The Value of Knowledge
Module Guide
Hardcopy from module webpages
Created 16:09:09
Website http://www.vernonpratt.com/pi1005/index.htm
or
http://bit.ly/4DzfkY
Lecture/Seminar Wednesday 11-noon, Harrington 308, 12-1pm Brook 014
Tutor: Vernon Pratt v.pratt@btinternet.com
Module Value – 1 (Single Module)
Year 1
Semester 1
Prerequisites: Knowledge of good and evil
.
On entry to higher education we tend to make certain assumptions about the value of knowledge. These assumptions may take a highly traditional form, which can be traced back to the philosophy of Plato, and the Academy of Athens, according to which knowledge is valuable because its possession enriches our lives in and of itself (knowledge is intrinsically valuable). However, the European philosophical tradition contains many alternatives to this view. Knowledge is often sought not for its intrinsic worth but for its instrumental value – for what it enables us to do. Some philosophers have regarded knowledge as an effect or an instrument of power. Still others have regarded it as positively harmful – as corrupting, rather than life-enhancing. This module aims to introduce students to a range of philosophical views of the value of knowledge, and to help them to make an informed assessment of that value.
.
Prompt: The Source of all Evil
Reading: The Christian Bible Genesis 3
Reading: Plato's Republic, extract. The story of the Cave.
Reading: Russell, The Problems of Philosophy, Ch 8.
Reading: Russell, The Problems of Philosophy, Ch 1.
Discussion is at the heart of our way of doing philosophy. We take a single topic - Knowledge - but with lots of interesting issues that arise, and we try and get hold of these. The format I shall begin with anyway - you will tell me if you want another way - is: me saying a bit to raise a question, we discuss it, I say a bit more. Discussions have a life of their own. I think you'll have to leave it to me to sense when it has lost momentum and it's time to move on.
The format of discussion I like is rounds.
So long as everybody knows their right to silence is respected, I find it works really well.
We simply invite each other to say what they want one at a time while the rest of us shut up. Once we've gone round, the floor is open for a bit for people to take up anything they have heard. Then we move on.
There's a webpage for each topic, where I try and present the ideas I draw on in class.
It's not all discussion! Philosophy is about writing well - especially writing clearly and forensically.
I want you to start writing without delay. The sooner you get feedback the better.
There's a coursework assignment and then a pre-seen exam.
And there's reading.
You should draw on some reading/research to strengthen and develop the argumention that comes straight out of your head. I offer one piece of reading for each topic, on the WeekByWeek page, and a list. But there's lots lots more!
And thinking.
There's one main thing to read each week, plus suggestions for further reading. These are given in the Week-by-Week information.
The suggestions for further reading should specially useful for preparing your assignment.
There are many many books and articles on our main topics- so it's quite likely that there are things out there which would be really useful to you - useful in taking your own thinking forward. Use the web and the library to find them - different things will speak to different people. I hope you will find it more rewarding to find your own than for me to give an enormous list - such lists are readily available if that is what you want. The The London Philosophy Study Guide is an excellent example at its best (but some topics are maintained more regularly than others).
The web has almost everything on it of course (well, I'm exaggerating, but still - how did we live without it?)
Don't forget Athens, available through your library registration.
Annas, J An Introduction to Plato’s Republic (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1981)
Babbitt, I. Rousseau and Romanticism (World Publishing Co. 1955)
Bacon, F., The Advancement of Learning and New Atlantis, ed. A. Johnston (Oxford University Press, 1974)
Clark, M. Nietzsche on Truth and Philosophy (Cambridge University Press, 1990)
Collinson, D. Fifty Major Philosophers (London: Routledge)
Cranston, M. Jean Jacques: The Early Life and Work of Jean Jacques Rousseau 1712-1754 (Allen lane, 1983)
Cross, R. C. Plato’s republic: A Philosophical Commentary (London: Macmillan, 1962)
Crowther. J. G. Francis Bacon: The First Statesman of Science (London: Cresset, 1960)
Danto, A. Nietzsche as Philosopher (Macmillan, 1965)
Dobinson, C. Jean Jacques Rousseau: His Thought and its Relevance Today (Methuen, 1969)
Field, G. C. The Philosophy of Plato (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1969)
Foucault, M., The History of Sexuality Vol 1, trans. Robert Hurley (Penguin, 1990)
Plato, The Republic of Plato, trans. F.M. Cornford (Oxford University Press, 1945)
Nietzsche, F., Human, All Too Human, trans. R.J. Hollingdale (Cambridge University Press, 1986)
Nietzsche, F., Daybreak, trans. R.J. Hollingdale (Cambridge University Press, 1997)
Rousseau, J.J., The Social Contract and Discourses (Everyman, 1913)1. |
Outline ideas and arguments of major philosophers in the history of the subject, encountered through their own writings. |
2. |
Develop the ability to enter imaginatively into different world-views through an understanding of their different starting-points and presuppositions. |
3. |
Develop the ability to recognise methodological errors, rhetorical devices, unexamined conventional wisdom, unnoticed assumptions and vagueness. |
4. |
Develop the ability to read closely and interpret difficult texts drawn from a variety of ages and traditions, and evaluate the arguments explicitly or implicitly contained therein. |
5. |
Develop the ability to communicate ideas and arguments effectively, in language that is both precise and suited to the occasion. |
In designing the assessment, I am anxious to get you
(a) to develop your own thinking about knowledge and
(b) to develop your skill in getting help with your thinking from other clever people.
There will be
One assignment (2,500 words)
and
One pre-seen examination
The two assessments are equally weighted at 50% each.
You write answers to two questions in two hours from a list of 6.
A pre-seen exam paper looks like an ordinary one, with the transforming difference that you are given the paper to work on several weeks before you have to do it. It's like two time-limited 'supervised' essays if you like. My take on how to approach pre-seen exam are here.
The assignment is to present a 2500 word study responding to the invitation:
Evaluate the thesis that knowledge is the source of all evil.
Some of you will be geniuses who will find a brilliant new way of completing this assignment, but for most of us it will surely involve:
You should draw on some reading/research to strengthen and develop the argumention that comes straight out of your head. I want you to find suitable reading, because doing so calls for an absolutely key skill which you should be developing. Just one, or two, articles or chapters or webpages would be enough, if they were well chosen and put to good use.
At the end of your study you should have a note of what you have drawn on. Use whatever convention you prefer for giving the publication details, but stick to it. Colleague Warwick Fox has drawn up some notes to help.
And then a special requirement:
To each entry please add a note saying why you think this item is worth taking this seriously. (There's lots of poorly argued / unargued stuff out there and you need to develop your skill in spotting them!)
You will get credit for correctly identifying and drawing on relevant reading. You should try and find one or two books or chapters or webpages which you think are good pieces of philosophy and help your analysis forward.
Class to decide at its first meeting. 5 o'clock 7th October?
Please note: once the date is fixed, the penalties for late submission are really serious (and out of my hands!).
2,500 Words
How to hand in your assignment
Coursework essays are submitted electronically. You should send your work in the form of an email attachment (Microsoft Word file or text file only please) to: philosophyhandin@uclan.ac.uk
You have to include the module title, module code (and assignment number for modules with more than one assignment) in the TITLE of your email.
- and also you have attach a completed electronic copy of the philosophy assignment cover sheet (available from the module web page) to your email.
- If you have obtained an extension to your hand-in deadline you should also attach a copy of the extension form, agreeing the extension.
You will receive an automatic reply acknowledgement by return to say that your mail has been received. This will be followed up by an email confirmation of receipt a couple of working days later. If you don't receive this within 2-3 working days, please contact the office (Harrington 122, Tel. 01772 892780) to check that your work has been received.
These are notes for the final session of the module - mostly to do with preparing for the final assessment.
Use the weeks before the exam to write the two essays required.
Make well-designed notes. Use the synopsis technique to draw your notes up.
Choose the questions which seem easiest to you but bear in mind:
1. Don't repeat work already submitted as an essay. Err on the side of safety.
2. Reading.
We are interested in you developing as an independent thinker, but probably all of us need to read what experienced/brilliant philosophers have written if we are to reach satisfying/passable levels of understanding. This reading prompts us into more subtle, sophisticated thinking, and often shows how what we would think if left to ourselves is untenable. My presentations should help, but an answer which doesn't bring in any other reading will be seen as weak. At this level my suggestion is that you find one serious and challenging piece of philosophy to expound and react to in you answer. You should choose what it is, but be careful to choose something at the right level. You are looking not for opinions or claims but for arguments with which you can engage.
3. A good format is: X says this. I think this is wrong because... (Thus separating exposition and critique.)
4. Think what you are good at. Forensic analysis of an argument or constructing a discussion of a broader question.
Created August 2009 | Prepared by VP The Value of Knowledge Home page A module of the BA Philosophy programme International School for Communities, Rights and Inclusion | University of Central Lancashire |