Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 10
61
Ethics: Contemporary Perspectives / Re: Ethics: Historical Perspectives - Practice Question Response!
« Last post by waveletter on July 17, 2012, 12:42:34 am »
Hi LouFederer (and everyone):

This is a great start. Your writing style is fluid and sophisticated; it must come from quite a bit of practice and reflection. Noted! I'd give it a high-60s to low-70s score.

One thing I wanted to point out to everyone on CreateaForum (and the VLE, if you're listening), though, is that this particular question has not occurred on any of the recent exam papers. It is on p. 39 of the Student Handbook for 2011-12. This is a fork in the road that I incorrectly followed in my first year in the UoL External Programme. I studied the sample questions, wrote sample essays on them, and then found out with only a little time left before May that the questions on the exam were in all likelihood to be quite different. And they were. Watch out.

It's not easy entering through the front door of the UoL website, but you can find past exam papers and reports out on the back porch: https://philosophy.elearning.london.ac.uk/mod/folder/view.php?id=1223

There is a pattern to the topics on the exam questions. Read the original works, the actual past exam questions, the examiners' reports, and then the commentaries on the thinkers (Guthrie on Aristotle, for example). You can fairly accurately guess what should appear on the exam you sit.

OK, that being said, this is still a pretty interesting sample question. I don't think I can say everything that I ought to say in one post, so I'll number my remarks and attempt a later continuation in sequence.

1. I'm probably going to take the Ethics 1 module, belatedly as Tim points out, next year, and Aristotle is one of My Guys, so I really ought to think about this question. I did a little. First off, I thought that the Doctrine of the Mean was indeed applicable to a number of virtues. Let's take courage--right out of Plato's Laches and the Intro to Phil module. You've got cowardice on one end and foolhardiness on the other end and genuine courage in the middle, pretty much as an Aristotelian balance beam might suggest. Good. Same with a lot of other things: patience (irascibility/indifference), generosity (stinginess/indulgence), nurturing (spoiling the child/neglecting the child), and so on. So, initially Aristotle seems to have a nice idea. (Maybe a little to mathematical for the biologist Aristotle, but we give him some slack here.) But with Justice it seems harder to identify the extremes of excess and deficit, as LouFederer notes (2nd paragraph into the answer).

2. But Aristotle must have in mind Plato's more complex analysis of Justice as the harmonious interaction of wisdom, courage, and moderation. The Mean Doctrine seems to favor the moderation aspect of Plato's Republic theory, and then wisdom and courage get knocked off as individual virtues, accounted for as means of their own particular kind. This was my next thought, just ruminating on the practice question.

3. Now I start reading the essay, and LouFederer pretty much demolishes Aristotle. Ouch. If Justice is a Mean, what are the polar extremes between which Justice might intermediately fall? It's hard to say. Maybe Justice and Injustice are more like an archery target, with varying degrees and kinds of injustice lying on concentric circles distant from the bulls-eye of Justice. That seems right.

4. A question: Does Aristotle subscribe to a Unity of Virtues concept (as Louise says in para. 5)? I think that Plato did, but I'm asking, does this translate over into the Nicomachean Ethics? Hmm....

5. Another question: Does Aristotle not see the fundamental problem that LouFederer gestures at here? He's pretty slippery, like Locke say, and his analytical development might turn out to be more subtle than the first few readings would suggest.

It's getting pretty late for me, so I'll stop here and try to continue tomorrow night. Thanks! --Ron



62
General Discussion / Re: New Philosophy Student Needs Advice!
« Last post by waveletter on July 16, 2012, 10:42:19 pm »
Hi LouFederer:

I'll have some comments for your sample essay on Justice as a Mean in Aristotle a little later. (Excellent start, by the way! First ever? Wow.) I've been overwhelmed by work and non-work duties lately.

You asked above about which module is easier: Logic or Epistemology. I think that Epistemology is definitely easier. It is a lot more intuitive and accessible. Epistemology goes well with Modern Philosophy, too. Logic is rather tricky, at least philosophical logic. But, yeah, I hear your idea that you might to just want to get it out of the way and clear the slate for the second year. If you do take logic, there is a nice introduction to the Logic module topics on Sense and Reference, Descriptions, and Frege-Russell-Strawson-Donellan in Wm. Lycan's book on Introduction to Philosophy of Language. The later chapters in Lycan's book are pertinent only to the Phil of Language UoL module, but you'll get some good coverage of Logic topics in his early chapters. Thanks & stay tuned to this channel, because I will comment on Mean Justice ASAP! --Ron
63
General Discussion / Re: New Regulations
« Last post by waveletter on July 16, 2012, 10:28:18 pm »
Hi Tim:

No, I haven't done the Historical Ethics yet! I'm ethics averse. No, really, I started to study it last year along with Aristotle, but I found that the Metaphysics module was more appropriate to study along with The Philosopher. The stuff on substance from Metaphysics helped me with Aristotle's conceptual development from the Categories to Metaphysics Z. So, I put off doing the Ethics 1. I guess I'm stuck with that now. I've finished the other four "Level 4 courses" for the Old Regulations though.

Today I got an email--not really personally addressed to me, like Prof. Guttenplan intimated--but a general encouragement to switch over to the New Regs. Actually, it wound up in my Spam folder, so if you haven't seen it, you might want to peek into your junk email directory and see if it got redirected there.

Is your Plan A allowed? For some reason, maybe just false intuition, I had thought that you had to make a choice this year. One attraction of the New Regs might be that one could pick up a topic from a module that had been dropped, like the 20th century phenomenologists, or philosophy of mathematics, for example. So, I don't really know. I haven't received my marks yet for Ari and Metaphys this last spring. That might affect things. If I do go New Regs, it will probably be with your Plan B. I've finished three years now and have two to go (Old). I guess it will take me three if I switch to New. If I elect to go Plan B, I'll probably just bite the bullet and take three modules--one being the little Intro--in my first year as a Newbie.

My marks have so far been in the mid-60s; I don't seem to have **** the secret of busting through the 70 ceiling. But, that's OK. I'm happy with a 2:1. I sent an email asking about why I couldn't get my grades on July 9th, but it seems they are just delayed, according to the UoL ombudsman. Maybe it was my Aristotle paper--I chose to write on substance in Categories, substance in Metaphysics, and the Sea Battle from On Interpretation...not the easiest choices, I guess.

Also, I noticed that they have added a bunch of stuff to the VLE pages--I've actually got the new course description for Metaphysics. It's under the My Courses category when you go to the Phil VLE. I haven't compared it to what's in the Yellow Book (Philosophy 1) yet. It's by Prof. Tim Crane again, though. Nothing for Aristotle yet. I wonder if these are links that pop up live for you when you register for a course? Anyway, you might check there to see if anything's new.

Thanks for your comments Tim, and congratulations on making great scores on your first exams! --Ron Allen (waveletter)
64
General Discussion / Re: New Regulations
« Last post by Hongkonger on July 15, 2012, 07:44:02 pm »
Long time no see!  It seems that many are interested in transferring to  New Regulations...

Casey Enos,  as far as I know, individual student will soon get noticed whether they are eligible, I haven't got noticed yet... have you read the PSR2012-2013 where there is some information on page 34-35 about the eligibility...  Philosophy of Science was cut, but I am also disappointed about the subject Continental Philosophy that the syllabus only involves the main doctrines of only 3 Philosophers (Hegel, Schopenhauer and Nietzsche), previously it also includes Husserl and Heidegger and I've planned to answer the exam questions of them!

waveletter,  you haven't done Historical Ethics yet? me too...  but the PSR said that we don't need to do Introduction to Philosophy if we have done Historical Ethics, Epistemology and Logic.  I have the following idea.  Plan A:  What if we continue to register in the coming year with Old Regulations and do the Historical Ethics together with 1 or 2 (or even 3) other courses first, and then apply to transfer to New Regulations the next year?  Plan B:  the same as you've mentioned - do Introduction to Philosophy straightforward.  What do you think? Which one is better?  I completed only 2 courses - Epistemology and Logic,  how far are you from finishing the entire programme?  I've started working on Historical Ethics and find it pretty easy,  I think you find it easy too,  and I regret that I didn't take this course together with Epistemology and Logic last year!  If I had, I could simply apply to transfer this year and didn't have to think so much!  But I guess I may choose Plan B at last.


By the way, how are you guys' exam result?  I am happy with mine, thank God!!
65
General Discussion / Re: New Philosophy Student Needs Advice!
« Last post by LouFederer on July 13, 2012, 03:00:41 pm »
Hi again guys

I had a swell of motivation today and, after some extra hours of reading, I finally formulated a response to the exam question "How well does Justice fit Aristotle's Doctrine of the Mean?" I have posted my essay on this forum (scary times...!) and I would love for Casey or Ron to have a read, and tell me what you think. This is my first ever Philosophy essay and I would appreciate any feedback at all.

Thanks for the book recommendations, Casey! I looked up the 'Introducing' series and they look really awesome.

The link to my essay on the site: http://philosophyuol.createaforum.com/ethics-contemporary-perspectives/ethics-historical-perspectives-practice-question-response!/new/#new

Thanks y'all!
66
Ethics: Contemporary Perspectives / Ethics: Historical Perspectives - Practice Question Response!
« Last post by LouFederer on July 13, 2012, 02:56:53 pm »
Hi all

I am slightly nervous about posting this as it is my first ever Philosophy essay which I wrote this afternoon at work. I decided to answer the practice examination question: "How well does Justice fit Aristotle's Doctrine of the Mean?" I would be so grateful to have any feedback at all on this essay. I am going to be starting the course in September and I thought the best way to get to grips with the subject was to read, assimilate and write. So here it goes:


How well does Justice fit Aristotle’s Doctrine of the Mean?

Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics is an enquiry into what constitutes the ultimate good for human beings. In short, Aristotle believes that the proper function of humans is to act in accordance with reason, exercising the virtues under the guidance of reason, in order to achieve the ultimate end of eudaimonia – the state of having had a successful, flourishing, happy life. In the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle gives detailed accounts of the established Virtues, and institutes the doctrine of the Mean to place the Virtues into a comprehensible framework: between two disparate, polar vices. Essentially, virtues are states of one’s character in the presence of which eudaimonia can be realised. It is unarguable that Justice is synonymous with virtue, with what is ultimately good for man, enabling and facilitating the achievement of eudaimonia, but it does not fit into Aristotle’s very exacting, and very particular, ‘Doctrine of the Mean’ without a degree of difficulty.

As intimated already, the Doctrine of the Mean states that each virtue is an intermediate state between two different, polar vices: one of excess and one of deficiency. For example, the virtue of patience lies between two vicious states of irascibility and lack of spirit. In this case, the virtue clearly falls, almost with mathematical perfection between two clear vices. Justice, it would seem, does not have two disparate polar vices, it has just one opposite: injustice. Aristotle would argue, however, that Justice is about getting what one deserves: injustice, then, of the excessive kind would be giving more than is deserved, injustice of the deficient kind would be not getting what is deserved. Receiving more or less than one’s fair share is unjust, and in this fashion, the Doctrine of the Mean is a comfortable fit.

I would argue that, unlike other virtues, however, justice and injustice could take the form of an archery board – the centre circle of the board is justice, it has no blurred edges, it is perceptibly distinct from injustice, which surrounds it in all directions. To deviate at all from absolute justice is to be devoid of justice, which has no other name but injustice. Therefore, the Doctrine of the Mean, which is postulated on the idea of a quantitative-like continuum, seems inappropriate. Justice cannot be like other virtues that run gradually from hot to cold, from naught to ten; with justice you cannot simply add and subtract to reach the virtuous answer. Justice cannot exist in degrees; it is discrete and absolute, either it exists entirely or it is absolutely absent. In this way, Aristotle’s doctrine does not accommodate Justice. However, Aristotle does qualify degrees of Justice in the Nicomachean Ethics by looking at actions in terms of their degrees of voluntariness, dictating that only deliberate, voluntary actions are ever capable of being wrong, or unjust. This is still problematic, however, with regard to the Doctrine of the Mean, as ‘voluntariness’ exists superordinate to both Justice and the accepted virtues. The Doctrine of the Mean appears too crude a model to fully accommodate Justice.

For Justice to be the case in any instance, preceding actions need to have occurred. Justice needs qualifying where other virtues do not. Justice depends on whether the action taken was involuntary, voluntary, or deliberate; it also depends on what the action was. For there to be Justice at all, the appropriate virtue needs to have been acted on, voluntarily and deliberately. There are several links to the chain in the pursuit of satisfying Justice. Even then, however, Justice is only compatible with the Doctrine of the Mean for reasons that I shall now explain.

Aristotle defines Justice as desert: people getting what they deserve according to merit, which, in Aristotle’s system of Virtue Ethics, those who merit most are the most virtuous. So, when the virtues are exercised appropriately (as the situation warrants, in accordance with reason, as the virtuous person would act), Justice is clearly inherent. Justice, in this way, is vicariously accommodated by the Doctrine of the Mean, as it is superordinate to all other virtues: when virtues are performed in accordance with reason, Justice is being done. Furthermore, since Aristotle claims the unity of virtues, the possession of one virtue is the possession of all virtues; this again accommodates Justice, as all other virtues are subordinate to Justice. Therefore, the satisfaction of the subordinate virtues, which unilaterally fit the Doctrine of the Mean, inherently means that Justice too is satisfied, vicariously satisfying the Doctrine of the Mean thereby.

On the contrary, however, it is conceivable that virtues could come into conflict, which disturbs and invalidates Aristotle’s suggestion that all virtues always exist in unity. If the action required by virtue A conflicts with the action require by virtue B, which action should be taken, and how will Justice be realised in this instance? It seems impossible that Justice should satisfy the Doctrine of the Mean either directly or vicariously when the virtues are in conflict. Potentially, when these conflicts arise, the decision-procedure espoused by Aristotle of ‘asking the phronimos’, or the virtuous man, is the only means of settlement, but there is still no real possibility that the unity of virtues (and therefore Justice) could be satisfied in this instance, thereby leaving the Doctrine of the Mean an unsuitable ethical framework.

Furthermore, Aristotle’s account of Justice is elaborate and multifaceted, making it an extremely awkward fit into the neat and finite mould of the Doctrine of the Mean. There exists many forms of Justice according to Aristotle: universal, particular, political, legal, natural, distributive and rectifectory. Perhaps where it is hardest for Justice to satisfy the subordinate virtues, and therefore making the possibility of achieving Justice difficult, is where the interests of the individual and the State differ; what it means to be a just person, versus a just citizen. It should be noted that Aristotle himself states that it means something very different to be a just man and a just citizen. Clearly, every individual lives in some sort of society, so how easy is it to bifurcate the notions of the just man and the just citizen – surely they are the same thing if they exist in the world? Surely the intersection on the proverbial Venn diagram shows the ‘just man’ and ‘just citizen’ sharing almost identical characteristics in the intersection? Aristotle places as much emphasis on the need for a flourishing State as he does flourishing individuals – but to achieve the former, how does the latter need to change, and vice versa, on the understanding that, as Aristotle avers, the just man and just citizen are two very different entities. Furthermore, if virtues exist only in unity, whereby this unity allows the individual the chance of eudaimonia, is this rule broken for the State’s ‘eudaimonia’? It seems that if the requisite virtues themselves change when the ends change (i.e. the pursuit of individual flourishing changes to the pursuit of the State’s flourishing) surely (if Justice is inherent in the exercise of all virtues only) Justice is not being exercised, as this rule has to be broken? If Justice is not even present, it has no chance of fitting into the Doctrine of the Mean.

To conclude and summarise the reasons aforementioned, Justice, although doubtlessly a virtue, is a poor fit for Aristotle’s rigid Doctrine of the Mean. It seems that Justice may vicariously satisfy the Doctrine by being the superordinate, overarching virtue, ‘the virtue of all other virtues’, but of itself it does not satisfy the Doctrine’s narrow criteria. Perhaps the Doctrine is too crude a model, or perhaps Justice is too complex a notion, but it appears to be conclusive at least that Justice is the ultimate, inherent end of the good life.

LouFederer / Louise Chapman 2012


67
General Discussion / Re: New Regulations
« Last post by Casey Enos on July 12, 2012, 08:40:52 pm »
Hey, has anyone got the e-mail telling them if they are eligible for the new regs yet?
68
General Discussion / Re: New Philosophy Student Needs Advice!
« Last post by Casey Enos on July 12, 2012, 08:30:10 pm »
Hey,
I'm not sure about that question in any detail, having not taken Aristotle yet and just getting into ethics this year, but I believe it is a reference to the Nicomachean Ethics. Aristotle held that everything in moderation was the key to ethics; for example in temper you should strike the "mean" or average between allowing yourself to be victimized and being a violent person. So I believe what is being asked is how to define justice in Aristotle's terms, that is of finding balance in all aspects of one's life. I believe Aristotle used the terms good man and just man interchangeably, as did Plato. Since I'm taking ethics as well this year we can work together on this stuff.
About the study materials, I believe most of it is online this year. Check the VLE and your e-mail, they sent me a link but I haven't checked it yet. I prefer the books in my hand to staring at a screen.
A great place to start researching a subject is a series from Icon books http://www.introducingbooks.com/
You can get these books used on Amazon.com for two or three bucks, and I absolutely cannot recommend them enough. I would start with those, even before reading the discussion guides. Their is one for ethics, as well as Plato, Aristotle and most other major philosophers.
As far as researching questions: I think the best way to do it is to hammer out some general background reading, maybe one book in each major field of the subject, then start to specialize in the questions you want to answer. Research those questions thoroughly, write a practice essay and then memorize it as best you can. I tries to have four essays more or less memorized in their broad outline for each subject-the questions are pretty much the same every year, from what I've seen, that way you are sure to get something you can answer.
Finally, in doing your research for your essays, make good use of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Those where lifesavers for me last year.
69
General Discussion / Re: New Philosophy Student Needs Advice!
« Last post by LouFederer on July 12, 2012, 06:15:50 pm »
P.S. As for which order I am going to take my modules.... In the first year, I probably want to get Introduction to Philosophy, Ethics: Historical Perspectives and Logic done. I can't decide which of Logic and Epistemology is harder, but I think I want Logic out of the way for the second year.

In the second year, I will either avoid Metaphysics or Methodology - currently I can't decide as I have fairly limited experience of them!

I really can't wait to get onto studying the third(/fourth) year modules; I imagine I will choose: Greek philosophy: Aristotle; Political philosophy and Aesthetics. The dissertation sounds amazing and I have no idea what I will do that on - no doubt this will become clear to me in a few years! But I adore Plato, Hume, Mill and most Political Philosophy.
70
General Discussion / Re: New Philosophy Student Needs Advice!
« Last post by LouFederer on July 12, 2012, 06:00:35 pm »
Thank you both so much for your advice! You've helped a lot. I feel really lucky talking to people who've already been and done (some of) the course. I am already studying and attempting exam questions from the Ethics: Historical Perspectives module at the moment. When I say 'already studying' I basically mean reading the key works of historical ethics and writing notes alongside them - I haven't received any of the official study materials yet! In terms of my approach going forward, my idea is look at the 'example' exam questions and see what the recurrent themes are, and which topics are frequently examined. I'm actually really relieved that for level four and five courses, the exams are only two hours in length...! I am really hoping that I can perhaps even take four exams next May if I have studied hard enough. I think three for certain - I will only be working part-time and I am planning to maximise the time spent outside of work to study study study... It's daunting though. I am going to try the Pathways Program as I noted several of the students on their websites achieved Firsts (not necessarily by using Pathways, but it can't be a bad sign, right?) If the experience is good, I will subsequently review it on this forum. I am hoping I will cope untutored throughout the subsequent years of the course - each module costs £240 for tuition which, when you total it up for twelve modules, is not cheap - especially when you have no savings and a pretty meagre income! Thumbs down hehe.

I am currently tackling a harder-than-it-looked exam question from the Ethics: Historical Perspectives module. I was wondering if anybody on this forum (maybe just you two, Casey and Ron!!) could share with me their ideas or suggest a general method for answering the question? I have already made pages of notes on the topic and think I have roughly decided what to say, but I would love any expansion you guys have to offer on the question: "How well does Justice fit Aristotle's Doctrine of the Mean?" Interesting question, I know.

Casey, it sounds as though you have worked your butt off! Achieving 70+ scores is amazing, so congratulations, I hope I can emulate your performance in my exams. If you have any pearls of wisdom you'd like to share I would lap them up. I am astounded you managed to work full time, read so voraciously and achieve so highly. That's extremely inspiring - and encouraging! I should really not complain about having to work part-time after all.

I would love to find a way to be economical with my time when studying. I am not usually one for cutting corners, but I wonder if it is possible (nay, wise?) to study with the recurrent exam questions at the front of my mind, or study more traditionally: learning as much of everything as possible, satisfied that I have covered all bases, but stressed and fit to burst? It would be pretty nifty if there was a more expedient way of studying that allowed you to focus more on the difficult topics, and allowed you to 'superficially master' some of the others? Don't get me wrong, I want to do well - really well - but if I could get through it a less-stressed person? Yeah, I'd go for that.

Thanks for reading, guys.
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 10