University of Kent at Canterbury s5

UNIVERSITY OF KENT – CODE OF PRACTICE FOR QUALITY ASSURANCEAT CANTERBURY MODULE SPECIFICATION TEMPLATE

1 The title of the module: Paradoxes 2 The Department which will be responsible for management of the module: SECL (Philosophy) 3 The Start Date of the Module: Autumn 2008 4 The number of students expected to take the module: up to 40 students. 5 Modules to be withdrawn on the introduction of this proposed module and consultation with other relevant Departments and Faculties regarding the withdrawal: none 6 The level of the module (eg Certificate [C], Intermediate [I], Honours [H] or Postgraduate [M]): I/H 7 The number of credits which the module represents : 30 credits 8 Which term(s) the module is to be taught in (or other teaching pattern): the module will normally be taught in the Autumn Term. 9 Prerequisite and co-requisite modules: There are no prerequisite or co-requisite modules. However, if students have not studied logic at an introductory, they will be required to take a short self-access web-based course in the subject over the summer, or to do the relevant reading prescribed by the lecturer. The module may be taken by any student registered for Part II Philosophy but would marry most happily with Philosophy of Language, Philosophy of Logic, or both. 10 The programmes of study to which the module contributes: all Philosophy BA programmes (both Single and Joint Honours). 11 The intended subject specific learning outcomes and, as appropriate, their relationship to programme learning outcomes: [Reference to clauses in the Programme Specification (ProgSpec) are enclosed in square brackets]. Students who successfully complete the module will have:  Developed a clear sense of the depth, beauty, interest and interconnectedness of a number of paradoxes in several areas of philosophical enquiry, including language, logic and metaphysics.[ProgSpec 12Aii]  Familiarized themselves with a variety of solutions that have been put forward and will also have developed an appetite for finding solutions of their own. They will have acquired an understanding of what would constitute a successful solution. [ProgSpec 12Aii; 12Biv-viii]  Understood how paradoxes provide an entry point into almost every area of philosophical enquiry, and a particularly clear vantage point from which to view the questions that arise in other areas of philosophy that students are studying. [ProgSpec 12Aiv]  Engaged with some ancient authors, with some great but neglected mediaeval authors, as well as with modern writers. They will develop a historical sense of how a single problem has been wrestled with down the ages and in different intellectual settings. [ProgSpec 12Ai]  Acquired the ability to read closely and critically literature in this field and to respond in a lively fashion with arguments of their own. [ProgSpec 12Bi-iv]  Developed their skills in philosophical analysis. [ProgSpec 12Biv]  Acquired the ability to engage in a close and reading of historical and modern texts. [ProgSpec 12Ciii- iv]  Engaged in philosophical argument, both oral and written. [ProgSpec 12Bi,v-vii; 12Di-ii,iv]  Developed their skills in critical analysis and argument through their engagement with these texts, through their reading, writing and discussion with others in seminars. [ProgSpec12Bi-ii, iv-viii; 12Ci-ix; 12Di-ii, iv]  Shown ability to work alone and to take responsibility for their own learning. [ProgSpec 12Biii; 12Di, iii, v]  Developed their ability to clarify complex ideas and arguments, to develop their own ideas and arguments, and to express them orally and in writing. [ProgSpec 12Bi-ii, iv-viii; 12Ci-ix; 12Di-ii]

The module will thus contribute to the aims and objectives of the Part II Philosophy programme by enabling students to acquire familiarity with themes in a major area of philosophical activity, to gain knowledge of some of major contributions to the field and to engage critically with them. In addition, H level students will approach the material in this module at a higher level and in a more critical fashion than I level students. H level students will be expected to write and discuss whilst paying attention to articles, books and ideas, commensurate with advanced undergraduate study.

UNIVERSITY OF KENT – CODE OF PRACTICE FOR QUALITY ASSURANCEAT CANTERBURY

12 The intended generic learning outcomes and, as appropriate, their relationship to programme learning outcomes: The module will contribute to the aims and objectives of the Part II Philosophy programme by enabling students to develop their analytical and critical skills and their skills in oral and written argument. These outcomes will be interpreted and tested at levels appropriate to I and H level students.

13 synopsis of the curriculum The study of paradoxes is one of the best routes into philosophy, because the reasoning within each paradox quickly leads to contradiction or absurdity. Therefore the solving of a paradox requires us to question very basic assumptions and principles. The module will begin with an introduction to a wide variety of paradoxes. This is because there are quite surprising connections between apparently quite dissimilar paradoxes, so it is useful, and interesting, to get to know a variety. The next block of lectures will deal with the ancient paradox of the Sorites and several approaches to solving it will be critically examined. Another ancient paradox – the Liar – will occupy the next, quite large, block. A lot of work has been done on this paradox, both in mediaeval times (mostly in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries), and over the last seventy years. Far from being a catalogue of failure, the history of promising ideas coming to grief under the pressure of argument and counterexample is indicative of great progress and fuels the expectation that we are now on the verge of a satisfactory solution. The Paradox of the Surprise Examination (also known as the Paradox of the Hangman) will occupy the last major block of lectures.

14 Indicative Reading List

Introductory

Michael Clark, Paradoxes from A to Z, second edition (London, Routledge, 2007). Excellent brief discussions of all the main paradoxes, and, for each, a guide to further reading.

R.M. Sainsbury, Paradoxes, third edition (Cambridge University Press, 2009). Very clear presentation of five main areas of paradox.

Raymond Smullyan, What is the Name of this Book? (1978) Some delightful puzzles created by a clever logician/magician.

William Poundstone, Labyrinths of Reason (1988) A recreational work containing much interesting material.

Justin Leiber, Paradoxes (1993) A very short and easy introduction.

Glen W. Erickson and John A. Fossa, Dictionary of Paradox (1998) Useful brief discussions and suggestions for reading on each paradox.

Intermediate

Nicholas Rescher, Paradoxes: Their Roots, Range and Resolution (2001) Aims to provide a unified way of handling paradoxes. Much interesting historical material.

Roy Sorensen, Vagueness and Contradiction (2001) Useful for the Sorites paradox.

Roy Sorensen, A Brief History of the Paradox (2003) Wide-ranging and excited

G.E. Hughes, John Buridan on Self-Reference (1982) Lovely translation and notes on Chapter 8 of Buridan’s inventive Sophismata.

Advanced

Robert L. Martin (ed.), Paradox of the Liar (1970) Useful set of symposia.

Robert L. Martin (ed.), Recent Essays on Truth and the Liar Paradox (1984) In the wake of Saul Kripke’s seminal paper ‘Outline of a Theory of Truth’ (1975).

John Barwise and John Etchemendy, The Liar: An Essay on Truth and Circularity Inspired by the (unlikely) combination of J.L. Austin’s theory of statements and Peter Aczel’s theory of non- well-founded sets.

Tim Maudlin Truth and Paradox: Solving the Riddles (2004) Ingenious technical construction.

JC Beall (ed.) Liars and Heaps: New Essays on Paradox (2004) Papers on the Liar and the Sorites.

Hartry Field, Saving Truth from Paradox (2008)

Please note: I shall NOT expect you to read these advanced texts, but list them here just in case anyone becomes fanatically interested in paradoxes and wishes to go on to write a doctoral dissertation in the area.

15 Learning and Teaching Methods, including the nature and number of contact hours and the total study hours which will be expected of students, and how these relate to achievement of the intended learning outcomes Teaching will take the form of one weekly 2-hour lecture and one weekly 1-hour seminar. The lectures will provide students with the overall framework and an understanding of the central issues to be covered. [ProgSpec 12Ai-iv; 12Bi, iv, vi]Seminars will involve class discussion with student presentations focused on a close reading of one paper (or equivalent) each week. This will enable students to engage in in-depth analysis of texts and arguments and will help students to develop their skills in philosophical analysis. [ProgSpec 12Ci-ix; 12Di-v] Students will be expected to study for approx. 17 hours per week on the module in addition to contact hours. Total study hours 300.

16 Assessment methods and how these relate to testing achievement of the intended learning outcomes The module will be marked by continuous assessment only; there will be no final examination. Students will be required to write an in-class assignment near the middle of term, taken under exam conditions, and an essay of 3000 words maximum, the deadline for which will be the end of term. The in-class assignment will contribute 30% to the final grade for the module, the essay 60%. Both pieces of work will normally be single marked and moderated. The essays will assess students’ knowledge and understanding of the material as well as their ability to engage in critical analysis and argument, and to present independent ideas in line with learning outcomes relating to the understanding of material and to the ability to present clear, rigorously argued written work. The mark for seminar performance will reflect students’ ability to engage clearly and effectively in oral discussion and argument, and will contribute 10% to the overall mark for the module. This relates most specifically to student presentations and to the learning outcome that calls for the ability to clarify complex ideas and arguments, to develop one’s own ideas and arguments, and to express them orally.

I and H level students will have to choose their essay question from different sets of questions. This will be the main way in which the module will distinguish the two sorts of student. The different sets may partly be distinguished in terms of the topics on which the questions are set, H level students obviously been made to discuss harder topics than I level students. In addition, H level questions may make explicit reference to articles and books that require discussion and which analogous I level questions will omit. (I level students may make reference to the cited works, but need not in order to get a mark at a similar level.)

At the end of the course, students will be asked to complete the standard course evaluation questionnaire. On the basis of the replies, and of comments from the external examiner, a report on the module will be submitted to the Annual Monitoring and Evaluation Report for the Philosophy programme.

17 Implications for learning resources, including staff, library, IT and space Staffing will be provided from the existing resources of the Philosophy Section of SECL. The course will normally be taught by Professor Laurence Goldstein, who has written and taught extensively in the area of paradoxes. The library has reasonable holdings in the area covered by the course, which is a central area of philosophy. A few additional texts will need to be ordered.

18 A statement confirming that, as far as can be reasonably anticipated, the curriculum, learning and teaching methods and forms of assessment do not present any non-justifiable disadvantage to students with disabilities As far as can be reasonably foreseen, there will be no non-justifiable disadvantages that students with disabilities will experience on this course. People with special needs will be asked to make themselves known to the teacher, by indicating on their essays, or by contacting the teacher in other ways, and to discuss with the teacher how best to meet their needs. For example, by making special provisions when setting deadlines, marking written work, by allowing extra time and special conditions in which to complete examinations, etc. Attempts will be made to ensure access in case of problems, and that communications are not problematic for students with sensory impairments. Some specially designed apparatus for learning syllogistic logic is available for the visually impaired.

It is thus confirmed that, as far as can be reasonably anticipated, the curriculum, learning and teaching methods and forms of assessment do not present any non-justifiable disadvantage to students with disabilities.