APA Newsletters
Fall 1999
Volume 99, Number 1

Articles

Previous | Next

William L. Reese
State University of New York at Albany

I. The point-for-point exchange with Gellman has not been without interest, and I am grateful for it. [Editors' note: The discussion referred to by Professor Reese began with Professor Gellman's review of Reese's Dictionary of Philosophy and Religion in the Fall 1997 edition of this Newsletter, and continued in the Fall 1998 and Spring 1999 issues.]

After reading Gellman's initial review, my editorial assistant concluded that it was the most constructive review the Dictionary has received because it contained the greatest number of suggestions for improvement. I must admit that it took me some time to come to embrace that perspective. Gellman's new response covers the same ground as his initial review, and should I once more answer point for point, my reply would repeat much of my original response. That might be tedious. Gellman's reply seems to presume that no change had been indicated in my position; but the end of my response summarized many points where I granted that clarification and emendation were in order. The majority of these improvements were introduced into the new (third) printing of the second edition, issued in January from the Dictionary's new home (Amherst: Humanity Books [Prometheus]).

Several others have been reserved for the fourth printing due to space restrictions. These include Gettier, Hillel, ontological argument, and Plantinga. In one printing or the other, most of the issues central to the new reply will have received serious consideration. Many of the remaining differences between us seem to me differences of interpretation. I remain convinced, for example, that Gellman's interpretation of Clifford is much more flexible than the position stated in the "Ethics of Belief," and that the Judaica issues are overstressed. In my view, then, the next step on the exchange is with the gods, both editorial and otherwise. In any event, that concerns the future. My present purpose is to consider the use of the Dictionary in teaching. In particular, I wish to describe the use of the Dictionary in Phil. 110E, an intensive writing course in philosophy at SUNY-Albany.

II. The Use of the Dictionary of Philosophy and Religion: Eastern and Western Thought in Phil. 110E, an Intensive Writing Introduction to Philosophy.

This is a course with an enrollment limited to 25 students, requiring nine papers, allowing something less than two weeks per paper. With nine papers to be written, it is a four-credit course. With 225 papers to be read, the course is granted a TA. The first paper comes in singly. Its rewrite, should the student opt for one (allowed on the first paper alone), comes in with the second and third papers, six weeks into the semester; the second set of three papers at twelve weeks; the third set at semester's end. Each semester, at least one student suggests on the student evaluations that all of the papers come in singly. Given the great number of papers involved, that has not seemed practical. I read one-third of the papers each submission, or three papers by each student during the semester.

The course is designed:

(1) to increase writing skills, especially in developing problem-solving papers. The problems treated are all, as one would expect, philosophical problems. In the course of the semester, nine such problems are treated.

(2) to expand the student's knowledge of the history, major figures, and concepts of philosophy. The Dictionary plays a major role in this aspect of the course.

(3) to engage the student in working out his or her own position on the nine problems, i.e., to engage the student in a program of increasing self-knowledge. To this end we take Socrates as our mentor; and the basic texts of the course, along with the Dictionary, are The Trial and Death of Socrates: Four Dialogues (Dover, thrift edition), and the Hackett edition of Plato's Republic (every book of which is treated in one problem or another).

We aim at the three objectives through a mix of "information bursts" (videos or other activities designed to move the student at once into the heart of the problem); reading assignments; full class discussions; small group discussions; background lectures, calling attention to and expanding upon, relevant alternatives treated in the Dictionary; and at the end of each cycle, on Presentation Day, having the students present their papers to the class, or a subgroup of the class, and defend them. In these activities the students exercise their capacities to read, write, think, talk, and listen-the five skills necessary in becoming an educated person.

III. The nine problems of the course are:

(1) The Significance of Socrates' Life and Teachings

(2) The Nature and Extent of One's Personal Freedom

(3) One's Value Profile and Its Underlying Theory

(4) The Nature of the Self

(5) One's Relation to Truth, and One's Theory of Truth

(6) One's View of the Nature and Function of Beauty

(7) One's Way of Distinguishing between Right and Wrong, and Its Underlying Theory

(8) The Principles Making up One's Social Philosophy, and Their Defense

(9) God and Immortality-Both Affirmation and Denial Producing a Contrast in How One Relates to the Universe

As elsewhere, the university has its own Web site. Phil. 110E has its own page on the Web site. The Dictionary and the Web page interrelate in supporting the teaching of the course. In the next two sections we ask how this occurs.

IV. Dictionary Sources

How do the resources of the Dictionary support work on the nine problems? Each of the problems can be researched by reference to extensive relevant material in the Dictionary, much of it gathered into the single entry named by the problem. Each numbered paragraph of the entry leads to cross-references radiating throughout the volume. The breakdown of the dictionary materials regarding each of the nine problems in turn is as follows:

Q1. Socrates: Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle entries; Greek Philosophy; Philosophy (q.v. D31) (This is to be read: "See point 31 in the Philosophy entry of the Dictionary." This convention will be followed consistently.); Sophists.

Q2. Freedom: The entire Freedom entry. Thirty-one entry listings on philosophers who have held each of the four definitions of freedom with references ( q.v.'s) to their own entries in the Dictionary, and the relevant numbered paragraphs of those entries. Such entry listings provide a summary of the important ideas in the Dictionary on the given topic (four definitions); Free Will (five entry listings); Determinism (sixteen entry listings).

Q3. Value: Value (eight entry listings); Final Value (eighteen entry listings); Value Theory (eleven entry listings).

Q4. Self: Self (ten entry listings); Person (fifteen entry listings); Soul (seventeen entry listings).

Q5. Truth: Truth (thirty-eight entry listings, five definitions); Epistemology (ten entry listings); Knowledge (sixteen entry listings); Skepticism (thirty entry listings); Wisdom (seventeen entry listings).

Q6. Beauty: Aesthetics (thirty-seven entry listings); Art (eight entry listings); Poetry (three q.v. references).

Q7. Right and Wrong: Right (six entry listings); Good (twelve entry listings); Ethics (forty-four entry listings); Evil (sixteen entry listings); Utilitarianism (thirteen entry listings); Axiology (four entry listings).

Q8. Social Philosophy: Social Contract Theory (fourteen entry listings); Natural Rights (six entry listings); Natural Law (twelve entry listings); Sovereignty (six entry listings); and entry listings for Hobbes, Locke, Marx, Plato, Rousseau, Jefferson, T. Paine, Rawls, and Nozick.

Q9. God and Immortality: God (seventy-five entry listings, divided among nature of God, arguments for God, and God as a projection of human awareness); Religion (twenty-seven entry listings, plus entries on basic faiths of the world); Immortality (eleven entry listings); Reincarnation, and Metempsychosis (numerous q.v. references); Faith (sixteen entry listings); Myth (fifteen entry listings); Reason (fifteen entry listings).

V. Web Page

How does the Phil. 110E Web page support work on the nine problems? The course Web page, which can be called up either through the student's internet connection or through any on-campus computer, contains four kinds of resources supporting the course:

(1) All of the Dictionary entries listed above are on the Web at the site of the treatment of each problem. This material can be called up on the bottom half of the screen, and scrolled through, as the student works on his/her problem. (The further cross-references must be looked up in the Dictionary.) Use of the material on the Web page is an inducement to follow out cross-references in the Dictionary .

(2) The Web page also contains generic forms for contrasting logical approaches to the nine problems. We call these forms Elementary Argument, Problematic Method, Logistic, Critical Analysis, and Dialogic Method. Each form can be called up on an individual computer, and worked through step by step from initial question to conclusion. These generic forms are explored in relation to the first paper, on Socrates. Experimentation is in order, since one or another form may work better depending on circumstances.

(3) A sample outline is also present on each problem, stored at the site of that problem. This is the outline we work through in class. We encourage the students to experiment with different approaches, while also insisting that their outlines be comparable to, and contain the basic features of, the sample outline. Most students naturally use the sample outline which has been worked through in class. These outlines usually combine Problematic and Logistic methods (cf. the summary Freedom outline at VIII below). For the former method q.v. Dewey (D2) (to be read, "In Dictionary refer to Dewey [2]"; convention used throughout); for the latter, q.v. Descartes (D10). These outlines can also be called up on the computer screen, and worked through in connection with the stored Dictionary material.

(4) Finally, the Phil 110E Web page contains what we call a Grammatology. The submitted student papers are read for grammar as well as logic. The presence of the Grammatology allows us to say of grammatical mistakes, "Cf. Grammatology (1), (2)," or whatever. Examples of areas covered: number shifts, and failure to use the subjunctive. In the Grammatology, instances are given of these mistakes and how to avoid them.

To accomplish the work, class periods must cycle from Information Burst to Presentation Day nine times. Although we consider six class periods the normal cycle, the shortness of our university semester requires some curtailment and overlapping of assignments, e.g., some work during vacations, and submission of papers in sets. For purposes of illustration, however, we shall use the six-period cycle in discussing the first problem, on Socrates.

VI. The significance of Socrates' life and teachings. The six periods are used in the following manner:

(1 and 2) First two periods. Information burst: Maxwell Anderson, "Barefoot in Athens," a 90-minute film dealing with the last days of Socrates. Experience has taught us that students tend to zone out during video presentations. For that reason any video we use is accompanied by a handout, suggesting what the students should be looking for, and containing questions to answer as they listen. With this preparation, they have something to say in the post-video discussion. In the case of the Socrates film, the handout contains other details, the spelling of relevant names ("Peloponnesian," "Xanthippe"), since they will be using them in their papers, and the charges brought against Socrates. We also ask them to try to decide the basic question whose answer, in their view, will illuminate these events. In the second half of the second period we begin the discussion of these questions, and their relation to the life and thought of Socrates. By then they will have begun to read the Four Dialogues, and have two somewhat different accounts of Socrates to reconcile. We also ask them to prepare for the third period a diagrammatic scheme of their question, its answer, and reasons supporting the answer, following the generic outline of Elementary Argument:

        Question
         Answer
           / | \
        R1 R2 R3

(3) Third period. The period begins with small group discussions of this material, with the instructor and TA rotating among the groups. It becomes clear that Elementary Argument is inadequate for many of the questions they are considering. One reason is that many questions have another side. Was the court justified in convicting Socrates? There are two sides, "yes" and "no," while Elementary Argument treats just one side. To handle what they wish to do, they must consider two answers to the question, and two clusters of reasons. So we double the triangle under the above question, and add two further steps: one in which the strengths of the two clusters of reasons are evaluated, and a second in which the conclusion is stated. The argument now contains five steps instead of three, and Elementary Argument has turned into Problematic Method.

                 Question
         Answer 1    Answer 2
            / | \           / | \
          R1 R2 R3    R1 R2 R3
         Evaluation  Evaluation
                Conclusion

We also explore the other forms when someone has an approach which seems to demand them. The students are now assigned the task of putting their outlines into the form their question and perspective require.

(4) Fourth period. On the fourth day material from the early Dialogues, especially the Apology, and the Dictionary, is added to the mix. Since Day six is Presentation Day, when the first papers are presented and defended (they are also allowed to work from their outlines), volunteer group leaders must be chosen. In a class of twenty-five, at least four leaders are needed. The leaders are to work out the order of presentation, see that everyone contributes to the discussion, see that the important points of the papers are considered, and that each presenter gets a fair share of the time. Initially facing a shortage of volunteers for discussion leaders, we offered a third of a grade point bonus to be added to the leader's paper, once graded, and a forest of hands went up. The leaders are chosen at the end of the fourth period.

(5) Fifth period. To prove their merit, the leaders give their papers before the whole class during this period, and defend them. The instructor or TA serves as moderator, providing an example of what we wish to take place in the smaller groups. This gives us an opportunity to emphasize the discussion rule that everyone is to take part in the discussion, and that learning how to ask questions is as important as learning how to answer them. More importantly, this session provides class members a final opportunity for discussing the problem, and thus getting it clearer, prior to their own turns at presentation.

(6) Sixth period. Presentation Day. As long as I have been using this approach, on the floor of whatever building of the campus, there have been extra rooms on the floor during presentation days. I don't have an explanation of this, but am glad for it. The class is divided into its component groups. The leaders take them to the adjoining rooms and begin the sessions. The TA and instructor are free to circulate among the groups. As at the APA, there are some papers, and some presenters, one especially wishes to hear.

VII. Generalizing on the cycle.

(1) For different problems we have various Information Bursts. (a.) For the Value problem, it is a set of value cards printed out from the value site of the Web page. There the students find a list of value terms which past classes have agreed upon as a fair representation of their values. The students print these out, picking a large type, then separating them to produce a deck of value cards. The first step of the value problem is to augment, rank, discuss, and assess these values, eventually producing their own value profiles; alternately, M. Adler's videos on happiness (Aristotle) and peace of mind (Epictetus and Aurelius) with handouts. (b.) For the Beauty paper, a video (course generated with a small grant) containing putative instances of beauty from the fine arts, nature, sports, and ordinary life. The handout asks for their evaluation of these instances. (c.) For the problem of Right and Wrong, a set of ethics cards (eleven ethical cases) for group discussion; alternately, a video of Sandmell's student Harvard class on Ethics in fervent large-class discussion. (d.) Sets of concept cards for Social Philosophy, and God and Immortality (concept on face, identification of philosopher and Dictionary entry on back); alternately, for God and Immortality, program six of Stephen Hawking's Universe set of videos.

(2) The class philosophizes; ergo, its members are philosophers. The figures in the Dictionary are "other philosophers." We hope to show them that the other philosophers have interesting suggestions on the nine problems, some of which merit their consideration. They will cite classmates in their papers as freely as they cite the other philosophers. We consider the Dictionary a reservoir of source material. The only pressure we put on the students to read it is by way of the final question on each sample outline: "To which philosophers is your position most similar; to which most dissimilar?" (cf. VIII, below). When the instructor conducts his lecture/discussion on a given problem, his concern is how the student might proceed. Reference to IX (2-3) below exemplifies the manner in which material on philosophers with contrasting positions will be drawn from the Dictionary entries and elaborated, often switching during the course of the discussion to other figures and concepts more responsive to the interests of the student. In any case, the outlines have an open texture. There is no officially approved outcome. The outlines are sets of variables which become propositional only through student decision. The final papers are to be the embodiment of the student's thought, assisted by Web page, instructor, and Dictionary .

(3) In order to avoid the meaningless padding of papers to reach a prescribed length, our answer to the question of length is that of Abraham Lincoln's story of someone asking how long a man's legs should be. The answer was: "Long enough to reach the ground." We aren't concerned with a paper's length, but with having each step done clearly and convincingly from initial question to final answer. In fact, the initial papers average around three typed pages; by semester's end, they've doubled in length.

(4) There is some degree of comfort in having a specified playing field, the Dictionary serving as a miniature library for the students who search through it to find what they need in developing their papers. Utilizing its epitomized knowledge, they practice logical thinking and mini-research. Having a common outline and common sources, we are virtually free from the submitted paper without credentials, and the subtle plagiarism of unacknowledged paraphrase.

VIII. Summary Outline of Freedom Problem

Following is the sample outline on the Web page of the second problem. There are comparable outlines for the other eight problems. As the course goes on, they adapt the outlines more freely to their needs.

(1) Question: What freedom have I to control my life?

(2) Definitions of freedom

     (a) The capacity in a moment of decision to take any one of two or more alternatives

     (b) Doing what one wants to do

     (c) Acting in terms of internal, rather than external, factors

     (d) Doing what one ought to do

(3) Discussion of the definitions, concluding with a workable definition.

(4) In terms of this workable definition, what freedom have I to control my life?

(5) There are three possible solutions

     (a) A great deal of freedom

     (b) A limited amount of freedom

     (c) No freedom at all

(6) Evaluation of the three possibilities, giving my reasons for choosing one of them

(7) To which philosophers is my position most similar; to which most dissimilar?

IX. Comments on the Summary Outline

(1) The above problem uses two cycles of the problematic method, steps 1-3 moving through four possible definitions to a workable definition; steps 4-6 posing the question anew but in terms of the workable definition; this time the alternatives concern degrees of freedom.

(2) To provide some content concerning the lecture/discussion for this problem, we shall briefly indicate how step 2, Definitions of Freedom, would be handled. (a) For the first definition, while calling attention to the many philosophers who hold the definition (q.v. Freedom A), we concentrate on the difficulty to which James called attention, concerning his choice of a path home, in his lecture on "The Dilemma of Determinism." We add to this the choice students in the class have just made in choosing SUNY-Albany over other schools. When a student's criteria for choosing and circumstances are set down, the alternatives reduce to one; if more than one remains, the student has no clue why s/he is here rather than elsewhere. That would seem to be chance, not freedom. In canvassing the students, it becomes clear that they, no more than James, can show that they could have done otherwise. (b) We then consider the second definition, selecting Hume for our example, while calling attention to other versions of the view (q.v. Freedom B). Hume contrasts freedom (he uses the term "liberty") with constraint, and holds that both are consistent with necessity. In this view, since we clearly sometimes do what we want to do, even if it is necessitated, we are sometimes free. (c) For the third definition we take Nietzsche's view in Ecce Homo, which in effect posits an inner self whose actualization would constitute one's authenticity. It does seem that we can point to potentialities which, actualized, would constitute an inner-directed self. (d) For the fourth definition we attend to St. Augustine's view of God as the freest of beings since God always does what ought to be done (also, Saints Thomas Aquinas and Anselm). While initially rejected by the class, it turns out that in thinking of the first definition, their goal in choosing their criteria and sorting through the alternatives was the best choice for themselves. And if doing what one ought to do is doing what is best for one, they were really using the fourth definition. This is reminiscent of Dewey (q.v. D7), defining freedom as the ability to make intelligent choices.

(3) Continuing to the third step, we ask if there are qualities in several of these definitions which can be combined (many think so); or if the first definition can be saved by indirect argument (e.g., that morality, truth, and creativity require the ability to do otherwise)? Some think so. Through these steps they move to a workable definition for themselves, re-ask the question, and continue to the end of the outline.

(4) The seventh step introduces a whisper of logistic, since its presence indicates that the basic question has been subdivided: How free are you, and how does your view relate to the views of other philosophers?