absent. Strong participation in discussion in class or in e-mail can raise your grade one third of a grade point.
         All essays and presentations will be graded using the same criteria. Details of those criteria and a grading checklist is posted to Moodle, will also be handed out in class, will also be discussed in class, is a crucial part of what the course (and philosophy) is about, and will be repeated ad nauseam. We might as well get started on that nausea right away. Here's a summary: Each essay will respond to a quote or a summary containing an argument. Each essay will follow a three part structure: 1) Exposition; 2) Argue for your own claims; and 3) Anticipate and reply to main objections.
         Part One is crucial, foundational, required, needed, a main part of the essay, and it takes time and has its own structure. That structure is detailed in the grading criteria, and includes some very specific requirements, abbreviated as follows:
         ---Give the issue to which the quote is responding as a question; provide a thorough discussion and clarification of the question, including how it arises, what the stakes are, what the possible positions are, what relationships the issue has with other philosophical issues.
         ---Tell what the philosopher's position is on the issue;
         ---Tell how the philosopher supports that position;
         ---Explain who the philosopher is by giving relevant interests, worries, background, relationships to other philosophers.
         In Part Two, tell what you think the philosopher should have said and provide your own support; that is, argue for your own position regarding the issue you have given, in Part One, as a question and then clarified.
         In Part Three, tell how someone could give insightful objections to your view, and respond thoughtfully and thoroughly. If you are tempted to change your mind, explain why, and if not explain why, based on good reasons.
          Each presentation will be either in the form of a 2000-word essay to be posted to Moodle or in the form of a 20 minute oral lecture or lesson, not including discussion. Either way, the presentation will also involve a one page, 250-400 word abstract, handed out in class. The first presentation must be done or handed in by Friday of the fifth week, the 26th of September. The second, by Friday of the tenth week, the 31st of October. Topics will be suggested as we go, but students are encouraged to ask about issues which are of particular interest. During the semester, we will accumulate a list of comparative or synthesizing topics for the final essay, which will be posted on the website for the course. The final essay is due on the last day of finals week, Friday the 19th of December (this is an extension from the scheduled time of this class's final, on Monday the 15th).
     Please note: No makeups for quizzes; no late papers; no incompletes.

Remarks:          In this course we witness the beginning of everything philosophical in the Western Civilization tradition. We have a lot to cover: from the solar eclipse of 28 May 585 B.C. to the winter of 322-321--and this 260-plus years produced more of Western Civilization's philosophy than the four and a half billion years that went before, and as much as the 2300 since.
              We are going to compromise between an approach built on working through texts chronologically and a problems approach, after first taking a quick look at Plato’s Euthyphro and Apology. Our primary interests will be to learn the timeless and positive contributions to western philosophy of this small group of Dead White European Males, to clarify the questions on which they worked, and to assess their progress toward getting the answers right. If you dread history, this is not just history; this is big questions for high stakes. We will engage the problems, decide what they should have said as well as what they did say. We will have opportunities to climb through the ropes and get in the ring with Heraclitus, with Plato, with Aristotle. And if you are too timid, you can watch someone braver than you get her/his intellectual nose broken by one of the greats. You don’t get that opportunity often.
              It is history, but it is not dreadful. The characters are memorable, from the woowoo mysticism of some of the Presocratics to the frank wiseasserie of Socrates to the amphetamine-laced pace and earnestness of Aristotle. The questions are tempting, the arguments profound and charming and witty and fierce, the persons arguing are usually sane, always smart, often inspired--though sometimes wacko and bewildering and sometimes commonsensical. Some of what we will read has not been bettered by the brilliant and earnest writers who have come since, though they, those later writers, have been working just as hard as they possibly can.
              The questions we will work on include the relation of humankind to nature, our relation to politics, what knowledge is (including the relation of appearance to reality), the natures of justice, of goodness, of being and becoming, of opposition or dichotomy, of love, of time/change/eternity, of language and thought and philosophy, of the meaning of our lives. Having settled those questions, we will then take on more difficult matters.
              My hope and aim is that this class will be a central course in your education. Certainly the questions are central ones for philosophy, and the writers we will concentrate on are central figures. We will criticize and defend their views in such a way that you will feel the force of ancient philosophy in any other philosophy you do, and see the part of philosophy in any intellectual discipline where you work. We will appreciate wit, anguish, insight.

Schedule : Our schedule will be modified to incorporate our (your and my) interests. In general, here is an optimistic framework for our reading: I will sketch out more of the living questions which are not revealed by this list of dead and foreign-sounding names as we begin.

Week 1. Plato’s Euthyphro; Apology; Thales:

2. Heraclitus:

3. Parmenides:

4. Zeno, Empedocles:

5. Leucippus and Democritus:

6. Plato: Apology again

7.           Theatetus

8.           Theatetus cont.

9.           Symposium

10.          Republic (selections)

11.         Meno

12. Aristotle: Selections from Categories; Prior Analytics; Posterior Analytics

13.         Metaphysics

14.         Metaphysics, cont.

15.         De Anima

Schedule Summary: After we glance at Plato’s Euthyphro and Apology, perhaps composed within a few years of Socrates’ death in 399 B.C., we drop back roughly 200 years to Thales and the Presocratics. Selected works by Plato are next, and then selections from Aristotle.
              Next, some cautions regarding common mistakes in reading the Greeks, especially the Presocratics. Then I'll summarize the earliest philosopher we'll read, Thales.

Miscellaneous Legal and Regulatory Notices

• Students with Disabilities: Persons who wish to request disability-related accommodations should contact the Student Disability Resource Center in House 71, 826-4678 (voice) or 826-5392 (TDD).  Some accommodations may take up to several weeks to arrange. http://www.humboldt.edu/~sdrc/

• Add/Drop policy: Students are responsible for knowing the University policy, procedures, and schedule for dropping or adding classes. http://www.humboldt.edu/~reg/regulations/schedadjust.html

• Emergency evacuation: Please review the evacuation plan for the classroom (posted on the orange signs) , and review http://studentaffairs.humboldt.edu/emergencyops/campus_emergency_preparedness.php for information on campus Emergency Procedures.  During an emergency, information can be found campus conditions at:  826-INFO or www.humboldt.edu/emergency

• Academic honesty: Students are responsible for knowing policy regarding academic honesty: http://studentaffairs.humboldt.edu/judicial/academic_honesty.php or http://www.humboldt.edu/~humboldt/catalogpdfs/catalog2007-08.pdf

• Attendance and disruptive behavior: Students are responsible for knowing policy regarding attendance and disruptive behavior: http://studentaffairs.humboldt.edu/judicial/attendance_behavior.php

Reading the Presocratics

    Here are some common mistakes:

•    Thinking they lack vocabulary. Wheelwright, for example, thinks that what Thales means when he says that all things are filled with gods is that all things are filled with potential or dynamism, an insight for which we had to wait until Aristotle added the right hamburger helper into a meager pot of words. That we probably need to talk about what Thales said does not mean the vocabulary has to be fixed up but that it is provocative and worth thinking about. When Sartre says men are not papercutters, it is not that he did not have the right vocabulary that makes us have to explain.
•     Thinking that the problem of understanding them is a problem of translation. There may be places where words have to be leaned on before they will cave in and give up their lunch money, but it is more likely that particular problems are fixed by reading further and then again. If a reader new to the Greeks finds it hard to get past a feeling that it is all just too bizarre, try reading it like reading Tennyson or James Joyce--out loud, steadily, letting it wash over the ears til bits of sense start coming up like butter in the churn.
•     Thinking that they are speaking metaphorically (this is a fad in recent journal literature). On those occasions they offer analogies and similes and metaphors, it is easy to tell that is what they are doing. Metaphors make sense in contrast to literality, and if there are metaphors present we can almost always say what is being said literally.
•     Thinking they are primitive or loosey-goosey with their arguments or their thoughts. They certainly make mistakes, but it is just as hard to nail these guys as it is to nail Sartre or Heidegger or Quine or Derrida. If you think something is absurd or silly or a major slip, you are almost certainly fooling yourself. Figure out what you would agree with first; the exercise of getting into the thought, which you and I both so easily neglect, may lead you to understand enough that you will find it opening up for you.
•     Reading as if one were reading a summary (Cliff's notes, or a paper doing exposition). The nearest modern equivalent to reading the Presocratics for me has been reading Locke's beginning chapters on words, Wittgenstein's Tractatus and Philosophical Investigations, James Joyce's later stuff, Shakespeare's later stuff, lyric poetry. It has to be unpacked as we go, and regarded as polished and cut until we can see how every reflection and association is there on purpose.

     May I have the envelope, Please? Here's what he says: Water is the world's source. Earth is not at the bottom but rather rests on water. Everything is full of gods. Magnets show soul by moving iron. Hmmm. Not much there. Is that it???
    He also probably said some other things: Existence or being is not varied as the appearances of things is varied but is rather one thing. Water displays or gives rise to or manifests existence.
    He may have said still more: Death and life are one. The stars and sun and moon and their paths may be figured out, not by asking the priests but by looking and seeing. Knowing oneself is hard. Giving advice is easy. Geometry and trigonometry can demonstrate truths about things one cannot touch. Soul must move and cause movement. Individual things have come from water and must return to water. The moon is like the earth and moves and has a shadow and can be cast into shadow.

    Here's what he does: He starts the business of teaching abstract matters by writing. He looks not to religion but to the world around him for explanations of many of the things previously handed over to religion and to myth. He asks about unity of reality in the midst of apparent diversity. He asks whether the gods are separate from the world (and answers no). He finds in water a way to think about how things can be separate, be individuals, be bounded, have properties of single entities, be many, and yet these things are in an important way not individuals or separate or many at all. Set up as many glasses of water as you like, they are all still water, or maybe capitalized Water. Water thereby displays the nature of existence.
    Now maybe there is something terminally woowoo about his answer, but the question seems a stroke of genius. What will you say is the nature of existence? Heidegger, here we come.
    He does more: A chain of thought may reach beyond us into depths heretofore unplumbed. Wittgenstein a little later suggests that philosophy is the bumps on the head one gets from hitting the limits of sense. But still, the limits of sense seem open to exploration after Thales in a way they were not before. He gives us the idea that our thoughts can reach further, help us explore beyond where we are, as though we are sending out our thoughts as scouts, or building out of them bridges into the dark. We can try to understand mysteries by building with what we have, rather as though we can measure a pyramid's height by setting up a stick and waiting till its shadow equals its height and then measuring the shadow of the pyramid, so that the thing we cannot measure is measured.
    Finally, he makes the processes public. Implied in that last analogy, he gives us the idea that these things are not only the property of the person who sees them after working at them. Instead, she can show how she did it in such a way that the procedures convince us that she is right. Voila, philosophy is being invented in such a way that arguments and teaching are important to it.

               Still more, and this one important and profound but maybe not entirely nice: Thales demonstrates that the little pieces out of which we build our bridges into the unknown may carry us into truly spooky places where we do not know our way. Existence is water. Welllll, okay, T., if you say so. But there is some way in which common sense is endangered by philosophy, and so Thales helps to raise that issue as well. I myself hope that it is Thales who told the story on himself about his falling while stargazing into a cistern, to be rescued by the milkmaid (milkmaid??? probably a later embellishment) who told him he was a fine philosopher for wandering among the stars ignorant of what was under his feet.