Ethics Final Exam

Tuesday December 14th at noon in Ed 204.

IOCC 201 exams

The exams will not be available for pick-up on Wednesday.  I still have 2 students that will take the test on Thursday due to excused absences.  In the name of exam security I can not hand them out today.
Dr. Berg

Ethics Exam

The Ethics Exam will be held on Wednesday the 17th of November!

IOCC 201 review 2nd exam

Review Sheet


IOCC 201

Second Exam



For all documents that we read know: the aprox. date written, author, location and source language. (There are some documents we read that we do not know these things about, others that we know all of the above, a few that we know some of the above, consult your notes)





The synoptic gospels, the Gospels.

Quadriga method

The basic message of Judaism.

The basic message of Paul’s Christianity.

Which Gospel was written first.

The lost source of the Synoptic Gospels

Source languages of the Bible

When the Biblical text were written in relation to Homer, Plato and Aristotle.

Basics of the life of Jesus of Nazareth

Basics of the life of Paul.

Basics of the Bible.

Basic narrative the Genesis 1-23

Basic narrative of Joshua.

Structure of Isaiah

Pauline opening/greeting

The complexities of the ending of Mark

Basic arguments of Romans

Romans 13 and society

How to work with a Biblical text as a Jewish and a Christian Text

Basic of the Koran

5 pillars of faith

Basics of the life of Muhammad

Technical terms related to the Koran

Basics of the Islamic tradition, history, and current practice

New plan for Ethics: Note new exam date!

Revised Calendar


Ethics Fall 2010

October
1 Aristotle Intro
6 Virtue Ethics Pt VIII 3,5
8 Virtue Ethics Pt VIII 6,7
13 Film
15 No Class
20 Deontology 277- 280
22 Kant Pt VI 1/Film
27 Film
29 Utility
November
3 Utility Pt V 2,3
5 No Class
10 Utility Pt V 6/
12 Utility/Film
17 Film
19 Exam II
24 No Class
26 No Class
December
1 Group Project
3 Group Project
8 Final Exam Review (Extra group work if necessary)

The department has officially moved.

We are now located in stately MacMurray Hall, on the third floor.

Dr. Berg is located in office 27.

Dr. Stewart is located in office 33.

IOCC 201 Class moved for Tuesday October 5th

On Tuesday October 5th we will meet in the Applebee Art Gallery.  The Applebee Art Gallery is located in the atrium of the Putnam Springer complex.

Here is a link to a campus map.

See you at 9:30 and 12:50.

IOCC 201 study guide #1

IOCC 210 study guide

Know the “ages” of the Greek world and what gave rise to Homer’s age.

The basic of Homeric authorship, style, works, structure, muse/poet, etc.

Know the main characters from the sections of The Odyssey we read.

When did Greek philosophy develop? Know some basics of Greek Philosophical thought.

Difference between Plato and Socrates.

Fundamentals of Platonic thought.

The story of Ion, magnetic rings, and what it teaches, and Plato’s argument.

Details of the Apology, trial, outcome, charges, etc.

Point of and some details from Symposium

Know the Socratic defense.

The Allegory of the cave from Republic.

Rough details of Aristotle’s life.

What counts as poetry

Know how to identify the poetic

Three forms of poetry. Which one is best and why

How to identify the tragic.

The four causes.

Aristotle on women

Aristotle on happiness

The 6 conditions for happiness and a bit about each one and how they are ordered.

The 4 lives, which one is best any why.

Voluntary and involuntary acts.



Know your words of the day.

Ethics Exam advice

Ethics students.
Here is a short list of advice for the upcoming exam.

• Make sure you have read everything I have assigned.
• Take your time with the exam.
• Answer every part of each question.
• Take you time to think about the issues involved in each question.
• Come up front and ask me for clarification if you have any questions.
• Write clearly and neatly.
• Look over your answers and think about them when you think you are done.
• Take the time to study in a small group for a short period of time if possible.
• Don't stress yourself out.

IOCC 201 Extra Credit

Greetings IOCC 201.
You can now start earning extra credit by working in the Center for Learning Excellence.  I will grant 1 point for each hour you work with our excellent tutor Mr. Viles or work on your paper with another tutor.  The CLE will track your time and they will send me all the details.  You can also earn one hour worth of extra credit for attending the special workshops offered during the semester.

Take advantage of this opportunity to sharpen your writing skills, learn more about the course, and earn extra credit!

Here is a link for the hours of the CLE.

Here is a link regarding tutoring at the CLE.

And a link for CLE FAQs

Ethics

Our Plan for the semester:
Sept 3 Objectivism/Relativism Pt II 2,3,5,6

8 Egoism Pt III 3,4

10 Religion Pt XI 1,3,5

15 Feminism Pt IV 8,9

17 Skepticism Pt X 1,2

22 Evolution Pt XII a.1,A.2,A.3

24 Free Will Pt XII B.1,B.2

29 EXAM I

October

1 Aristotle Intro

6 Virtue Ethics Pt VIII 3,5

8 Virtue Ethics Pt VIII 6,7

13 Film

15 No Class

20 Deontology 277- 280

22 Kant Pt VI 1

27 Kant Pt VI 4

29 Film

November

3 Utility Pt V 2,3

5 No Class

10 Utility Pt V 6

12 Utility Pt V 7

17 Exam II

19 The Social Contract Pt VII 1,3

24 No Class

26 No Class

December

1 Group Project

3 Group Project

8 Final Exam Review (Extra group work if necessary)

Ethics and IOCC 201

A friend passed along this short but well done web page on writing papers for philosophy courses.  It is a good source for the Ethics class and not bad for the IOCC 201 class. 

Greece/Turkey May Term 2010

The Department took Mac Students to Turkey and Greece for May Term last academic year.  Julia DeGroot was kind enough to send me some digital images of the trip and I posted a few here.  Study abroad is one of the best things you can do for your education as an undergraduate student and it will really transform your life.  Look for study abroad opportunities with Mac faculty for May Term 2011.  There should be several opportunities in addition to a tour to Germany and Prague that I will lead with Professor Koffel from the Art department.

   

Outline Help

Decent help on the Web:

http://www.stlawu.edu/writing/webhandouts/outline.htm

http://www.lavc.edu/Library/outline.htm

http://www.albany.edu/eas/170/outline.htm

http://www.indiana.edu/~wts/pamphlets/outlines.shtml

http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/544/01/

Technology

Well, what do they say about making plans?  The screen on my laptop failed this weekend.  As you can all see, it now works, but that does mean that I did not get your outlines back on Saturday.  What it also means is that I will get them back to you today (Monday). 
Dr. Berg

ADC 2nd outline

Greetings everyone.
It seems that a deadline has slipped my mind.  My apologies for that.
I will return the first draft of your outlines to you no later than Saturday and attached to that email will be a due date for the next draft.
Dr. Berg.

ADC

Greetings everyone.
I see that most of the required material was in my email box yesterday and I assume the rest arrived by the time I will check it again.  I will soon post more material here after I get a close look at your work thus far and I can shape what I post to improve what we have done already.

I bet you 4 are having an engaging and exciting day with Dr. Hester.  I enjoyed our time together last weekend and look forward to our next meeting. 
Dr. Berg

July IOCC 201

Reading calendar IOCC 201 summer 2010




Tursday July 8 Homer and Plato

Friday 9 Plato (Ion and Apology) Aristotle intro

Tuesday 13 Aristotle (Ethics 1-3, Physics 1-2 and Poetics) Take home Exam I

Wed 14 The Old Testament and Hebrew Scriptures. (Genesis 1-22, Isaiah)

Thu 15 New Testament (Gospel of Mark and Paul’s Letter to the Romans) Paper I Due

Friday 16 Islam (Koran) Take Home Exam II

Tu 20 Roman Reading Packet (I will hand this out)

Wed 21 The Early Church (Polycarp, Didache, Ignatius)

Th 22 Augustine (Confessions) Paper II Due

F 23 Wrap up, Final Exam in class Final paper due

July Term IOCC 201

We will meet in Springer 112.
Dr. Berg

(Boring first post)

Journal

Remember to bring a good journal to write in for the trip!

2010 Graduates

Congratulations to Austin, Rachel and Sam, our 2010 program graduates!

We have enjoyed your time with us at MacMurray and please keep in touch.
I will soon post a few of the very bad photos from Modern Philosophy.
We leave for Istanbul in 2 days!
Dr. Berg

Germany, Poland and Prague in May '11.  See me if you are interested.

Germany, Poland and Prague: May 2011

Interested in May Term in Germany/Poland and Prague?

See Professor Berg or Professor Koffel

  

Prizes in Modern Philosophy

I will award two prizes in our class. 
1.  The best Poster Board
2.  The best argument presented on the Poster Board.

IOCC 201 Information

• Our review session will be on Thursday, April 29th from 2-3pm in Ed 104/105.

• Your last paper is due the last day of class:  Tuesday April 27th.

• Our final is on Friday April 30th from 12-2 in Ed 104/105.

2 for 1 due on Friday

Exam II


Modern Philosophy

Spring 2010


This exam is a take-home exam. It is due in a printed form on the 31st of March no later than 12:10pm. If I am not in my office place the exam in the folder hanging on the wall by my door marked for this course. I use some fancy words in this exam, look them up.


Please select two of the following three questions and write a thoughtful, complete, well argued essay in response. I would think that it would take a minimum of 1,000 words for each. These are NOT research questions so stick to the text and your notes on our discussion. Do not collaborate on this exam, do your own work. If you use a secondary source full citations are necessary. Each question is worth 50 points.


1. Select an object that you can see right now. Completely describe your perception of that object using Berkeley. At a minimum, make sure and consider the following: Idea, sensation, the status of the object when you are looking at it, the status of the object when you are not in the room, the existence of the object, and God.


2. What is the status of God according to the following thinkers: Leibniz, Berkeley and Hume. (Be sure and give a complete account) Of the three, which do you think is correct, or closest to the truth? Why? Why do the other two come up short?


3. According to Hobbes what is the status of man (humans)? Why do we have families? What is the “state of nature”? Did it really exist? Why use the hypothesis of “state of nature”? Describe the legal status of war according to Hobbes. Describe an ideal state according to Hobbes. How close is the United States?

Posters!

Modern Philosophy


Presentation Schedule

5 minutes each with your poster board.

Please see your syllabus and pass-out regarding the presentation and poster boards.

The best poster boards will hang with distinction by my office.



April 23



1. Rachel Riggle

2. Sam Capleton

3. Ashley Darting

4. Ann Leseberg

5. Kimberly Wheatley

6. Austin Haedicke



April 28



1. Allison Meffert

2. Alex Sonka

3. Brett Aguirre

4. Webster Boose

5. Nick Kennedy

6. Craig McMurtry

Answers to IOCC questions

Muhammad died of an illness.

The order of the 4 Gospels:

Clement of Alexandria on the "Order" of the Gospels


[¶1] Proponents of the Griesbach hypothesis have often appealed to a tradition handed down by Clement of Alexandria in support of their position that Mark used Matthew and Luke.1 Written early in his career in the now lost Hypotyposeis, Clement's information has been preserved for us by Eusebius of Caesarea as follows:

[¶2] But again in those very books Clement presented a tradition of the original elders (paradwsin twn anekaqen presbuterwn) about the "order" of the gospels (peri thV tacewV twn euaggeliwn) in this manner: He said that those of the gospels comprising the genealogies were "written before" (progegrafqai elegen twn euaggeliwn ta perieconta taV genealogiaV), but (de) that Mark had this "disposition" (tauthn eschkenai thn oikonomian): that when Peter was in Rome preaching the word openly (dhmosia) and proclaiming (exeipontoV) the gospel by the spirit, those present, who were many, entreated Mark, as one who followed him for a long time and remembered what was said, to record what was spoken; but that after he composed the gospel, he shared it (metadounai) with those who wanted it; that, when Peter found out about it, he did not actively discourage or encourage it; but that John, last, aware that the physical facts were disclosed (sunidonta oti ta swmatika en toiV euaggelioiV dedhlwtai) in the gospels, urged by friends, and inspired by the spirit, composed a spiritual gospel. So much for Clement. (Eus., Hist. eccl. 6.14.5-7)2

[¶3] Although leading source critics have disputed the value of this information,3 Clement's statement, progegrafqai elegen twn euaggeliwn ta perieconta taV genealogiaV, is widely understood to mean that Matthew and Luke, which include genealogies, were written first, i.e., before Mark and John.4 Under this interpretation, Clement's statement raises perplexing questions that have not been satisfactorily resolved.5

IOCC 201 Extra Credit

Drum Circle


The newly formed Drum Circle at MacMurray College will host a performance by accomplished and versatile percussionist Dennis Maberry, 6:30-8 p.m. Monday, March 29 at the Thoresen Recital Hall.

Local drummers, including MacMurray student Michael Viles, are expected to join Maberry on stage for the evening’s performance. The public is welcome.
 
Sign the sheet that will be available after the performance.

Enjoy!

Dr. Berg

Anthony Genova

The world lost a giant this weekend.

Anthony Genova:

Academic Training:


Ph.D. University of Chicago, 1965, in philosophy

M.A. University of Chicago, 1958, in philosophy

B.A. University of Chicago, 1958, in philosophy

Ph.B. University of Chicago, 1957

Chicago Conservatory of Music, 1952-1953 (no degree)

Dissertation: The Transcendental Principles of Synthetic Unity in the Critical Philosophy


of Immanuel Kant


Academic Positions

1972- Professor of Philosophy, Department of Philosophy, University of Kansas. Acting Chair

(Spring 1973 and 1975-76). Chair (1978-2004).

1962-1972 Wichita State University, Kansas: Assistant Professor of Philosophy, 1962-64; Associate

Professor and Chair, 1964-66; Professor and Chair, 1966-72.


V. Graduate Seminars (Courses that I took in red)


Aristotle’s Organon, Aristotle’s Metaphysics, Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason, Kant’s Ethics and


Aesthetics, Quine and Strawson, Reference and Non-Extensionality, Wittgenstein, Seminar in

Recent Philosophy, Kant's Critique of Judgment, Kant’s Three Critiques, Seminar on Quine,

Seminar on Mind and Language, Seminar on Intentional Meaning, Seminar in Philosophy of

Language, Seminar on Quine.


Ph.D. Dissertation Committees: Donald Anderson, E. J. Hilty, Charles Schlee, Jim Shelton,


Jim Swindler, Daniel Wilson, Kenneth Gale, LaVerne Denning, Richard Fleming, William

Davis, Dolores Miller, David Schmidt, Mark Mikkelsen, Mark Brown, Robert Hall, Andrew

Ward, Craig Procunier, Peter Cvek, David Larson, Susan Daniel, Ted Vaggalis, Ted Mehl,

JoAnn Reckling, William Martin, Rick Botkin, Joseph Van Zandt, Darrell Wheeler, Akissi

Gbocho, David Reidy, John Mann, Keith Coleman, Jeanna Moyer, Terry Sader, Martin Henn,

Harvey McCloud, Mike Cormack, Dawn Jakubowski, Leslie Jones, Richard Buck, Xiufen Lu,

Steve Mathis, Martin Rule, Chris Foster, Cathy Schwartz, David Wheeler, Sanghyuk Park,

Charles Richards, John McClendon, Sung Ryol Kim (English), Olivia Cessay, Omar Conrad,

Curran Douglas, Larry Waggle, Eric Berg, Yancy Dominick, Jorge Munoz, Stephen Ferguson,

Evan Kreider, Roksana Alavi, Tamela Ice, Mario Garitta, Kevin Dyck, Monica Gerrek, Pella

Danabo, Hyun Chul Kim, David Carillo, Kara Tan Bhala, Aaron Dopf, Nathan Colaner (Chair).Refereed
 
 
Recent Ph.D. Comprehensive Exam Committees: In addition to many such committees in the


past, recent appointments include: Xiufen Lu, Christina Burton-Rodriquez, Chris Foster, Cathy

Schawarts, Martin Rule, Harvey McCloud , Dan Normwood, Terry Sader, Jeanna Moyer,

Curran Douglas, John McClendon, Olivia Ceesay, Charles Richards, David Wheeler, Larry

Waggle, Jorge Munoz, Pamela Belman, Gina Rose, Dawn Gale, Omar Conrad, Stephen

Ferguson, Eric Berg, Kevin Dyck, Pin Fei Lu, Tamela Ice, Roksana Alavi, Pella Danabo, Matt

Waldschlagel, Hyun Chul Kim, Dusan Galic, Kara Tan Bhala, Aaron Dopf (Chair), Ryan

McCabe (Chair), Jennifer Kittlaus, Peter Montecuollo, Nathan Colaner (Chair), Cliff Phillips

(Chair), Andrew West (English), Courtney Gustafson.

 Publications: National-International Journals


“Inquiry as a Transcendental Activity,” Inquiry, Vol. 10 (1967), pp. 1-20.

“Can War Be Rationally Justified?,” appeared in the two Volume edition of the Critique of War:

Contemporary Philosophical Explorations, ed. by Dr. Robert Ginsberg, Henry Regnery Co., (Chicago,

1969), pp. 198-221.

“An Approach to Kant's Critiques,” Kant-Studien, 60-Jahrgang, Heft 2 (1969), pp. 135-146.

“Kant's Complex Problem of Reflective Judgment,” Review of Metaphysics, Vol. XXIII, No. 3 (1970),

pp. 452-480.

“Kant's Purposive Unity of Nature and Freedom,” in the Proceedings of the 1970 International Kant

Congress (Appeared in short form rather than full length).

“Institutional Facts and Brute Values,” Ethics, Vol. 81, No. 1 (1970), pp. 36-54.

“'Jonesese' and Substitutivity,” Analysis, Vol. 31, No. 3 (1971), pp. 96-103.
“Assertion and Evaluation in Searle’s Theory of Speech Acts,” Southwestern Journal of Philosophy, Vol.


II, No. 1 and 2 (1971), pp. 68-82.

“Kant’s Transcendental Deduction of Aesthetic Judgments,” The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism,

Vol. XXX, No. 4 (1972), pp. 459-475.

“Kant’s Enlightenment,” Studies on Voltaire and the Eighteenth Century, LXXXVIII (1972), pp.

577-598.

“The Speech Act Analysis of Words,” Southwestern Journal of Philosophy, Vol. III, No. 1 (1972), pp.

65-76.

“Modern Civilization and Scientific Knowledge,” Philosophy Forum, Vol. 12 (1973), pp. 273-299.

“Death as a Terminus Ad Quem” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, Vol. XXXIV, No. 2

(1973), pp. 270-277.

“Searle's Use of 'Ought',” Philosophical Studies, 24 (1973), pp. 183-191.

“On Anscombe’s Exposition of Hume,” Analysis, Vol. 35, No. 2 (1974), pp. 57-62.

“Kant and Alternative Frameworks and Possible Worlds,” Akten des 4, Internationalen Kant-Kongresses,

Teil 2 (1974), pp. 834-841.

“Kant's Epigenesis of Pure Reason,” Kant-Studien, 65 Jahrgang, Heft 3 (1974), pp. 259-273.

“The Purposive Unity of Kant's Critical Idealism,” Idealistic Studies, Vol. 5, No. 2 (1975), pp. 177-189.

“Speech Acts and Illocutionary Opacity,” Foundations of Language, Vol. 13, No. 2 (1975), pp. 237-249.

“What Kant Did Not Mean,” Southwestern Journal of Philosophy, Vol. VI, No. 1 (1975), pp. 105-113.

“Wellman’s Discussion of Recent Ethics,” Journal of Value Inquiry, Vol. IX, No. 2 (1975), pp. 128-135.

“Opacity, Inexistence and Intentionality,” Ratio, Vol. XVII, No. 2 (1975), pp. 237-246. Also published in

German translation as "Opazitat, Inexistenz und Intentionalitat, Ratio, Heft 2, 17. Band (1975).

“Can a Scientific Theory Legitimately Be Restricted on Ethical or Political Grounds?,” Southwestern

Journal of Philosophy, Vol. VII, No. 1 (1976), pp. 119-127.

“Speech Acts and Non-Extensionality,” The Review of Metaphysics, Vol. XXIX, No. 3 (1976), pp.

401-430.

“Linsky on Quine's 'Way Out',” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, Vol. XXXVII, No. 1

(1976), pp. 109-115.

“The Contemporary American Synthesis,” in Peter Caws (ed.), Two Centuries of Philosophy in America.

Oxford: B. Blackwell, 1980, pp. 215-27. Selected and Reprinted from Philosophy in the Life of a

Nation: Papers Contributed to the Bicentennial Symposium in Philosophy. New York: 1976, pp. 324-31

(with abstract).

“Kant’s Transcendental Deduction of the Moral Law,” Kant-Studien, 69 Jahrgang, Heft 3 (1978), pp.

299-313.

“Selected Bibliography: Kant’s Critique of Judgment,” Philosophy Research Archives, 5 No. 1327,

(1979).“Transcendental Form,” Southwestern Journal of Philosophy, Vol. XI, No. 1 (1980), pp. 25-34.


“Kant’s Notion of Transcendental Presupposition,” Philosophical Topics, 12, No. 2, (1982), pp. 99-126.

“The Justification of Fundamental Beliefs,” Southwest Philosophical Studies, Vol. VIII, No. 1, (1982),

pp. 131-142.

“The Metaphilosophical Turn in Contemporary Philosophy” Southwest Philosophical Studies, Vol. IX,

No. 2 (1983), pp. 1-22.

“Good Transcendental Arguments,” Kant-Studien, 75 Jahrgang, Heft 4 (1984), pp. 469-495.

“Radical Reorientation Revisited,” Southwest Philosophy Review, Vol. III, (1986), pp. 111-125.

“Ambiguities About Realism and Utterly Distinct Objects,” Erkenntniss 28 (1988), pp. 87-95.

“Fantastic Realisms and Global Skepticism,” The Philosophical Quarterly, Vol. 38, No. 151 (1988), pp.

205-13.

“Quine's Dilemma of Underdetermination,” Dialectica, Vol. 42 (1988), pp. 283-93.

“Aesthetic Justification and Systematic Unity in Kant's Third Critique,” Proceedings of the Sixth

International Kant-Congress, ed. G. Funke and Th. M. Seebohm, Center for Advanced Research in

Phenomenology (1989), pp. 293-309.

“Discovering Right and Wrong: A Realist Response to Gauthier’s Morals By Agreement,” Southern

Journal of Philosophy, Vol. XXIX, No. 1 (1990), pp. 21-49.

“Craig on Davidson: A Thumbnail Refutation,” Analysis, Vol. 51, #4 (1991).

“Kant's Notion of Transcendental Presupposition in the First Critique,” reprinted in Immanuel Kant:

Critical Assessments, Vol. II, ed. Ruth F. Chadwick, Routledge and Kegan Paul (London: 1992).

“Kant’s Complex Problem of Reflective Judgment,” reprinted in Immanuel Kant: Critical Assessments,

Vol. III, ed. Ruth F. Chadwick, Routledge and Kegan Paul (London: 1992).

“Responsibility Without Ontology,” Persona y Derecho, Vol. 28 (1993), pp. 71-83.

“Descartes: The Harbinger of Modern Times,” Forward to Jack Vrooman's Rene Descartes: A

Bibliography, The Easton press (1992).

“Objectivity Without Causality,” Southwest Philosophical Review, Vol.. 11, No. 2 (1997).

“On the Very Idea of Massive Truth,” in The Philosophy of Donald Davidson, The Library of living

Philosophers, Vol. xxvii, pp. 167-191 (1999).

“Public Manifestability and Langauge-Internalism,” Southwest Philosophy Review, Vol. 15, No. 1

(1999).

Introduction to the Easton Press edition of Immanuel Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason, approximately 20

pp. (forthcoming).

“How Wittgenstein Escapes the Slingshot,” Journal of Philosophical Research, Vol. XXVI, pp. 1-22

(2001).
Critical Review of Reading McDowell on Mind and World, ed. by Nicholas Smith, in Notre Dame


Philosophical Reviews, 2003.

“Externalism and Token-Identity,” The Southern Journal of Philosophy, Vol. LXV, pp. 223-49 (2007).

“Transcendentally Speaking,” Kant-Studien, 99, 13-29 (2008).

Forthcoming or In Progress

“Minimalist Existence,” under preparation.

“Thoughts on Two-dimensional Semantics,” under preparation.
 

Modern Philosophy 3-24

You should turn in a Rousseau question paper this Wednesday (the 24th). 
Thanks!

I have also made a decision on "Berg's choice" and will hand that paper out to you on Wednesday.

IOCC 201

IOCC 201 Very Important!


To be clear, if you fail the final (and only the final) you can not pass the class. If you fail any other exam you can still pass the class but must do the math for the final grade.

Revised Modern Reading List

Mar. 3 Hume
Mar. 5 Hume

Mar. 10 Spring Break No Class

Mar. 12 Spring Break No Class

Mar. 17 Reid

Mar. 19 Rousseau

Mar. 24 Rousseau

Mar. 26 Berg’s Choice

Mar. 31 EXAM II

Apl. 2 Good Friday No Class

Apl. 7 Kant

Apl. 9 Kant

Apl. 14 Kant

Apl. 16 No Class

Apl. 21 Kant

Apl. 23 Paper Presentations

Apl. 28. Paper Presentations

Final Exam is Comprehensive

IOCC 201

IOCC 201 Very Important!


To be clear, if you fail the final (and only the final) you can not pass the class. If you fail any other exam you can still pass the class but must do the math for the final grade.

IOCC 201 Very Important!

To be clear, if you fail the final (and only the final) you can not pass the class.  If you fail any other exam you can still pass the class but must do the math for the final grade.

The Syllabus has an error, my apologies.
Dr. Berg

Some help with Hume

On the Dialogue: There are three main characters in the dialogue –Philo, the skeptic, Cleanthes, the natural theologian, and Demea, the dogmatist. When you are reading the dialogue you should note carefully who teams up with who during the debate –the shifting alliances between the cast of characters is, I think, very telling about what Hume’s project is in this text. In the beginning, you will note, the skeptic and the dogmatist seem allied against the “natural theologian”. But this shifts during the course of the discussion. The key here is of course to watch the arguments and discover what the over-all point of this dialogue is.




Cleanthes: natural theologian—offers a posteriori arguments for God’s existence and nature. If Cleanthes is correct, it is possible to develop religion from a rational basis in our experience of the world. Note: this is not a personal or subjective experience of “faith” or whatever, but an experience of an objective or common world, and so it is an experience and reasoning that everyone can share.


Demea: dogmatist, or pure rationalist—offers a priori arguments for God’s existence (very much like Descartes’ arguments, though the particular argument Hume had in mind is offered by Liebniz and Clark). For Demea, we do not need to rely on experience to prove God’s existence and nature; in fact, such reliance undermines belief in God. Rather, we can prove God through the use of pure reason alone, and as a result, base religion in reason alone, and so avoid the potential pitfalls of experience.


Philo: skeptic—attacks all arguments offered to prove that God exists, whether a priori or a posteriori. Philo’s precise position may be difficult to ascertain. However, it seems clear that he believes that reasoning from experience permits some reasonable assertion of the existence of a Deity, but no reasonable basis for religion. This becomes clearer near the end, but is the subject of much debate.


Which one is Hume? Again, a matter of debate—indeed, whether it is even worthwhile asking the question.

Modern Philosophy Poster Board

Poster presentation should be approachable at three levels:

(1) a title and organization that inform the casual passerby of the general nature of your work;

(2) a presentation method that would let a somewhat interested observer know the trends of your argument and the nature of your conclusions;

(3) enough information to convince an individual working in the same area to stop and find out more about your project (i.e., engage in conversation with the presenter). Remember, the major role of a poster, or of any presentation, is to communicate your results and ideas to the audience.


1. The size of the poster must not be excessive. Reasonable, maximum dimensions are approximately 3 feet high and 4 feet wide.

2. The title should be displayed clearly across the top in large letters. Beneath the title, and in smaller print, should be the name of the presenter and the course in which the work was done.

3. Verbiage should be kept to a minimum. Written statements should be in large print, which is easily readable from a distance of 3 to 4 feet.

4. An abstract may be included, but space limitations may dictate that you concentrate on the more important components such as introduction, methods, sources, etc.

5. The Introduction should be moderately brief and to the point so that the reader becomes immediately aware of the purpose of the investigation. It probably should be confined to one paragraph, and should be located at the upper left of the poster.

6. The Materials and Methods (or argument(s)) section should be labeled clearly as such, and should follow immediately after the Introduction. This section often lends itself to the diagrammatic presentation with a minimum of verbiage. Insofar as possible, easily followed flow diagrams should be used.

7. Results are the most important part of the poster and generally should occupy the center of the exhibit. The results should consist of a maximum number of illustrations (i.e., graphs, photographs, etc.) that are simple and easy to read, and a minimum of verbiage. Color-coding graphs and figures facilitate ease of interpretation.

8. Conclusions should be stated in a clear and especially concise fashion. Generally, this section would be located to the right of the results. Itemization (listing) of conclusions is legitimate and can facilitate comprehension. Discussion should be kept to a minimum and should include only the most important points.

9. A reasonable number of figures included on a poster is six, but this depends on the subject matter being presented.

10. For investigations consisting of separate components, the sequence in which the components are described in Materials and Methods should be maintained in the Results and Conclusions section.
TIPS:

1. Try to create a well-balanced board.

2. Except for the TITLE and Subtitles keep font size consistent.

3. Start early so there is time to make alterations.

4. Don't go wild on having too many colors - be consistent and reasonable.

5. Fancy borders, weird colors, and neon colors are distracting.

DVD for Modern Philosophy

Being John Malkovich is now on reserve in the Library. 

IOCC 201 Lecture

The DVDs are on reserve in the Library!  (By the end of the day on the 18th).
Thanks
Dr. Berg

MODERN EXAM UPDATE

QUESTION #3, SECOND SENTENCE:  PLEASE REPLACE "SPINOZA" WITH "DESCARTES".
THANK YOU!

There is a folder marked "Philosophy 305" by my door.  Please put your exams in that folder if I am not in my office.
Thank you,
Dr. Berg

Modern Philosophy Paper Instructions

Although there are many literary ways to express philosophical ideas, I would like you to stick to writing a traditional "position" paper. This is the most basic, straightforward approach, which involves taking a stand on an important issue and defending it. As this is the most common means of defending ideas in an academic setting (and other settings as well), it should be mastered before you go on to write short stories, parables, dialogues, poems, etc.
What needs to be included in your essay?

• Your opening paragraph should explain the purpose and plan of your essay. What are you writing about and why?

• Included in your first paragraph should be a THESIS STATEMENT, a simple statement of your position on the main issue that your essay will discus.

1. An explanation of the views you are discussing:

• it is essential that your explanation of these views be clear, concise, fair, and accurate. The clarity of your explanation often reveals how well you have understood the view you are explaining.

• a good summary emphasizes the main points of another's view and the reasoning behind it (if this is known).

• Paraphrasing and quotation may be helpful here, but cannot be used as a substitute for explaining the ideas in your own words. All quotations must be thoroughly explained.

2. An explanation of your own view

• this may involve explaining any words which might be misunderstood.

• it may also involve a comparison of your view with those of others, especially concerning any different assumptions you make, different implications of your views, etc.

3. A defense of your position

• This is not just an explanation of why you believe what you believe, but provides good reasons for believing it.

• If your reasons would not convince your roommate, is that because your roommate is a blockhead or because your reasons are lousy ones? If your reasons are lousy, is this view really worth believing?

Should you do outside research?

• Sure, especially if you are going to also work in your major field of study.

• Any use of outside sources must be documented.

What documentation is required for quotations?

• All quotations from the texts should be followed by the page number(s) in parentheses.

• Quotations or references to other sources should include full bibliographical information (author, title, publisher, page #), preferably in a footnote or endnote.

• Plagiarism meets with little sympathy from me. If I catch you, expect to fail this class and be reported for administrative action. Plagiarism includes:

o making use of the ideas of others without credit--EVEN IF these ideas are explained in your own words

o paraphrasing by changing a few words in the original (which leads me to believe that you have not understood well enough to explain in your own words)
Length: 1750-2500 words, with my “common sense” rule as your guiding feature.

Topic: You may select any topic.

You must submit BOTH a hard copy of the paper and electronic version of your paper on the day that it is due. Late papers (w/o proper documentation) will be reduced by 10% for each day that it is late.

Due: The last day of class.

Grade value: 100 points

Feb 10 Modern Philosophy meets from 11:10-12:10.

Thanks!

No Modern Philosophy today Friday the 5th

Sorry folks, but we can not meet today.  It is not so much the weather as the fact that I must work on the accreditation preparation for the College.  Please read the email sent by Vice President Cayan yesterday and attend the open student meeting.   Philosophy and Religion majors I will be looking for you at the meeting and if you are not there expect to answer many questions on Leibniz.  Keep on track with the reading and I will finish Hobbes and keep moving, question papers are still due next week for both readings.

Dr. Berg