The Philosophy
Major
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Learning Outcomes and Assessment
Special Opportunities for
Qualified Students
General Introduction to the Major and Minor
The Philosophy Major offers a rigorous preparation for graduate study in philosophy, but the majority of our majors do not intend to become professional philosophers. Instead, many of them go on to law school, business school, medical school, or directly into the job market. We seek to provide those who take philosophy courses with an appreciation of past and present work in philosophy and with the analytic skills that will help them in many vocations. (For more, see The Quest.)
Introduction to Philosophy (101) is normally the first course a student takes in the department. This course is devoted to a broad examination of basic issues that have emerged in western philosophy. Students are taught methods of clear thinking and argumentation that are needed for examining philosophical issues. Topics typically covered in Philosophy 101 include the nature of the good life, ways of distinguishing right from wrong, the nature of the universe, and the scope of our knowledge about such matters.
Requirements for the Major and Minor
http://www2.sewanee.edu/academics/catalog/departments/philosophy
Learning Outcomes and Assessment
I. Outcomes
A. Know the fundamental ideas and arguments of philosophers that have importantly shaped and challenged western civilization.
B. Develop clear and accurate written interpretations of key philosophical texts and their central arguments.
C. Understand central problems of philosophy and their possible solutions.
D. Present clearly and defend well in writing a philosophical thesis on a key problem in philosophy or on the claims or arguments of a key philosophical text.
E. Engage in independent philosophical research and writing.
F. Present and defend orally one's philosophical views.
II. Assessment
The Philosophy Department formally assesses its success in achieving these learning outcomes through the departmental comprehensive exam and senior essay project. (See Appended Comprehensive Exam Instructions, and Senior Essay Project.) In addition to discussing the meaning of the students' successes or failures on the comps at the time we grade it, we have meetings prior to each semester in which we formalize assessments and agree on strategies to improve outcomes in the coming year.
The comprehensive exam tests students on:
1. Classical debates between important thinkers in the history of philosophy on the range of central philosophical issues and topics they have studied in the department; (Outcome A )
2. Central problems of epistemology or metaphysics and standard solutions to those problems; (Outcome C)
3. The basic claims and arguments of some particular philosophical figure; the development of some philosophical theme from a period, or a key problem from some philosophical area, and the standard debates arising in response to it; (Outcome C)
4. Their ability to write clearly and accurately when presenting interpretations of philosophical arguments and claims; (Outcome B)
5. Their ability to present and defend philosophical theses. (Outcome, D)
The senior essay tests students on their ability to:
1. Engage in independent research, through the use of the Philosopher's Index literature database; (Outcome E)
2. Work independently on semester-long projects; (Outcome E)
3. Make oral presentations on the development of their views to their peers; (Outcome F)
4. Write a twenty-thirty page essay in which they present an account of the issue they are researching and their own argument for an independent thesis on it; (Outcome B, D, and E)
5. Make an effective oral presentation and defense of their thesis. (Outcome F)
Improvements Based on Continual Assessment:
Based on our evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses of the comprehensive exams and senior essays of the senior class for any given year, which we assess as a department, we discuss reasons for both and make decisions about how to make adjustments in our curriculum in future years. Starting in 2006 we have established a running assessment report, in which we describe our assessment and strategies. We review the success of earlier strategies and need for new strategies.
In the assessment meeting prior to the Advent semester, we will examine two course syllabi to see how well our courses implement the outcome goals of the department.
The Sophomore Year
Students with an interest in philosophy who have
not taken courses beyond the 100-level before they declare a major
are able to progress successfully in the major. Typically one declares
a major during the second semester of the sophomore year, but these
days students often informally begin a major, or at least try one
out, earlier. During the sophomore year, it is possible to take a
variety of courses. Even though 200-level
courses are normally
sophomore-level, qualified students should not hesitate to consider
300- and 400-level
courses that they find interesting. Moreover, some philosophy majors
find themselves taking required 200-level course their junior and
senior year. The department recommends that 203 and 204, the history
of philosophy sequence, should be taken as soon as feasible. The philosophy
faculty are glad to offer individual advice on specific courses.
Declaring a Major and Choosing an Advisor
During February, sophomores select their
major. Students need to bring their transcript to the chair of the
department, who will provide students with a Declaration of Major
form. At that time, students will select their major advisor.
The Junior Year
During their junior year, majors work on developing their writing and analytical skills in the Junior Tutorial, continue to take required courses, and take elective courses.
The Philosophy Department requires junior majors to take the Junior Tutorial, either Philosophy 306 or 308. This course is essential for developing analytical and writing skills and represents a unique opportunity for Sewanee students. The course is intensive in various ways and is conducted in part as an Oxford-style tutorial in which students present and critique each others work. Students considering going abroad their junior year should, given the importance of this course, consider doing so second semester, if that is feasible.
All philosophy majors will do independent research and write a senior essay during the last semester of their senior year. Because successful research on these essays requires considerable independence of thought and some prior mastery of the selected topics, the department recommends that junior majors choose courses wisely. Specifically, we recommend that juniors select elective courses in the major which contain possible topics for their senior essay.
The Senior Year
During the senior year, majors will continue to take required courses and course in their concentration and are required to take the departmental comprehensive exam and complete a senior thesis.
Comprehensive Exam Format
NOTE THAT THESE INSTRUCTIONS HAVE CHANGED FOR THE COMPREHENSIVE EXAM TO BE ADMINISTERED IN JANUARY 2008.
The comprehensive exam in philosophy has three parts: one on philosophical debates, one on philosophical problems, and one on philosophical specialties.
In preparing for taking the comprehensive exam, the philosophy department recommends that students review the texts that will play a role in your answer, class notes, and their essays. Although not a substitute for familiarity with primary texts, relevant articles from the Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, or standard histories of philosophy, such as Copleston's History of Philosophy series or the Oxford A History of Western Philosophy series might offer some guidance.
Here is a detailed description of the format of the comprehensive exam:
Section 1: Philosophical Debates
In the section on philosophical debates, we will ask you to discuss two selected classical debates between important thinkers in the history of philosophy on the range of philosophical issues and topics you have studied in the department. You will be asked to
a.) to present a close reading of key arguments;
b) clarify key terms; and
c) present a reasoned conclusion about which side of the debate, if any, is superior.
Aristotle (Metaphysics Bk 1 and Nicomachean Ethics Bk 1) versus Plato (Republic Books 5-6) on the reality of forms
Augustine (Confessions Bk 6, Free Choice of the Will Bk 2) versus Plato on happiness (Republic Bk 4, Symposium, The Speech of Diotima)
Thrasymachus versus Socrates (Plato, Republic Bks 1, 2, 4, 9) on happiness
Descartes (Meditations 1-3 ) versus Socrates (Plato, Apology) on the nature and limits of human understanding
Kant (Critique of Pure Reason, "Of the Impossibility of an Ontological Proof of the Existence of God" (A 592/B 620-A 602/B 630) Introduction to Second Edition (B 1-B30)) versus Descartes (Meditation 5, Objections and Replies to Meditation 5 (Descartes: Selected Philosophical Writings, pp. 135-143); Principles I.14-17) on the ontological argument
Locke ("Of Identity and Diversity")versus Hume ("Of Personal Identity," Treatise I.iv.6) on personal identity
Locke (Essay Bk II, Chap. 1-12; Book IV, ch. 1-4, 9-11) versus Reid ("Essays on Intellectual Powers," Essays One and Two) on the nature of perception
Aristotle (Metaphysics Bks 1 and 2, De Anima III, 7-8) versus Kant on the ontological status of empirical world
Kant (Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals, Sections
1 and 2, Doctrine
of Virtue, Introduction, Sections I-VIII) versus Aristotle
(Nicomachean Ethics, Bks 1, 2, 6 and 10) on the moral significance
of happiness
Mill ( Utilitarianism, Chapters 2 and 4) versus Aristotle (Nicomachean Ethics, Bks 2-4) on the distinction between moral character and moral actions
Mill (Utilitarianism, Chapters 2 and 5) versus Kant (Groundwork
for the Metaphysics of Morals, Sections 1 and 2; Doctrine
of Virtue,
Elements of Ethics, Second Part) on duties of justice versus duties
of benevolence
The relationship between Aristotle's metaphysics (Metaphysics Bk 12) and his ethics (Nicomachean Ethics, Bks 1 and 10,
)
Section 2: Basic Philosophical Problems
In the section on basic philosophical problems, we will ask you to articulate some central problem of epistemology or metaphysics and show what standard solutions to the problem have been offered, making reference to the works of particular authors, indicating in detail the arguments they propose for their solutions, and which solution is the strongest. (Keep in mind that the best "solution" might in fact be a disolution of the problem.) You must be detailed in presenting and defending your own stance on which position is strongest. Do that by presenting possible criticism and responses to those criticisms.
You may write on epistemology only if you have taken epistemology, and you may write on metaphysics only if you have taken metaphysics.
Section 3: Philosophical Figure (325, 340, 350, 403, 411, or 415)
Present an overview of the claims and arguments of some particular philosophical figure, along with a detailed and accurate account of the key argument(s) on which the positions succeeds or fails. After that, present the strongest possible criticisms of the key argument(s) and a justified account of how far the position can be defended from these criticisms. Make sure that the criticisms you present are strong and that you explain why they should be taken seriously. Make sure that your arguments concerning how far the position can be defended are well-developed and convincing. Write on a figure only if you have taken a semester-long course on that figure (or if you have not taken a figures course, write on a figure you have studied in detail in an upper-level philosophy course).
Standards of Evaluation
Please note that the comprehensive exam is graded on a pass-fail scale. A grade of pass, or in the case of outstanding exams, a grade of pass with distinction, will be placed on the final transcript of all graduating seniors. In order to pass the whole exam, each section must be passed. Answers that are vague, lack presentation of the details of the philosophical views under discussion, including arguments for central theses, or that lack arguments for substantial conclusions about the validity of the views you are discussing will not pass. There will be some choice of topics in Section I, but we will restrict the choice in a way that requires you to demonstrate a breadth of knowledge. The department may revise the structure and/or content of the comprehensive in any given year. Senior majors will be notified well in advance of any significant changes in the format of the exam.
The Senior Thesis
During the Fall semester of the senior year, students will develop and submit for approval a senior thesis proposal for an independent research project to be done under the supervision of a faculty member. The proposal must conform to the requirements for a successful proposal. They will enroll to take Senior Tutorial: 451 during the second semester. Although the seniors will occasionally meet with all the rest of the seniors in the seminar, to discuss their projects and serve as the editorial board for Interlocutor, the primary work on the thesis will take place independently under the supervision of a single faculty member, selected by the department. The thesis will be approximately twenty-thirty pages and will defend some substantial thesis.
Requirements for a Successful Proposal
A successful proposal will be a four to five page description, of a topic, a possible thesis and argumentative strategy, with an extended bibliography of both primary and secondary sources. What follows is a sample, first draft of a proposal. For examples of finished Senior Theses, click here.
This successful proposal is brief, but shows a great deal of thought about Rorty’s book and its relation to a specific debate. In the end, this project was awarded Honors.
Senior Thesis Proposal: Rorty's Pragmatism and Putnam's Charge of Relativism
Caitlin McCollister
16 November 2005
For my senior thesis, I will examine Richard Rorty's Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity and his argument for a reconciliation of the private interest in autonomy and self-creation with the public interest in solidarity and justice. To this end, Rorty proposes the development of a "liberal irony," by which one can condemn cruelty and the rationalization of suffering at the same time that one recognizes the contingency of his or her "own most central beliefs and desires." In other words, the liberal ironist persists in the hope that human suffering will decrease, but admits that there is no order beyond time and space that grounds this desire. I suspect that this view has a concrete, pragmatic use, for if one could say why or in what respect or to what degree cruelty is wrong using "noncircular theoretical" reasoning, one would risk susceptibility to the inverse reasoning: a theodical explanation for why, in what respect, and to what degree cruelty is justified.
In pre-emptive answer to critics who might view his advocacy of ironism as hostile to human solidarity, Rorty argues for the need for a new type of solidarity beyond static, historical conditions, a solidarity by which humans are united in the "imaginative ability to see strange people as fellow sufferers." The more connected we are to the pain of other, the more difficult it is to abstract their suffering; there is a movement away from "us" and "them" towards simply "us," which Rorty argues is best exemplified by the creative workings of the novel. Moral change and progress can only be achieved through narrative, not theory and sermon and treatise; the goal is not to arrive at a single, encompassing vocabulary that unites humanity by anticipating all possible ways of viewing the world, but to create, by way of imagination, a narrative that connects past to present, individual to individual: a solidarity of compassion that makes obsolete the need to locate an objectively existent truth.
Because I have personally struggled with the apparently conflicting instincts that there is no objective truth and that there are some things that are universally wrong, I feel a deep resonance with Rorty's project. Yet I can certainly appreciate why Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity has met with passionate disapproval from some critics. For the second part of my project, I will analyze various criticisms of Rorty as articulated by Hilary Putnam, with specific regard to the contention that Rorty, despite his claims to the contrary, is a "closet relativist." According to Putnam's interpretation of Rorty's philosophy, Rorty is committed to conflating the actual outcome of a social change with its apparent outcome; that is, if a new way of viewing the world seems better than its predecessors, then, for all practical purposes, it is. This view is obviously problematic, however, for "it could happen that a neofascist tendency win out, and people cope better in the sense that it comes to seem to them that they are coping better by dealing savagely with those terrible Jews, foreigners, and communists." In other words, along with Rorty's liberal contention that any change (that results from an imaginative discourse between and within cultures) may be a change for the better, "he must admit that a neofascistic change may be a change for the better." As an alternative, Putnam proposes a view that still rejects metaphysical realism, but is less "liberal" in that it allows that our norms and standards are capable of reform and, further, that some of these reforms are concretely better than others. Finally, I will outline Rorty's responses to Putnam and other critics and attempt to determine whether his defenses are sufficient to rescue him from the charge that his philosophy self-destructs by its own logic. I also wish to determine if Putnam's philosophy falls short on the same grounds that he that he argues Rorty's does or if it actually serves as a more consistent (and legitimately nonrelativistic) alternative to metaphysical realism.
Annotated Bibliography
Primary Sources:
Brandom, Robert B. Rorty and His Critics. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers Inc., 2000.
This book will be one of my main sources in framing the third part of my project, Rorty's rebuttals to Putnam's and various others' criticisms. The book is particularly useful because it is structured dialectically: includes an essay of Rorty's covering his basic account of universality and truth, subsequent essays criticizing various aspects of his view, and then individual responses to each essay. It was published fairly recently, so I expect that it contains a comprehensive account of the dialogue between Rorty and his critics that has taken place to date.
Putnam, Hilary. Realism with a Human Face. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1990.
Because this book is cited in multiple articles that give accounts of the conflict between Rorty and Putnam, I gather that it contains the brunt of his objections to Rorty's philosophy. Although it is not framed specifically as a criticism of Rorty but as a philosophy in its own right, Putnam makes obvious reference to Rorty in his chapter that summarizes the problems of relativism.
Putnam, Hilary. Reason, Truth and History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981.
One of Putnam's earlier works, this book precedes the thick of the Rorty-Putnam feud. Accordingly, there are no direct references to Rorty and, I gather, few indirect ones. However, this book will be useful in establishing a foundational understanding of Putnam's philosophy and determining if it serves as a preferable alternative to Rorty's.
Rorty, Richard. Contingency, irony, and solidarity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989.
This will be the main text of Rorty's that I examine and evaluate.
Rorty, Richard. Objectivity, relativism, and truth: Philosophical papers, Volume 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991.
This book contains a useful collection of individual essays that clarify and elaborate upon many of his most controversial notions, such as antirepresentationalism, ethnocentrism, and liberalism.
Rorty, Richard. "Putnam and the Relativist Menace." The Journal of Philosophy 90 (1993): 347-358.
This essay has also been cited in many secondary summaries of the Rorty-Putnam debate. It is a brief but dense response to Putnam's criticisms in Realism with a Human Face, but also an account of the ways in which Rorty sees himself as ideologically aligned with Putnam.
Saatkamp, Herman J., ed. Rorty & Pragmatism: The Philosopher Responds to His Critics. Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press, 1995.
This book also contains a collection of essays criticizing Rorty (although none of them are by Putnam) and about a five to ten page response to each one by Rorty. I'm not sure if this book will be as useful as the other one in which he responds to his critics, because this one seems to center more specifically around interpretations of Rorty's relationship to Dewey and Hegel.
Secondary Sources:
Case, Jennifer. "Rorty and Putnam: Separate and Unequal." The Southern Journal of Philosophy 33 (1995): 169-184.
This article evaluates the debate between Rorty and Putnam by looking closely at Putnam's Realism with a Human Face and Rorty's "Putnam and the Relativist Menace." Case sides quite decisively with Putnam, ultimately concluding that Rorty's defenses both miss the point of Putnam's criticisms and beg the question by accusing Putnam's philosophy of the same problems.
Forster, Paul D. "What Is at Stake Between Putnam and Rorty?" Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 52 (1992): 585-603.
This article is a more neutral and fair-minded account of the debate in that it holds both Rorty and Putnam accountable for oblique approaches to argumentation with the other. It addresses the charge of Rorty as relativist, admits that Rorty is susceptible to charge of relativism, and offers a re-reading of Rorty that potentially saves him. Forster then lays out Putnam's views and attempts to identify the precise moments at which the two philosophers diverge.
Geras, Norman. Solidarity in the Conversation of Humankind: The Ungroundable Liberalism of Richard Rorty. London: Verso 1995.
Quite separately from Putnam, this book undertakes a charitable but ultimately critical account of Rorty rooted in the argument that univeralist modes of moral thinking are superior to Rorty's proposed alternative of liberal solidarity.
Kirk, Robert. Relativism and Reality: A Contemporary Introduction. London: Routledge, 1999.
This book is a more general account of truth and relativity and offers a non-critical chapter on Rorty's "postmodern pragnamtism" as well as chapters on Wittgenstein, Quine, and Dummmett.
Martinich, A.P., ed. The Philosophy of Language. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996.
Another broad account of issues related to language and relativism, which I thought might be helpful because of its section on "Truth and Meaning" that contains essays by Quine and Donald Davidson.
Rumana, Richard. On Rorty. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Thomson Learning, 2000.
A general account of Rorty's philosophy, I think this book will be of particular value because of its non-critical approach and its cross-examination of Rorty in light of multiple other thinkers such as Plato, Kant, Freud, and Aquinas.
Possible sources ordered (ILL) but not yet received:
Johnsen, Bredo. "On Richard Rorty's Culs-de-Sac." The Philosophical Forum 30 (1999): 133-160.
Margolis, Joseph. "Reconstruction in Pragmatism." The Journal of Speculative Philosophy 13 (1999): 221-239.
Pradhan, R.C. "On the Very Idea of Relative Truth." Journal of Indian Council of Philosophical Research 17 (2000): 43-62.
Principe, Michael A. "Solidarity and Responsibility: Conceptual Connections." Journal of Social Philosophy 31 (2000): 139-145.
Visker, Rudi. " 'Hold the Being': How to Split Rorty between Irony and Finitude." Philosophy and Social Criticism 25 (1999): 27-45.
Young, Phillips E. "The Irony of Ironic Liberalism." International Studies in Philosophy 29 (1997): 121-130.
Am reading, but will probably not use:
Meiland, Jack W., and Michael Krausz, eds. Relativism Cognitive and Moral. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1982.
Murphy, John P. Pragmatism from Peirce to Davidson. Boulder: Westview Press, Inc., 1990.
Rorty, Richard. Essays on Heidegger and others: Philosophical papers, Volume 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991.
Special Opportunities for Philosophy Students
There are several special opportunities available to qualified students majoring in philosophy.
Interdisciplinary Options for Double Major
The Major Concentration and Senior Thesis are designed to be a flexible tool that allows within limits of the expertise of the faculty, to encourage students to pursue their interests, including interdisciplinary interests. Double majors seeking to integrate philosophy and the ideas or methods of another discipline may pursue this option with the philosophy faculty.
Work Study/Teaching Assistant
For qualified majors, the Philosophy Department offers the opportunity to grade and conduct tutorial in lower division courses. Students find this experience invaluable in helping them develop their own skills and in developing teaching skills. Please see Jim Peterman.
Erlanger Hospital Internship
The Philosophy Department has been able to develop a strong working relationship between itself and Erlanger Hospital Ethics Committee in arranging internship opportunities and in helping students to develop such opportunities at other hospitals. Past summer internships have been funded by the largesse of the vice-chancellor and the Tonya Foundation. It is also possible to do independent research for the Erlanger Hospital Ethics Committee, for academic credit, during the school year. Please see Jim Peterman.
Environmental Ethics Internship
The Philosophy Department participates in an interdisciplinary environmental research and teaching group, The Forest Analysis Lab, which is studying landscape changes in middle Tennessee. Summer internships are available for students interested in working with this interdisciplinary group. Seniors are invited to make a proposal for a senior thesis, a twenty-five to thirty page independent research project. The project is designed to offer students the opportunity to write a paper at the level of graduate work in philosophy. Please see Jim Peters.
The Southeastern Undergraduate Philosophy Conference.
All majors are invited to submit high-quality essays (about ten pages in length) for reading and comment at the conference, held every February. Please see Jim Peterman in January.