Philosophy 391, Methods: Meno's Paradox
Syllabus, Spring 2007

Mondays, 4-5:20, in UANX 152; CRN 23841;
Prof. J.W. Powell, and Prof. H.B. Shaeffer.  Office hours, jwp: 11 MWF, 12 Tu, and by appointment in 101 UANX; ph. 5753;
 Your odds are good of catching me in my office at other times. E-mail jwp2@axe.humboldt.edu; e-mail is preferable for contact.
Office hours, hbs: T/Th 12-1; Wed 2-3 and by appointment.

This continues a series of one credit reading groups/seminars on topics of philosophical methods. One-credit courses are offered by several department members in addition to our regular teaching duties, as overloads. Titles and some syllabi and materials for Powell's earlier seminars are listed at the end of this syllabus.

Description: "Meno's Paradox" is the name given to an argument against definitions found in Plato's dialogue Meno. There's an issue, then, about the importance of definitions as a part of philosophical work. Plato is often taken to have endorsed the idea that proper definitions are a central part of philosophical work. Since philosophers since Plato have mostly agreed with Plato (if that Platonist reading of Plato is correct) that definitions are crucial to philosophical understanding, Meno's paradox seems a challenge with which we must come to terms. We will first explore this issue and resolve it. We will consider what is at stake, to what extent this issue is related to other issues of philosophical methods (including implications for contemporary work in philosophy), and explore whether the standard list of possible positions is complete. We will keep driving this problem into the ground until we've got it right.
              A slightly tonier version of the issue, with a largely separate discussion, is usually called the problem of the criterion. One version could go as follows: Suppose we have a philosophical problem, and suppose we solve it by finding an answer which measures up to the standard we had in mind for claiming success. Still, how do we know that standard is the appropriate standard, or that that standard is correct? We will look at a couple of the primary texts dealing with this problem of the criterion. Then in connection with this we will take up the question of the standards for deciding whether an argument is a good argument, or, more briefly, what are the criteria for good arguments?
              We'll see whether we can go on from there. One possibility is to consider the line of thought, common in several parts of philosophy, which holds that we have got to have rules or anything goes. We'll look at versions of this from ethics and then from philosophy of language regarding meaning--in both of these, philosophers clearly think the alternatives boil down to those two. Either meanings of words are determined by some kinds of rules, or meaning is chaotic or impossible. And, either morality is determined by some kind of rules or decision procedure or there is no such thing as moral coherence. We may wave our arms at other issues, e.g., about computability, along the way.

Texts and Reading Materials; Plato's dialogue Meno will by our first reading. We recommend seminar members buy a copy, but the Jowett translation (and perhaps the Fowler translation as well) will be posted to Moodle, the University's web-based repository for classroom materials. All other texts will either be handed out in class or posted to Moodle. In general we will cover about one article or essay per week, or two with simple articles. There are no texts you have to buy.

Grading and Requirements: Guidelines for this type of course, given the reading load and discussion/seminar format, call for students to write about eight standard pages (about 2000 words) of graded work over the course of the semester. It is your job to keep track of the writing requirement and to get your writing to us. We will not nag you about this, but we will fail you if you do not produce 2000 words written expressly for this course. You can do this in several different ways. One way is to regularly produce a short commentary on what we are doing, say a page every other week. We recommend this. Another is to produce a thousand words by mid-semester, which is to say before spring break, and the rest by the end of finals week. Another is to let your entire grade hang on what you give us on Friday of finals week. We don't recommend this. But it's up to you. We will provide on request suggestions for topics and for methods for approaching those topics, including if necessary detailed essay questions.
              We also require attendance. No one who misses more than three of the fifteen class sessions will receive more than a B, and no one who misses more than five will receive more than a C. Students who have clearly not done the day's reading will be marked absent. We will routinely check during classes to share reactions to the readings.
              Students will be asked to help lead discussions introducing new readings. Typically, student discussion leaders will provide a brief written handout for the class summarizing their own understanding of the material, their reactions, and questions for the class to consider. While the handout may be used to help meet the writing requirement, leading these discussions is not required and will not count toward your grade for the course. Grades are a pathological, sick institution, but leading these discussions is a labor of love.

Schedule: This is tentative and subject to change.


As mentioned, this is a continuation of a series of reading groups on topics of philosophical methods.
Earlier courses in the series include the following (this list is now almost complete, but addresses which are not marked as links are only promissory notes, with a few exceptions, until I find and post the syllabi):

Please send questions or comments, including notes about any broken links, to jwp2@humboldt.edu