|
|
political
science 406 Aristotle: Nicomachean Ethics
Fall term –
2010-11
Tuesday evenings, 6-9 pm,
email: Don.Carmichael@ualberta.ca |
|
|
NB: First Class (Tues,
Sept 14th) This will be an
important session. A schedule of
topics and deadlines will be established, and students will be asked to
choose dates and topics for seminar papers. Anyone unable to attend this session should contact me
before the seminar to discuss possible assignments. Pol S 406 vs 404/515 Pol S 406 is intended for students who have done 210 but no other work on Aristotle. There is a second seminar (515) on Friday afternoons for students who have done some further work on Aristotle; this seminar will involve more advanced interpretation of selected passages in the Politics and the Ethics. Both
seminars are open to both graduate and undergraduate students. If you are an undergraduate student
with some background in Aristotle, the Friday seminar will probably be better
for you – in which case, contact me and I’ll have you placed in the Friday
seminar using the 406 number (you can’t do this yourself). Likewise, if you are a graduate
student with little background in Aristotle, you should probably do the
Tuesday seminar; here again, please contact me to be enrolled. 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 course will be
taught as an undergraduate-only seminar. A separate seminar (Pol S 515) will be conducted for
graduate and advanced students.
For this course however, only Pol S 210 is required: students are not
expected to have any further background in Aristotle or political theory
beyond this. 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. Pre-requisite: Pol
S 210 (or equivalent). Students are not expected to have any background in
political theory other than this.
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) Essay Requirements All essays should be terse, analytical, and "positional" -- arguing a definite thesis in relation to some aspect of the readings. 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 argue a specific and explicitly stated thesis ("In this essay I will argue that... "). Grades* Essays:
(3 @ equal weight)** 80% Commentary
10% contributions to the seminar*** 10% ‑‑‑‑‑ 100% * The reading digests ‑‑ which
must be submitted each week before the seminar ‑‑ will be graded only
as satisfactory/ unsatisfactory.
But they are a necessity and marks will be deducted from the final
grade for missing digests (note again that everyone gets two weeks off, at
dates of their own choosing). ** As noted above, one of the essays will be discussed in the
class as a seminar paper. Students will be asked to make copies of their
seminar papers available one or two days in advance, by some date/time and in
a format agreed by members of the class. It is an essential course requirement that seminar
papers be available by the agreed time -- failure to do so will result in an
automatic zero. *** Seminar contributions will
ordinarily be evaluated by the quality of oral contributions,
including questions. Alternative
forms of seminar contribution are possible, and students who are
uncomfortable with speaking in the seminar are invited to explore these with
me. xts Texts Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics (Ross
translation: Oxford University Press). All participants are asked to use this even if they already
have some other edition. Jonathan
Barnes, Aristotle: A Very Short Introduction Course pack: Supplementary Readings for Pol S
406 All readings are
required unless indicated as recommended. All readings other than Aristotle, Barnes and those listed
as “course pack” are available through the “Reading Directory” on the course
web page. Seminar papers to
be emailed to members of the class no later than midnight on the Sunday
before the class in which they will be discussed. Sept 14
– Introduction (2 hr working session) Aristotle, Nicomachean
Ethics, Book 1 (chs 1-2) copies will be distributed . Sept
21– The Nature of
Ethics: Happiness, Excellence & the Good Life Aristotle,
Nicomachean Ethics, Book 1. (Digest). Barnes: Aristotle, A Very
Short Introduction (chs 1-13) Pp 613-27 of John Wallach,
“Contemporary Aristotelianism”, Political Theory 20:4, 1992 Sept 28
– Virtue, Character, & The Mean Aristotle, Nicomachean
Ethics, Book 2 Everson, APsychology@ (course pack) Barnes:
Aristotle, A Very Short Introduction (finish) seminar paper:
Kiran Kang commentary:
Tyler Dawson Oct 5 - Responsibility /
The Virtues Aristotle,
Nicomachean Ethics, Books 3-4
(Digest Book 3 with a one paragraph summary of Book 4.) seminar paper:
Tyler Dawson commentary:
Claire Himsl Oct 12
– Justice Aristotle,
Nicomachean Ethics, Book 5. seminar paper:
Alyssa
Ilich commentary:
Andrew Gibson Oct 19
– Practical Wisdom
/ The Critique of Socrates [K Essay #1 due
Fri, Oct 22] Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, Books 6 and
7 (Digest both) David Bostock,
“Appendix: Note on the Practical Syllogism” (course pack) C.D.C. Reeve,
“Aristotle on the Virtues of Thought”
(course pack) seminar paper:
Kirsten Snell commentary:
Taylor
Hodgkinson Oct 26
– Friendship Aristotle,
Nicomachean Ethics, Books 8‑9
(Digest both) John Cooper, “Aristotle on the Forms of
Friendship”, The Review of Metaphysics 30:4 (1977). seminar paper:
Aisling Pollard-Kientzel commentary: Leonard Halladay Nov
2 – Happiness, Pleasure &
The Best Life Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics,
Book 7 (chs 11-14) and Book 10.
(Digest both) Annas, “Happiness
as Achievement”, Daedalus
(Spring 2004) Lyon, The
Golden Mean, 171-75 (distributed) seminar paper:
Leonard Halladay commentary: Kiran Kang Note: 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. Nov
9 – Overview of Aristotelean
Ethics: Character & Virtue Burnyeat, AAristotle on
Learning to be Good@ (course pack) Vasilou, “The Role of Good
Upbringing in Aristotle’s Ethics”, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research
56:4 1996 Vernezze,
“Moderation or the Middle Way”: Two Approaches to Anger”, Philosophy East and
West 58:1 (2008) Review: Nicomachean Ethics, Books 2-5 (Bk 1
will be reviewed later, with Bk 10.) seminar paper:
Claire Himsl commentary: Juliana Ho Nov 16
– Practical Wisdom & The
Virtues Nussbaum, AThe Discernment
of Perception@ (course pack) pp 292-98 of Annas, AAristotle on Pleasure and
Goodness@ (course pack) (beginning on p 292 at AFinally, I would like to
make a few comments Y@ pp
216-23 of Purshouse,
“Neoptolemus’s Soul”, British Journal for the History of Philosophy 14:2 2006
(ejournal) (nb: look up
‘Neoptolemus’ on Wikipedia)
Review: Nicomachean Ethics,
Books 6-7. (esp Book
6, chs 12-13) seminar paper: Taylor
Hodgkinson commentary: Kirsten Snell Nov 23 – Friendship
[K Essay #2 due
Fri, Nov 26] Sherman, “Aristotle on
Friendship and the Shared Life”,
Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 47:4 1987 Cooper, AFriendship and
the Good in Aristotle@, The
Philosophical Review 86:3 (1977), 290-315
Review: Nicomachean Ethics, Books 8-9. seminar paper:
Juliana Ho commentary:
Alyssa Ilich Nov 30 - Pleasure, Happiness and Contemplation Rorty, AThe Place of Contemplation
in Aristotle=s Nicomachean Ethics@, Mind 87 (1978), 343-358 Wilkes, AThe Good Man and the Good
for Man in Aristotle=s Ethics@, Mind 87 (1978), 553-571 Nagel, AAristotle
on Eudaimionia@,
Phronesis 17 (1972), 252-59 Review:
Nicomachean Ethics, Books
1, 6 (12-13), and10 (ch
6-8) seminar paper:
Andrew Gibson commentary: TBA Dec 7 -- The Best Life The readings (and topic) 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 Tessitore, “Aristotle’s Ambiguous Account of the
Best Life”, Polity 35:2 1992
seminar paper:
Chris Berger
commentary: Aisling Pollard-Kientzel Essay # 3 Due: Fri, Dec 17th Essay Topics If You=re Stuck These topics aren=t particularly
recommended. In fact, they aren=t very good B 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: Ayou 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. Take any one of the emotions
considered in the Rhetoric and
assess Aristotle’s understanding of its virtuous form in the Ethics. 3. “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 scholar. |
||
|
|
||
|
|