Philosophy 302 / Summer 2009 Plato and Aristotle Course Description and Syllabus

TA: Carrie Swanson E-mail: [email protected] Office hours: After class or by appointment.

Course description: This course will introduce the student to the perceptual theories of Plato and Aristotle. Our core texts will be Plato’s Theaetetus (142a-187a) and Timaeus, and Aristotle’s De Anima. Brief excursions into the perceptual theories of some of the pre-Socratic philosophers (chiefly Empedocles and Democritus) will take place along the way. Among the questions Plato and Aristotle raise and attempt to answer in these texts are the following: What is the nature of perception, conceived as the set of perceptual capacities we call sight, hearing, taste, touch, and smell? Is perception a capacity of the soul, of the body, or of both? Perception seems to give us cognitive access to features of the material world. In what sense then does perception differ from other forms of cognition such as knowledge and imagination? Is perception simply a form of knowledge? Or is all knowledge perception? If our capacities for growth, nutrition, and bodily movement are a function of an (embodied) soul, in what sense is the soul also the cause (if it is) of our capacity to perceive? What is the relation of the five sense modalities to their objects of perception? Does perception arise when an object of perception acts on a perceiving subject? Or when a perceiving subject acts on an object of perception? Or are both perceiver and object agents and patients of perception? Why are their only five senses? Why is it that the objects of some perceptual capacities cannot be perceived by others (we cannot see sounds, or smell colours), whereas others can be (we can both see and feel shapes)?

Course requirements: There will be six take-home problems (one every week). Each of these home-works will be worth 5 points for a total of 30 points. You must write one research paper, 10 pages in length, on either Plato or Aristotle. (A selection of paper topics will be distributed on the first day of class). This paper is due in class on Wednesday, August 12th (the last day of class). The paper is worth 35 points. There is a final exam, also worth 35 points. The final will be take-home, open book, open notes. It will be distributed to you on the last day of class, and must be returned to me in person by 4 p.m. on Friday, August 14th.

Grading: Your grade for the course will be based on the number of total points you earn, assessed according to the following scale: A = 100-91, B+ = 90-81, B = 80-71, C+ = 70- 61, C = 60-51, D = 50-41, F = 40-31. However, if you do not turn in two of the home- works, you will automatically be given an ‘F’. (I will not read your paper, and you will not be permitted to take the final). You will also receive an ‘F’ if you do not complete either the paper or the final.

1 Other course policies:

(1) Attendance is required, and roll will be taken. If you miss two sessions, your grade will be lowered by 10 points. If you miss four sessions, you will be automatically failed. If you leave class early or are significantly late to class, you will be counted absent for that session.

(2) I expect you to do your best work on your paper, on your home-works, and in your daily presence in class. In particular, I expect you to show up to class on time, prepared to listen to lecture, to take notes, and to participate in class discussion. You may earn up to 10 extra credit points by participating in class. You may either bring up questions of your own, either before or during lecture, answer questions raised by me or your fellow students, or (on occasion) volunteer to do a brief presentation.

(3) The home-works will usually be assigned on Mondays. They will be due the following Monday. If you fail to turn in the work on the required day, you may not make up the work. That means that under no circumstances will you be allowed to turn in late homework. There are no exceptions.

(4) The paper and exam are due on the dates specified above. If the paper is turned in late it will be marked down 12 points for every 24-hour period after it is due. (That means that a paper that is two hours late will be marked down 12 points, a paper that is 25 hours late will be marked down 24 points). I will not accept late final exams. Exceptions to this policy will be made only in cases of an unforeseeable emergency of your own (e.g. extreme or prolonged illness, or family crisis), and only with your Dean’s written confirmation of the existence of the emergency. Examples of unacceptable excuses therefore include: my printer broke. I had to take my roommate to the hospital. I overslept. My car wouldn’t start. I signed up for too many courses. I had to work. I had to go to a wedding, etc.

(5) All completed work must be brought to class. You may not e-mail your course work to me without my express prior approval. I will not read it and I will delete your attachment. Do not under any circumstances put your work in my departmental mailbox. (The only exception to bringing work to class is the take-home final, a hard copy of which I will ask you to turn in to me on the date specified above).

(6) All written work, including home-works, must be typed. I will not accept handwritten work. (That means you cannot attempt to turn in a handwritten version and then ask for more time to submit a typed version of your work when I refuse to accept your handwritten version).

(7) Papers that are full of typos and grammatical errors will be marked down an entire grade.

(8) You may not use as source materials for your papers any secondary literature that is not on the syllabus below. In particular this means you may not ‘research’

2

Course syllabus:

Our core texts will be Plato’s Theaetetus and Timaeus, and Aristotle’s De Anima.

The following translations and commentaries are required reading for the course:

[1] The Theaetetus of Plato with a translation of Plato’s Theaetetus by M.J. Levett, revised by Myles Burnyeat (Indianapolis/Cambridge: 1990). This edition contains a very useful and thorough introduction to the dialogue by Burnyeat. [On sale at RU bookstore].

[2] Plato: Timaeus, translated, with an introduction by Donald Zeyl. (Indianapolis/Cambridge: 2000). [E-RESERVE].

[3] Aristotle: De Anima. Translated by J.A. Smith. From The Complete works of Aristotle, Jonathan Barnes (ed.), volume one (Princeton:1984). [E-RESERVE].

A selection of paper topics will be provided to you covering a variety of issues in the Theaetetus, Timaeus, and De Anima. Each topic question will come with a (short) list of required readings from the syllabus below. Other items from the syllabus will be suggested (i.e., not required) as background reading in connection with the paper topics.

Some items on the rest of the syllabus below will be assigned from time to time for the entire class to read. Still other items are included merely as helpful general background for the course. Books on the syllabus are on regular (i.e., shelf) reserve. Journal articles are either available online, or are on our course e-reserve, as indicated below.

3 General background on the Theaetetus:

[4] Barnes, Jonathan, The Presocratic philosophers, revised edition (Routledge: London and New York: 1982) [SHELF RESERVE].

[5] Bostock, David, Plato’s Theaetetus (Oxford: 1988). [SHELF RESERVE].

[6] Burnyeat, M., ‘Idealism in Greek philosophy: what Descartes saw and Berkeley missed’, Philosophical Review 91 (1982), 3-40. [ONLINE].

[7] Campbell, Lewis, The Theaetetus of Plato with a revised text and English notes, 2nd ed. (Oxford: 1883) [SHELF RESERVE].

[8] Cooper, John M., (ed.), Plato: Complete works (Hackett: Indianapolis: 1997) [SHELF RESERVE].

[9] Denyer, Nicholas, Language, thought, and falsehood in ancient Greek philosophy (Routledge: London and New York: 1991). [SHELF RESERVE].

[10] Guthrie, W.K.C., The Sophists (Cambridge: 1971). [SHELF RESERVE].

[11] Harman, Gilbert, ‘Moral relativism defended’, Philosophical Review 84 (1975), 3- 22. [ONLINE].

[12] Kerferd, G.B., The Sophistic movement (Cambridge: 1981). [SHELF RESERVE].

[13] Lorenz, Hendrik, The Brute within: appetitive desire in Plato and Aristotle (Oxford: 2006). [SHELF RESERVE].

[14] White, Nicholas, Plato on Knowledge and Reality (Hackett: Indianapolis: 1976). [SHELF RESERVE].

[15] Williams, B.A.O., ‘The truth in relativism’, reprinted from Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society N.S. 75 (1974/5), in his Moral luck: philosophical papers 1973-1980 (Cambridge: 1981), 132-43. [E-RESERVE].

4

On Socratic method:

[16] Burnyeat, M.F., ‘Examples in epistemology: Socrates, Theaetetus, and G.E. Moore’, Philosophy 52 (1977), 381-96. [E-RESERVE].

[17] ------, ‘Socratic Mid-wifery, Platonic inspiration’, Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies 24 (1977), 7-16. [E-RESERVE].

On Protagorean relativism:

[18] Cole, A.T., ‘The Apology of Protagoras’, Yale Classical Studies 19 (1966), 101-18. [E-RESERVE].

[19] ------, ‘The relativism of Protagoras’, Yale Classical Studies 22 (1972) 19-45. [E-RESERVE].

[20] Plato’s Protagoras, translated by S. Lombardo and K. Bell, in [8]. [SHELF RESERVE].

[21] Vlastos, G., Introduction to: Plato’s Protagoras, B. Jowett’s translation extensively revised by Martin Ostwald; edited, with an Introduction by Gregory Vlastos (Indianapolis & New York: 1956). [E-RESERVE].

On the first definition of knowledge (‘knowledge is perception’):

[22] Bolton, Robert, ‘Plato’s distinction between being and becoming’, Review of Metaphysics 29 (1975/6), 66-95. [ONLINE].

[23] Burnyeat, M., ‘Plato on the grammar of perceiving’, Classical Quarterly N.S. 26 (1976), 29-51. [ONLINE].

[24] Cooper, J.M., ‘Plato on sense perception and knowledge: Theaetetus 184 to 186’, Phronesis 15 (1970), 123-46. [ONLINE].

5 [25] Irwin, T.H., ‘Plato’s Heracliteanism’, Philosophical Quarterly 27 (1977), 1-13. [ONLINE].

[26] Holland, A.J., ‘An argument in Plato’s Theaetetus: 184-6’, Philosophical Quarterly 23 (1973), 110-16. [ONLINE].

[27] Matthen, Mohan, ‘Perception, relativism, and truth: reflections on Plato’s Theaetetus 152-160’, Dialogue 24 (1985), 33-58. [E-RESERVE].

[28] Modrak, D.K., ‘Perception and Judgment in the Theaetetus’, Phronesis 26 (1981), 35-54. [ONLINE].

[29] Silverman, A., ‘Plato on perception and the ‘Commons’, Classical Quarterly, new series 40 no.1 (1990), 148-175, [ONLINE].

On the (alleged) self-refutation of Protagorean relativism:

[30] Burnyeat, M., ‘Protagoras and self-refutation in Plato’s Theaetetus’, Philosophical Review 85 (1976), 172-95. [ONLINE].

[31] Emilsson, E., ‘Plato’s self-refutation argument in Theaetetus 171a-c revisited’, Phronesis 29 136-49. [ONLINE].

[32] Fine, G., ‘Plato’s refutation of Protagoras in the Theaetetus’, Apeiron 31 (1998), 201-34. [E-RESERVE].

[33] Mackie, J.L., ‘Self-refutation: a formal analysis’, Philosophical Quarterly 14 (1964), 193-203. [ONLINE].

[34] Waterlow, Sarah, ‘Protagoras and inconsistency’, Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie 59 (1977), 19-36. [E-RESERVE].

[35] Wedin, M., ‘Animadversions on Burnyeat's Theaetetus: on the logic of the exquisite argument" in Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 29 (Winter 2005), Sedley, David (ed.), 171-191. [E-RESERVE].

6

On the Timaeus:

[36] Cornford, F. Plato’s cosmology (Hackett: Indianapolis: 1977). [SHELF RESERVE].

[37] Frede, D., ‘The philosophical economy of Plato’s psychology: rationality and common concepts in the Timaeus.’ In Frede and Striker, G. (eds.), Rationality in Greek Thought, Oxford 1966. [E-RESERVE].

[38] Johansen, T. ‘Body, soul, and tripartition in Plato’s Timaeus’, Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy vol.19 (2000), 87-111. [E-RESERVE].

[39] Robinson, T.M. ‘Understanding the Timaeus’, in Cleary, J. (ed.), Proceedings of the Boston Area Colloquium in Ancient Philosophy vol. 2, 103-19. [E-RESERVE].

[40] Sedley, D. ‘The ideal of Godlikeness’, in Fine, G. (ed.) Oxford Readings in Philosophy: Plato. Oxford 1999, 309-28. [E-RESERVE].

[41] Swanson, C., ‘We interrupt this program with a word from our sponsor’: reason and imagination in Plato’s Timaeus.’ [E-RESERVE].

On the De Anima:

[42] Everson, S. Aristotle on perception (Oxford: 1997). [SHELF RESERVE].

[43] Hicks, R.D. Aristotle: De Anima (translation, introduction, and commentary) (Cambridge: 1907). [SHELF RESERVE].

[44] Johansen, T.K. Aristotle on the sense organs (Cambridge: 1998). [SHELF RESERVE; extracts on E-RESERVE].

[45] Lear, J. Aristotle: the desire to understand (Cambridge: 1988). [SHELF RESERVE].

[46] Nussbaum, M. and Rorty, A. (eds.). Essays on Aristotle’s De Anima (Oxford: 1992). [SHELF RESERVE].

7

[47] Ackrill, J., ‘Aristotle’s definitions of psuche’, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 73 (1972-3), 119-33. [E-RESERVE].

[48] Sorabji, R., ‘Body and soul in Aristotle’, Philosophy 49 (1974), 63-89. [E- RESERVE].

[49] Burnyeat, M. ‘Is an Aristotelian philosophy of mind still credible?’, in [46] Nussbaum and Rorty, 15-26. [SHELF RESERVE].

[50] Cashdollar, S., ‘Aristotle’s account of incidental perception’, Phronesis 18 (2) 1973, 156-175. [ONLINE].

[51] Burnyeat, M., ‘How much happens when Aristotle sees red and hears middle C? Remarks on De Anima 2.7-8’, in [46] Nussbaum and Rorty, 421-434. [SHELF RESERVE].

[52] Broadie, S., ‘Aristotle’s perceptual realism’, Southern Journal of Philosophy (1993) vol.XXXI, supplement, 137-159. [E-RESERVE].

[53] Ierodiakonou, K., ‘Aristotle on colours’, in Aristotle and Contemporary Science, Volume II, Sfendoni-Mentzou, Demetra (ed.), (Lang : New York: 2001), 211-225. [E- RESERVE].

[54] Ellis, J., ‘The trouble with fragrance’, Phronesis 35 (1990), 290-302. [ONLINE].

[55] Freeland, C., ‘Aristotle on the sense of touch’, in [46] Nussbaum and Rorty, 227- 248. [SHELF RESERVE].

[56] Theophrastus, De Sensibus, (excerpts) from Theophrastus and the Greek physiological psychology before Aristotle, translation and commentary by George Malcolm Stratton (London: Allen & Unwin: 1917). [E-RESERVE].

8

9