course outline

schedule: topics & readings

on line readings

essays and the commentary

essay topics if you’re stuck

Other Required Course Information

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

political science 404 - 515

 

Aristotle:   Nicomachean Ethics

 

Thursdays, 4-7 pm  --  Winter term (2012-13)
 

email:  Don.Carmichael@ualberta.ca

 

Office Hours: Wed, 3:30 -  5 pm and by appointment

 

 

 

 

 

 

Course Outline 

 

This course will be a seminar on Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics, with particular attention to the account of justice, human excellence, practical wisdom, and the importance of certain social goods (love, friendship, political participation) in human well‑being.  Aristotle's views on these topics will be contrasted with Plato's very different account in Republic.  But the focus will be on Aristotle's work and the issues it raises.

 

The seminar will have two stages.  In effect, we will work through Aristotle's account twice.  The first time, the focus will be on understanding what Aristotle means.  Having done this, we will work through his account again; this time, aided by some recent essays, the aim will be to assess Aristotle's account critically.  Students will be expected to participate in both aims.

 

The course will be conducted as a seminar.  Students will be expected to contribute actively in discussions and the seminar will be organized around the presentation of student papers. The seminar will be taught as a combined undergraduate (406) and graduate (515) course. Expectations for the two groups will be appropriately different.  Graduate students will be expected to do the same work, but better.

 

Two short papers (6-7 pp) will be required during the term, plus a somewhat longer paper (7-10 pp) at the end of the term.  One of the short papers will be distributed and discussed as a seminar paper in the class.  There will be considerable choice of topics for all three papers.  Students will also be expected (1) to open the discussion on one of the student seminar papers with a brief oral commentary and also (2) to prepare brief digests (1‑2 pp) of the readings each week as an aid to critical reading and mastery of the text.  These will be due each week before the class; (though everyone will get 2 weeks off of their own choosing)

 

In addition, I recommend that for the last class each student write a memo – for their eyes only -- on what they have learned from the seminar. 

 

 

Pre-requisite: Pol S 210 (or equivalent). Students are not expected to have any background in political theory other than this. 

 

Grades*          Essays: (3 @ equal weight)       80%

Contributions to the seminar     20% (including commentary, normally weighted at 10%)

 

Reading digests are required each week before the seminar, with two weeks off on dates of each student’s own choice. These digests will be graded only as satisfactory/ unsatisfactory but they are a strict necessity and marks (up to two letter grades) will be deducted from the final grade for missing digests.

 

The three essays will be given equal weight, but the instructor reserves the right to alter this weight (in the student’s favour) in particular cases, especially in order to take into consideration rate of improvement, risk-taking, etc.

 

Seminar contributions will be evaluated by the quality of oral contributions, including questions.  It is possible to contribute effectively to the quality of a seminar without speaking much, or even at all.  Students who are uncomfortable speaking in public are invited to discuss alternative forms of contribution with me.

 

Texts :  ordered through the bookstore

           Aristotle,   Nicomachean Ethics (Ross translation: Oxford University Press).   Other translations may be used But Only Iif they include Becker pagination.

           Jonathan Barnes,  Aristotle: A Very Short Introduction

           Aristotle: Ethics”: Supplementary Readings (coursepack)

 

Recommended Work:  This is not required but I recommend Annabel Lyons’ novel, The Golden Mean, on the relationship between Aristotle and the young Alexander.  It’s an interesting read and provides good background on ‘the times’ – as well as probing several of the themes that will be considered in the seminar. It is readily available in the library and at the on-line bookstores.

 

Essay Requirements

Essays should be terse, analytical, and "positional" -- arguing a definite thesis in relation to some aspect of the readings. Essays may be evaluative (assessing Aristotle’s view) or interpretive, but in either case they should be attentive to the text and appropriately balanced, with attention to what might be said against the paper’s position.  Students are encouraged to develop their own views in these essays -- eg, by contesting a specific claim made by Aristotle, or by arguing a rival thesis on the topic, or (in certain cases) by writing a critical response to a fellow student in the seminar. The only requirement is that the essay must argue a specific and explicitly stated thesis ("In this essay I will argue that... ").

Suggestions on how to write these essays, as well as possible topics will be issued separately.

Due Dates:  essays in paper copy (with 1.5” right and bottom margins) are due:

            Essay 1:  Fri,  Feb 8, in the general office     

            Essay 2:  Thurs Mar 21, in class 

            Essay 3:  Fri, April 12th in the general office

 

 

Objectives:

I hope that students through the seminar will develop a solid critical appreciation of  this great and wonderful work, and that through their reflections on it they will  hone their skills of critical thinking and effective writing.  But above all I hope that students will develop a sense of actually thinking along with Aristotle and through this also develop a sense of belonging to and participating in the wonderful tradition of political thought that has shaped our modern identity.

 

Preliminary Reading

As noted, students in this seminar are not expected to have any background in Aristotle or political theory apart from the perquisite course Pol S 210 (or equivalent).  Some general background will be provided in the readings for the first two weeks, especially in Barnes,  Aristotle: A Very Short Introduction.   For those who may want other good brief introductions, I suggest Ackrill (Aristotle The Philosopher) and Taylor (Aristotle).  Ross (Aristotle) is also recommended but a bit more difficult.  The Cambridge Companion (ed Barnes) is longer but excellent.  There are several copies of each work in the library. 

 

Policy on Late Assignments:

My hope on requested extensions is to be as accommodating as possible. But there are two cases where the work of the seminar requires strict adherence to deadlines: the first essay, and the paper presented for seminar discussion. My policy on lateness is:

(1)  Seminar papers which are not distributed in time (by the time agreed upon by the class) will be given a grade of ‘F’ and will not be discussed in the seminar 

(2)  the first essay must be submitted by the due date.

(3)   Work that is late in all other cases will not receive comments but normally will not otherwise be penalized. I must however reserve the right to assign grade penalties if the lateness creates problems of unfairness.

 

 

 

 

 

Topics and Readings

 

Jan 10     Introduction  (2 hr working session)

Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, Book 1 (chs 1-2). Copies will be distributed .

 

Jan 17     The Nature of Ethics: Happiness, Excellence & the Good Life 

Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, Book 1 and Book 2 (chs 1-3). (Digest).

            Barnes: Aristotle, A Very Short Introduction (chs 1-9)

                  Annas, “Happiness as Achievement”, Daedalus (Spring 2004).   (link)

           

Jan 24 –    Virtue, Character, & The Mean  

Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, Books 2 and 3 (Digest)

Taylor, Politics (course pack)

Barnes: Aristotle, A Very Short Introduction (chs 10-20)

seminar paper: Emerson Csorba                      commentary: Dongwoo Kim

 

Jan 31 -     The Virtues: Justice  

Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, Books 4 and 5 (Digest Book 5 with a one paragraph summary of Book 4.)

seminar paper: guest                                           commentary:  Michael Mendoza

 

Feb 7      Friendship    [Essay #1 due: Fri,  Feb 8]

Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, Books 8‑9  (Digest both)

John Cooper, “Aristotle on the Forms of Friendship”, The Review of Metaphysics 30:4 (1977).  (link)

seminar paper: Dongwoo Kim                            commentary:  Neekoo Collett

      

Feb 14   Intellectual Virtues: Practical vs Philosophic Wisdom    

Aristotle,  Nicomachean Ethics, Books 6 and 7, chs 1-10  (Digest both) 

David Bostock, “Appendix: Note on the Practical Syllogism”  (course pack)

Pp 613-27 of John Wallach, “Contemporary Aristotelianism”, Political Theory 20:4, 1992   (link)

seminar paper: Michael Mendoza & Kelta Coomber                          

commentary:    Brendan Curley  & Emerson Csorba 

                

Feb 21 -      Reading Week

 

Feb 28      The Best Life (1): Happiness, Pleasure & The Best Activities  

          Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, Book 7 (chs 11-14) and Book 10.  

          Digest: special assignment. Write 2 short digests on the accounts of pleasure in Books 7 (chs 11-14) and 10 (chs 1-5), looking for any differences between them; and then a 3rd short digest on Book 10 (chs 6-9)

Lyon, The Golden Mean, 171-75 (distributed)

seminar paper: Michael Doyle                            commentary:  Erica Woolf

 

Topics and readings for the remainder of the course are provisional and may be changed to take up issues of particular interest..  Please bring any interests to my attention.

 

Mar  7     Overview of Aristotelean Ethics: Character & Virtue  

            Burnyeat, “Aristotle on Learning to be Good” (course pack)

Vasilou, “The Role of Good Upbringing in Aristotle’s Ethics”, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 56:4 1996     (link)

Vernezze, “Moderation or the Middle Way”: Two Approaches to Anger”, Philosophy East and West 58:1 (2008)   (link)

Review:  Nicomachean Ethics, Books 2-5 (Bk 1 will be reviewed later, with Bk 10.)

                          seminar paper: Andrew Douglas                       commentary:  Jiannen Zhang

 

Mar 14 -    Practical Wisdom & The Virtues   

Nussbaum, “The Discernment of Perception” (course pack)

pp 292-98 of Annas, “Aristotle on Pleasure and Goodness” (course pack)  (beginning on p 292 at “Finally, I would like to make a few comments “   (link)

Wikipedia entry on “Neoptolemus

pp 216-23 of  Purshouse, “Neoptolemus’s Soul”, British Journal for the History of Philosophy 14:2 2006    (link)

     Review: Nicomachean Ethics, Books 6-7. (esp Book 6, chs 12-13)

Recommended (advanced): Heidegger, Plato’s Sophist, chs 1 and 3

seminar paper: Jiannen Zhang                            commentary:  Kelta Coomber

 

Mar  21  Friendship      [Essay #2 due]                     

Sherman, “Aristotle on Friendship and the Shared Life”,  Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 47:4 1987     (link)

Cooper, “Friendship and the Good in Aristotle”, The Philosophical Review 86:3 (1977), 290-315    (link)

Review: Nicomachean Ethics, Books 8-9.

seminar paper: Madeline Smith                           commentary:  Andrew Douglas

 

Mar 28    Pleasure, Happiness and Contemplation 

Rorty, “The Place of Contemplation in Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics”, Mind 87 (1978),  343-358    (link)

Wilkes, “The Good Man and the Good for Man in Aristotle’s Ethics”, Mind 87 (1978),  553-571   (link)

Nagel, “Aristotle on Eudaimionia”, Phronesis 17 (1972), 252-59    (link)

Review: Nicomachean Ethics, Books 1,  6 (12-13), and10 (ch 6-8) 

seminar paper: Erica Woolf                                commentary:   Sydney Mackie

 

Apr 4    The Best Life (2):  The 10.7 Argument and The Politics Account of ‘Leisure’ 

These readings will be revised

                 Aristotle, Selections from Politics:  Book 1, chs 1-2, 13   (link)

                 Aristotle, Politics:  Book 7, chs 1-3, 13-15   (link)

                       Carmichael, Translation-Commentary of Book 7 for Pol S 210   (link)

                 Aristotle, Book 8: chs 1-3, 5-6   (link)

                          Recommended: pp 1-23 (sections 1-6) of Lawrence, “Aristotle and The Ideal Life”, Philosophical Review 102:1  (1993) (link)

seminar paper: Sydney Mackie                           commentary:    Michael Doyle

                                                                                               

Apr 11  - The Best Life Today 

The topic and readings and for this session may be changed, depending on interests of students in the seminar.

pp 1-23 (sections 1-6) of Lawrence, “Aristotle and The Ideal Life”, Philosophical Review 102:1  (1993)   (link)

Gottlieb,  “The Tasks of Embodied Love”, Hypatia 17.3 (2002) 225-236   (link)

pp 79-84 (sections 1-3) of Pocklington, “Against Inflating Human Rights”, Windsor Yearbook of Access to Justice 2 (1982)   (link)

memo (for your eyes only) on what you have learned in the seminar

Recommended: Tessitore,  “Aristotle’s Ambiguous Account of the Best Life”, Polity 35:2  (1992), 197-215    (link)

seminar paper: Brendan Curley                       commentary:  Madeline Smith

 

Essay # 3 Due:  Friday, April 12th

 

 

 

 


 

 

 Information On Essays And The Seminar Commentary

 

THE COMMENTARY

The commentary should be written and brief; it will be judged on how well it opens up the paper for discussion.

 

1.                  begin by summarizing the thesis and argument (briefly)

 

2.                  set a generous tone by saying some nice things about the paper;

 

3.                  then indicate 1-2 themes/ideas for discussion and

 

4.                  start the discussion of the theme(s) in a way that will draw the class into the discussion. Several ways to do this.  Eg,

 

(i)                 by arguing against the paper’s account in favour of some different approach, or

(ii)               by indicating the importance and some additional things that might be said about the theme(s).

 

 

ESSAYS

Requirements:

Essays should focus on specific passages of the text  with a view either

(a)    to interpreting the passage with reference to its consistency in relation to other passages

or

(b)   to assessing the adequacy of the view asserted in the passage.

 

These are not short research essays, nor are they opinion pieces.  They are position papers: they are expected to have (and state) a position and to support it with reasons and with reference to the text.  Suggestions are included below on how to do this.

Citations are required for all claims about the text and the paper should contain a bibliography, even if just one work.

Format: if you want legible comments, please leave 1.5” free on the right and bottom margins.

 

Suggestions

My sense is that many students have not actually been trained in writing this kind of essay.  That can be a real problem because this is a different kind of essay and it requires that you think about it in its own way.  It’s especially a problem if you are already good at writing other kinds of essays – because if you try to write this essay as if it were a different kind of paper, you simply won’t do well.  This is not meant to frighten you. There is no big deal to writing this kind of essay – if anything, they are easier to write – but they have to be written in the appropriate way.  And this takes practice.

I would specifically urge you to beware of what students have described to me as “the three point formula” (that every essay should have three basic points).  The formula is just suicide in this kind of essay.  Your essay should have just ONE point. If the essay has more than one point, it will not be able to say much about any of them.  Since the value of the paper consists significantly in its analysis, this means that there won’t be much of value in the paper. 

(Students often think that covering a big topic, or making several points – like the so-called “three point essay” – will enable them to get the paper done by saying a little about several things.  But this is a recipe for disaster.  Papers that say a little about several things say … very little about anything.)

So, how do you come up with the (one) point of your paper?

Here again I would urge you not to do this too quickly.  Students sometimes grab a topic and then grab their position (“I’m against him”) and then write the paper.  Boring, boring, boring.  Everything in this kind of paper winds up being pretty obvious, because it doesn’t involve much thought.  And that’s because the paper has been written as if it were a research paper, without the need for research.  In the standard research paper (simplifying), you take the topic, read up as much as you can on it, and then write up what you’ve read (hoping that you can say something interesting about you’re read).  That’s exactly the wrong way to write a position paper. 

To illustrate, consider students in our 499 honours thesis seminar.  The non-political theory students are usually able to say fairly early what they are going to study, and how, and what they hope to do with it.  Whereas the political theory students often don’t know what they are doing until they are almost finished. 

So with a position paper, you should see your position (the one point) as the key to the paper, and as something that deserves as much time and attention as the whole rest of the paper.  This can sound scary, but there is really not much to it – and it’s FUN, dammit.

First, commit to spending as much time on developing your position as on the rest of the paper. 

How do you do this?  Here’s some tips.

Free write and scribble.  Without even thinking of a definite topic, just sit some place you like (I like the Sugarbowl, despite the noise) and scribble away. I think of this as mental throwing up: but something good always comes out of it. 

Be negative.  The best place to start is with things you don’t like – things in the theorist, and things in what others (in the seminar or in readings) have said.  Use this as the point of departure for your scribbling. 

Pay attention to the wayward thoughts – we have passing thoughts in the shower, waiting for the bus, etc – these are often the results of real reflection by the quiet mind.

Discuss and debate with a friend.  Get a discussion buddy from the seminar, buy them beer or coffee for an hour and ask them to disagree with everything you say.  Even better, ask them to listen carefully to what you say with a view to find the one or two things that might be holes in your position. (see below).

Second, don’t be afraid of problems.  Seek them out and turn them to your advantage. 

Is there a problem with your position?  Good – because there should be.  If there are no problems with your position, then it will be obvious … and not worth writing about.

So if you have doubts or reservations about your position – that’s excellent.  You are not expected to argue a position that is obviously true. What you want is a position that – on reflection and consideration of alternatives – has more support than the alternatives.  So your doubts and reservations can be brought into the paper – either as issues for consideration or (in a footnote) as an issue or further analysis.

In fact the real depth in your paper will come out of the paper’s even-handedness: the way it advances your position, not as 100% correct, but instead as a position that, on balance, is better than the others.

As a small example, I mentioned above (under “Be negative”) that there may be things in the theorist that you don’t like.  So at some point in scribbling about this you might consider whether the theorist is really saying this –or, better, whether this is the only way to interpret the passage(s).  Maybe there are other ways to read the passage(s) such that the problem doesn’t arise. 

Third, write, write, write. And then revise.

When we go through this process, we often wind up with a position that’s different from the one we started with, or thought we held.  This process is sometimes called … “thinking” or even.. .. “learning”.

On this account, think of writing the paper 3 times.  (it’s really three “stages”).  The first stage, is the fumbling around, scribbling, talking.  Through this, things (usually a couple of things) will emerge that you care about. This is the beginning of your position.  Now at the second stage, assemble them into a position.  Pay attention to what you want to treat as basic (your thesis) and what instead supports it (reasons).  So assemble them into an argument, pay ome attention to what can be said against it, and to the text.  Try then to say all of this as clearly as you can.  Then stage 3: revise and polish. 

Finally, in case it helps, here’s the kind of essay I enjoy reading. It’s an essay that tries to persuade me

that a specific passage or conception is better read one way instead of others or

that a particular interpretation is mistaken (ie less plausible than another), or

that a particular conception in the text is inadequate in some interesting way, or

that a particular criticism of a conception is mistaken.. 

 

 

 

ESSAY TOPICS IF YOU’RE STUCK

 

 

These topics aren’t particularly recommended. In fact, they aren’t very good (any topic you make up will be better than any of these).  But if you’re stuck for a topic, these might help you get going ....

 

                                                                 

The Nature of Ethics: Happiness, Excellence & the Good Life 

 

1.  Aristotle claims: “you cannot quite regard a man as happy if he is very ugly to look at or of humble origin ...”?

 

2.  Is Aristotle right that good persons will be happy -- no matter what tragedy befalls them or those for whom they care?  (Imagine a parent whose child is killed ... if the parent was unhappy would this indicate that something was wrong with him/her or that s/he was not a good person)?

 

 

Virtue, Character, & the Mean

 

1.  Test what Aristotle says about responsibility by considering a case of death resulting from drunk driving: what degree of punishment (blame) would he consider appropriate, and would he be right?

 

2.  In the case of domestic violence (or a death resulting from drunk driving), what should be the main concern of the judicial system in determining guilt and punishment: the act, the effects of the act, or the intent and mental state of the individual doing it?

 

 

The Virtues 

 

1.  Do you agree with Aristotle’s list of the virtues?  For example, why isn’t compassion (or empathy or sensitivity) on the list?   Does he understand courage the right way?

 

2.  “The idea of magnificence as a virtue means that an individual can be a better person and have a better life if they are wealthy than if they are poor”.  Discuss

 

 

Practical Wisdom / Weakness of the Will

 

1.  Which is worse: cowardice, or a violent temper?

 

2.  Neoptolemus told a lie in order to bring the Trojan war to an end.  Surely his lie was justified by the good consequences it brought about.  But Aristotle suggests (twice) that it was wrong.   Why?

 

 

Friendship

 

In Plato's Republic Polemarchos defines "justice" as "giving benefits to friends and harms to enemies".  Many philosophers today reject this view on the grounds that one should never consider whether another person is a friend or enemy in deciding how to treat them.  But wouldn't Aristotle say that the best person does exactly this, and isn't he right?

 

 

Happiness, Pleasure & the Best Life

 

Who has the best (or happiest) life: the person who is (a) morally good, (b) actively involved in the community, or (c) a serious thinker.

 



 

Other Required Course Information

 

Course Prerequisite: Pol S 210 or consent of department

 

Past or Representative Evaluative Course Material

 A sample digest and a sample essay introduction will be distributed in the class

 

Required Notes:

“Policy about course outlines can be found in Section 23.4(2) of the University Calendar.”

 

Academic Integrity

“The University of Alberta is committed to the highest standards of academic integrity and honesty. Students are expected to be familiar with these standards regarding academic honesty and to uphold the policies of the University in this respect. Students are particularly urged to familiarize themselves with the provisions of the Code of Student Behaviour (online at http://www.governance.ualberta.ca/en/CodesofConductandResidenceCommunityStandards/CodeofStudentBehaviour.aspx ) and avoid any behaviour that could potentially result in suspicions of cheating, plagiarism, misrepresentation of facts and/or participation in an offence. Academic dishonesty is a serious offence and can result in suspension or expulsion from the University.” 

 

Learning and working environment

The Faculty of Arts is committed to ensuring that all students, faculty and staff are able to work and study in an environment that is safe and free from discrimination and harassment. It does not tolerate behaviour that undermines that environment. The department urges anyone who feels that this policy is being violated to:

• Discuss the matter with the person whose behaviour is causing concern; or

• If that discussion is unsatisfactory, or there is concern that direct discussion is inappropriate or threatening, discuss it with the Chair of the Department.

For additional advice or assistance regarding this policy you may contact the student ombudservice: (http://www.ombudservice.ualberta.ca/ ). Information about the University of Alberta Discrimination and Harassment Policy and Procedures can be found in the GFC Policy Manual, section 44 available at http://gfcpolicymanual.ualberta.ca/ .

 

Plagiarism and Cheating:

All students should consult the “Truth-In-Education” handbook or Website ( http://www.uofaweb.ualberta.ca/TIE/ ) regarding the definitions of plagiarism and its consequences when detected.Students involved in language courses and translation courses should be aware that on-line “translation engines” produce very dubious and unreliable “translations.” Students in language courses should be aware that, while seeking the advice of native or expert speakers is often helpful, excessive editorial and creative help in assignments is considered a form of “cheating” that violates the code of student conduct with dire consequences. An instructor or coordinator who is convinced that a student has handed in work that he or she could not possibly reproduce without outside assistance is obliged, out of consideration of fairness to other students, to report the case to the Associate Dean of the Faculty. Before unpleasantness occurs consult http://www.uofaweb.ualberta.ca/TIE/; also discuss this matter with any tutor(s) and with your instructor.

 

Recording of Lectures:

Audio or video recording of lectures, labs, seminars or any other teaching environment by students is allowed only with the prior written consent of the instructor or as a part of an approved accommodation plan. Recorded material is to be used solely for personal study, and is not to be used or distributed for any other purpose without prior written consent from the instructor.

 

Attendance, Absences, and Missed Grade Components:

Regular attendance is essential for optimal performance in any course. In cases of potentially excusable absences due to illness or domestic affliction, notify your instructor by e-mail within two days. Regarding absences that may be excusable and procedures for addressing course components missed as a result, consult sections 23.3(1) and 23.5.6 of the University Calendar. Be aware that unexcused absences will result in partial or total loss of the grade for the “attendance and participation” component(s) of a course, as well as for any assignments that are not handed-in or completed as a result.

 

Policy for Late Assignments:

My policy on extensions is to be as accommodating as possible.  My policy on lateness is different:
(1) Seminar papers which are not distributed in time (by the time agreed upon by the class) will be given a grade of ‘F’ and will not be discussed in the seminar 

(2) Work that is late in all other cases will not receive comments but normally will not otherwise be penalized. I must however reserve the right to assign grade penalties if the lateness creates unfairness for others.

 

 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------