[lit-ideas] Re: _Philosophy 4_
- From: Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2007 13:07:05 EST
Walter O: [in media res] "full of contradictions, full of
self-contradictions."
Geary [in thoughts]: "He thinks I suck"
Walter O: ... and full of fallacies.
Geary: There's PHILOSOPHY 4U -- to prove I don't suck!
Walter O (dismissing the effort): Is that some kind of a test? It doesn't
look _Philosophy_ from the hill.
---------------- However, it was a paper, and it's online at
_http://www.fullbooks.com/Philosophy-4-A-Story-of-Harvard-University.html_
(http://www.fullbooks.com/Philosophy-4-A-Story-of-Harvard-University.html)
and
_http://www.bookstexts.com/philosophy_4.html_
(http://www.bookstexts.com/philosophy_4.html) .
--- and I have said already, possibly one of the few instances when a
complete test made it to the 'beaux lettres', to called. I would think that the
author (Wister) had a specific brand of philosopher in mind ('neo-Hegelians?',
this was 1883, Harvard). But on the other hand, "Philosophy 4" being an
elective, does not seem like your regular course for the 'serious student of
philosophy' as Grice describes himself.
Below are the questions again, with Geary's replies -- and some further
comments from me. If any of you have some time to go over the questioning and
we
can elaborate a bit on it, it would be a good thing.
Testing in philosophy can be a difficult matter -- as Socrates was well
aware. He never wrote, he never corrected, he never _graded_ -- he never made a
_living_ out of philosophy, just a _life_.
In the case of _Philosophy 4_, it being 10 questions, I would assume it
would be 10 points each. Recall Billy Rogers got a 86, Bertie Schuyler a 82,
and
Oscar Moriani a 75.
So I would assume the professor Woodfield would have _expected answers_ with
specific mention of specific concepts to grade the thing. The 'open
questions' (Discuss, etc.) should possibly be graded differently. In any case a
model-resolution of the test should be in the Professor (or the Department)'s
mind.
This discussion started when Donal McEvoy laughed aloud at how stupid Oxford
philosophers are when it comes to testing _him_. Can a prince turn into a
frog? Can you imagine 2 + 2 = my mother?
This was a "Philosophy of Mind" course, and by 'mother' the
philosopher-of-mind's mother was meant, not mine.
Cheers,
JL
Buenos Aires, Argentina
Department for the Promotion of the Devaluation of the Evaluation of
Official Testing in the
Admission Programme for Mutton College.
--------
------------- FINALLY THE TEST PAPER, with further comments. Feel free to
spread it and have it filled, so we can share results. It may seem silly to
try to correct Geary's answers, but I'm raising a few points that may lead us
to who Owen Wister may have been criticising. I suppose it would be fairly easy
to find what the test for the PHILOSOPHY 4 course would be. It would seem to
me that philosophy students themselves would be barred from taking the
course, and that it would be offered only for 'outsiders' who take a summary
course as an elective. In any case, it's difficult to consider the place of
the
course in the curriculum today -- but that only goes to show how better
adapted
for naturally better endowed All-American genius than foreign mediocrity
those tests were and are.
PHILOSOPHY 4
1. Thales, Zeno, Parmenides, Heracleitos, Anaxagoras. State briefly the
doctrine of each.
>Each believed that in bed young boys were best. Thales, though, loved water
>sports, rafting especially. He had a magnetic soul and saw gods wherever he
>looked. Zeno was a paradox. He loved archery but could never hit
anything.
>Parmenides is often quoted as saying "One for all and all for one" and is
>credited as being the first coach in Western civilization, a position of
>paramount importance. However, it's more likely that Parmenides said: "All
>is one and one is all." Which is bad news for coaches for it means that no
>team can will win because there's only one team.
You forget Anaxagoras's doctrine.
When you write 'young beds' -- can you specify the
Greek? Recall what we mention about ages.
Isn't being the winner in a one-team match yet
_still_ being a winner?
2. Phenomenon, noumenon. Discuss these terms. Name their modern
descendants.
>Though both belong to the genus 'menon', they differ in that 'phen' is a
>show-off, wearing gaudy clothes and fancy-dancy baubles and bangles, whereas
>'nou' is quite content to just be herself, knowing herself complete and
>entire, she has no need for sensation. Paris Hilton is a phenomenon
>descendant, Emily Dickinson was a noumenoner.
noumenon -- what is thought. From nouein
phenomenon -- from 'phainomi', what it appears
(defective verb)
3. Thought = Being. Assuming this, state the difference, if any, between (1)
memory and anticipation; (2) sleep and waking.
>How could I ever assume that? If Thought were Being, most people would be
> dead. You're talking about the annihilation of 4 or 5 billion people at
> least. Even Mao can't touch that. The difference between memory and
> anticipation is that memory is like downers, anticipation like uppers.
> Sleep is like next to impossible once you hit 60, waking is like a steady
> state.
The differences between (1) and (2) are basically correct, but you don't
seem to derive them from the assumption -- which shows in your lack of
expansion
from the phenomenological perspective.
4. Democritus, Pythagoras, Bacon. State the relation between them. In what
terms must the objective world ultimately be stated? Why?
>Democritus was Pythagoras' second cousin once-removed. Bacon was no
>relation, just one more among eggheads. Pythagoras, of course, was a
>metempsychologist and proscribed a regimen of bean eating to counter
>impurities in the soul such as Swollen Foot Syndrome, or SFS, which was
>believed caused by impure thoughts about one's own mother. Although revered
>as a mathematician, the man seldom counted beyond 4 and never beyond 10.
>Democritus was the world's first atomic scientist, but thank God, he lacked
>the technology to make the Bomb, else we'd all be speaking ancient Greek
now,
>and tripping off to the agora for a six pack of beer.
> There are two kinds of Bacon, Francis and Roger. Francis presented himself
> as a man with a new attitude. Francis wanted to do away with all idolatry,
> that of the tribe, the cave, the marketplace and the theater. The only
true
> god worthy of worship, he preached, is Natural Law of which he, Francis,
was
> the high priest. Roger was related to Francis as salt-cured is to
> hickory-smoked, he was all over the place philosophically. Though he
showed
> signs of originality, especially when it came to discussing signs and how
> words work as signs, but he was so scattered in his interests that he
managed
> to piss off the Pope and various Prefects by some his writings. Pissing
off
> authorities is fun, but so easy to do. Roger accomplished little else, I'm
> afraid.
> The world cannot ultimately be syated in any terms. Why? Because the act
of
> syation is a not yerm, not even a Greek yerm.[Student is making fun of a
typo here, now corrected, 'syated' for 'stated'].
Democritus was _not_, that I know, Pythagoras's second-cousing once-removed.
What's your source for stating they were thus related?
5. Experience is the result of time and space being included in the nature
of mind. Discuss this.
> I would answer this, but mind, I have neither the time nor the space.
You do have the time, and the space so I take you are unwilling to share.
6. Nihil est in intellectu quod non prius fuerit in sensibus. Whose
doctrine? Discuss it.
>John Locke wrote that in "An Essay Concerning Human Understanding".
>Actually, he wrote: "Praeterea nihil est in intellectu quod non prius ferit
> in sensibus." [Moreover, nothing is in the intellect (mind) that was not
> first borne there by the senses.] See, I too can be pedantic. Locke was
> English. Why he decided to write that in Latin is a mystery. Perhaps he
was
> proving to all who didn't know Latin that there was no way they could
> understand that sentence if they hadn't studied Latin, hadn't dragged the
> vocabulary and grammar of it into their brains with the chain of
sensations.
> No innate ideas, folks. No a priori's, no revelations. Pretty clever of
him
> on reflection.
Basically correct, but you'll recall I explained in class that the phrasing
was a common medieval adage -- in the trivium. Locke is just quoting your
favourite 'dumb oxen', Aquinas, and ultimately Aristotle. I note that you
misspell "ferit" (correct: 'fuerit', past perfect, 'had been'). You'll recall
the
doctrine of the passive and the active learning, and the sensus/intellectus
that's not necessarily just Lockean, but mediaeval.
7. What is the inherent limitation in all ancient philosophy? Who first
removed it?
>The inherent limitation was that it was Greek to everyone. Epictetus
removed
>that limitation when he wrote in Latin: "Why then do you walk as if you had
>swallowed a ramrod?" (Discourses XXI). Bravo! He also said: "No man can
rob
>us of our Will--no man can lord it over that!" (Epictetus LXXXIII). Not the
>brightest thing he ever said -- didn't he know about advertising, for
>Chrissake? Anyway, his career never recovered.
Partially correct. Being Greek to everyone was not necessarily an inherent
limitation for its practitioners -- Greek philosophers. You'll also remember we
counted Epictetus as still _ancient_, if 'Hellenistic'. Your answer would be
totally correct if by 'ancient' you mean _classical_ Greek, but that's not
how the question is stated.
8. Mind is expressed through what? Matter through what? Is speech the
result
or the cause of thought?
> Mind is expressed through matter. Matter is expressed through orifices in
> the body. Speech is very seldom, if ever, the result of thought. And vice
> versa. We know speech exists, thought remains an open question.
Needs to expand. I should perhaps advise you to the book by my colleague
William James. Your visceral materialism may need some spanking. You also seem
to contradict yourself? If matter is expressed through orifices in the body,
and speech is expressed through such an orifice (the mouth) you are denying
that speech is the result of thought?
9. Discuss the nature of the ego.
>I came. I saw. I conquered.
Witty, but you'll recall my teaching you that there is no conception of the
transcendental ego until we get to Kant, and allowing Descartes's "Cogito" not
to count as _philosophical_. Review of Hume's denial of the legitimacy of
the 'ego' would have helped.
10. According to Plato, Locke, Berkeley, where would the sweetness of a
honeycomb reside? Where would its shape? its weight? Where do you think
these
properties reside?
> Plato: in the Light, come into the Light!
> Locke: in the shadows, the Shadow knows.
> Berkeley: in California, just across the Bay.
You fail to tell us where _you_ think the properties reside. Surely for
Locke the primary qualities (bulk, shape, weight) reside in a different place
than the secondary quality of sweetness.
**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop00030000000001)
Other related posts:
