Office hours: Tuesdays and Wednesdays, 2:00-3:00pm, in my office,
145 Baker Hall. I would also be happy to
meet with you at another time, to be arranged in advance. If you would like to schedule a meeting, just send me an e-mail at edgar.boedeker@uni.edu or give me a
call at 273-7487.
Texts (available at University Book & Supply):
- Martin Heidegger, History
of the Concept of Time (Bloomington: University of Indiana Press, 1985;
ISBN: 0-253-20717-7).
- Maurice Merleau-Ponty:
Basic Writings, edited by Thomas Baldwin (Routledge, 2004; ISBN 0-415-31587-5)
- The Foucault Reader,
edited by Paul Rabinow (New York: Pantheon, 1984; ISBN: 0-394-71340-0).
- Course packet of
photocopied materials from Edmund Husserl and Martin Heidegger: soon available
at Copyworks, at the corner of College and 23rd Streets.
Course description: What is a human being? What is human freedom? What is consciousness, and how is it related
to the body? What is power, and how does
it shape who we are? In order to shed
light on these questions, our course will center around the philosophical movement
known as phenomenology: the attempt to describe the basic structures of
human experience. We will begin by
studying the thought of the founder of phenomenology, Edmund Husserl
(1859-1938). Unfortunately, Husserl had
trouble explaining what phenomenology really was, and consequently spent an
inordinate amount of time trying to in rather confusing ways. We will thus read only some of his writings –
specifically, his description of the experience of time. Instead, we will focus our study of Husserl
on Martin Heidegger’s (1889-1976) much clearer exposition and criticism of
Husserl’s so-called “transcendental phenomenology.” We will then move on to Heidegger’s
description – in the first Division of his magnum
opus, Being and Time (1927) – of
how we deal practically with “equipment”, how we encounter other people, and
how our own selves are involved in both of these “dimensions” of human
experience. We will supplement this
study of Heidegger with readings from the phenomenologist Maurice Merleau-Ponty
(1908-1961), who showed the crucial role of the human body in all this –
something that Heidegger doesn’t discuss.
We will then examine Michel Foucault’s (1926-1984) analyses of modern
forms of power – as embodied in prisons, schools, psychoanalysis, and the
social “sciences” – and how it constitutes us as modern subjects. Although this is an unusual way of
understanding Foucault, I hope to show that his analyses of power can be
profitably understood through Merleau-Ponty’s notion of the body. The course will conclude with a study of the
most important sections of Division Two of Heidegger’s Being and Time, where he analyzes how in one way or another we are
always relating ourselves to our own death, and how this shapes the temporality
of human experience.
Course goals: This course will acquaint you with two of the most
important movements in 20th-Century Continental European philosophy:
phenomenology and the later thought of Michel Foucault. In so doing, it will provide you with
illuminating ways of thinking about human nature, consciousness, temporality,
freedom, the body, modernity, and power.
Specific learning
outcomes:
and
Course
format: Class meetings will consist
of a mixture of lecture and discussion.
In order to benefit from both, it is essential that you do all of
the reading for each class. One
of the most important things that this course will offer you is the opportunity
to hone your interpretive, argumentative, and rhetorical skills by writing
several papers on the often difficult texts we will be reading.
In
addition to the required reading, we will also be watching two videos: Sex,
Lies and Videotape (1989) in connection with Foucault’s distinction between
“sovereign” and “panoptical” forms of power; and Ingmar Bergman’s The
Seventh Seal (1957) in connection with Heidegger’s view of self-ownership
(“authenticity”). We will show these outside
of the class period (accompanied, budget permitting, by pizza), and arrange
the viewing time to fit in with the schedules of as many of us as
possible. Viewing these videos is required for the class.
Evaluation:
1.
40% of your final grade will come from a combination of “analytic response
papers” from 1 to 2 pages in length on a study question or a topic of your
choosing. Frequently, the handouts will
contain questions that, either individually or combined, can serve as the basis
of the analytic response papers. Each
analytic response paper will be worth 4% of your final grade. Analytic response papers will be graded on a
check (full-credit), check-plus (1½ credit), or check-minus (half-credit)
basis. Please observe the following firm deadlines: two analytic response papers
are due by February 1, four by February 20, six by March 6, eight by April 10,
and all ten by April 26. I
will not accept any analytic response papers or worksheets after these dates.
The purpose of the analytic response papers
and worksheets is to encourage you to do each reading assignment, and to come
to class prepared to discuss them. They
may be turned within a week after we have discussed the topic in question. I want to stress that these are not “reaction
papers.” In calling them “analytic”, I
mean to stress that you should focus on one important topic or passage
in a reading assignment, and interpret it as clearly and accurately as you
can. In doing so, you may apply it to
your own experience. Nevertheless, I
want you to connect what you say with particular passages in the text. This may, but need not, include a criticism
of what the author says.
Many of the texts that students read in
philosophy courses, and humanities courses in general, are translations from the
original (Greek, Latin, Arabic, Hebrew, French, German, Italian, Danish,
etc.). Heidegger has rightly said that
all translation is interpretation. By
this, he meant that translators have to make many decisions in translating
texts – some of which can have fateful consequences as these translations are
used and thought through by readers. The
text on which we will focus the most attention in this course is Heidegger’s
1927 Being and Time, which is perhaps the most important, but also the
most difficult, philosophical texts of the past two centuries. There are currently two published English
translations of this work. One is the
pioneering work by John Macquarrie and Edward Robinson (Harper & Row,
1962), which is extremely careful and truly a remarkable achievement for its
time. Unfortunately, though, it makes a
number of misleading renderings of Heidegger’s key technical expressions; it
also has the reputation of being rather “clunky”, i.e., ponderous or cumbersome. The other is a more recent one by Joan
Stambaugh (State University of New York Press, 1996), which is somewhat more
colloquial and readable. Although it
improves on some of the difficulties with the earlier translation, it still
makes some unfortunate choices in translating; it is also less careful than the
one by Macquarrie and Robinson. In order
to make Heidegger’s Being and Time more comprehensible to
English-speaking readers, I am currently in the process producing a new
translation. This is the text that we’ll
be using in this course.
2. Class participation: I expect that all students
will participate actively and constructively in classroom discussions. Asking questions and responding to what I or
fellow students say are excellent ways for you to learn. Doing so regularly will boost your final
grade by up to two-thirds of a letter-grade, for example, from a B+ to
an A. On the other hand, if your
presence in class contributes to a negative learning environment (for example,
repeatedly coming to class late, treating fellow students with disrespect, obviously
not paying attention, passing notes, whispering, etc.), this can reduce your
final grade by one third of a letter grade.
3. Attendance: I reserve the right to take attendance
at the beginning of each class period.
You are permitted two unexplained absences during the semester. For each unexplained absence beyond these
three, your final grade will be reduced by one third of a letter grade. For example, someone with a B+ average with 4
unexplained absences (i.e., 2 more than the 2 allowed) will receive a B- in the
course. The only explanations I will
accept are a doctor’s note or a funeral announcement.
I realize that this is a fairly strict attendance
policy. I have instituted it mainly
because much of the learning that you will do in this course will take place in
class. Asking questions, raising
objections, and listening to others are important skills that you will get to
practice in class discussions. In
addition, coming to class is necessary to doing well in this course.
4.
Two papers on an important aspect of one of the texts we read. I will give you paper topics in advance.
-
The first paper, due in class on October 22, should be around 6-7 pages in
length and will be worth 25% of your final grade. I invite you to discuss your paper with me as
you write it.
- The second paper, due on Wednesday, December 16, by noon, in my
mailbox in the Department of Philosophy and World Religions office (Baker 135),
should be should be around 7-9 pages in
length and will be worth 35% of your final grade. I invite you to discuss your paper with me as
you write it.
I
strongly encourage you to co-write
one or both of your papers with one other member of the class. Co-writing is an increasingly important skill
in such fields as business, science, academia, law, etc. Since I will hold a co-written paper to exactly the same standards as a
single-authored paper, it is definitely to your advantage to co-write a
paper. After all, two heads are better
than one! If you co-write a paper,
however, please make sure that you
and your co-author both check it for
consistency in style, verb tense, coherence, etc.
Criteria
for writing and evaluating a paper:
I. Thesis (20
points).
A. Does your essay have a
clear, informative, and compelling thesis that appears at the end of an
interesting introduction that explains why your thesis matters, why it is
important?
B. Is your thesis new, an
original, creative and compelling insight into the text and issue under
consideration? Do you set the historical
and cultural context for this thesis, explaining why this thesis is important
and therefore giving the reader a reason to take interest in your essay?
II. Support of thesis (60 points).
A. Thesis defense. Does your essay have a consecutive argument that
defends your thesis, carefully moving the reader from one point to the next (or
does it simply run in place)? Your aim
is not to prove to the reader that your thesis is iron-clad, but to
show that it is reasonable, that what you see in the text is there to be seen. So do you cite and quote evidence from the
text (a good rule of thumb is to use at least three examples), and do
you explain how that evidence supports your thesis? Do you lead the reader through your
argument, one step at a time, explicitly telling me how that step supports your
thesis?
Remember that the reasons
you give for or against an argument should be more than simply your beliefs or
opinions. Rather, they should be
potentially convincing to someone else, even if this person may not initially
share your beliefs or opinions. After
all, are you convinced that something is true just because
someone else happens to believe it? Thus
in trying to bring your reader over to your side, make sure to meet him or her
in the middle by appealing to reasons that they might accept.
B. Evidence and reasoning. Does
your essay have adequate citation and quotations from relevant texts that
support the argument of the paper, and do you explain how those citations and
quotations in fact support the argument?
C. Consistency. Does
your essay demonstrate internal consistency or ways of handling contradiction
and paradox as they emerge in the argument?
D. Addressing an objection.
Does your essay show an awareness of a possible objection to your thesis? Does your essay address this objection?
III. Style and
presentation (20 points).
A. Does your essay
1. avoid
grammatical, spelling, and punctuation errors?
(This is very important,
since the reader can’t help but take these factors as indicating the
author’s care in writing the paper.)
2. have clear
and well-structured sentences, paragraphs, and arguments?
3. have
properly defined key terms?
4. have
properly documented quotes? Page numbers
in parentheses placed after the quote are sufficient if you are dealing with
just one text.
B.
Succinctness. Is every paragraph,
sentence, and even every word absolutely necessary to your argument (or do you
have irrelevant material and rambling discussion)?
Notes
on the papers:
One thing that a philosophy paper should not be
is a “book report”, i.e., an attempt to summarize an entire philosophical
text. Instead, a good philosophy paper
should give a close analysis of a single key argument in a
text. An “argument” in this sense isn’t
a verbal fight (this isn’t the Jerry Springer Show, after all!). Rather, an argument is a chain of reasoning
from certain statements (called the “premises”) to another statement (called
the “conclusion”) that the argument claims is supported by the
premises.
A good philosophy paper contains both an
analysis of such an argument and some criticism of it. A good criticism generally consists of either
(1) reasons why one or more of the premises of the argument is false,
or (2) reasons why the premises in fact do not support the conclusion
(in which case the conclusion still might be false even if the premises were
true). You may or may not agree with the
argument; and you may or may not agree with your criticism of it. This doesn’t matter for the purposes of this
course. Remember that the reasons
you give for or against an argument should be more than simply your beliefs or
opinions. Rather, they should be
potentially convincing to someone else, even if this person may not initially
share your beliefs or opinions. After
all, are you convinced that something is true just because
someone else happens to believe it? So
don’t just state whether or not you agree with the author’s conclusion. Instead, try to give reasons for or
against the author’s argument for this conclusion.
In my experience, the
most common way for paper grades to suffer is due to a lack of documentation
in the texts. You should use direct
citations sparingly – generally only if the exact wording of the passage is
either directly relevant to the argument you’re making, or particularly clear
and concise. (Short direct citations
should be placed in quotation-marks; direct citations over 3 lines long should
be offset, indented, single-spaced, and without quotation-marks.) In other cases, use indirect citation –
paraphrasing in your own words what the author says, and telling the reader
where s/he says it.
Further note: Each semester, I teach
almost 100 students. Although I give
each as much individual time and attention as I possibly can during the
semester, I will not be able to send you your individual grade for the course
at the end of the semester. I submit the
grades to the Registrar as soon as I can during the week of final exams, and
ask you to kindly wait to see your grade until it has been reported
electronically.
Website: The great majority of our course materials will be
placed on our website: http://www.uni.edu/boedeker. These materials will include our syllabus
(i.e., this document), worksheets for you to fill out on the readings
and films, handouts outlining lectures, materials for use in in-class
group projects, and suggested paper
topics. Please check the website
frequently for updates.
MAILSERV: From time to time, I will send announcements pertaining to the class
via e-mail. To facilitate our electronic
communication, a MAILSERV distribution list has been created for this class
using your UNI e-mail addresses. The list members include myself
and the students who were registered for the class when the list was created.
It is a private list (i.e., only the list members may post to it), but has open
subscription. To send to the list, use
If you registered late, or if you wish to be able to
send and receive e-mails at an e-mail address other than your UNI one, then please
add your e-mail address to this list by sending a message to
where
the body (not the subject heading) contains these two
lines:
SUB 650-160-01-FALL
END
In
a similar manner, if you drop this course, you may remove yourself from the
list by sending a message to
where
the body (not the subject heading) contains these
two lines:
UNSUB
650-160-01-FALL
END
It
will be your responsibility to make sure you are subscribed to the MAILSERV
right away, check your e-mail regularly, and read the announcements. I strongly recommend that you purchase a
3-ring binder to organize and store the various handouts for this class.
Cheating and plagiarism (from UNI’s academic ethics policy): “Students at UNI are required to observe the commonly accepted standards of academic honesty and integrity. Except in those instances in which group work is specifically authorized by the instructor of the class, no work which is not solely the student's is to be submitted to a professor in the form of an examination paper, a term paper, class project, research project, or thesis project.
“Cheating of any kind on examinations and/or plagiarism of papers or projects is strictly prohibited. Also unacceptable are the purchase of papers from commercial sources, using a single paper to meet the requirement of more than one class (except in instances authorized and considered appropriate by the professors of the two classes), and submission of a term paper or project completed by any individual other than the student submitting the work. Students are cautioned that plagiarism is defined as the process of stealing or passing off as one's own the ideas or words of another, or presenting as one's own an idea or product which is derived from an existing source.
“It is not acceptable for the work or ideas of another scholar to be presented as a student's own or to be utilized in a paper or project without proper citation. To avoid any appearance of plagiarism or accidental plagiarism, it is important that all students become fully cognizant of the citation procedures utilized in their own discipline and in the classes they take. The plea of ignorance regarding citation procedures or of carelessness in citation is not a compelling defense against allegations of plagiarism. A college student, by the fact that he or she holds that status, is expected to understand the distinction between proper scholarly use of others’ work and plagiarism.”
Any student who is found to have cheated or plagiarized will receive the grade of “F” for the class. In addition, if you are found to have copied anything from an Internet website without proper documentation, or to have engaged in other particularly flagrant forms of cheating or plagiarism, the instructor reserves the right to “recommend suspension from UNI for a period ranging from the term in which the infraction occurs (with a loss of all credit earned during that term) to permanent suspension from the University.” The instructor will also report this “action in writing to the instructor’s department head (and, if the student is from a different department, to the head of the student’s department), and to the Office of the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs. The Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs will notify the student in writing that such action has been taken, and will maintain a file for each student so disciplined.”
Disabilities: I will make
every reasonable effort to accommodate disabilities. Please contact me if I can be of assistance
in this area. All qualified students
with disabilities are protected under the provisions of the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C.A., Section 12101. The
Tentative course schedule:
25
Aug.: Introduction. Background to phenomenology: Psychologism,
Naturalism, and neo-Kantianism.
27
Aug.: Heidegger, History of the
Concept of Time (1925), pp. 29-32 and 36-47 Worksheet1; Handout1 Merleau-Ponty
reading on psychology, the body, and lower and higher forms of behavior: from The Structure of Behavior (1942), pp.
43-49.
1
Sept.: Intentionality: empty and
fulfilled intentions, and “truth” as “e-vidence”: HCT, pp.
47-72 Worksheet1 Worksheet2;
Handout1 Handout2 M.-P.
reading on the evidence of perception: from Phenomenology
of Perception (hereafter “P.P.”;
1945), pp. 191-197.
3
Sept: Perception, synthesis, and
ideation; and phenomenology
as the analytic description of intentionality in its a priori: HCT,
pp. 72-94 Worksheet Handout. M.-P. reading on the subject of perception
and perceptual synthesis: from P.P.,
pp. 126-135.
8 Sept.: Internal time as impression, flow, and retention: read Husserl, Phenomenology of the Consciousness of Internal Time (1905) pp. 3-36 Worksheet.
10 Sept.: The constitution of the transcendent objects of external time on the basis of the immanent objects of internal time: Phenomenology of the Consciousness of Internal Time, pp. 37-43, 47-49, 51-52, 57-59, 66-73, 95-101 (in course packet) Worksheet. M.-P. reading on the body’s role in supplying the meaning in terms of which things serve as norms for perception: from P.P., pp. 79-84, 135-145.
15 Sept.: Husserl’s method for transcendental phenomenology: HCT, pp. 94-107; and selections from Husserl’s Logical Investigations (1901; in course packet) and The Idea of Phenomenology (1907; in course packet) Worksheet Handout. M.-P. reading on phenomenological method: from P.P., pp. 62-78. M.-P. Handout.
17 Sept.: Husserl’s neglect of the question of the being of
the intentional entity: HCT, pp. 108-131 Worksheet. M.-P. reading on thinking (the “cogito”) as
infinite or finite: from P.P., pp.
166-173.
By this point, you must have submitted at
least two analytic response
papers (remember that a “reading session” counts as one analytic response
paper).
22 Sept.: Heidegger’s critique of Descartes’ view of the relation between mind and world, or subject and object. (Note that this is also a major, but implicit, criticism of Husserl’s view of the same thing): BT Sections 19-21. Since I don’t yet have an adequate translation of these sections, and since the existing translations are good enough here, please print out and read this text (from Joan Stambaugh’s 1994 translation). Note that translations of the Latin passages from Descartes are given as endnotes at the end of this document; read them along with the main text.
Here is my translation of BT, Sections 19 and 20, although though I haven’t yet translated the Latin passages from Descartes.
24 Sept.: The question of being: HCT, pp. 135-144; and Being and Time (1927), Sections 1-5 Worksheet Handout.
29 Sept.: Heidegger’s phenomenological method and the project of Being and Time: BT Sections 6-9 and the selection from Basic Problems of Phenomenology (1927; in course packet) Worksheet Handout.
1
Oct.: Dasein’s encounters of “handy” intraworldly entities: BT Sections 10-14. M.-P. reading on the behavioral environment
as not represented by a thinking subject: from The Structure of Behavior, pp. 49-52, 57-61 Handout.
6
Oct.: Dasein as being-in-the-world: BT Sections 15-18. M.-P. on the lived body: from The Phenomenology of Perception., pp.
85-101 Handout.
By this point, you must have submitted the equivalent of at least four analytic response papers (remember that a “reading session” counts as one analytic response paper).
8 Oct.: Dasein’s spatiality: BT Sections 22-24; and
selections from “The Origin of the Work of Art” (to be handed out in
class). Very important M.-P.
reading on “concrete” and “abstract” movement: from P.P., pp. 101-125 Handout
Handout2.
13 Oct.: Being-with-others: BT Sections 25-27; M.P. on our relations with other human beings: from The Structure of Behavior, pp. 52-57; from P.P., pp 145-165, 171-173; optional but highly recommended: from “The Intertwining – the Chiasm” (1959), pp. 247-271.
15 Oct.: Being-in: pre-disposition, understanding, interpretation, language, BT Sections 28-33. M.-P. reading on intentionality as affective and projecting: from P.P., pp. 173-182 (optional: “The algorithm and the mystery of language” from The Prose of the World [1952], pp. 234-246) Handout.
20 Oct.: Dis-course, con-course, declining, care, and anxiety: BT Sections 34-41. M.-P. reading on encountering things as scientific objects, and language: from P.P., pp. 182-191, 200-209 Handout.
By this point, you must have submitted the equivalent of at least six analytic response papers (remember that a “reading session” counts as one analytic response paper).
22 Oct: Reality and truth: BT Sections 43 and 44. M.-P. reading against a skeptical solipsism of the thinking cogito: from P.P., pp. 166-170, 173-175, 198-199 Handout.
27 Oct.:
“The Body of the Condemned,” “Docile Bodies,” and “The Means of Correct
Training” from Discipline and Punish
(1975; The Foucault Reader, pp. 170-206); and the equivalent of Handout.
29 Oct.: “Panopticism,” “Complete and Austere Institutions”, “Illegalities and Delinquency”, and “The Carceral” from Discipline and Punish (1975; FR, pp. 207-238); and “The Politics of Health in the Eighteenth Century” (1976; FR, pp. 273-289) Handout.
3 Nov.: “Space, Knowledge, and Power” (1982; FR, pp. 239-256); and “Truth and Power” (1976/7; FR pp. 51-75) Handout.
5 Nov.: “Nietzsche, Genealogy, History” (1971; FR, pp.
76-100) Handout.
10 Nov.: “Right of Death and Power over Life”, “We ‘Other Victorians’” from History of Sexuality: The Will to Truth (1976; FR, pp. 258-272) Handout.
12 Nov.: and “The Repressive Hypothesis: The Incitement to Discourse” and “The Repressive Hypothesis: The Perverse Implantation” from History of Sexuality: The Will to Truth (1976; FR, pp. 292-329) Handout.
IV. Death, self-ownership
(“authenticity”), freedom, and temporality (1924-1945)
17 Nov.: Being-to-death: BT Sections 45-52 Handout.
By this point, you must have submitted the equivalent of at least eight analytic response papers (remember that a “reading session” counts as one analytic response paper).
19 Nov.: Existential “conscience” and “owing” (or “guilt”): BT Sections 53-57 Handout.
1 Dec.: Self-ownership (or “authenticity”) as responding to the call of conscience by owning up to one’s ec-sistential owing: BT Sections 58, 60, and 62 Handout.
3
Dec.: Self-owning (or “authentic”) temporality as Dasein’s freedom for
its own possibilities: Selections from On the Essence of Reasons (1928;
really “From the Presencing of the Ground”; in course packet); and BT 65
Handout. Worksheet on Bergman’s
“The Seventh Seal.”
8
Dec.: Dasein’s temporality and co-missiveness (or historicity): BT Sections
68a, 69c, 74. M.P. on freedom: from P.P., pp. 209-233 Handout.
10
Dec.: Intratimeliness and its foundation in Dasein’s
temporality: BT Sections 79-81 Handout.
By this point, you must have submitted the equivalent of all ten analytic response papers (remember that a “reading session” counts as
one analytic response paper).
Wednesday, 16 Dec.: Final paper due by noon
in the Department of Philosophy & World Religions office, 135 Baker Hall.