Friday, March 26, 2010

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

Sunday, March 21, 2010

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.

Friday, March 5, 2010

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.

Thursday, March 4, 2010

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

Wednesday, March 3, 2010

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.