Course syllabus
PHILOSOPHY 209: 19th Century European Philosophy
General Information
2019 Lecture Schedule
Two-Hour Lecture: Mondays, 3pm-5pm (Humanities Building, Rm 201)
Plus One-Hour Tutorial: Tuesdays, 11am-12pm (Human Sciences - East - Room 306)
[The 1-hr tutorial session begins in the second week]
Immanuel Kant 1724-1804
G. W. F. Hegel 1770-1831
Karl Marx 1818-1883
Søren Kierkegaard 1813-1855
Arthur Schopenhauer 1788-1860
Friedrich Nietzsche 1844-1900
|
Well-being always comes first We all go through tough times during the semester, or see our friends struggling. There is lots of help out there - for more information, look at this Canvas page, which has links to various support services in the University and the wider community. |
Part One: Kant, Hegel, and Marx
-
Mon. Mar. 4, 3:00pm-5:00pm (1st meeting)
Topic: Administrative Details for Class; Overview of 19th Century Philosophy -
Mon. Mar. 11, 3pm-5pm (2nd meeting)
Topic: Background: Continental Rationalism and British Empiricism
Readings: Critique of Pure Reason - Prefaces to First and Second Edition, pp. 7-37 -
Mon. Mar. 18, 3pm-5pm (3rd meeting)
Topic: Immanuel Kant: Kant's Answer to Hume; The Category of Causality
Readings: Critique of Pure Reason - Sections on Space and Time, pp. 65-91 -
Mon, Mar. 25, 3pm-5pm (4th meeting)
Topic: Immanuel Kant: Space, Time, and the Inaccessibility of Absolute Truth
Readings: Critique of Pure Reason - Sections on Space and Time, pp. 65-91
-
Mon. Apr. 1, 3pm-5pm (5th meeting)
Topic: G. W. F. Hegel's System of Philosophy; The World as a Rational Process
Readings: Preface and Introduction to the Phenomenology of Spirit, pp. 1- 45; 46-57 -
Mon. Apr. 8, 3pm-5pm (6th meeting)
Topic: Karl Marx: History, Materialism, Capitalism, and the Communist Ideal
Readings: Theses on Feuerbach; The German Ideology, Pt I, pp. 143-145; 146-200
........................................................................................................Mid-Semester Break: Monday, April 15 - Saturday, April 27, 2019
........................................................................................................
Part Two: Kierkegaard, Schopenhauer and Nietzsche -
Mon. Apr. 29, 3pm-5pm (7th meeting)
Topic: Søren Kierkegaard: Truth as Subjectivity; The Experience of Freedom
Readings: Concluding Unscientific Postscript, "Truth as Subjectivity"
-
Mon. May 6, 3pm-5pm (8th meeting)
Topic: Arthur Schopenhauer: The World as "Will"; Life as Suffering
Readings: The World as Will and Representation, Book II -
Mon. May 13, 3pm-5pm (9th meeting)
Topic: Arthur Schopenhauer: The Search for Peace: Beauty, Asceticism and Enlightenment
Readings: The World as Will and Representation, Book IV -
Mon. May 20, 3pm-5pm (10th meeting)
Topic: Friedrich Nietzsche: The Death of God, Nihilism, and the Will to Power
Readings: Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Prologue and Book I
-
Mon. May 27, 3pm-5pm (11th meeting)
Topic: Friedrich Nietzsche: The Superhuman and Eternal Recurrence
Readings: Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Books II and III -
Mon. June 3 - No Class - Queen's Birthday
FRIDAY, June 7, 2019, 3:00 pm: ALL COURSEWORK ESSAYS DUE
…………………………………………………………….
Administrative Information:
Lecturer: Assoc. Prof. Robert Wicks
Office Hours: Mondays, 12:00pm-2:00pm, and by appointment
Office Location: Humanities Building, Level 4, Room 439
Office Telephone: 373-7599, ext 88449
e-mail: r.wicks@auckland.ac.nz
Class Rep: Aidan Starke
asta224@aucklanduni.ac.nz
Assessment: Exam 60%; Coursework 40%
The final mark for the course will be determined by the results of a 3-hour examination worth 60% and one 2,000-word essay worth 40%. There is no plussage.
Coursework:
One required 2,000-word essay focussed on one (or more) of the philosophers studied in the course: Kant, Hegel, Marx, Kierkegaard, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche
Coursework Essay Due Date: FRIDAY, June 7th, 2019, by 3:00pm
Submission: Please submit the coursework essay in hard copy to the Arts Assignment Centre (HSB Building) (no e-mail submissions) and an electronic copy to Canvas
Cover sheets - signature required: It is important to sign the cover sheets when submitting the hard copy of the essay. Please include the essay’s precise word-count on the cover sheet. The cover sheets are available through the Canvas course website.
For the coursework essay assignment, you may choose between two options:
1. Writing an essay on a topic of your own choosing, focussing on one or more of the philosophers discussed in the course
2. Writing an essay on one of the assigned topics (see "Files")
Structure of Final Examination
The final examination will last three hours and will have two sections: (1) Questions on Kant, Hegel, and Marx, (2) Questions on Kierkegaard, Schopenhauer and Nietzsche. There will be a choice of questions in each part. You will be required to answer three questions in total: one exam question from Section One, one exam question from Section Two, and one exam question from either Section (i.e., it can be chosen from any of the remaining questions on the exam). Questions may include comparisons/contrasts between the philosophers discussed in the course.
The final exam will have the following directives:
– When answering the exam questions, you may use material from your coursework essays on the condition that the essay contents are not used to answer an exam question(s) in its entirety. Every exam question answered should, in a significant and obvious way, have content that is not to be found substantially in your coursework essay.
– The phrase “critically discuss” appears on every question below. This phrase means that in addition to describing the philosophical position under consideration, you must also consider whether or not it makes good sense, and include these reflections in your answer.
– Please try not to duplicate, in any substantial way, material from one exam question in your answer on another question.
Grading Scale:
|
Grade |
|
Percentage |
|
A+ |
|
90-100 |
|
A |
|
85-89 |
|
A- |
|
80-84 |
|
B+ |
|
75-79 |
|
B |
|
70-74 |
|
B- |
|
65-69 |
|
C+ |
|
60-64 |
|
C |
|
55-59 |
|
C- |
|
50-54 |
|
D+ |
|
45-49 |
|
D |
|
40-44 |
|
D- |
|
0-39 |
Prescribed Texts:
The texts relevant to Kant, Hegel, Marx, and Kierkegaard will be provided electronically.
The texts relevant to Schopenhauer and Nietzsche are as follows, and can be purchased.
Online versions of these texts are also available.
(1) Arthur Schopenhauer. The World as Will and Representation, Volume One (Dover), trans. E.F. Payne [other translations are ok]
BEFORE PURCHASING A HARD COPY:
Two translations of this text are available online:
Payne translation: https://digitalseance.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/32288747-schopenhauer-the-world-as-will-and-representation-v1.pdf
Haldane and Kemp translation: http://www.archive.org/details/theworldaswillan01schouoft
(2) Friedrich Nietzsche. Thus Spoke Zarathustra (preferably in either the Walter Kaufmann or R.J. Hollingdale translations, but others are ok)
BEFORE PURCHASING A HARD COPY:
A translation of this text is available online:
http://users.telenet.be/sterf/texts/phil/Nietzsche-ThusSpokeZarathustra.pdf
(Thomas Common translation)
Audio book version at: http://www.archive.org/details/zarathustra_0809_librivox
Recommended Texts:
Robert Wicks, Nietzsche (Oneworld, 2002) [main library, electronic resource]
Robert Wicks, Schopenhauer (Blackwell, 2008) [on short-loan]
Robert Wicks, Schopenhauer’s The World as Will and Representation – A
Reader’s Guide (Continuum, 2011) [on short-loan]
On Internet:
Robert Wicks, “Arthur Schopenhauer”
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/schopenhauer/
Robert Wicks, “Nietzsche’s Life and Works”
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nietzsche-life-works/
COURSEWORK ESSAY GUIDELINES
Coursework Essay Lengths and Due Date
LENGTH: 2,000 words (longer essays are acceptable)
DUE DATE: Friday, June 7th, 2019 by 3:00 p.m.
Early Essay Submission: Please feel to submit your coursework essay at any time before the due date, if you would like to receive your coursework mark at a correspondingly earlier date.
TOPIC: The essay topic can be of one’s own choosing, with the lecturer’s (necessary) approval, or alternatively, it can be a topic chosen from the list of essay topics to be distributed.
ESSAY SUBMISSION PROCEDURE: (Hard Copy to Arts Assignment Centre plus Canvas upload)
It is required to submit essays via CANVAS. (This checks for plagiarism and unacknowledged copying.) In addition, please submit your essay in hard copy to Arts Assignment Centre. Be sure to use and to sign the cover sheets (available on the Canvas course website) when handing in the essay.
Please note that there are no e-mail submissions to the instructors.
LATE PENALTIES for Coursework Essays:
The coursework essay is due on Friday, June 7th, by 3pm.
If the essay is submitted after Friday, June 7th without an extension having been granted exclusively by the course supervisor (R. Wicks), then the essay mark will be reduced as follows:
Late penalties:
(1) Minus one mark (e.g., A to A-):
For essays submitted less than one week late
(2) Minus two marks (e.g., A to B+):
For essays submitted one week late but less than two weeks late
(3) Minus three marks (e.g., A to B):
For essays submitted two weeks late (i.e., on June 21st)
(4) No credit (i.e., 0):
For essays submitted after two weeks late (i.e., after June 21st)
The last day to submit an essay is on Friday, June 21st, after which time the coursework mark will be zero. E-mail submissions of coursework are not acceptable. Weekend submissions are not possible, since the Arts Assignment Centre is not open then.
Extensions:
If an extension is granted for the submission of coursework, then the extension is valid only up until the day granted.
If the coursework essay is submitted after the agreed upon extension date and the extension agreement is thereby broken, then the extension becomes invalid and ordinary penalties apply as if no extension had been granted
Coursework Essay Structuring Guidelines
1. Introduction:
Begin with an introductory paragraph(s) that briefly establishes the overall historical and/or intellectual context of your topic. The aim would be to stimulate the reader's interest in the topic, and to provide the reader with some relevant background information. Near the end of this introductory paragraph(s), it should be said specifically what the essay intends to accomplish. (For some topics, it might be necessary to wait until the essay is completed, to determine what should be written specifically at the end of the introductory segment.)
2. Exposition:
Continue with an exposition of the argument(s) under consideration. This is a predominantly descriptive section, where one spells out the argument(s) in precise detail. It is probably best to formulate the argument(s) in its strongest and most convincing form. Casting doubt (using reason and argument, of course, rather than rhetorical appeals to emotion or authority) upon a position that is presented accurately, sympathetically and fairly, helps render one’s essay more convincing.
3. Analysis of the argument(s)/position(s) as given by ONE (or more) commentators:
For this important section of the paper, it is necessary to use the library’s resources. Go to either the section that contains the books on Kant, Hegel, Marx, Kierkegaard, Schopenhauer and Nietzsche, and/or go to the Philosopher’s Index (use the “Databases” link on the Main Library’s webpage at https://www.library.auckland.ac.nz/databases/ and click on “P” that will lead to “Philosopher’s Index”), and find at least one article and/or section in a book on the subject that addresses the argument upon which you are focusing. This should be easy to find, but if you encounter any difficulties, please let me know.
WITH THE EXCEPTION OF ACADEMIC JOURNALS THAT ARE ONLINE (which are ok), PLEASE DO NOT USE ANY INFORMAL INTERNET SOURCES (e.g., personal webpages) AS THE REQUIRED REFERENCE/COMMENTATOR. Informal internet sources may be used as a second, or third source, if desired. This restriction stated here because -- at least at the present time -- the general quality of the Internet sources, aside from academic journals, is not as high as the regularly published articles and books, even though there are some useful Internet sources.
Please read the relevant sections in this secondary source (checking the indexes and the tables of contents of the books is useful to find the relevant sections) and then describe in your essay the alternative way the commentator has understood the argument under consideration (or how the commentator has offered and alternative criticism of the argument, if the exposition of the argument is not controversial).
4. Critical Discussion and Evaluation of the Commentator's Analysis
In this section you will discuss your own critical reactions to the commentator's analysis of the argument under consideration, along with your own critical reactions to the argument. To what extend do you agree with the commentator? To what extent do you disagree? Why? Was there anything that you noticed about the argument under consideration that you feel the commentator overlooked? In sum, this is the part of your essay where you offer your own reflections on the topic.
This is where one could point out, for example:
-- Logical inconsistencies in the argument
-- Counterexamples that show certain statements within the argument to be false or doubtful
-- Ambiguities or vagueness in the terms used in the argument
-- Alternative construals which cast doubt upon the argument's conclusion (e.g., when the argument was formulated, there were certain prevailing cultural assumptions that are now questionable in retrospect)
-- Any other critical considerations which reveal the limits of the argument (e.g., certain facts of human psychology or sociology might contradict what the argument is presupposing)
One can also discuss some of the virtues of the argument(s), such as the reasons why it appears to be persuasive (even though, upon examination, it is not as reasonable as it initially looks).
The main idea in this essential section is to develop your own critical, carefully considered reaction to the argument's strengths and weaknesses, in your own view and in the views of the ).
Coursework Essay Questions:
OPTION ONE:
Special Topic Essays – If one of the topics you would like to write about is not on the list to be distributed, then you can formulate your own topic as the subject of your essay. It is necessary to confirm this topic with the Lecturer (R. Wicks).
To establish the parameters of this essay, please schedule an appointment to speak with me [Assoc. Prof. Wicks] during my office hours or during another time (ext. 88449), if my office hours (see above) are inconvenient.
If might be useful to do some research in the library before speaking with me, and have a few essay alternatives semi-formulated before we speak, but it is fine if you do not go to the library before talking to me about your essay topic.
OPTION TWO:
Assigned Essay Topics/Questions (to be distributed)
Note: Some of the assigned essay questions may be very similar to ones that will appear on the final exam. Please choose your coursework essay question knowing that the exam will not allow substantial duplication from the essay assignment onto the exam. If a question very similar to your coursework essay appears on the final exam, the best course of action will be to write on a different question.
Writing Guide - Common Pitfalls in Essay Composition:
Lack of Critical Discussion. Providing a purely expository account of a certain position or argument, without offering any critical discussion, is only the first step. If one were to end the essay here, then there would be a possibly excellent exposition of a philosophical position, but with one flaw: one would have left out the essential evaluative question of why anyone should or should not accept the view. Since the aim of the essay, ultimately, is to determine whether or not the view under consideration is seriously believable on rational grounds, a significant portion of the essay (at least 25%-30%) should be evaluative, critical discussion.
Dogmatism. One can disagree strongly with some position or argument, but to assert simply an opposing view without offering any substantial supporting reasons can undermine one’s philosophical credibility and weaken one’s essay dramatically. This situation can easily arise when one believes that the opposing view is so obvious or self-evident, that there is no need to defend one’s assertion. (i.e., It once might have been common to assert: “It is obvious to any clearly-thinking person that the earth is flat, that the sun revolves around the earth, and that the earth stands still.”) Given situations like this, where what appears to be obvious and true turns out to be false, it is essential to explain carefully, as clearly as one can, why one disagrees with some position or argument, even though the position might seem to be obviously implausible and incredible. Many well-argued philosophical views run contrary to “common sense,” often because many “common sense” views are inconsistent, so it is important to attend to the reasons that support one’s particular viewpoint.
It is probably worthwhile to check periodically within one’s writing, to see whether emotional and rhetorical expressions are tending to prevail over reasonable and logical ones. When this occurs, there is a chance that a properly coherent line of reasoning is absent, since the presence of strong emotions can lead a person to jump to conclusions or argue inconsistently.
Disorganization or Lack of Focus. This arises when the various segments of the essay do not yield a clear and specific conclusion or position. Often the essay moves from one point to another, without integrating the individual points or observations towards a logical end. Sometimes this happens because the writer is not sure which side of the issue is the more reasonable one.
To remain organized and focused in one’s essay, however, it is not always necessary to defend some particular view as opposed to another, as if one were engaged in a courtroom debate, committed to defending one’s client. It is also possible to achieve clarity by setting out the opposing views, the specific reasons in support of each view, and to conclude reasonably that although neither view is fully convincing, both views are plausible for different reasons.
Most philosophical questions are complicated and multidimensional, and sometimes the best one can do is set forth the complexities of the situation without arriving at some definitive, final answer. A rationally-balanced and insightful perspective does not always yield an “end-of-discussion” philosophical solution. Many philosophical issues have been under discussion for thousands of years, so the debate is most likely going to remain open.
Excessive use of Jargon. Some philosophers – as do Kant and Hegel – create their own vocabulary, or use familiar words in an unfamiliar or strange way. This is often because they are struggling to express an alternative view of the world that conflicts with our ordinary ways of understanding things. Although such non-standard language may sometimes be unavoidable within a philosophical discussion, it is often possible to express the views under consideration without too much reliance upon technical vocabulary. Whenever possible, it is advisable to formulate the arguments and views at hand in language which is straightforward, unambiguous, precise and familiar.
Bibliography and Endnotes/Footnotes: (these reference styles vary; whichever one you decide to use, please use it consistently and precisely
A typical bibliography entry: [author's last name goes first]
Kant, Immanuel. Critique of Judgment, trans. J. H. Bernard. New York: Hafner Press, 1951.
A typical endnote/footnote entry: [author's first name goes first; publisher goes in parentheses; articles go in quotation marks, followed by the book in which the article is contained]
Immanuel Kant. Critique of Judgment, trans. J. H. Bernard. (New York: Hafner Press, 1951), p. 23.
INTERNET BIBLIOGRAPHIC ENTRIES: These MUST contain the FULL Internet address, and not a partial address. The address cited must allow the reader to locate the web entry in question directly, quickly, without any misdirection, and without the need of any extended search of the website in question.
Suggestion: Computer screens can be deceiving. Proofreading of your essays is best done on the hard copy, and not on the computer screen alone. What looks good and reads well on the computer screen does not usually look as good or read as well in non-electronic reality. Since your essays will be evaluated in the printed version, and not in the electronic version, it is a good idea to work primarily with the hard copy during the final stages of composition.
Suggestion: S T A R T E A R L Y in your essay-writing, so that there is time to rewrite, reformulate, and render more precise the original draft.
…………………
…………………
Please Note: What now follows refers to some of the conditions when a person can receive a zero for a coursework essay, and be very likely to fail the course as a consequence. (This does not happen often, but it can happen.)
(1) On essay topics not approved:
Essays submitted on non-pre-assigned topics that have not been explicitly approved by the Lecturer (R. Wicks) will not be accepted. Essays of this kind will receive a zero. This is to avoid plagiarism situations, mainly.
(2) On plagiarism:
Provably plagiarized essays will receive at least a zero, and if the case is demonstrably outrageous, the plagiarizer is likely to be called to answer officially to charges of academic misconduct.
From the university’s administrative standpoint, plagiarism constitutes an examination violation (i.e., it is equal to being caught cheating on an exam) and the clear cases are referred to the Senate to determine whether the complaint should be investigated further. If the Senate determines that an investigation is warranted, then the student will be referred to the Discipline Committee.
Course summary:
| Date | Details | Due |
|---|---|---|