DELIVERY AND TECHNOLOGY

Delivery:

Day, External

Technology used:

iLecture, iLearn

Unit web page:

The web page for this unit can be found at the MQ iLearn website:

https://ilearn.mq.edu.au/login/MQ/

Lectures will be recorded using the iLecture/Echo system, and can be downloaded from the link on the PHL238 iLearn web page.

TIMES AND LOCATIONS FOR LECTURES AND TUTORIALS

For current updates, lecture times and classrooms, please consult the MQ Timetables website:

http://www.timetables.mq.edu.au

Lecture 1: Thursday 09:00am, E5A 180

Lecture 2: Friday 11:00am, W5A 101

Tutorial 1: Thursday 10:00am, W5A 201

Tutorial 2: Friday 12:00am, X5B 138

Internal students must enrol in one of the two allocated tutorials. Note that turorials commence in week 2.

Locations are subject to change at the start of semester, so please ensure that you check your tutorial venue prior to attending your first tutorial in week 2.

REQUIRED READING

Unit Reader: PHL238 Existential Questions

This is compulsory reading, and will be extensively used in lectures and tutorials. It can be purchased from the Co-op Bookshop, and should be available in the first week of lectures. It is compulsory to purchase a copy of the Unit Reader. Bring it to all lecture and tutorials.

IMPORTANT ASSESSMENT INFORMATION

The reading exercise and essays:

The reading exercise is designed to assist you to read a philosophical text and analyse a philosophcial argument. You will be asked to comment on the ideas contained in a short passage from a text and connect them with the rest of the text. You are not expected to consult any sources outside the readings in the Unit Reader. The reading exercise will be handed out in class and posted on the unit web page in week 2. They will be returned, with written comments and a marking rubric, to internal students in tutorials and to external students via the Centre for Open Education no later than week 6.

The two essays are designed to test the depth of your understanding of a particular topic, your capacity to understand and analyse philosophical arguments, to structure a logical argument and to develop your own point of view, informed by the relevant literature. For essays you are expected to read beyond the Unit Reader. You should consult the list of additional references included in this Unit Outline. The essays will be handed out in class and posted on the unit web page at least 4 weeks before the due date. They will be returned, with written comments and a marking rubric, to internal students in tutorials and to external students via the Centre for Open Education no later than 3 weeks after submission. The second essay and any other written work not collected by internal students in tutorials will be available for collection from the Faculty of Arts Student Enquiry Office on the ground floor of building W6A.

Internal students should submit their reading exercises and essays via the locked boxes (marked 'Philosophy') on the ground floor of building W6A. External students should submit their reading exercises and essays via the Centre for Open Education. It is important that you keep a copy of your reading exercises and essays, just in case they are needed.

Requests for extensions for the reading exercise and essays should be made at least 3 days before the due date. Reading exercises and essays submitted after the due date, or after the approved extension date, will lose 1 mark per day, including weekends and public holidays (e.g. an essay awarded 23/35, but submitted three days late, would receive 20/35). Note that work done concurrently in other units or time taken up due to extra-curricular activities are not legitimate reasons for an extension. You will be asked to supply documentation from a doctor, counsellor or other appropriate person for extension requests of one week or more. 

All reading exercises and essays must be submitted within 14 days of the due date. No written assignment will be accepted after this time unless there are very special circumstances and, preferably, a Special Consideration application has been submitted and approved. Contact the Faculty of Arts Enquiry Office on the gorund floor of building W6A for information about Special Consideration applications.

Tutorial attendance and participation (internal students):

It is mandatory for internal students to attend turorials. They will be assessed on their attendance and contribution to tutorial discussions. Tutorial participation requires more than just showing up for class. Students are expected to have done the required readings for each week, and to be prepared to discuss and debate issues arising from the readings. Marks will be awarded according to the record of attendance, the quality of participation, the frequency of active involvement and the ability to engage in discussion with others. Attendance at a minimum of 75% of tutorials is a requirement for passing the unit. If you are unable to attend a turtorial, please let the unit convenor know beforehand.

Online participation (external students):

External students will be assessed on their contribution to ongoing online discussions throughout the semester. They are expected to have done the required readings for each week, and to be prepared to discuss and debate issues arising from the readings on a fairly regular basis. Marks will be awarded according to the regularity of participation, the quality of participation, the frequency of active involvement and the ability to engage in discussion with others. Failure to participate in online discussions will mean that you will not get a better overall mark for the unit.

WRITING PHILOSOPHY ESSAYS

Writing a philosophy essay provides you with the chance to work out what you think about an important philosophical question. You will sometimes already know what you think (at least, you will think that you know). In this case, working on the essay will provide you with the opportunity to reflect on and clarify your thinking - and perhaps to change your mind. Writing a philosophy essay also provides you with the opportunity to learn about the views of significant philosophers and to develop your own views in critical relation with theirs. Finally, writing a philosophy essay provides you with the opportunity to present your views in a form appropriate for public discussion. It requires you to provide reasons why others should accept your views; it also means that your views are subject to the critical scrutiny of others.

Before you start writing, draw up a rough plan of your projected essay, covering all the relevant issues. As you write, you will find that issues that originally seemed easy are more difficult than you had thought, and sometimes you will find that you want to change direction, or even your mind, as you write. It is not uncommon to discover that you need to do more reading. So it is very important to leave yourself enough time to do this. When you have completed your first draft, you need to make sure that you have covered all the issues, and that it develops in a coherent fashion from beginning to end. (Often you will find that you have changed course half way through and that the early material may no longer be relevant to your conclusion).

It is important to give yourself enough time to think about your first draft, and then to rewrite it for submission. Your final aim must be to present your views so that they are comprehensible and plausible to your reader. Your marker will more often than not be less concerned about the positions you adopt than with your ability to provide reasons for them. (Of course, there are some positions that are more difficult to support than others.) So whatever view you argue for, make sure that you have provided reasons why the reader should take it seriously and that you have taken into account possible objections to it. That you believe it is not a reason for your reader to believe it. Use argument rather than assertion, and reason rather than rhetoric.

Things to bear in mind:

• Give yourself time to think about your essay. Good philosophy cannot be done in a hurry or at the last minute.
• Have a plan, but be flexible about it.
• Give yourself time to rewrite.
• Provide reasons that will persuade others that your views are correct or plausible.
• Show that you have read and understood the views of the main philosophers who have contributed to the debate (i.e. those who appear on the reading list).
• Show that you have considered the main alternatives to your position and can criticise them effectively.
• Make sure that you have covered all the required aspects of the essay topic. If there are specific questions asked, make sure that you have answered them all.
• Avoid pretentiousness. Try to write as simply as is compatible with what you are trying to say. Do not try to impress your reader with inflated language and terminology.
• Most branches of philosophy have their own technical terms (‘jargon’). So before you use these terms, make sure that you understand them and show that you underatand them.
• If possible, do not sit on the fence. Try to argue for a position, though taking into account its problems and the criticisms that have been made of it.
• Do not assume that your reader already knows what you are talking about. If you are talking about an author or an example, provide enough detail for someone who does not know your source to understand what you are talking about (and, incidentally, to show that you know what you are talking about).
• Quote sparingly. Use quotation to illustrate your argument, not to replace it.
• Do not simply reproduce lecture notes. Where you make use of lecture notes, provide a reference. If you use lecture material without acknowledgement, you will be guilty of plagiarism (see below).
• If possible, ask someone else to read the first draft of your essay, to help identify areas where your essay may need to be clarified or expanded.

OTHER ADVICE ON WRITING ESSAYS

Macquarie University provides a number of excellent services intended to provide support to students and to help with academic writing in general.

For general student study support information see:

http://www.futurestudent.mq.edu.au/undergraduate/AccessingStudentSupport/StudySupport/index.html#WritingHelp

Additional writing skills information is also available at:

http://www.sss.mq.edu.au/learning/undergrad/writing.htm

The university also provides brief Writing Skills courses. These are designed for Australian and English speaking students. For details see:

http://www.ling.mq.edu.au/support/writing_skills/brochure.htm

Or contact Sue Spinks, Department of Linguistics. Email: sue.spinks@ling.mq.edu.au, phone 9850 8770, room C5A 531.

There is also a Writing Skills Advisory Service which offers individual help. For details see:

http://www.coe.mq.edu.au/writing.html

Appointments can also be made in person through the Centre for Open Education in X5B, or by phone on 9850 7470.

Online support is available through the Writing Gateway, via the MQ online learning website.

PLAGIARISM

The Oxford English Dictionary (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1971; republished 1987) defines ‘Plagiarism’ as:

[T]he wrongful appropriation or purloining, and publication as one’s own, of the ideas, or the expression of the ideas (literary, artistic, musical, mechanical, etc.) of another.

If in writing an essay, you present material taken - either directly of indirectly - from the work of someone else and do not acknowledge this, you will be guilty of plagiarism. Deliberate plagiarism is dishonest. It is a form of cheating and will be heavily penalised. Normally, when an essay is found to contain deliberate plagiarism it is given no marks without the opportunity to resubmit. If there is evidence of systematic plagiarism, more severe disciplinary action will be taken.

Inadvertent plagiarism is more common. Often students do not realise that they have to acknowledge material they have taken from others or do not know how to do so. However, even inadvertent plagiarism allows the plagiarist an advantage over fellow students. It also shows that a student does not know how to go about writing academic essays. It will always be heavily penalised. The only way to avoid plagiarism is to acknowledge your sources.

A statement of the University’s Academic Honesty policy is available at:

http://www.mq.edu.au/policy/docs/academic_honesty/policy.html

REFERENCING

The main point of referencing is to satisfy the requirement of academic honesty and courtesy to the author of the ideas you are using (see PLAGIARISM above). It is also necessary to make it easy for your reader to locate and check your sources. There are various conventional ways of doing this, and some disciplines show a marked preference for one convention over others. In philosophy, there is no one established convention. If you have had to learn a method of citation for some other discipline, then you are welcome to use it in philosophy. The main thing is to learn one method and stick to it. Do not try to make up your own. If you have not already adopted a referencing convention, then you could use the following one, which is widely used in the humanities.

Indicate direct quotation in one of two ways:

• for relatively short passage, use quotation marks;
• for longer passages display the quote in an indented and separate paragraph. Do not use quotation marks.

Provide the source of the passage in an endnote or footnote. For paraphrased material, or where your arguments draw on the work of another, you should cite the source in the same way. At the end of the quotation or paraphrased material, put a number (superscript preferably, otherwise in brackets) after the relevant text. Usually this will be at the end of the sentence (after the full stop). This number will refer to an endnote or a footnote. Use whichever suits you (but not both). Most word processing programmes make this easy.

In the first reference to a particular work, give full details. There are different conventions as to how this should be done for monographs (i.e. books on a single theme, usually - though not always - single authored); for chapters in edited collections; and for journal articles.

The following illustrate the relevant conventions:

1. Thomas Nagel, What Does it All Mean?: A Very Short Introduction to Philosophy (New York: Oxford University Press, 1987), p. 44.

2. Amelie O. Rorty, ‘The Place of Contemplation in Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics’, in Amelie Rorty (ed.), Essays on Aristotle’s Ethics, (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1980): 377-394, see p. 380

3. Will Kymlicka, ‘Liberal Individualism and Liberal Neutrality’, Ethics 99 (4), 1989: 883- 905, see p. 883.

Please follow these examples precisely (down to punctuation marks, their position, etc.).

If you refer to material contained in lectures, do so as follows:

4. Robert Sinnerbrink, Lecture on Epicureanism, Macquarie University, Lecture 4, March 2010.

In subsequent references, cut out the publisher details, name of collection, journal details, etc., and if you like, give an abbreviated version of the title. Thus:

5. Nagel, What Does it All Mean?, p. 49.

6. Rorty, ‘The Place of Contemplation in Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics’, p. 381.

7. Kymlicka, ‘Liberal Individualism and Liberal Neutrality’, p. 884.

8. Sinnerbrink, Lecture 4, March 2010.

Avoid Latin abbreviations such as ibid., op.cit., loc.cit., etc.

At the end of the essay, provide a bibliography containing all and only those works you have referred to in the body of the essay. Do not include work you should have used, but have not. The bibliography will reproduce the information contained in the first reference, with the following differences:

• the surname will now come first, followed by the given name(s) - reversing the order in the notes;
• there will be no brackets around the publication details for monographs and collections (these were in brackets in the notes).

The list will be in alphabetical order. Thus:

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Kymlicka, Will: ‘Liberal Individualism and Liberal Neutrality’, Ethics 99 (4), 1989: 883-905.

Nagel, Thomas: What Does it All Mean?: A Very Short Introduction to Philosophy (New York: Oxford University Press, 1987).

Rorty, Amelie O: ‘The Place of Contemplation in Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics’, in Amelie Rorty (ed.) Essays on Aristotle’s Ethics (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1980): 377-394.

Note that reference to material provided in Unit Readers should proceed as above, but you may add the note: Accessed in PHL238 Unit Reader, Semester 2, 2012. In other words, you should get in the habit of always citing the original publication details of the material you are using. This will always be provided for you in the Unit Reader, and also in the Unit Guide.

If you have problems not covered by these examples, use your common sense or consult your teacher. Alternatively, you may wish to consult one of the various Style Manuals available in bookshops or the Macquarie Library, e.g. The Chicago Manual of Style.

STANDARDS FOR ESSAY ASSESSMENT

Your mark for essays will reflect the following standards.

Pass (50%-64%): work of this standard is competent and proficient. It

• demonstrates a sufficient level of knowledge and understanding, but at a basic level, and there may be inaccuracies;
• refers to appropriate concepts and ideas, but lacks sufficient explanation or detail;
• mostly focuses on relevant material, but engages at a relatively elementary level;
• presents a very descriptive account of the topic and displays limited critical analysis of arguments;
• presents an argument which isn’t very well structured, lacks clarity or isn’t well defended with evidence and argumentation;
• references sources appropriately and thoroughly, though there may be minor errors;
• uses largely satisfactory expression, though there may be minor spelling or grammatical errors;
• has satisfactory structure and presentation.

Work that receives a pass ranges from minimally satisfactory work that just meets the requirements (marks closer to 50%) to work that is good in some areas, but weak or unsatisfactory in others. Work below 50% (fail) is generally unsatisfactory on most or all criteria.

Credit (65%-74%): work of this standard is consistently good or very good. It

• demonstrates a sufficient level of knowledge and understanding;
• focuses on relevant material;
• presents a clearly structured argument;
• demonstrates good synthesis, analysis, reflection and evaluation of arguments;
• considers an adequate range of sources;
• defends the author’s own position with adequate argumentation and evidence;
• has, where appropriate, complete and correct referencing of sources;
• shows a good standard of grammar and spelling;
• has satisfactory structure and presentation.

Distinction (75%-100%): excellent (marks 85%-100% are classed as High Distinction). Work of this standard is outstanding in some (and for a HD in all) respects. It

• demonstrates thorough knowledge and understanding of the topic and relevant literature;
• shows original, independent thinking about concepts and ideas;
• presents a well-developed critical analysis of sources;
• sustains clarity and focus throughout a subtle and complex discussion;
• displays effective synthesis and analysis of a range of literature;
• presents a good case for the author’s own position;
• references sources appropriately and thoroughly;\
• presents a good standard of academic writing, free of errors.

High distinction work is well beyond the standard expected of undergraduate study at this level. It surpasses all these standards with exceptional flair.

ADDITIONAL REFERENCES

The following list of references will come in handy when researching for and writing your essays.

General:

Barnes, H., Existentialist Ethics (University of Chicago Press, 1978).

Barrett, W., What is Existentialism? (Grove Press, 1964).

Cooper, D., Existentialism: A Reconstruction (Blackwell, 1990).

Crowel, S., The Cambridge Companion to Existentialism (Cambridge University Press, 2012).

Dreyfus, H. L. & Wrathall, M. A., A Companion to Phenomenology and Existentialism (Blackwell, 2006).

Grene, M., Introduction to Existentialism (University of Chicago Press, 1959).

Grossman, R., Phenomenology and Existentialism: An Introduction (Routledge, 1984).

Guignon, C. & Pereboom, C. (eds.), Existentialism: Basic Writings (Hackett, 1995).

Kaufmann, W., Existentialism: From Dostoievski to Sartre (New American Library, 1975).

Hammond, M., et al. (eds.), Understanding Phenomenology (Blackwell, 1991).

Macann, C., Four Phenomenological Philosophers (Routledge, 1993).

Macquarie, J., Existentialism (Penguin, 1972).

Moran, D., Introduction to Phenomenology (Routledge, 2000).

Olson, R., An Introduction to Existentialism (Dover Publications, 1962).

Patka, F., Existentialist Thinkers and Thought (Citadel Press, 1962).

Silverman, H. (ed.), The Horizons of Continental Philosophy (Kluwer, 1988).

Spiegelberg, H., The Phenomenological Movement (Martin Nijhoof, 1982).

Theunissen, M., The Other (MIT Press, 1984). Warnock, M., Existentialism (Oxford University Press, 1970).

Edmund Husserl:

Moran, D., Edmund Husserl: Founder of Phenomenology (Polity, 2005).

Smith, B. & Woodruff Smith, D. (eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Husserl (Cambridge University Press, 1995).

Woodruff Smith, D., Husserl (Routledge, 2007).

Zahavi, D., Husserl’s Phenomenology (Stanford University Press, 2003).

Martin Heidegger:

Blattner, W., Heidegger’s Being and Time: A Reader’s Guide (Continuum, 2006).

Caputo, J., Demythologizing Heidegger (Indiana University Press, 1993).

Chanter, T., Time, Death and the Feminine: Levinas with Heidegger (Stanford University Press, 2001).

Cooper, D., Heidegger (Claridge Press, 1996).

Critchley, S. “Post-Deconstructive Subjectivity?” Ethics, Politics, Subjectivity (Verso, 1999).

Dastur, F., Heidegger and the Question of Time (Humanities Press, 1995).

Dreyfus, H. L., Being-in-the-World: A Commentary on Hiedgerr’s Being and Time (The MIT Press, 1991).

Dreyfus, H. L. & Wrathall, M. A. (eds.), A Companion to Heidegger (Blackwell, 2005).

Faulconer, J. E. & Wrathall, M. A. (eds.), Appropriating Heidegger (Cambridge University Press, 2000).

Guignon, C. (ed), The Cambridge Companion to Heidegger (Cambridge University Press, 2007).

King, M., Heidegger’s Philosophy: A Guide to His Basic Thought (Oxford University Press, 1964).

Kockelmans, J., Heidegger’s Being and Time: The Analytic of Dasein as Fundamental Ontology (University Press of America, 1989).

Levinas, E., “Martin Heidegger and Ontology,” Diacritics 26:1 (1996).

Marion, J-L., Reduction and Givenness: Investigations of Husserl, Heidegger and Phenomenology (Northwestern University Press, 1998).

Mulhall, S., Routledge Philosophy Guidebook to Heidegger and Being and Time (Routledge, 1996).

Philipse, H., Heidegger’s Philosophy of Being (Princeton University Press, 1998).

Raffoul, F., “Otherness and Individuation in Heidegger,” Man and World 28 (1995).

Richardson, J. Existential Epistemology (Clarendon Press, 1986).

Scott, C. E., “Heidegger and the Question of Ethics,” Research in Phenomenology 18 (1988).

Steiner, G., Martin Heidegger (University of Chicago Press, 1978).

Taminiaux, J., Heidegger and the Project of Fundamental Ontology (SUNY, 1991).

Maurice Merleau-Ponty:

Bernasconi, R., “One-Way Traffic: The Ontology of Decolonization and its Ethics,” in: Johnson, G. A. & Smith, M. B. (eds.), Ontology and Alterity in Merleau-Ponty (Northwestern University Press, 1990).

Busch, T. W., “Ethics and Ontology: Levinas and Merleau-Ponty,” Man and World 25:2 (1992).

Compton, J., “Sartre, Merleau-Ponty and Human Freedom,” The Journal of Philosophy LXXIX: 10 (1982).

Crossley, N., The Politics of Subjectivity: Between Foucault and Merleau-Ponty (Avebury, 1994).

Dillon, M. C., Merleau-Ponty’s Ontology (Indiana University Press, 1988).

Dillon, M. C., “Sartre on the Phenomenal Body and Merleau-Ponty’s Critique,” Journal of the British Society for Phenomenology 5 (1974).

Dillon, M. C., “Merleau-Ponty and the Psychogenesis of the Self,” Journal of Phenomenological Psychology 9 (1978).

Diprose, R, Corporeal Generosity: On Giving with Nietzsche, Merleau-Ponty, and Levinas (SUNY, 2002).

Johnson, G. A. & Smith, M. B. (eds.), Ontology and Alterity in Merleau-Ponty (Northwestern University Press, 1990).

Langer, M., Merleau-Ponty’s Phenomenology of Perception: A Guide and Commentary (Macmillan, 1989).

Lefort, C., “Flesh and Otherness,” in: Johnson, G. A. & Smith, M. B. (eds.), Ontology and Alterity in Merleau-Ponty (Northwestern University Press, 1990).

Levin, D. M., “Justice in the Flesh,” in: Johnson, G. A. & Smith, M. B. (eds.), Ontology and Alterity in Merleau-Ponty (Northwestern University Press, 1990).

Low, D., “Merleau-Ponty on Subjectivity and Intersubjectivity,” International Studies in Philosophy 24: 3 (1992).

Matustik, M. J., “Merleau-Ponty on Taking the Attitude of the Other,” The Journal of the British Society for Phenomenology 44-52 (1991).

Siegel, J., “A Unique Way of Existing: Merleau-Ponty and the Subject,” Journal of the History of Philosophy 29 (1991).

Smith, M. B., “Two Texts on Merleau-Ponty by Emmanuel Levinas – ‘Intersubjectivity: Notes on Merleau-Ponty’ and ‘Sensibility’,” in: Johnson, G. A. & Smith, M. B. (eds.), Ontology and Alterity in Merleau-Ponty (Northwestern University Press, 1990).

Stenstad, G., “Merleau-Ponty’s Logos: The Sens-ing of Flesh,” Philosophy Today 37 (1993).

Taylor, C. and Hansen, M. B. N., The Cambridge Companion to Merleau-Ponty (Cambridge University Press, 2006).

Jean-Paul Sartre:

Anderson, T. C., “Freedom as Supreme Value: The Ethics of Sartre and De Beauvoir,” Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association 50 (1976).

Anderson, T. C., “Sartre’s Early Ethics and the Ontology of Being and Nothingness,” in: Aronson, R. & Van Den Hoven, A. (eds.), Sartre Alive (Wayne State University Press, 1991).

Andrews, C., “Jean-Paul Sartre and the Problem of the Other,” Dialogue (PST) 27 (1984).

Aronson, R. & Van Den Hoven, A. (eds.), Sartre Alive (Wayne State University Press, 1991).

Barnes, H. E., “Sartre’s Ontology: The Revealing and Making of Being,” in: Howells, C. (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Sartre (Cambridge University Press, 1992).

Barnes, H. E., “The Role of the Ego in Reciprocity,” in: Aronson, R. & Van Den Hoven, A. (eds.), Sartre Alive (Wayne State University Press, 1991).

Bergoffen, D. B., “The Look As Bad Faith,” Philosophy Today 36 (1992).

Catalano, J. S., A Commentary on Jean-Paul Sartre’s Being and Nothingness (University of Chicago Press, 1974). Danto, A. C., Sartre (Fontana Press, 1991).

Deutscher, M., Genre and Void: Looking Back at Sartre and de Beauvoir (Ashgate, 2003).

Fretz, L., “Individuality in Sartre’s Philosophy,” in: Howells, C. (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Sartre (Cambridge University Press, 1992).

Howells, C. (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Sartre (Cambridge University Press, 1992).

Howells, C., Sartre: The Necessity of Freedom (Cambridge University Press, 1988).

Jopling, D. A., “Sartre’s Moral Psychology,” in: Howells, C. (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Sartre (Cambridge University Press, 1992).

Jopling, D. A., “Levinas, Sartre and Understanding the Other,” The Journal of the British Society for Phenomenology 24:3 (1993).

Kruks, S., Situation and Human Existence (Unwin Hyman, 1990).

Levy, N., Sartre (Oneworld Publications, 2006).

McCulloch, G., Sartre: An Analytic Introduction to Early Satrean Themes (Routledge, 1994).

Mirvish, A., “Bad Faith, Good Faith, and the Faith of Faith,” in: Aronson, R. & Van Den Hoven, A. (eds.), Sartre Alive (Wayne State University Press, 1991).

Monasterio, X. O., “The body in Being and Nothingness,” in: Silverman, H. & Elliston, F. (eds.), Jean-Paul Sartre: Contemporary Approaches to His Philosophy (Harvester Press, 1980).

Murphy, J. S., “The Look in Sartre and Rich,” Hypatia 2 (1987).

Silverman, H. & Elliston, F. (eds.), Jean-Paul Sartre: Contemporary Approaches to His Philosophy (Harvester Press, 1980).

Simone de Beauvoir:

Allen, J. & Young, I. M. (eds.), The Thinking Muse: Feminism and Modern French Philosophy (Indiana University Press, 1989).

Bergoffen, D. B., The Philosophy of Simone de Beauvoir: Gendered Phenomenologies, Erotic Generosities (SUNY, 1997).

Kruks, S., “Simone de Beauvoir: Teaching Sartre About Freedom,” in: Aronson, R. & Van Den Hoven, A. (eds.) Sartre Alive (Wayne State University Press, 1991).

Langer, M., “A Philosophical Retrieval of Simone de Beauvoir’s Pour une Morale de L’ambiguite,” Philosophy Today 36 (1994).

Emmanuel Levinas:

Bernasconi, R. & Critchley, S. (eds.), Re-reading Levinas (Indiana University Press, 1991).

Bernasconi, R. & Wood, D. (eds.), The Provocation of Levinas: Re-thinking the Other (Routledge, 1998).

Critchley, S. & Bernasconi, R. (eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Levinas (Cambridge University Press, 2002).

Davis, C., Levinas: An Introduction (University of Notre Dame Press, 1996).

WEEKLY LECTURE SCHEDULE

It is essential that you consult this Unit Outline regularly, especially prior to doing the readings in preparation for class. The following schedule of lecture topics provides instructions on what readings are relevant to each week’s lectures. It is your responsibility to make sure you do the correct readings. It is also important that you attend lectures and tutorials each week because you may easily fall behind if you miss a class. Note that the page numbers below refer to those in the original texts, followed by page numbers in the Unit Reader. Note also that the date for each week represents the beginning of the working week for second semester classes (Mondays).

Wk. 1: Husserl on phenomenological psychology (30 July)

Confronting the natural attitude; from pure psychology to phenomenology; intentionality and consciousness-of.

Required reading:

• Edmund Husserl, “Phenomenology” article for the Encyclopaedia Britannica [1927], in: Shorter Works, eds. Peter McCormick & Frederick A. Elliston (University of Notre Dame Press, 1981), pp. 21-35 / 2-16.

Additional reading:

• Maurice Merleau-Ponty, “Preface,” Phenomenology of Perception [1945], trans. Colin Smith (London: Routledge, 1962), pp. vii-xxi / 96-106.

Wk. 2: Husserl on the phenomenological method (6 August)

The phenomenological reduction; noesis and noema; the eidetic reduction; overcoming psychologism; the transcendental reduction and ontology; intersubjectivity and empathy.

Required reading:

• Edmund Husserl, “Phenomenology” article for the Encyclopaedia Britannica [1927], in: Shorter Works, eds. Peter McCormick & Frederick A. Elliston (University of Notre Dame Press, 1981), pp. 21-35 / 2-16.

Additional reading:

• Maurice Merleau-Ponty, “Preface,” Phenomenology of Perception [1945], trans. Colin Smith (London: Routledge, 1962), pp. vii-xxi / 96-106.

Wk. 3: Heidegger on the question of Being (13 August)

The meaning of Being; the forgetfulness of Being; formulating the question of Being; Dasein as the exemplary being; the ontic-ontological character of Dasein; the Dasein-world relation.

Required reading:

• Martin Heidegger, “Introduction” to Being and Time [1927], trans. Joan Stambaugh, in: Basic Writings, ed. David Farrell Krell (London: Routledge, 1978), pp. 38-63 / 17-29.

Wk. 4: Heidegger on being-in-the-world and being-with (20 August)

The showing-itself of the thing; Dasein as being-in-the-world; ready-to-hand, unready-to-hand and present-at-hand; existential understanding; being-in-the-world as being-with; being-with as solicitude; the they.

Required reading:

• Martin Heidegger, “Introduction” to Being and Time [1927], trans. Joan Stambaugh, in: Basic Writings, ed. David Farrell Krell (London: Routledge, 1978), pp. 80-85 / 30-32.

• Martin Heidegger, “The Worldhood of the World” & “Being-in-the-world as Being-with and Being Oneself. The ‘They’,” Being and Time [1927], trans. John Macquarie & Edward Robinson (Oxford: Blackwell, 1962), pp. 91-125, 149-168 / 33-62.

NB. The reading exercise is due in week 4 (Thursday, 23 August by 4pm)

Wk. 5: Heidegger on being-in, anxiety-care and being-towards-death (27 August)

The being-in of Dasein; the existential structure of Dasein; the discourse of the they; the falling of Dasein; anxiety and care; temporality and being-towards-death.

Required reading:

• Martin Heidegger, “Being-In As Such,” “Care as the Being of Dasein” & “Dasein’s Possibility of Being-a-Whole, and Being-Towards-Death,” Being and Time [1927], trans. John Macquarie & Edward Robinson (Oxford: Blackwell, 1962), pp. 169-173, 182-203, 210-241, 304-311 / 62-95.

Wk. 6: Merleau-Ponty on perception and the body (3 September)

Towards a phenomenology of incarnation; the primacy of perception; sensation, the body and intercommunication; bodily space; the body and intentionality.

Required reading:

• Maurice Merleau-Ponty, “Preface,” “Sense Experience” & “The Spatiality of One’s Own Body and Motility,” Phenomenology of Perception [1945], trans. Colin Smith (London: Routledge, 1962), pp. vii-xxiv, 240-251, 112-131, 140-170 / 96-137.

Wk. 7: Merleau-Ponty on embodiment and intersubjectivity (10 September)

Classical philosophical psychology; the corporeal schema and other-experience; bodily self-experience and the other; self-perception and other-perception; language and intersubjectivity.

Required reading:

• Maurice Merleau-Ponty, “The Child’s Relations With Others,” The Primacy of Perception [1960], trans. William Cobb (Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1964), pp. 96-155 / 138-168.

• Maurice Merleau-Ponty, “Dialogue and Perception of the Other,” The Prose of the World [1969], ed. Claude Lefort, trans. John O’Neill (Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1973), pp. 131-146 / 170-178.

MID-SEMESTER BREAK 17-28 September

NB. The first essay is due in the second week of the mid-semester break (Thursday, 27 September by 4pm)

Wk. 8: Sartre on being-in-itself and being-for-itself (1 October)

The Being of phenomena; thetic and non-thetic consciousness; being as being-in-itself; consciousness as negation and nihilation; the origins of nothingness as freedom.

Required reading:

• Jean-Paul Sartre, “The Pursuit of Being” & “The Origin of Negation,” Being and Nothingness [1943], trans. Hazel E. Barnes (New York: Philosophical Library, 1956), 8-17, 20-30, 40-43, 56-65 / 180-200.

Wk. 9: Sartre on bad faith and the other (8 October)

Consciousness as self-negation; bad faith as inauthenticity and self-negating transcendence; the unity of being-in-itself and being-for-itself; the other, situation and disintegration; being-for-the-other.

Required reading:

• Jean-Paul Sartre, “Bad Faith,” “Immediate Structures of the For-Itself” & “The Existence of Others,” Being and Nothingness [1943], trans. Hazel E. Barnes (New York: Philosophical Library, 1956), pp. 86-113, 119-133, 340-347 / 201-226.

Wk. 10: Sartre on intersubjectivity, freedom and the situation (15 October)

Intentional purposiveness and possibility; the other and consciousness modified; freedom and the other; intersubjectivity as conflict; resistance and the situation.

Required reading:

• Jean-Paul Sartre, “The Existence of Others” & “Being and Doing: Freedom,” Being and Nothingness [1943], trans. Hazel E. Barnes (New York: Philosophical Library, 1956), pp. 347-400, 619-629 / 226-259.

Wk. 11: De Beauvoir on ambiguity, freedom and the other (22 October)

The concept of ambiguity; freedom denied and self-denied; the situation, freedom and joy; freedom as intersubjectivity; the infantile world and the sub-man; freedom, moral choice and the past.

Required reading:

• Simone de Beauvoir, “Personal Freedom and Others” & “The Positive Aspect of Freedom,” The Ethics of Ambiguity [1947], trans. Bernard Frechtmen (New York: Citadel Press, 1948), pp. 35-49, 78-83, 86-95, 134-135 / 260-276.

Wk. 12: Merleau-Ponty on freedom, embodiment and the situation; Levinas on critiquing phenomenology (29 October)

Critiquing abstract freedom; action and temporality; the body and intersubjectivity; history, the situation and lived freedom. Critiquing fundamental ontology; responsibility to being; the irreducibility of the other; ethics as fundamental.

Required reading:

• Maurice Merleau-Ponty, “Freedom,” trans. Colin Smith, in: Basic Writings, ed. Thomas Baldwin (London: Routledge, 2004), pp. 209-233 / 277-290.

• Emmanuel Levinas, “Is Ontology Fundamental?” [1951], trans. Peter Atterton, Philosophy Today 33:2 (Summer, 1989), pp. 121-129 / 291-299.

NB. There are no classes in week 13.

NB. The second essay is due in the first week of the exam period (Thursday, 15 November by 4pm)