course resources:
fall 2018 Syllabus:
Belmont University ✽ Fall 2018
First Year Seminar
Our Postmodern Condition
BEL 1015.23 ✽ 3-Credits
Professor: Dr. Mélanie Walton
Class Room: Inman 110
Class Times: T/Th 11-12:15
Office: JAAC 3045
Office Hours: M/W 12-1:30, T/Th 12:30-1:30, F 11-2
Lithograph: Sam Francis, “Yunan State III,” sf 117c.
First Year Seminar
Our Postmodern Condition
BEL 1015.23 ✽ 3-Credits
Professor: Dr. Mélanie Walton
Class Room: Inman 110
Class Times: T/Th 11-12:15
Office: JAAC 3045
Office Hours: M/W 12-1:30, T/Th 12:30-1:30, F 11-2
Lithograph: Sam Francis, “Yunan State III,” sf 117c.
course description:
“Eclecticism is the degree zero of contemporary general culture: you listen to reggae, you watch a western, you eat McDonald’s at midday and local cuisine at night, you wear Paris perfume in Tokyo and dress retro in Hong Kong, knowledge is the stuff of TV game shows”
–Jean-François Lyotard, The Postmodern Explained to Children, 17.
“is postmodernity the pastime of an old man who scrounges in the garbage-heap of finality looking for leftovers, who brandishes unconsciousnesses, lapses, limits, confines, goulags, parataxes, non-senses, or paradoxes, and who turns this into the glory of his novelty, into his promise of change?”
–Lyotard, The Differend, §182.
“‘Postmodern’ simply indicates a mood, or better, a state of mind. It could be said that it involves a change in people’s relation to the problem of meaning …”
–Jean-François Lyotard, “Rules and Paradoxes and Svelte Appendix,” 209.
What is the condition of knowledge today?
Has there not been a withdrawal of the real that cracked reality’s smooth veneer, revealed a roil from which ‘many truths’--fake truths, your truths, my truths, all but true truths—gushed, pained & pleasured us, left us ‘best informed’ and least capable of commitment to certainty, in a “crisis of narratives,” longing fracturedly for lullabies of unity but with “incredulity toward metanarratives”?
This is the “postmodern condition:” culture’s state after all its rules changed, revealed reality as infinitely deep, individually ephemeral webs of rules, codes, orders—a state best grasped as a mood. S o , h o w d o e s i t f e e l ? How’s our relationship to/with knowledge today as we stand before it, in it, knocked down, raised up by it? How do we live it, think it, feel our ways in, through it?
Using postmodernism’s defining text and premise of knowledge-existence-aesthetics’ inextricable relation, we will explore “ways of knowing” (First-Year Seminar’s theme) uniting theory/practice through interdisciplinary reflections on education, cultural critique, knowledge models, and alternate world views.
Has there not been a withdrawal of the real that cracked reality’s smooth veneer, revealed a roil from which ‘many truths’--fake truths, your truths, my truths, all but true truths—gushed, pained & pleasured us, left us ‘best informed’ and least capable of commitment to certainty, in a “crisis of narratives,” longing fracturedly for lullabies of unity but with “incredulity toward metanarratives”?
This is the “postmodern condition:” culture’s state after all its rules changed, revealed reality as infinitely deep, individually ephemeral webs of rules, codes, orders—a state best grasped as a mood. S o , h o w d o e s i t f e e l ? How’s our relationship to/with knowledge today as we stand before it, in it, knocked down, raised up by it? How do we live it, think it, feel our ways in, through it?
Using postmodernism’s defining text and premise of knowledge-existence-aesthetics’ inextricable relation, we will explore “ways of knowing” (First-Year Seminar’s theme) uniting theory/practice through interdisciplinary reflections on education, cultural critique, knowledge models, and alternate world views.
I) Preface: On the "Syllabus":
✽ “Sillybos,” “Sittybos”: transliterations of ancient Greek σíττυβον, “label,” typically designating Greek papyri’s dangling tags inscribed with the scroll’s title or author, that Latin misread as syllabus, a “list,” hence became expanded into what we may call a ‘table of contents,’ then, by late modernity, event or course overviews, hence, today, syllabi serve us as both contracts for administrative bureaucracy & pedagogic obsessions.✽ Our sillybos: an extensive descriptive compendium of both fixed & fluid features of our class-to-be.
✽ Excess: This syllabus has an excess of information, hopefully all useful, although likely not wildly so on day one … for the immediate, please use this document in full to get a picture of what the course will be like so as to make an informed, thoughtful decision to be a part of it; then, throughout the semester, please regularly refer back to this document to rediscover insights to the course (ethos, requirements, assignments, etc.) that will evolve in the immediacy of their relevance to your course success.
✽ Dynamism: Some features herein absolutely will change,✽ others may change (due well-deliberated class will, weather, etc.), others are unlikely to change (e.g., University policies). All changes will be announced in class & noted on our Blackboard syllabus copy. The purpose of this built-in required & potential dynamism is to invite & encourage each and all to take active roles in forging the unique experience of this class.
✽ Demanding: The excess to follow (especially on the class’ intentionally-included dynamic dimensions) demands each exercise one’s agency and thereby choose to become & remain a member of this class, thereby become & remain responsible for one’s own state of being informed about it, one’s role in making it be, and one’s impact on its collective nature--i.e., be proactive for your own sake, and for the benefit of others.
✽ Why Dynamic, Demanding Excess?: Because …: I am philosopher; we will think about thinking about things all semester, so why not start now; class discussions can fly when chasing wild ideas & having an excessive syllabus to which one can refer back has proven helpful in the past; philosophy is my passion & teaching my vocation & asking you to be an active free agent involved in course design & enactment tends to make you, too, passionate about it all, which usually makes it all much more fun; etc..
✽ Contents Hereafter:
II) Course Goals;
III) Course Texts;
IV) Course Policies & Requirements:
VII) Appendix
- ✽: cf., OED, Etymonline, Meriam-Webster, British Library Greek Manuscripts, Lewis’ Elementary Latin Dictionary.
✽ Excess: This syllabus has an excess of information, hopefully all useful, although likely not wildly so on day one … for the immediate, please use this document in full to get a picture of what the course will be like so as to make an informed, thoughtful decision to be a part of it; then, throughout the semester, please regularly refer back to this document to rediscover insights to the course (ethos, requirements, assignments, etc.) that will evolve in the immediacy of their relevance to your course success.
✽ Dynamism: Some features herein absolutely will change,✽ others may change (due well-deliberated class will, weather, etc.), others are unlikely to change (e.g., University policies). All changes will be announced in class & noted on our Blackboard syllabus copy. The purpose of this built-in required & potential dynamism is to invite & encourage each and all to take active roles in forging the unique experience of this class.
- ✽: Some reading & assignment details (marked “TBD,” below) will be determined collectively; assignment options will be discussed well in advance of their due dates but determined individually.
✽ Demanding: The excess to follow (especially on the class’ intentionally-included dynamic dimensions) demands each exercise one’s agency and thereby choose to become & remain a member of this class, thereby become & remain responsible for one’s own state of being informed about it, one’s role in making it be, and one’s impact on its collective nature--i.e., be proactive for your own sake, and for the benefit of others.
✽ Why Dynamic, Demanding Excess?: Because …: I am philosopher; we will think about thinking about things all semester, so why not start now; class discussions can fly when chasing wild ideas & having an excessive syllabus to which one can refer back has proven helpful in the past; philosophy is my passion & teaching my vocation & asking you to be an active free agent involved in course design & enactment tends to make you, too, passionate about it all, which usually makes it all much more fun; etc..
✽ Contents Hereafter:
II) Course Goals;
III) Course Texts;
IV) Course Policies & Requirements:
- Assignments;
- Grade Distribution;
- Grade Scale;
- Evaluation Criteria;
- Electronic Supplements & Notes;
- Extra Credit Assignments;
- Etcetera;
- Honor Code;
- Accommodation of Disabilities;
- Course Evaluation;
- BU Attendance Policy;
VII) Appendix
- Argument Paper;
- On Judgments, Arguments, & Fallacies;
- On Core Readings Assignments;
- Extra Detail on Co-Curricular Exp. & Assign.;
II) Course Goals (&/or, What to expect):
First Year Seminar {FYS} is designed as an interrogation into the role of knowledge in human life, specifically:
- (1) to examine & gain understanding of traditional to contemporary claims on liberal education’s nature, value, & purpose;
- (2) to consider knowledge’s construction, evaluation, confirmation, & transmission in & across various academic disciplines;
- (3) to engage the role of knowledge in human life broadly, beyond the academic & through literary & cinematic engagement;
- (4) & be introduced to the intellectual life of the university, in & beyond the class, generally & specifically at Belmont.
- (5) to develop key collegiate skills (dexterity of one’s disposition, person & mind, to time, information, reading, research, & presentation of knowledge*) for personal, professional, & scholarly success;
- (6) to cultivate our specific collegiate & ideal greater community through shared readings, films, speaker, policies & assignments, & theme: ‘Ways of Knowing’*;
- (7) to provide significant intellectual challenge, encourage learning as revelatory, stimulating, engaging, & meaningful.
- *: Critical Thinking & Ways of Knowing: FYS’ interdependent focus & theme, near-synonyms defining quality thinking as activity & its creation (from reasoned analysis to informed judgment), hence involve & include quality reading, reflecting, & expressing that yield theoretically engaged textual analyses demonstrating scholarly and personal reasoning through well-constructed arguments in thought, speech, & writing).
III) Course Texts:
✽ Both texts are required & available via bookstore, etc.; physical hard copies* of the same edition / translation as noted required, as is always having the appropriate work with you in class.
Ways of Knowing: The First-Year Seminar Anthology, 4th ed., ed. Dan Schafer (XanEdu Custom Publishing, 2018).
Jean-François Lyotard, The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge, trans. Geoff Bennington & Brian Massumi (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1984), isbn: 0816611734.
- *: Physical copies: are required because I will expect you to thoroughly & thoughtfully mark up your texts.** While not applicable to the 1st text, this policy may have a financial impact due the 2nd (i.e., eText may be cheaper; markup lessens resale value)—for such concerns, please see me within the first two weeks to determine a best solution.
- **: Mark Up: Reading philosophically is a skill requiring practice & an art that may vary between individuals, in accord with material read & one’s ends for reading, & develop with time, thus I require its activity, but will not dictate its precise manifestation. Universally useful tips, however, include:
- –consider aims of notation: understanding, questions, interest, near- & far-future reference, etc.;
- –consider forms: ink, pencil, color, underlines, highlighting, symbols, notes, tags, etc., & utility for diverse aims;
- –solidify & establish some universal tactics / consistent features (even as specific practices vary) for greatest value.
- **: Mark Up: Reading philosophically is a skill requiring practice & an art that may vary between individuals, in accord with material read & one’s ends for reading, & develop with time, thus I require its activity, but will not dictate its precise manifestation. Universally useful tips, however, include:
Ways of Knowing: The First-Year Seminar Anthology, 4th ed., ed. Dan Schafer (XanEdu Custom Publishing, 2018).
Jean-François Lyotard, The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge, trans. Geoff Bennington & Brian Massumi (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1984), isbn: 0816611734.
IV) Course Policies & Requirements:
Assignments:
Grade Distribution:
Grade Scale:
All assignments will receive an alphabetic &/or numeric grade based upon their demonstrated quality of thought & effort as described below. The scale will be: A (100-94); A- (93-90); B+ (89-87); B (86-83); B- (82-80); C+ (79-77); C (76-73); C- (72-70); D+ (69-67); D (66-63); D- (62-60); F (59-0). Any grade disputes will be settled by personal meeting where we will review together the totality of your class work.
Evaluation Criteria:
Electronic Supplements & Notes:
Our course Blackboard site will collect required (e.g., syllabus) & supplemental materials (e.g., handouts, some extra credit texts, etc.) through the semester. In addition, while their consultation is not required, helpful summations of course & additional materials directly & tangentially related to the course will be provided on external class websites at: www.threshold-to-lintel.com & www.aquestionofexistence.com.
Extra Credit Assignments:
A) Attend any of the Belmont Humanities Symposium events announced in class, and submit a thoughtful two-page reflection that includes your description of the event and reflection upon its philosophic import.
B) Read one of the following selections and write a three-page analysis including: (1) summary of content, (2) delineation of main arguments, and (3) close, personal evaluation of its meaning and/or implications.
0 Adrienne Edgar, Everyday Life among the Turkmen Nomads (in Core Anthology)
0 James Baldwin, On Being ‘White’...& Other Lies (in Core Anth.)
0 Margot Lee Shetterly, Prologue (in Core Anthology)
0 Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, Bk.I, Chs.1-13 (classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/nicomachaen.1.i.html).
0 Simone de Beauvoir, The Ethics of Ambiguity, Pt.I, “Ambiguity & Free.,” or Pt.II, “Personal Free. & Others,” or Pt.III, §2 “Free. & Lib.,” (www.marxists.org/reference/subject/ethics/de-beauvoir/ambiguity/index.htm).
0 G.W.F. Hegel, “Lordship & Bondage,” Phenomenology of Spirit (www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/index.htm).
0 Friedrich Nietzsche, Ch.II “Free Spirit,” Beyond Good & Evil (www.marxists.org/reference/archive/nietzsche/1886/beyond-good-evil/ch02.htm).
0 Julian of Norwich’s Revelations of Divine Love (www.ccel.org/ccel/julian/revelations.toc.html)
0 Theodor Adorno & Max Horkheimer, Ch. 1, The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception (www.marxists.org/reference/archive/adorno/1944/culture-industry.htm).
0 Charles Darwin, Ch.III: “Struggle for Exist.,” Origin of Species (www.marxists.org/reference/archive/darwin/works/origins/ch03.htm).
0 Franz Fanon, “Recip. Bases Nat. Cul. & Fight Freedom,” Wretched of the Earth (www.marxists.org/subject/africa/fanon/national-culture.htm).
0 Jean-Paul Sartre, “The Wall,” (http://chabrieres.pagesperso-orange.fr/texts/sartre_thewall.html).
0 José Ortega y Gasset, “Man has no Nature” (on Blackboard).
0 Albert Camus, The Stranger or The Myth of Sisyphus (on Blkbrd).
0 United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml).
0 Friedrich Nietzsche, Ch.II, “Free Spirit,” in Beyond Good & Evil (www.marxists.org/reference/archive/nietzsche/1886/beyond-good-evil/ch02.htm).
C) Select and watch one of the following films and write a three-page analysis including: (1) brief plot summary, (2) delineation of and elaboration on one or more features of the film with philosophical relevance & (3) your thorough aesthetic and theoretical evaluation of that/those feature/s. If you are sensitive to adult content, please research the films before viewing &/or ask me for recommendations.
0 Igmar Bergman’s “Through a Glass Darkly” (Swedish, 1961), “Winter Light” (1963), “The Silence” (1963), “The Seventh Seal” (1957), “Wild Strawberries” (1957), or “Persona” (1966).
0 Wim Wender’s “Wings of Desire” (German, 1987).
0 Gabriel Axel’s “Babette’s Feast” (Danish, 1987).
0 Hiroshi Teshigahara’s “Face of Another” (Japanese, 1966).
0 Akira Kurosawa’s “Ikiru” (Japanese, 1952).
0 Khyentse Norbu’s “Travellers and Magicians” (Bhutanese, 2003).
0 Chris Marker’s “La Jetée” (French, 1962).
0 Robert Bresson’s “Diary of a Country Priest” (French, 1951).
0 Marc Erlbaum’s “Café” (American, 2010).
0 Hitchcock’s “Rope” (American, 1948), “Rear Window” (‘54).
0 Peter Howitt’s “Sliding Doors” (British, ‘98).
0 Álex de la Iglesia’s “Oxford Murders” (Spanish director, film in English, 2008).
0 Woody Allen’s “Crimes & Misdemeanors” (Amer., 1989), “Sleeper” (‘73), “Interiors” (‘78), “Zelig” (‘83), “Alice” (‘90), “Melinda & Melinda” (‘04), “Midnight in Paris” (‘11), “Blue Jasmine” (‘13).
0 Michael Haneke’s “Time of the Wolf” (German director, film subtitled from French, 2003).
0 Rainer Werner Fassbinder’s “Mother Küsters goes to Heaven” (German, 1985).
0 Coen Brothers, “No Country for Old Men” (American, 2007).
0 Claire Denis, “Let the Sun Shine In” (Fr., 2017).
0 David Cronenberg’s “Spider” (Canadian, 2002) or “A History of Violence” (2005).
0 Werner Herzog, “The Enigma of Kaspar Hauser” (German, 1974).
0 Olivier Assayas, “Cold Water” (Fr., 1994).
0 Harmony Korine’s “Mister Lonely” (American, 2007).
0 David Lynch’s “Lost Highway” (American, 1997), “Mulholland Dr.” (2001), “Inland Empire” (2006).
0 Bruno Dumont’s “Hadewijch” (2009), “Jeannette: The Childhood of Joan of Arc” (2018).
If more extra credit assignments are desired, please see me (i.e., there is no maximum cap on the number of extra credit assignments that you may complete).
Etcetera:
- The Argument Paper: 1,500+ word ‘Argument Paper,’ i.e., a work whose substantive thesis parallels its conclusion by way of a well-constructed & -evidenced argument, on a topic of your choosing that bears relevance to course ideas; a draft will be submitted by 11/1 with proposed i. topic, ii. thesis, iii. argument sketch, & iv. Annotated bibliography with at least four quality resources; the final version due in our Final Exam period 12/10 (unless announced otherwise in class); cf., Appendix, below, for more information.
- Core Readings Assignments: Informal journal-style writing assignments submitted in Three Collections (due before 9/25, 11/13, 12/4 (all entries)); comprised of ≈1p. entries of i. at least two insights on and ii. at least two discussion questions for each reading. These entries should be completed after your reading of & reflection on each reading & before each class, therefore providing you with strong prepared material to contribute to discussions, for which you will be called upon in class to share (cf., Appendix, below, for more).
- Class-Specific Reading Assignments: Two assignments on Lyotard’s The Postmodern Condition [PC]; both due before 10/18, and ideally worked on throughout our reading of the text (9/25-10/11); first assignment’s form Required—(1) Informal Journal-style Writing Assignments: (following form of Core Readings Assignments) on each of PC’s section (intro., each chapter, appendix)—the second assignment’s form Of Your Choosing:
- (2) Collaborative Theoretical Projects: discussing & forging, with 1-4 peers, 3-5pp. informally written responses on selected prompts provided in class.
- (3) Collaborative Creative Projects: completing, with 1-4 peers, a creative work with 2-3pp. written theoretical explanation working from prompts provided in class.
- (4) Scholarly Paper: 3-5pp. paper centrally concerned with & driven by a clear, PC-related topic, question, or problem that is rigorously addressed with thoughtful textual evidence and philosophical argument.
- (5) Reflection Essay: 3-5pp. essay that has purpose, argument, and a complete form distinguished by its personal dimension: the particular, unconventional, individual, intimate, informal, conversational, or personalized expression of the author’s perspective, experiences, tastes, interpretations, etc., on (hence descriptive) and into (hence exploratory and revelatory) its topic that bears direct reference to PC.
- Co-Curricular Experiences: ALL following activities Required, & Four assignments Required: (submit when complete; final deadline: 12/4): choose one alphabetic option per each numerated category (cf. Appendix for more):
- (1) FYS Speaker Event (Nikki Giovanni, Sept. 23, 7 p.m., Curb):
- (a) Reflective Précis: 2-4pp. summary of i. event’s content, ii. elaboration of one main insight, & iii. philosophical evaluation of i. or ii.’s meaning &/or implications.
- (b) Text-Event Comparative Analysis: 2-4pp. consideration of how something from her poems connects & furthers or evidences something in the talk, or vice versus.
- (2) Common Film: “The Lives of Others”:
- (a) Reflective Précis: 2-4pp. with i. summary of film’s content, ii. insights on film’s aesthetic presentation, iii. elaboration of one main insight, & iii. philosophical evaluation of i., ii., or iii’s meaning &/or implications.
- (b) Text-Film Comparative Analysis: 2-4pp. consideration of how something from the film connects & furthers or evidences something in any of our course readings, or vice versus.
- (3) Three Additional Co- Curricular Experiences:
- (a) Reflective Précis: 2-4pp. summary of i. event, ii. elaboration of one main insight, & iii. philosophical evaluation of i. or ii.’s meaning &/or implications.
- (b) Text-Event Comparative Analysis: 2-4pp. consideration of how something from the event connects & furthers or evidences something in any course reading, or vice versus.
- (4) Reference Librarian Presentation:
- (a) Documentary Research Project: 2-4pp. philosophical thesis i. stated, ii. explained, iii. evidenced through archival research, & concluded with iv. methodological reflection on theory & personal practice of using documentary research for philosophical demonstration.
- (b) Annotated Bibliography: 2-4pp. of sources relevant to your Argument Paper where each has a rough paragraph of summary with descriptive and evaluative elements.
- (1) FYS Speaker Event (Nikki Giovanni, Sept. 23, 7 p.m., Curb):
- Attendance & Participation: Pertains more to graded class component (described under ‘Evaluation Criteria,’ below) than an ‘assignment,’ but this category does include a specific, to-be-scheduled event: Prof.-Student Conferences: at least one 15+ min. individual conference during the semester is Required; scheduling will happen early in the semester in class with schedule then posted on Blackboard. Conference discussion topics can include: class experience and material; assignments; nature of FYS, college, Belmont, philosophy program; etc.. You are welcome & invited to schedule more than one conference or come to office hours.
Grade Distribution:
- The Argument Paper: Draft Submission: 5%; Final Submission: 20%; Total: 25%.
- Core Reading Assignments: Submission I: 5%; Submission II: 5%; Submission III: 10%; Total: 20%.
- Class-Specific Reading Assignments: Assignment I: 15%; Assignment II: 10%; Total: 25%.
- Co-Curricular Experiences: Each of Four Assignments: 5%; Total: 20%.
- Attendance & Participation: Attendance: 3%; Participation: 4%; Conference: 3%; Total: 10%.
Grade Scale:
All assignments will receive an alphabetic &/or numeric grade based upon their demonstrated quality of thought & effort as described below. The scale will be: A (100-94); A- (93-90); B+ (89-87); B (86-83); B- (82-80); C+ (79-77); C (76-73); C- (72-70); D+ (69-67); D (66-63); D- (62-60); F (59-0). Any grade disputes will be settled by personal meeting where we will review together the totality of your class work.
Evaluation Criteria:
- Attendance: Belmont is committed to the idea that regular class attendance is essential to successful scholastic achievement. True attendance requires full presence of both body & mind: sleeping in class, distraction by digital devices, etc., is considered non-attendance, while active attention to & engagement in the class experience, coupled with pre-class preparation (completion of & reflection on readings), will be understood as expected. Absence is excused for illness or other legitimate cause; if a class is missed, one is still responsible for the material due & covered that day. Missing 3-5 classes (except those allowed by “Provost’s Excuse”) will reduce one’s grade for ‘Attendance & Participation’ by a letter per absence (e.g., from A to B for 3, 4th to C, 5th to D). By University policy, any student missing ≥ 20% of classes (i.e., six+), including absences otherwise excusable & due late registration but excluding “Provost Excuses,” will receive the “FN” grade. Each is responsible for verifying/correcting one’s registration status.
- Participation: begins with class preparation (i.e., completion of & reflection on readings) and is broadly construed to include meaningful verbal contribution in class, manifestly demonstrated active attention paid to lecture and discussion and concentrated listening to and engaging your peers, discussion with me by email or in office hours, and incorporation of classroom material into your submitted work. I expect all students to engage dialogue that is both deeply reflective and highly respectful.
- The Argument Paper: Draft Submission will be evaluated by: (a) quality of content (i.e., clarity & depth of proposed components demonstrating sincere thought & reflection); & (b) quality of presentation (i.e., completion of all required parts; sufficient clarity of ideas & proofing). Final Submission will be evaluated by: (a) quality of content (i.e., demonstrate depth of reflection, present coherent thesis supported with cogent arguments that amply use & utilize quality resources (cf., Appendix, below)); & (b) quality of presentation (i.e., completion of requirements per content, form, & submission (cf., Appendix, below), & style (i.e., careful proofing, correct grammar)). (Blackboard will soon have high-quality sample papers you may review.)
- Core Readings Assignments: evaluated primarily by (a) completeness (i.e., timely submission; one entry with at least two insights & two discussion questions of adequate clarity & length per course-assigned Core Reading); & secondarily by quality of content (i.e., demonstrable textual engagement & depth of reflective thoughtfulness).
- Class-Specific Reading Assignments: beyond timely, complete submissions, required assignment (1) evaluated per standards of Core Readings Assignments; second required assignment (2-5) as appropriate with following features: collaborative work demonstrates equal & fair participation/contribution by all; all textual relations are clearly made, explained, & evidenced; all writing is adequately clear & proofed, with more formal assignments requiring more polished presentations. More information provided in class.
- Co-Curricular Experiences Writings: beyond timely, complete submissions, assignments evaluated as appropriate with following features: clarity of options chosen, adherence to respective requirements, all textual relations are clearly made, explained, & evidenced; all writing is adequately clear & proofed, with more formal assignments requiring more polished presentations. More information to be provided in class.
- Late Assignments: will be accepted for one week from due date with a 10-point penalty, unless arrangements for a brief extension are made in advance of due date.
- Rewrites: are not allowed on final assignment (unless unusual circumstances necessitate an Incomplete course grade), & otherwise discouraged unless they will clearly benefit your grasp of the material; can award up to 10 additional points to your original score; must be submitted within one month of original due date.
Electronic Supplements & Notes:
Our course Blackboard site will collect required (e.g., syllabus) & supplemental materials (e.g., handouts, some extra credit texts, etc.) through the semester. In addition, while their consultation is not required, helpful summations of course & additional materials directly & tangentially related to the course will be provided on external class websites at: www.threshold-to-lintel.com & www.aquestionofexistence.com.
Extra Credit Assignments:
A) Attend any of the Belmont Humanities Symposium events announced in class, and submit a thoughtful two-page reflection that includes your description of the event and reflection upon its philosophic import.
B) Read one of the following selections and write a three-page analysis including: (1) summary of content, (2) delineation of main arguments, and (3) close, personal evaluation of its meaning and/or implications.
0 Adrienne Edgar, Everyday Life among the Turkmen Nomads (in Core Anthology)
0 James Baldwin, On Being ‘White’...& Other Lies (in Core Anth.)
0 Margot Lee Shetterly, Prologue (in Core Anthology)
0 Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, Bk.I, Chs.1-13 (classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/nicomachaen.1.i.html).
0 Simone de Beauvoir, The Ethics of Ambiguity, Pt.I, “Ambiguity & Free.,” or Pt.II, “Personal Free. & Others,” or Pt.III, §2 “Free. & Lib.,” (www.marxists.org/reference/subject/ethics/de-beauvoir/ambiguity/index.htm).
0 G.W.F. Hegel, “Lordship & Bondage,” Phenomenology of Spirit (www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/index.htm).
0 Friedrich Nietzsche, Ch.II “Free Spirit,” Beyond Good & Evil (www.marxists.org/reference/archive/nietzsche/1886/beyond-good-evil/ch02.htm).
0 Julian of Norwich’s Revelations of Divine Love (www.ccel.org/ccel/julian/revelations.toc.html)
0 Theodor Adorno & Max Horkheimer, Ch. 1, The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception (www.marxists.org/reference/archive/adorno/1944/culture-industry.htm).
0 Charles Darwin, Ch.III: “Struggle for Exist.,” Origin of Species (www.marxists.org/reference/archive/darwin/works/origins/ch03.htm).
0 Franz Fanon, “Recip. Bases Nat. Cul. & Fight Freedom,” Wretched of the Earth (www.marxists.org/subject/africa/fanon/national-culture.htm).
0 Jean-Paul Sartre, “The Wall,” (http://chabrieres.pagesperso-orange.fr/texts/sartre_thewall.html).
0 José Ortega y Gasset, “Man has no Nature” (on Blackboard).
0 Albert Camus, The Stranger or The Myth of Sisyphus (on Blkbrd).
0 United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml).
0 Friedrich Nietzsche, Ch.II, “Free Spirit,” in Beyond Good & Evil (www.marxists.org/reference/archive/nietzsche/1886/beyond-good-evil/ch02.htm).
C) Select and watch one of the following films and write a three-page analysis including: (1) brief plot summary, (2) delineation of and elaboration on one or more features of the film with philosophical relevance & (3) your thorough aesthetic and theoretical evaluation of that/those feature/s. If you are sensitive to adult content, please research the films before viewing &/or ask me for recommendations.
0 Igmar Bergman’s “Through a Glass Darkly” (Swedish, 1961), “Winter Light” (1963), “The Silence” (1963), “The Seventh Seal” (1957), “Wild Strawberries” (1957), or “Persona” (1966).
0 Wim Wender’s “Wings of Desire” (German, 1987).
0 Gabriel Axel’s “Babette’s Feast” (Danish, 1987).
0 Hiroshi Teshigahara’s “Face of Another” (Japanese, 1966).
0 Akira Kurosawa’s “Ikiru” (Japanese, 1952).
0 Khyentse Norbu’s “Travellers and Magicians” (Bhutanese, 2003).
0 Chris Marker’s “La Jetée” (French, 1962).
0 Robert Bresson’s “Diary of a Country Priest” (French, 1951).
0 Marc Erlbaum’s “Café” (American, 2010).
0 Hitchcock’s “Rope” (American, 1948), “Rear Window” (‘54).
0 Peter Howitt’s “Sliding Doors” (British, ‘98).
0 Álex de la Iglesia’s “Oxford Murders” (Spanish director, film in English, 2008).
0 Woody Allen’s “Crimes & Misdemeanors” (Amer., 1989), “Sleeper” (‘73), “Interiors” (‘78), “Zelig” (‘83), “Alice” (‘90), “Melinda & Melinda” (‘04), “Midnight in Paris” (‘11), “Blue Jasmine” (‘13).
0 Michael Haneke’s “Time of the Wolf” (German director, film subtitled from French, 2003).
0 Rainer Werner Fassbinder’s “Mother Küsters goes to Heaven” (German, 1985).
0 Coen Brothers, “No Country for Old Men” (American, 2007).
0 Claire Denis, “Let the Sun Shine In” (Fr., 2017).
0 David Cronenberg’s “Spider” (Canadian, 2002) or “A History of Violence” (2005).
0 Werner Herzog, “The Enigma of Kaspar Hauser” (German, 1974).
0 Olivier Assayas, “Cold Water” (Fr., 1994).
0 Harmony Korine’s “Mister Lonely” (American, 2007).
0 David Lynch’s “Lost Highway” (American, 1997), “Mulholland Dr.” (2001), “Inland Empire” (2006).
0 Bruno Dumont’s “Hadewijch” (2009), “Jeannette: The Childhood of Joan of Arc” (2018).
If more extra credit assignments are desired, please see me (i.e., there is no maximum cap on the number of extra credit assignments that you may complete).
Etcetera:
- Please refrain from the use of (distraction by) digital devices.
- I highly encourage you to email, come to office hours, and/or set up an appointment with me if you have any questions, concerns, etc. about the class and its material.
- I will ask us all to uphold the ideals of academic freedom to make our classroom a space of comfortable and free discourse, which means feeling free to openly entertain and exchange even uncomfortable ideas and maintaining an environment where others enjoy the same by respecting the rights of all.
V) University Policies:
Honor Code:
The Belmont community values personal integrity and academic honesty as the foundation of university life and the cornerstone of a premiere educational experience. Our community believes that collective trust is essential for both scholarship and effective interactions and operations of the University. All members of the Belmont community are all responsible for ensuring their experiences be free of behaviors compromising this value. To uphold academic integrity, Belmont has adopted an Honor System; the following Student Honor Pledge will guide academic behavior:
Accommodation of Disabilities:
In compliance with §504 of the Rehabilitation Act & the Americans with Disabilities Act, Belmont University will provide reasonable accommodation of all medically documented disabilities. If you have a disability and would like reasonable accommodations made during this course, please notify the Office of the Dean of Students located in Beaman Student Life Center (615-460-6407) as soon as possible.
Course Evaluation:
The university urges & expects all students to participate in all course evaluations, providing honest feedback to the instructor & institution about specific aspects & elements of the course. In addition, I highly encourage such evaluation to be live all semester in the classroom; I invite every student to take an active role in forging the unique experience of this class.
Institutional Statement on Student Class Attendance & Absences:
Belmont is committed to the idea that regular class attendance is essential to successful scholastic achievement. Absence is excused only in cases of illness or other legitimate cause; it is checked from the 1st class meeting. Late registrants will have accrued some absences prior to formal course registration. In the case of excused absences, students have the right & responsibility to make up all missed work. Should the number of absences other than Provost’s Excused Absences exceed 20% of class meeting time for a given student, the faculty member may assign the grade “FN” (failure for nonattendance) to that student. (Cf. IV: Class Policies, above, for more.)
The Belmont community values personal integrity and academic honesty as the foundation of university life and the cornerstone of a premiere educational experience. Our community believes that collective trust is essential for both scholarship and effective interactions and operations of the University. All members of the Belmont community are all responsible for ensuring their experiences be free of behaviors compromising this value. To uphold academic integrity, Belmont has adopted an Honor System; the following Student Honor Pledge will guide academic behavior:
- I will not give or receive aid during examinations; I will not give or receive false or impermissible aid in course work, in the preparation of reports, or in any other type of work that is to be used by the instructor as the basis of my grade; I will not engage in any form of academic fraud. Furthermore, I will uphold my responsibility to see to it that others abide by the spirit and letter of this Honor Pledge (University Handbook).
Accommodation of Disabilities:
In compliance with §504 of the Rehabilitation Act & the Americans with Disabilities Act, Belmont University will provide reasonable accommodation of all medically documented disabilities. If you have a disability and would like reasonable accommodations made during this course, please notify the Office of the Dean of Students located in Beaman Student Life Center (615-460-6407) as soon as possible.
Course Evaluation:
The university urges & expects all students to participate in all course evaluations, providing honest feedback to the instructor & institution about specific aspects & elements of the course. In addition, I highly encourage such evaluation to be live all semester in the classroom; I invite every student to take an active role in forging the unique experience of this class.
Institutional Statement on Student Class Attendance & Absences:
Belmont is committed to the idea that regular class attendance is essential to successful scholastic achievement. Absence is excused only in cases of illness or other legitimate cause; it is checked from the 1st class meeting. Late registrants will have accrued some absences prior to formal course registration. In the case of excused absences, students have the right & responsibility to make up all missed work. Should the number of absences other than Provost’s Excused Absences exceed 20% of class meeting time for a given student, the faculty member may assign the grade “FN” (failure for nonattendance) to that student. (Cf. IV: Class Policies, above, for more.)
VI) READING & ASSIGNMENT SCHEDULE:
* All readings are collected in our course anthology Except those in Jean-François Lyotard’s The Postmodern Condition, as noted below
* All readings & assignments are due on the day for which they’re listed
August
Th 23: Read over Syllabus on Blackboard
… … … Education & Liberal Learning:
(8/28 Last day to withdraw w/ full refund)
T 28: Statement on Liberal Learning (pp.1-2) & Plato, The Allegory of the Cave (pp.23-29)
Th 30: Noel Boyle, Introduction: Liberal Education, Knowledge, & Belmont’s FYS (pp.3-22)
September
T 4: Mark Edmundson, Who are You & What are You Doing Here? A Word to the Incoming Class (pp.30-40)
Th 6: Jean-François Lyotard, The Postmodern Condition [hereafter, PC], Appendix: “Answering the Question: What is Postmodernism?” (pp.71-82)
… … … Critique of Contemporary Intellectual/Cultural Life:
T 11: Matthew B. Crawford, Attention as a Cultural Problem (pp.41-63)
Th 13: Greg Lukianoff & Jonathan Haidt, The Coddling of the American Mind (pp.64-81)
(~ Sept.17-24: “The Present & the Future of the Past” ~ Humanities Symposium ~)
T 18: David Dark, Religion Happens (pp.82-91)
Th 20: Ghassan Kanafani, Land of Sad Oranges (pp.264-269); & Nikki Giovanni, Quilts & Heritage (pp.223-225)
*** Before Next Class ~ Submit Core Readings Assignments I ***
(~ 9/23 FYS Speaker Event: Nikki Giovanni, 7 p.m., Curb Event Center ~)
… … … The Postmodern Condition:
(9/25 Last day: withdraw w/“W”)
T 25: Jean-François Lyotard, The Postmodern Condition, xxiii- , chs.1-5, pp.3-17
Th 27: Lyotard, PC, chs. 6-7 (pp.18-27)
October
T 2: Lyotard, PC, chs. 8-10 (pp.27-41)
Th 4: Lyotard, PC, chs.11-12 (pp.41-53)
T 9: Lyotard, PC, chs.13-14 (pp.53-67)
Th 11: Lyotard, PC, {re-read} Appendix (pp.71-82) & TBD …
*** Before Next Class ~ Submit Class Specific Readings Assignments ***
… … … Constructing & Evaluating Knowledge:
T 16: No Class – MidFall Break (M15-T16)
Th 18: Plato, The Apology (pp.92-113)
T 23: Aquinas, Concerning Whether God Exists (pp.114-121)
Th 25: Reference Librarian Presentation René Descartes, Excerpt from Meditations on First Philosophy (pp.122-130)
T 30: René Descartes, Excerpt from Meditations on First Philosophy (pp.122-130) & David R. Prothero & Timothy D. Callahan, Science & the Paranormal (pp.131-144)
November
Th 1: Atul Gawande, The Learning Curve (pp.145-162) *** Submit The Argument Paper Draft ***
(M 5: Last day to drop w/“WP/F”)
T 6: Aaron Copland, How We Listen (pp.163-168) & Henry Louis Gates, Jr., ‘Authenticity.’ Or the Lesson of Little Tree (pp.270-278)
Th 8: Anne Allison, Japanese Mothers and Obentos: The Lunch-Box as Ideological State Apparatus (pp.169-195)
*** Before Next Class ~ Submit Core Readings Assignments II ***
… … … New Points of View & Alternate World Views:
T 13: Elizabeth Cody Stanton, The Solitude of Self: Speech to the House Judiciary Committee (9pp.) & W.E.B. DuBois, On Our Spiritual Strivings (pp.205-212)
Th 15: Alice Walker, In Search of Our Mother’s Gardens (pp.213-221) & Walt Whitman, O Me! O Life! (p.222)
T 20: Lyotard, PC {re-read TBD} & TBD …
Th 22: No Class ~ Thanksgiving Break (Nov. 21-23)
T 27: Michel de Montaigne, Of Cannibals (pp.226-237)
Th 29: David Foster Wallace, Consider the Lobster (pp.238-254)
*** Before Next Class ~ Submit Core Readings Assignments III ***
December
T 4: Last Day of Class: Course Review *** Last Day to Submit Co-Curricular Exp. Assign.***
Final Exam: Mon., Dec. 10th, 11 a.m.-1 p.m., in our regular classroom: *** Submit The Argument Paper Final Draft ***
* All readings & assignments are due on the day for which they’re listed
August
Th 23: Read over Syllabus on Blackboard
… … … Education & Liberal Learning:
(8/28 Last day to withdraw w/ full refund)
T 28: Statement on Liberal Learning (pp.1-2) & Plato, The Allegory of the Cave (pp.23-29)
Th 30: Noel Boyle, Introduction: Liberal Education, Knowledge, & Belmont’s FYS (pp.3-22)
September
T 4: Mark Edmundson, Who are You & What are You Doing Here? A Word to the Incoming Class (pp.30-40)
Th 6: Jean-François Lyotard, The Postmodern Condition [hereafter, PC], Appendix: “Answering the Question: What is Postmodernism?” (pp.71-82)
… … … Critique of Contemporary Intellectual/Cultural Life:
T 11: Matthew B. Crawford, Attention as a Cultural Problem (pp.41-63)
Th 13: Greg Lukianoff & Jonathan Haidt, The Coddling of the American Mind (pp.64-81)
(~ Sept.17-24: “The Present & the Future of the Past” ~ Humanities Symposium ~)
T 18: David Dark, Religion Happens (pp.82-91)
Th 20: Ghassan Kanafani, Land of Sad Oranges (pp.264-269); & Nikki Giovanni, Quilts & Heritage (pp.223-225)
*** Before Next Class ~ Submit Core Readings Assignments I ***
(~ 9/23 FYS Speaker Event: Nikki Giovanni, 7 p.m., Curb Event Center ~)
… … … The Postmodern Condition:
(9/25 Last day: withdraw w/“W”)
T 25: Jean-François Lyotard, The Postmodern Condition, xxiii- , chs.1-5, pp.3-17
Th 27: Lyotard, PC, chs. 6-7 (pp.18-27)
October
T 2: Lyotard, PC, chs. 8-10 (pp.27-41)
Th 4: Lyotard, PC, chs.11-12 (pp.41-53)
T 9: Lyotard, PC, chs.13-14 (pp.53-67)
Th 11: Lyotard, PC, {re-read} Appendix (pp.71-82) & TBD …
*** Before Next Class ~ Submit Class Specific Readings Assignments ***
… … … Constructing & Evaluating Knowledge:
T 16: No Class – MidFall Break (M15-T16)
Th 18: Plato, The Apology (pp.92-113)
T 23: Aquinas, Concerning Whether God Exists (pp.114-121)
Th 25: Reference Librarian Presentation René Descartes, Excerpt from Meditations on First Philosophy (pp.122-130)
T 30: René Descartes, Excerpt from Meditations on First Philosophy (pp.122-130) & David R. Prothero & Timothy D. Callahan, Science & the Paranormal (pp.131-144)
November
Th 1: Atul Gawande, The Learning Curve (pp.145-162) *** Submit The Argument Paper Draft ***
(M 5: Last day to drop w/“WP/F”)
T 6: Aaron Copland, How We Listen (pp.163-168) & Henry Louis Gates, Jr., ‘Authenticity.’ Or the Lesson of Little Tree (pp.270-278)
Th 8: Anne Allison, Japanese Mothers and Obentos: The Lunch-Box as Ideological State Apparatus (pp.169-195)
*** Before Next Class ~ Submit Core Readings Assignments II ***
… … … New Points of View & Alternate World Views:
T 13: Elizabeth Cody Stanton, The Solitude of Self: Speech to the House Judiciary Committee (9pp.) & W.E.B. DuBois, On Our Spiritual Strivings (pp.205-212)
Th 15: Alice Walker, In Search of Our Mother’s Gardens (pp.213-221) & Walt Whitman, O Me! O Life! (p.222)
T 20: Lyotard, PC {re-read TBD} & TBD …
Th 22: No Class ~ Thanksgiving Break (Nov. 21-23)
T 27: Michel de Montaigne, Of Cannibals (pp.226-237)
Th 29: David Foster Wallace, Consider the Lobster (pp.238-254)
*** Before Next Class ~ Submit Core Readings Assignments III ***
December
T 4: Last Day of Class: Course Review *** Last Day to Submit Co-Curricular Exp. Assign.***
Final Exam: Mon., Dec. 10th, 11 a.m.-1 p.m., in our regular classroom: *** Submit The Argument Paper Final Draft ***
VII) Appendix:
The Argument Paper:
FYS Requirements ~ Check List ~:
• The paper must be at least 1,500 words.
• The paper must make an argument. To be specific, an argument is composed of two parts: (1) the conclusion (also known as the thesis of the essay) is the claim that the arguer is supporting; (2) the premises (the evidence used to support the thesis) claim to offer reason to believe the conclusion. Convention dictates that the argumentative thesis (brief of argument’s conclusion (1) & overview of supporting arguments (2)) is stated near the beginning of an essay.
• The argument must be cogent. A cogent argument is, simply, one in which the evidence offered gives good reason to believe the conclusion. The paper ought to be free of informal fallacies (cf. below).
• The thesis must take an informed position on a contestable issue or topic. In other words, the thesis of the paper should be a statement that some reasonable people might disagree with. Ideally, the paper should reflect that the author has considered how reasonable people of a different view might respond to the paper’s central argument.
• The thesis should be substantive and textured, and such claims do not typically take a simple pro/con position on a debated topic. They engage text more deeply by offering an insightful comparison, questioning hidden assumptions, or suggesting a certain interpretation.
• The paper must use at least five substantial sources, which relate, in a credible way, to the topic and thesis. The cited sources should advance the argument, not merely give background information.
• The paper must take the audience’s needs into account--i.e. the thesis is clear and presented very early, the argument follows logical sequence, transitions are used to guide reader, tone is measured and reasonable, prose is clear and even elegant etc.
Submission Requirements:
Completed papers must be uploaded to a Tk20 Portfolio:
1. Log in to my.Belmont.
2. Click on the Tk20 link under Academic Resources.
3. On your first Tk20 screen, click the Portfolios tab.
4. In the middle of your portfolios screen, click on the appropriate portfolio.
5. Click on the appropriate tab identifying your assignment.
6. Use the select button to upload your file. If your portfolio includes only one assignment upload, click Submit. If your portfolio will include multiple uploads, click Save Draft.
When the portfolio is completed & submitted, you will receive a Tk20 e-mail confirming your submission. For any academic process questions (jovan.kearse@belmont.edu); for technical questions contact Carol Smith Walter (carol.walter@belmont.edu).
On Judgments, Arguments, & Fallacies:
On Judgments:
The most important, utterly critical, central, significant, vital, crucial fact to grasp and accept is: YOU CAN MAKE JUDGMENTS. You can & are qualified to—you are rationally, logically, intellectually, linguistically, socially, & personally capable of making judgments (in fact, you are already, constantly, incessantly making judgments, & ought to). Neither deny this, nor shirk your responsibility (nor say you “ought not,” for that is a judgment); we all sometimes feel ill equipped to make the right judgment, but with practice, like most things, one’s talents at judgments improve. So … what is a judgment? “Judgment” can designate either:
Epistemic structures & theories give discernable if varying steps to follow, but, in most everyday instances fairly sound judgment involves:
On Arguments
An “argument” is a coherent, cohesive set of statements that lead from a premise to a conclusion.
To elucidate the argument for your judgment, a helpful, but not required form is this:
* To be More Technical on Step (2)’s Coordinating of the Principle & Evidence:
The simplest form of argument uses Basic Propositional Logic, which combines two or more statements (“propositions”) together to produce a coherent combination that can further knowledge or demonstrate the logical truth or falsity of something; the combination statement will be logically valid if and only if both the component statements are true, e.g.:
Statement 1: All men are mortal.
Statement 2: Socrates is a man.
Conclusion: Socrates is mortal.
Statement 1: All dogs are evil.
Statement 2: Socrates is a dog.
Conclusion: Socrates is evil.
St. 1: All maples belong to the genus Acer.
St. 2: Pancakes traditionally belong together with maple syrup.
Conc.: Pancakes belong to the genus Acer.
When you are composing your own or judging other people’s arguments, pay close attention to each proposition and the movement from one to another:
Common Fallacies:
A fallacy is a mistaken belief founded on unsound arguments. To move beyond basic propositional validity or invalidity, the best way to strengthen your arguments is to be very keenly aware of avoiding logical fallacies, e.g.:
On Core Readings Assignment:
The individual entries making up the thrice-submitted journal-like assignment are meant to prepare you best for class discussions as they are for demonstrating your consistent, quality textual engagement. The entries are to be brief, 1p. each, but informally written, i.e., via fragments, bullet points, outline, narrative paragraph, charts, etc., hence may comprise merely 200 words or 15 lines of writing (be wary of less than that; no upper cap on length set). The following are tips for completing the most beneficial, quality work:
Extra Detail on Co-Curricular Experiences & Assignments:
FYS Speaker Event:
FYS Film Series Info & Schedule:
FYS Requirements ~ Check List ~:
• The paper must be at least 1,500 words.
• The paper must make an argument. To be specific, an argument is composed of two parts: (1) the conclusion (also known as the thesis of the essay) is the claim that the arguer is supporting; (2) the premises (the evidence used to support the thesis) claim to offer reason to believe the conclusion. Convention dictates that the argumentative thesis (brief of argument’s conclusion (1) & overview of supporting arguments (2)) is stated near the beginning of an essay.
• The argument must be cogent. A cogent argument is, simply, one in which the evidence offered gives good reason to believe the conclusion. The paper ought to be free of informal fallacies (cf. below).
• The thesis must take an informed position on a contestable issue or topic. In other words, the thesis of the paper should be a statement that some reasonable people might disagree with. Ideally, the paper should reflect that the author has considered how reasonable people of a different view might respond to the paper’s central argument.
• The thesis should be substantive and textured, and such claims do not typically take a simple pro/con position on a debated topic. They engage text more deeply by offering an insightful comparison, questioning hidden assumptions, or suggesting a certain interpretation.
• The paper must use at least five substantial sources, which relate, in a credible way, to the topic and thesis. The cited sources should advance the argument, not merely give background information.
• The paper must take the audience’s needs into account--i.e. the thesis is clear and presented very early, the argument follows logical sequence, transitions are used to guide reader, tone is measured and reasonable, prose is clear and even elegant etc.
Submission Requirements:
Completed papers must be uploaded to a Tk20 Portfolio:
1. Log in to my.Belmont.
2. Click on the Tk20 link under Academic Resources.
3. On your first Tk20 screen, click the Portfolios tab.
4. In the middle of your portfolios screen, click on the appropriate portfolio.
5. Click on the appropriate tab identifying your assignment.
6. Use the select button to upload your file. If your portfolio includes only one assignment upload, click Submit. If your portfolio will include multiple uploads, click Save Draft.
When the portfolio is completed & submitted, you will receive a Tk20 e-mail confirming your submission. For any academic process questions (jovan.kearse@belmont.edu); for technical questions contact Carol Smith Walter (carol.walter@belmont.edu).
On Judgments, Arguments, & Fallacies:
On Judgments:
The most important, utterly critical, central, significant, vital, crucial fact to grasp and accept is: YOU CAN MAKE JUDGMENTS. You can & are qualified to—you are rationally, logically, intellectually, linguistically, socially, & personally capable of making judgments (in fact, you are already, constantly, incessantly making judgments, & ought to). Neither deny this, nor shirk your responsibility (nor say you “ought not,” for that is a judgment); we all sometimes feel ill equipped to make the right judgment, but with practice, like most things, one’s talents at judgments improve. So … what is a judgment? “Judgment” can designate either:
- (a) one’s coordinating faculty: a faculty is one’s inherent mental ability or power; in this case, it is your inborn tool that evaluates situations & makes decisions. Judgement is specifically a “coordinating faculty,” which means, literally, that it gives one the ability to coordinate things: to apply your sensible faculties’ data to your cognitive faculties’ concepts (i.e., sense experience tells us details, judgment compares these to the concept, e.g. “virtue,” that reason provides); OR
- (b) the formed decision itself: that claim consequent from one’s judging, one’s activity of deliberation, that is the decision, the judgment.
Epistemic structures & theories give discernable if varying steps to follow, but, in most everyday instances fairly sound judgment involves:
- Consider the situation
- Gather sensible facts: who, what, where, when, why, how, how it feels or is received, etc.
- Figure out the precise dilemma
- Noting that situations have diverse dimensions, from ethical to aesthetic imports (e.g., the fact that a mountain is in the middle of a village may be aesthetically important, but isn’t ethical—unless the local king enslaved the villagers to make that mountain last week—& may have economic impacts even if irrelevant for religious arguments.
- Noting that situations have diverse dimensions, from ethical to aesthetic imports (e.g., the fact that a mountain is in the middle of a village may be aesthetically important, but isn’t ethical—unless the local king enslaved the villagers to make that mountain last week—& may have economic impacts even if irrelevant for religious arguments.
- Figure out which principles relate to the dilemma
- E.g., the aesthetictician may rely on harmony, form, or beauty’s subjective basis, etc.; per king & mountain making: such may concern principles of justice, equality, humanity, etc.
- E.g., the aesthetictician may rely on harmony, form, or beauty’s subjective basis, etc.; per king & mountain making: such may concern principles of justice, equality, humanity, etc.
- Do the judging
- Compare the principle (3) to empirical knowledge of the situation (1&2) & judge whether the latter abides by or conflicts with the former
- The conclusion of your judging gives you the judgment
- E.g., “the mountain is beautiful,” “the king is wrong for enslaving his people,” “the king has violated the principle of justice,” etc.—i.e., your judgment “sums up” your reasoned evaluation of the situation; ensure that you can formulate its content (of 4) as a proper argument so as to justify your judgment
On Arguments
An “argument” is a coherent, cohesive set of statements that lead from a premise to a conclusion.
To elucidate the argument for your judgment, a helpful, but not required form is this:
- (1) Premise: your “judgment,” that is, your stance on the issue (e.g., X is/isn’t moral/beautiful/etc. …)
- (2) Statements between: delineate the stages described above in judgment, e.g., identify & describe dilemma, principle, evidence, what found in comparative exercise (where most logical slips happen)*
- (3) Conclusion: affirm that and succinctly why your premise is correct
* To be More Technical on Step (2)’s Coordinating of the Principle & Evidence:
The simplest form of argument uses Basic Propositional Logic, which combines two or more statements (“propositions”) together to produce a coherent combination that can further knowledge or demonstrate the logical truth or falsity of something; the combination statement will be logically valid if and only if both the component statements are true, e.g.:
Statement 1: All men are mortal.
Statement 2: Socrates is a man.
Conclusion: Socrates is mortal.
- “Combination statement” would read: “All men are mortal, and Socrates is a man, therefore Socrates is mortal.” This argument is valid.
Statement 1: All dogs are evil.
Statement 2: Socrates is a dog.
Conclusion: Socrates is evil.
- Invalid conclusion: neither statement alone is true (1st is a belief, not a true/false knowledge claim; 2nd might be true if my dog was named Socrates, but would require evidence); so, has the same flow as example 1, but does not fulfill the requirement that both propositions themselves be true.
St. 1: All maples belong to the genus Acer.
St. 2: Pancakes traditionally belong together with maple syrup.
Conc.: Pancakes belong to the genus Acer.
- Invalid conclusion; statements 1 & 2 are true, but together jump from maple trees to maple syrup & equivocate on what it means to “belong” to a genus & “belong” together.
When you are composing your own or judging other people’s arguments, pay close attention to each proposition and the movement from one to another:
- make sure that each can be evidenced as true (& evidence requires naming, describing, & showing)
- make sure that they combine coherently (i.e., statements need a common element & avoid equivocation)
- and, if either or both of the above are lacking, the conclusion is logically invalid.
Common Fallacies:
A fallacy is a mistaken belief founded on unsound arguments. To move beyond basic propositional validity or invalidity, the best way to strengthen your arguments is to be very keenly aware of avoiding logical fallacies, e.g.:
- Ad hominem attacks (i.e., attacking a position by attacking one who holds it; e.g., X is ugly, so X’s position is null);
- Is/Ought fallacy (i.e., presuming something ‘ought’ to be the case because it ‘is’ or was the case--i.e., ‘this is the way it is, thus it ought to be this way’; e.g., arguing slavery is moral because of the South pre-civil war);
- Arguments from Ignorance / Proving Lack (i.e., arguing something is the case because there is no prohibition against it in one’s principle or its absence in one’s evidence e.g., the Constitution doesn’t mention the internet, so the internet is unconstitutional);
- Hasty Generalizations (i.e., when your conclusion is a generalization based upon insufficient evidence; e.g., there was once a tribe in the Amazon that swapped children for weapons, therefore children swaps are not immoral);
- Appeal to Authority (i.e., one’s criterion for determining truth is authoritative power, e.g., King/Mom/President/God is always right, so what S/He says is right);
- Appeal to Tradition (i.e., one’s criterion for determining truth is tradition, e.g., this is the way it has always been done, thus this is the good way for it to be done--notice the use of the is/ought fallacy here, too);
- Appeal to Force (i.e., argument by threat, e.g., if you do not agree that it is morally right to authorize the military spending bill, you might be committing an act of treason, and you know what we do to traitors);
- Equivocation (i.e., changing the definition of a key term in your argument, e.g., the good is what is good for everyone, the king said, and this new crown of mine looks so good on me, so it is good);
- Faulty Causation (i.e., correlation is not causation, e.g., Bill was outside the burning building, thus Bill caused the fire; e.g., one sip of beer and you will become an alcoholic).
On Core Readings Assignment:
The individual entries making up the thrice-submitted journal-like assignment are meant to prepare you best for class discussions as they are for demonstrating your consistent, quality textual engagement. The entries are to be brief, 1p. each, but informally written, i.e., via fragments, bullet points, outline, narrative paragraph, charts, etc., hence may comprise merely 200 words or 15 lines of writing (be wary of less than that; no upper cap on length set). The following are tips for completing the most beneficial, quality work:
- * Review & Reflect on the reading before crafting your entry (note-taking during reading is excellent, but may yield too much length and be more a copy of, rather than reflection upon or question about, the text).
- * Good Insights: don’t just repeat the text; instead, aim to state and elucidate, present and explain, tell and evaluate—wherein each 1st component is accurate, but brief, latter components clear, concise, but thoughtful expressions of developed ideas (no matter how informally written).
- * Good Questions: aim to generate good discussion—not just a simple, single answer, surplus of unrelated answers, or silent perplexity, therefore they should be neither too broad (e.g. ‘what does the text mean?’) or vague (e.g. ‘what do y’all think of it?’), nor too narrow (e.g. ‘Why is Glaucon’s 3rd example from the Iliad?’) or specific (e.g. ‘according to the 3rd paragraph, what is Lyotard’s definition of art?’--although, each of these examples may be excellent questions if given the right context & clarification or elaboration). Good questions may be about what you really don’t understand in the reading, but be able to elaborate your thoughts through your perplexity; they may also come from connections to other readings or ideas in or related to course materials, earlier discussions, etc..
Extra Detail on Co-Curricular Experiences & Assignments:
FYS Speaker Event:
- Re: Required Talk: Our FYS Featured Speaker, Nikki Giovanni, gives her required lecture Sun., Sept. 23, 7 p.m., in Curb Event Center (i.e., in the basketball court).
- Re: Optional Talk: Nikki Giovanni will also be the final featured speaker for the Humanities Symposium on Mon., Sept. 24 at 10-10:50 a.m. in JAAC 4094, where she will give a poetry reading followed by Q&A (CPA convo credit given, & may be used for class extra credit if 2-p. summary written).
- Re: Luncheon Opportunity: Our BELL Core program offers an opportunity to have one student per each FYS attend a luncheon on Mon., Sept. 24 with Nikki Giovanni; I will ask for a volunteer in class beforehand.
- Re: Required Assignments: For the class’ co-curricular assignment (1, a or b), I strongly encourage completing & submitting this work soon after the event, even with the ultimate deadline being 12/4.
- Re: Optional Resource: You may be interested in her website: http://nikki-giovanni.com/.
FYS Film Series Info & Schedule:
- Re: Required & Optional Viewings: “The Lives of Others” is required; the others are strongly encouraged.
- Re: “Trigger Warnings:” Each film contains something likely to offend someone, be it profanity, nudity, sexual content, violence, & otherwise serious topics that range from provocative to contentious. If you have sensitivity to adult issues, I strongly encourage you to read about the films before watching them, and, if you have concerns about rigorously watching and reflecting on them, please come speak to me.
- Re: Schedule: each at 7 p.m., Bunch Library 2nd floor Multi-Media Room; must sign in with student worker:
- Re: Prompts to Consider for each: These are not questions requiring your address, but are encouraged for your consideration while viewing and reflecting on the films, and may be used for or direct your assignments:
- For All Films: how does the technical production relate to the film’s content? (consider diverse aspects, e.g., style/genre, audio, soundtrack, lighting, narrative flow, camera style, use of close-ups, handheld or smooth shots, cast, etc.; what aesthetic features are most pronounced or effective?
- Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck’s The Lives of Others (German, 2006): how does ‘proving patriotism’ illustrate a logical paradox?; how does society depend upon the bonds between people?; how do the characters’ moral structures transform due knowledge & experience?; how is moral complicity illuminated?; what is the role of truth, how does empathy complicate or aid truth?; how should the boundaries of trust & privacy be navigated?;
- Matt Ross’ Captain Fantastic (American, 2016): to whom does one have moral responsibilities, & how does one navigate differing responsibilities to self, state, and children?
- Tom McCarthy’s Spotlight (American, 2015): how do we navigate the division between institutions and people therein?; how does power & the pace of research then & now compare?
- Barry Jenkins’ Moonlight (American, 2016): how does personal history illuminate understanding one’s actions or events?; how can ‘micro-aggressions’ be defined?; what responsibility should the public bear to learn about the life experiences of those who slip through societal cracks?
- Christopher Nolan’s Memento (American, 2000): what does this tell us about the nature and role of memory, and of truth?; how can pictures & tattoos be conceived as an archive of knowledge?; how does the film’s form & style simulate the protagonist’s story?;
- Lenny Abrahamson’s Room (Irish, 2015): what new insights can this provoke concerning nature vs. nurture?; what light does this shed on victimhood?; what relation do perplexity & wonder bear?
Additional Co- Curricular Experiences:
Three Additional Co-Curricular Experiences are required; these can include, but are not limited to (nb., some charge admission, but frequently offer free entry opportunities for college students; for any questions as to whether your desired experience is acceptable--i.e., rigorously complements our course—just ask!):
- > Any other films in FYS Film Series (Capt. Fantastic, Spotlight, Moonlight, Memento, Room; cf. above)
- > “The Present & the Future of the Past” Humanities Symposium events, 9/17-24: cf., http://www.belmont.edu/liberal-arts/humanities_symposium/index.html
- > Department of Theatre and Dance Productions:
- Yankee Tavern by Steven Dietz, cf., www.samuelfrench.com/p/15060/yankee-tavern
- As You Like It by William Shakespeare cf., http://www.samuelfrench.com/p/41181/as-you-like-it-arden-shakespeare
- The Wolves by Sarah DeLappe, cf., http://www.samuelfrench.com/p/62099/the-wolves
- > Paper presentations at the Tennessee Philosophical Association conference, Oct. 26-27, at Vanderbilt: cf., http://tpaweb.org/callforpapers.html
- > Any films in International Black Film Festival, in October: cf., http://ibffnashville.com/
- > Exhibits &/or Events at Frist Art Museum, cf., http://fristartmuseum.org/calendar
- > Performances &/or Events at Nashville Symphony, cf., https://www.nashvillesymphony.org/
- > Gardens, Art, &/or Events at Cheekwood Estate & Gardens, cf., https://cheekwood.org/
- > Lectures &/or Events by TN Historical Soc., cf., https://www.tennesseehistory.org/programs/
- > Tour Nashville Parthenon, cf., https://www.nashville.gov/Parks-and-Recreation/Parthenon.aspx
- > Tour Belle Meade Plantation, cf., https://bellemeadeplantation.com/
- > Other Sites to Explore Possible Options:
- Scholarly, Arts, or Cultural Convos: http://www.belmont.edu/events/index.html
- Greater Nashville Events: http://humanitiestennessee.org/events; www.nashvilleopera.org/; https://www.nowplayingnashville.com/categories/lectures-discussions/; https://www.nashvillescene.com/; https://www.eastsideartstumble.com/; https://www.nashvilledowntown.com/events/first-saturday-art-crawl; https://www.nashvilleballet.com/; https://library.nashville.org/events; https://www.vanderbilt.edu/vuarts/; https://www.vanderbilt.edu/chancellor/lecture-series/
Reference Librarian Presentation Assignments:
- Re: Homework Due for Library Presentation Day: there is online information & ‘quizzes’ due for our class with the Reference Librarian presentation; there will be a prompt to email yourself your results at its end for which you need to then print out or forward the ‘results email’ you receive to me (melanie.walton@belmont.edu); access it here: https://belmont.libguides.com/Research/Evaluate.
- Re: Co-Curricular Class Assignments (4, a or b): additionally, you may select option (a) or (b) to complete for your co-curricular experience assignment, more info on both follows:
- Re: Documentary Research Projects: two aspects to consider when selecting, using, and reflecting on documents as evidential materials: (1) Contents of Suitable ‘Archive’—balance scholarly rigor with open-mindedness; materials should be evaluated as to the nature and scope of their validity (e.g., the types of ‘documents’ vary, e.g., films, ephemera, journal articles, letters, public records, and will imply correspondingly variable criteria for determining their validity, e.g., a scientific study should be peer-reviewed, an ad’s publication demographics should be considered); (2) Diversity of Researcher Ends—consider your research ends (aim, intent, goal) and whether you will restrict yourself to a single, well-defined end or employ diverse ends (e.g., social sciences diverge on the degree of quantitative vs. qualitative inquiry, but overall value statistical work more than the humanities, which tend to hermeneutic and aesthetic inquiry, paying more attention to the methodological and pedagogical practices of the materials’ creators, e.g., why did it use a documentary form, does it rely on expert testimony, does it aim to realistically depict something or aspirational motivation, etc.. Cf., http://www.aera.net/SIG013/Research-Connections/Introduction-to-Documentary-Research; http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.454.5260&rep=rep1&type=pdf; http://mediaschool.indiana.edu/cdrp/; etc.).
- Re: Annotated Bibliographies: it is important to clearly distinguish your descriptive and evaluative annotations, and the differing parts within both (e.g., description of an author’s content from his/her method of conveying the content; evaluation of contents of an author’s arguments, conclusions, evidence, etc., from how s/he argues, concludes, evidences, etc.. Cf., https://guides.library.ucsc.edu/write-an-annotated-bibliography; https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/general_writing/common_writing_assignments/annotated_bibliographies/annotated_bibliography_samples.html).
Re: Other Helpful Links:
* To make an appointment with Research Librarians for help with anything connected to research (for any class): https://belmont.libcal.com/appointments/
* Resources for tips & guides on Writing Philosophy Papers: http://belmont.libguides.com/philosophy/writing_papers
* n.b., instead of the link to MLA style here, I recommend the following for Chicago Style: https://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/tools_citationguide/citation-guide-1.html
* Database of Print & Electronic Resources in Philosophy, notably, a link to ‘JSTOR,’ a great site for scholarly research: https://belmont.libguides.com/philosophy
* Database of Print & Electronic Resources in English, notably, a link to ‘Project MUSE,’ a great site for scholarly research: https://belmont.libguides.com/english
* Undergraduate Research Commons, a database of notable work from undergrads worldwide across most disciplines: https://undergraduatecommons.com/
* Belmont Writing Center: http://www.belmont.edu/learning-centers/writing/
* To make an appointment with Research Librarians for help with anything connected to research (for any class): https://belmont.libcal.com/appointments/
* Resources for tips & guides on Writing Philosophy Papers: http://belmont.libguides.com/philosophy/writing_papers
* n.b., instead of the link to MLA style here, I recommend the following for Chicago Style: https://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/tools_citationguide/citation-guide-1.html
* Database of Print & Electronic Resources in Philosophy, notably, a link to ‘JSTOR,’ a great site for scholarly research: https://belmont.libguides.com/philosophy
* Database of Print & Electronic Resources in English, notably, a link to ‘Project MUSE,’ a great site for scholarly research: https://belmont.libguides.com/english
* Undergraduate Research Commons, a database of notable work from undergrads worldwide across most disciplines: https://undergraduatecommons.com/
* Belmont Writing Center: http://www.belmont.edu/learning-centers/writing/