|
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 |
|
|
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. 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.. 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: (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. |
|||
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|