Autumn 1999 Syllabus for
Relativism & Truth
J. Hernandez Cruz, Professor of Philosophy & Cognitive Science
|
One of the most persistent and pervasive ideas both inside and outside of the academy is that all truth is relative. According to this view, reality is constructed. Moral, political, historical, and scientific claims are merely a product of prevailing opinion or cultural context or political power. This seems to lead inexorably to the claim that nothing is true. But could that be right? Is the best conclusion we can come to with respect to our intellectual endeavors that nothing at all is true? Is it true that nothing is true? In this course, we will engage the areas of inquiry that aim at investigating truth, as well as the kinds of criticisms of that tradition that appear to lead to relativism. We will draw our readings from philosophy (especially philosophy of science and ethics), anthropology, physics, psychology, and linguistics. Our aim will be to approach questions about knowledge, opinion, and reality with rigor and candor. In addition to grappling with the ideas of the course, we will emphasize analytical writing skills and class participation.
OFFICE INFORMATION: Adele Simmons Hall, room 205. Extension 5619. I will maintain a sign-up sheet for office times on my door.
REQUIRED TEXTS: Harre, Rom and Michael Krausz (1996). Varieties of Relativism. Oxford: Oxford UP. And a Collection of Readings. (Available from the instructor and on reserve in the library).
To RECEIVE AN EVALUATION, you must:
1. Attend – You are expected to attend every class meeting. Please contact
the instructor for missed material 2. Participate – Thoughtful participation in discussion will be one indicator
that you are doing the reading and 3. Write daily papers on assigned questions – There will be a writing assignment for every class meeting. You may skip 3 daily assignments over the course of the semester in order to complete work for other courses or for personal reasons.
4. Write five papers – 4-5 pages. Typewritten, double spaced in a 12 point font. No title page. a. Argument Analysis Take a single argument from the texts we have read so far or from class lecture and reconstruct it. Be sure to motivate the argument by explaining what is at stake in the view and why the thesis offered satisfies the author’s theoretical demands. Once the argument is explained, evaluate it. Say why you think it is right or why you think it is wrong. If you think it is right, introduce possible responses that someone unconvinced by the argument might give and then give what you think should be the author’s reply. If you think the main argument is wrong, give a counter-example or explanation for why it is unconvincing. We will discuss philosophical writing skills during classtime. If you wish for a supplementary treatment, you may take a look at the following websites: Writing Tutor for Introductory Philosophy Courses b. Comparison of Views Take a single issue, and compare two different responses in two different texts we have read (do not use the argument from paper assignment (a)). First, state the issue, explaining what is at stake and why anyone should think it is important. Next, do an argument analysis (see assignment one) on BOTH of the arguments. Finally, pick a side and defend that position against the theses advanced by the other view in the paper. c. Positive Proposal Take a single issue and give your view on it. The point of this
assignment is to have you present an original, well developed,
and carefully argued thesis on one of the topics we have covered.
THIS IS DIFFERENT FROM MERELY GIVING YOUR OPINION. You must have
an argument for why the reader should agree with you. Further,
you must relate your view to the position of at least one of the
philosophers we have read so far. You may talk about how your
view is similar to or different from something we have read (see
comparison paper, assignment two). Think of counter-arguments
a reader might marshal against you and respond to them. Make the
paper as convincing as you possibly can. d. Review In this assignment you will write a review of another student’s
position paper (paper assignment number three). Imagine that you
are producing a piece for a scholarly journal to be read by your
peers. First you must reconstruct the entire target paper. Imagine
that your audience has not read the target paper; this forces
you to repeat the view advanced by the author. You are then to
evaluate the argument (as in paper assignment (a)), and give your
view on the matter. In your evaluation, compare/contrast the view
with the view of at least one philosopher we have read so far
(other than the one the original author dealt with in her or his
position paper). Apply here the lessons learned from paper assignment
(b). If you agree with the paper you are reviewing, defend it
against possible objections. If you disagree, explain how the
arguments fail. e. Reply to Reviewer This gives you the opportunity to reply either to the review your
paper received in assignment number four or to comments made by
the instructor on any of your earlier assignments. It is a chance
for you to explain how the reviewer or the instructor got your
arguments wrong, or how the reviewer or instructor failed to consider
a rebuttal that you have available to you. In any case, you must
first reconstruct both your original paper and then the review
paper or comments before you move on to your reply. Again, assume
that the reader has not been exposed either to your original paper
or the review. Your reply should be defended against possible
counter-moves. You may, if you need to, change your position a
bit in order to accommodate the points made in the review paper,
but the reply should be recognizable as roughly the same view.
This will be your last chance to convince the reader that you
(not the reviewer or the instructor) is right. The length limit for the papers will be strictly enforced, as I will not read past page five. This will become more and more difficult as the assignments call for you to reconstruct what has gone before. You must practice recognizing what is essential to convey the issues and theses carefully and thoroughly in a limited space. Papers that are repetitious, contain lots of digressions and are full of extraneous elements are just as bad as (and maybe worse than) papers that fail to develop an idea because they are too short. I will not negotiate length, so do not ask. If I suspect that you are fooling with margins, type fonts, line spacing, etc. to fill up extra pages or to cram your paper onto fewer pages, I will ask you to reformat the paper.
CLASS RESOURCES ASH lab – The computing classroom on the second floor of Adele
Simmons Hall is available for Philosophy Lunch – The professors will meet informally with students
over lunch in the Dining
Schedule of Topics and Readings
CONCEPTUAL ISSUE IN RELATIVISM AND TRUTH
LANGUAGE AND MEANING
PERCEPTION & SCIENCE
ETHICS
Assignment: Reply to Reviewer paper (e) due at the end of examination period. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||