Idea Transcript
Plato Seminar PHL 410, fall semester 2013 Mondays, 6:40–10:00 p.m., SKH 530 Debra Nails, SKH 501, drop-‐in office hours: 1:30–3:00 Fridays LON-‐CAPA
Schedule of readings to be completed before class: August 28: (Wednesday) Who was Socrates? Who was Plato? Who are you? What’s a seminar? Why Plato now? Presocratic background to Parmenides. September 2: Labor Day—MSU closed 9: Cooper’s introduction to Plato: Complete Works pp. vii– xxvi; Parmenides 126a–137c 15: (Sunday) Ancient Circle: Erik Jensen, MSU, “Moving Beyond Opinion: Barnes, Burnyeat, and the Jury Passage in Theaetetus,” 1:30-‐3:30, 2426 Maumee Drive, Okemos 16: Protagoras 23: Charmides 29: (Sunday) Ancient Circle: Nathan Sawatzky, University of Notre Dame, “Anangke and chreia in Pla-‐ to’s Republic,” 1:30-‐3:30, 2426 Maumee Drive, Okemos 30: Republic 1–2 (to 376c) October 7: Republic 5.475e–7.517c Guest presenter: Terry Echterling. 14: Republic 9 (577b–587b) 18: (Friday) 3–5 p.m.: MSU Philosophy Colloquium, Ken Sayre, “Plato’s Anticipation of Aristotle’s Doc-‐ trine of the Mean,” followed by a dinner/ reception (guests welcome) 21: Lysis 28: Phaedrus November 1: (Friday) Philosophy Colloquium, U. of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Professor Rusty Jones, Harvard 4: Symposium. ***Term paper topics due today by email attachment, 300-‐word limit.*** 7: (Thursday) Plato’s birthday, as celebrated in the Renaissance. 11: Symposium. ***Title and abstract due by email attachment.*** 18: UNESCO World Philosophy Day. Theaetetus. 25: Theaetetus. ***Annotated working bibliography due by email attachment.*** December 2: Phaedo 9: 8–10 p.m., SKH 530, ***comprehensive final exam and term paper submission*** Required texts: John M. Cooper, ed. Plato, The Complete Works (Indianapolis: Hackett, 1997), ISBN 0-‐87220-‐349-‐2. Anthony Weston, A Rulebook for Arguments, 4th edn. (Indianapolis: Hackett, 2009), ISBN 978-‐0-‐87220-‐954-‐1. LON-‐CAPA resources (see below).
1
Course description and goals: By reading a substantial portion of Plato’s corpus in dramatic order—which is a departure from current Anglo-‐American practice—we will have the advantage of encountering the more important philosophical topics more than once during the semester, enabling us to refine our views with each successive en-‐ counter. As we proceed, we will struggle with the most crucial of the issues raised in the secondary literature. Members of the class should increase their knowledge of Plato and the issues he treats, of his critics and defenders, and of the various contemporary strategies of Platonic interpretation, all the while honing their skills at expressing complex issues clearly both orally and in writing. There are no philosophers greater than Plato, none more im-‐ portant to later philosophy, none more relevant to contemporary issues, and few who could write so beautifully. But Plato is also among the most frustrating of philosophers, for he wrote dialogues in which he does not appear and that present a variety of positions and arguments with incompatible conclusions—demanding that his associ-‐ ates in the Academy do their own intellectual work to justify their own conclusions. Equally, Plato requires that you do your own intellectual work and justify your own conclusions. The compensation for meeting that difficult re-‐ quirement is improved thinking, writing, and oral expression that enriches all of life. Evaluation: Besides having something prepared in writing for each class, students will give oral argument-‐ presentations based on the texts of the dialogues, and comment formally on others’ arguments. Thus every argu-‐ ment/presentation must be “tried out” on another person in the seminar before it is presented to the seminar as a whole. A 300-‐word abstract of the argument is due 48 hours in advance of the seminar by email attachment to me and to the commentator. A 150-‐word abstract of the comment is due by email attachment to me and to the pre-‐ senter 12 hours in advance of the seminar. Grades (50%) will be based on such arguments and comments, and on the quality of students’ text-‐based participation in discussion. For the other 50%, students will write a seminar paper of 3,000 words (conforming to the research paper guidelines on LON-‐CAPA). For explanations of grades (S-‐U and 0–4), see Everything about Grades on LON-‐CAPA. The course is designed on the assumption that students’ regular and active participation will enable me to evaluate their understanding of the readings and their progress in the course. When that doesn’t happen—for good, bad, or indifferent reasons—I then fall back on an alternative means of evaluation: the comprehensive exam. Students who miss more than one seminar, fail to turn in a written assignment, or fail to present or comment when scheduled must take the compre-‐ hensive final exam. Policies and advice: 1. Preparation for class: read the assigned dialogue or excerpt as many times as it takes to understand the material. Look at any course material posted on LON-‐CAPA and note that some of the secondary sources identified on LON-‐ CAPA are elementary enough to help you understand the text; others are provided primarily to aid research for term papers. Write something in advance of class: questions, comments, a diagram of an argument, objections, elaborations, assumptions, implications—something that will make you more likely to participate in discussion. 2. During class discussions: Be civil. If you find yourself hogging the conversation, ask questions of your classmates
2
to take the spotlight off yourself. The best discussions are ones that bounce around the room instead of ping-‐ ponging with me all the time. Don’t hesitate to tell me to lower my voice or that I’m talking too much. Please help me notice when class time is over. 3. No make-‐ups: Oral presentations must be made when scheduled, not when the class has moved on to new mate-‐ rial. In the event of sudden illness or other emergency circumstances, let me know. The final exam is an insurer of last resort. 4. Office hours: I keep office hours from long practice, warning you in advance if I anticipate some unusual com-‐ mitment that will keep me away; but I enjoy my office hours when students visit, so please don’t hesitate to drop in. If the posted hours are inconvenient, please make an appointment with me by email. 5. Do your own work cooperatively: Do not submit for credit in this course any work completed for another course; and do not submit work that is not your own. You are strongly encouraged to study, discuss, and dispute with others everything we do in this course. Over the years, students who have performed best are those who met outside of class and shared their written work. 6. Academic Freedom and Integrity. Article 2.3.3 of the Academic Freedom Report states that “the student shares with the faculty the responsibility for maintaining the integrity of scholarship, grades, and professional stand-‐ ards.” In addition, the Department of Philosophy adheres to the policies on academic honesty as specified in Gen-‐ eral Student Regulations 1.0, Protection of Scholarship and Grades, and in the All-‐University Policy on Integrity of Scholarship and Grades, which are included in Spartan Life: Student Handbook and Resource Guide. Students who commit an act of academic dishonesty may receive a 0.0 on the assignment or in the course. 7. Accommodation for Students with Disabilities. Students with disabilities should contact the Resource Center for Persons with Disabilities to establish reasonable accommodation. WHAT’S ON LON-CAPA: PLATO SEMINAR 2013 FOLDERS
ALL THE MECHANICS OF THE
SUB-FOLDERS
CONTENTS
Syllabus 410 & Syllabus 810 Philosophy Resources (Joshua Barton’s PowerPoint) Everything about Grades (undergraduate) RUBBER STAMPS
3
COURSE
Parmenides HELP WITH THE READINGS Protagoras
Charmides
Lysis Phaedrus
Symposium Theaetetus
Phaedo
Guidelines for Written Abstracts (undergraduate) Guidelines for Oral Presentations, Comments, Replies, etc. Guidelines for Handouts Sample Speaker’s Script Term Paper Research Guidelines (undergraduate) Peer Review Form Division of the Arguments Scolnicov 2003 Chart Self-predication—The Third Man Argument A Problem with the Greek Text Some Candidate Platonic Forms Characters and Settings Relations of the Characters (diagram) Philosophical Controversies Argument against Relativism 356-357 Literary Criticism: a very brief consideration Outline and Useful Bibliography Segvic 2002, “No One Errs Willingly: The Meaning of Socratic Intellectualism” Penner 1973, “The Unity of Virtue” Scodel 1988, “Literary Interpretation in Plato’s Protagoras” Woolf 2002, “Consistency and Akrasia in Plato’s Protagoras” Characters and Setting notes on method in Charmides Vlastos 1982, “The Socratic Elenchus” Philosophical Inquiry in Charmides Characters and Setting Introduction and a Contemporary Controversy Characters and Setting Introduction and Structure Madness and Method (diagrams from Griswold 1986, Self-Knowledge in Plato’s Phaedrus) Phaedrus read in Greek by Julius Tomin Britney Spears and Phaedrus Link to Frisbee Sheffield on erôs in Phaedrus and Symposium Characters and Setting video clip from Hedwig and the Angry Inch Characters and Setting PHL 210-level Theaetetus Notes structure of Theaetetus Notes (illustration) Fogelman & Hutchinson 1990, “Seventeen Subtleties in Plato’s Theaetetus” Characters and Setting (illustrated) Arguments about the Psyche (210-level)
4
ODDMENTS & LINKS
BACKGROUND
GRADUATE STUDENT EXTRAS
Supplemental Considerations at 410-level Ebert 2001, “Why is Evenus Called a Sophist at Phaedo 61c?” Phaedo and bioethics cartoon International Plato Society link Ancient Philosophy Society link Society for Ancient Greek Philosophy link The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy link Plato’s Physical Appearance link Quotations after Plato Nails 2009, “Socrates” Kraut 2009, “Plato” Nails 2006a, “The Trial and Death of Socrates” Nails 2006b, “The Life of Plato of Athens” Dramatic Dates of Plato’s Dialogues The Greek Alphabet Schools of Interpretation of Plato Problems of Interpretation of Ancient Texts Does the Translation Matter? Stemma Codicum of Gorgias and Sigla Tetralogies of Thrasyllus and Ancient Division of Plato’s Works Vlastos 1991, excerpt: Vlastos in Brief Nails 1995, excerpt: failed attempts to map Plato’s views to the order in which his works were composed 31 Ways to Succeed in Graduate School Term Paper Research Guidelines (graduate) Gonzales 2007, review of Penner-Rowe 2005 Jinek 2008, “Love and Friendship in the Lysis and in the Symposium: Human and Divine” LNS (Lesher, Nails, Sheffield): Plato’s Symposium: Issues in Interpretation and Reception LNS: Jim Lesher’s PowerPoint illustrations LNS: key to Jim Lesher’s PowerPoint presentation LNS: conference participants (photo of the authors) Nails 2012b, “The Naturalized Epistemology of the Symposium” Nietzsche 1864, “On the Relationship between Alcibiades’ Speech and the Other Speeches in Plato’s Symposium” Obdrzalek 2006, review of Penner-Rowe 2005 Obdrazalek 2010, “Moral Transformation and the Love of Beauty in Plato’s Symposium” Rowe 2000, “The Lysis and the Symposium: aporia and euporia?” Sedley 1989, “Is the Lysis a Dialogue of Definition?” Sheffield 2001, “Psychic Pregnancy and Platonic Epistemology” Sheffield 2011, “Beyond Eros: Friendship in the Phaedrus” Sheffield 2012, The Symposium and Platonic Ethics: Plato, Vlastos, and a Misguided Debate
5
6