Announcements
October 18, 2021
Today is our last day and it is time to wrap things up by stepping back and looking at the big picture. One of my goals in this course is to develop ways of questioning the current generation of leaders. This can be a difficult task — leaders have the power to exclude and punish those who do not toe the line. However, leaders are often wrong; for this reason, they should be questioned, if not criticized.
We can question not only specific claims, but also basic assumptions. For example, here at SHU, it is easy to assume that if one is hired by a wealthy corporation such as GE, one is “successful.” Yet, just as Socrates encourages us to question our assumptions about virtue, I encourage you to question our assumptions about success. In this case, if we remember that GE is a military contractor, we can ask questions such as the following: Do GE’s “military solutions” go against the New Testament’s admonition to love our enemies? How many lives have been lost because of these “solutions”? President Petillo stated that the University has a zero tolerance policy for violence — but what is a “military solution” if not violence on an international scale? How might GE’s leaders respond to the words of Pope Francis: “We can no longer think of war as a solution”?* Does success require pursuing or avoiding employment at places like GE?
The above applies to leaders and “experts” of all stripes, including academic leaders. Their ideas of success may not be the same as yours. Here is where questioning yourself is important. What, in your view, is “success”? How does your idea of success reflect your values? How can you respond to leaders who have the wrong values? These are just a few questions worth asking. Philosophy and kindred fields like literature, psychology, and theology are useful in this sense: they encourage us to question ourselves as well as others.
I plan to have your remaining assignments graded and your final grade submitted to the Registrar by the end of the week. Thank you for participating! I hope you enjoyed the course.
Oct. 11, 2021
I hope everyone is enjoying the holiday weekend. This is just a quick note to let you know that the exam is now open. Since today is Columbus Day and since many of you are busy during the week, I’ve extended the due date of the exam to Saturday night — the exam is now due just before midnight on October 16th. There is also a submission form in Blackboard for your essay which is due on the last day of the course, Monday, October 18th.
Oct. 1, 2021
For our final reading we will discuss an essay by Simone Weil, a 20th-century French philosopher. My introduction explains some of the basics. The following remarks add to my thoughts on Weil’s concept of reading.
Simone Weil believes that reality is more than what we perceive, and sometimes our senses and our beliefs can be deceiving. Moreover, we do not know of a method that will guarantee correct readings. This is one reason why there is so much conflict: people have different ways of reading, and often it is difficult, if not impossible, to determine which readings are correct.
For example, earlier this year SHU hosted a panel series, American Democracy Under Siege. This series of talks involved purported experts who discussed the occupation of the Capitol building on January 6th. The claim that “American democracy” was under siege is based on a contentious reading of the situation. For some, the killing of Ashli Babbitt — an unarmed woman who was shot by a security officer inside the Capitol — symbolizes the brutality of a government that has a long history of violence against unarmed men and women. Under this reading, the Capitol building represents oppression, not democracy.
How we read the events of January 6th is debatable and worthy of discussion. However, there are some readings that are indubitably false. The United States is not a democracy, and it never was one. The U.S. Constitution makes this clear. White men violently carved out the political divisions that we have inherited; indigenous people were, and still are, victims of these divisions. As with the killing of Ashli Babbitt, academics tend to overlook violence when it conflicts with their habitual readings. By listening to those who defy established readings, we can learn how to read events, situations, and other people in ways that are more truthful and more humane.
As always, if you have questions about the essay assignment or a reading, feel free to e-mail me to set up an appointment to talk by phone or video.
Sept. 27, 2021
Essay topics and writing guidelines are now available. The essay is due Oct. 18th. You may also wish to visit the page for the JLC Online Writing Lab. The writing lab gives you the opportunity to submit your essay for review by a writing tutor. The JLC provides a variety of other services that assist essay writers as well. I believe some of you may find them helpful.
Also, information on the final exam is now available here. The exam will be open during Week 7.
If you have questions about the essay assignment or a reading, feel free to e-mail me to set up an appointment to talk by phone/video — sometimes this is a more effective way to communicate.
Sept. 24, 2021
Next week’s discussion is a short excerpt on hell written by Nikolai Berdyaev. A link to the text, an introduction and quotations are available on the Modern Philosophy 1 page.
I don’t mean to discourage anyone, but some of you may find the reading difficult. As always, I recommend that you avoid getting bogged down in details. Try to focus on the main points. For example, if you come across a statement or paragraph that is beyond your grasp, I suggest you move on and finish the reading. After you’ve read the whole thing through, you can revisit the difficult passages. Also, once you finish, you may realize that you understand the main points after all.
In addition, my introduction to Berdyaev is (I hope) helpful. I’ll also add a few things here. What Berdyaev is saying is that hell is not some isolated realm that wicked people enter once they die. Hell is all around us. We “the living” — if indeed we are truly living — are the ones who struggle with hell. Ivan Ilyich experienced hell before he passed away.
Hell, in any case, takes on many guises. To use another example from literature, diverse kinds of “hell” are portrayed in Ovid’s Metamorphoses. The story of Narcissus and Echo is especially instructive. Not only Narcissus, but his neglected lover, Echo,* descends into hell. Ovid describes her torment as follows:
her miserable body wastes away,
wakeful with sorrows; leanness shrivels up
her skin, and all her lovely features melt,
as if dissolved upon the wafting winds —
nothing remains except her bones and voice —
her voice continues, in the wilderness;
her bones have turned to stone . . .
The words are beautiful, but behind the words there is an agony that underlies the human condition, as I see it. In my view, Echo’s physical decay is a metaphor for psychological disintegration. In short, hell is something we all struggle with, even if “the struggle” is doing our best to avoid it.
* A famous painting by John William Waterhouse depicts her plight.
Sept. 17, 2021
Our first reading in modern philosophy is a work of Russian literature written by Leo Tolstoy, The Death of Ivan Ilyich. As explained in the introduction on the Modern Philosophy 1 page, literature can be a form of philosophy. This is especially the case with Tolstoy’s novel.
The Death of Ivan Ilyich is deep, visceral, and horrific, yet it has a beautiful ending. Here are some questions you may wish to ask yourself while reading: Was Ivan Ilyich’s life really a failure, as we are led to believe? If so, are we any better? What role does memory play in Ivan’s search for a deeper understanding of who and what he is?
Since we are dealing with a work of fiction, the format of your first post will be different — guidelines have been posted under the list of quotations for discussion. Also, please note that the readings for Weeks 4 and 5 overlap to a large extent. For this reason, one video lecture covers both weeks.
Sept. 10, 2021
The Medieval Philosophy page is now available. This page includes a link to the text, an excerpt from al-Ghazali’s The Alchemy of Happiness, as well as a list of quotations for discussion. The video lecture for this reading has been posted on the Video Lectures page.
While reading the text, some questions to keep in mind are the following: What are some of the key questions that al-Ghazali is trying to answer? Do you believe that he convincingly answers them? Are there any similarities between al-Ghazali and Socrates? How does al-Ghazali’s view of happiness compare with your own?
An interesting exercise is to consider how we moderns tend to imagine happiness. In this regard, it’s useful to study television commercials; to a large extent, these reflect modern values. For example, consider the following:
1953 Commercial for Palmolive Soap
The commercial is dated, but it clearly expresses desires and values that are still with us today. Watch the commercial and reflect on what al-Ghazali might say about Joan Riva’s approach to happiness. Even if we assume that she was happy, how long did her happiness last? Where might she be now? Or is it safe to assume that the right kind of soap will give us eternal youth and happiness?
Sept. 3, 2021
For next week’s discussion, we’ll read another dialogue featuring Socrates, Plato’s Meno. Key questions of this dialogue are What is virtue? and What is knowledge? In answer to the latter, Socrates considers a problem of geometry to demonstrate his theory of recollection. When reading this section of the dialogue, you do not have to follow the mathematical argument in detail. Instead, focus on how Socrates teaches through questions as opposed to statements. He stirs up his student’s memory by questioning him, and this is the essence of education — or so one can argue.
To gain a better understanding of Socrates, it’s worthwhile to imagine what Socrates would say if he were alive today. For example, consider President Petillo’s remarks about “our democracy” in his blog post entitled Reflections on Today’s Events In Washington. It’s a good exercise to ask yourself: How would Socrates respond to the President’s message? Socrates might question the President about democracy just as he questioned Meno about virtue:
- What is democracy? If democracy is government by the people, why do we have a commander-in-chief?
- If we have a democracy, why isn’t the word mentioned in the Constitution?
- If we have a democracy, why are people punished — suspended, expelled, fired, etc. — for expressing “wrong” opinions?
- If we have a democracy, why do moneyed interests have a tight grip on “our” government?
These are questions that Socrates might ask anyone who claims that we have a democracy. It’s important to remember that President Petillo is a human being; he may be near the top of the Sacred Heart hierarchy, but this does not mean that he is infallible. No one has perfect knowledge.
Returning to the dialogue, Meno was confident that he knew the meaning of virtue — yet, after a series of questions, Socrates showed that Meno did not know. In fact, Meno could not avoid contradicting himself. In this way, Socrates compels us to consider the possibility that many of us are just like Meno: we use words without really knowing their meaning.
Today, there are many people who occupy positions of authority who appear to know, when in fact they do not. These include instructors and professors as well as administrators, politicians, scientists, “experts,” etc. One may be very good at using words that sound impressive — e.g., democracy, freedom, community, etc. — even when one has a mere opinion or belief about what the words truly mean. This is an important distinction to keep in mind while reading Meno: opinion and belief are not the same as knowledge. Opinion and belief are often wrong, and they fluctuate. Knowledge is a rare prize that few of us have, according to Socrates. In short: question the experts, question the authorities, and question yourself. This is what Socrates asks of us.
Quotations for discussion from Meno have been posted on the Plato: Apology and Meno page. As for this week’s discussion, your second posts are due tomorrow at noon (there will be a grace period of a few hours if you can’t make the noon deadline, but please keep in mind that posts submitted after Saturday will not be graded).
August 30, 2021
Welcome to the course. The Getting Started page provides an overview of the course and describes the first steps. Please note that the course is asynchronous; the video lectures are pre-recorded. You have the option of making an appointment to talk with me by phone or video, but there are no class meeting times.
One thing I’d like to point out is that we’re dealing with the latest version of the course interface, Blackboard Ultra. Unlike the previous version, Ultra divides the course content into many separate folders and pages, making navigation very difficult. I aim for a simpler format, where possible. However, we’ll have to use Blackboard for discussions, exams, and grades.
In our first reading, Plato’s Apology, you’ll learn that Socrates is guided by a “daemonic voice” during his trial. Socrates claims that the voice shows him how to avoid doing wrong. Scholars often overlook “the daemon of Socrates,” but if we want to understand who Socrates was, we should pay particular attention to the outside powers that influenced him. During his trial, his daemon helps him to make a crucial decision (p. 43). In this way, we may imagine the daemon as something like a guiding spirit.
Socrates states that the voice had been with him since childhood (p. 36). As you read through the dialogue, you may want to ask yourself what role the daemon plays, and how it encourages him to face death squarely in the eyes. Similarly, as an exercise, consider listening more carefully to your own inner voice.* Some questions worth asking are: What is my voice trying to tell me? How does it influence my decisions? Where does my voice come from? An important part of philosophy is thinking about who you are and what you are dealing with — what appears to be coming from “the inside” may be coming from “the outside.” In other words, what appears to be imaginary may be real — just as real as the people that you see and hear around you. Socrates recognized this with his own voice.
* I use the term “inner voice” broadly; a “voice” may also be thoughts, images, or ideas that suddenly appear in your mind.
August 26, 2021
Dear Students,
Our course starts next Monday, August 30th. A copy of the syllabus is available if you’d like a preview. We’ll begin with a discussion of one of the most important texts in the history of philosophy, Plato’s Apology.
I look forward to working with all of you. More messages will follow once the course starts.
Best,
Tony Pasqualoni, Instructor