This course fulfills the following requirements: AH2: Humanities

The humanities involve the study of past and present human thought about the way the world works and how people should behave, exploring big questions with which human cultures have grappled for centuries.  The study of the humanities helps students to understand what it means to be human and how the past has shaped the present, building skills in using primary source evidence to construct rational arguments, and expanding capacity to empathize with other people.

• Before class: you read the Plato reading for the week. Reading it twice is highly recommended: Plato has not survived for so long because he is easy. He rewards and requires re-reading. Also, please mark up your texts with high-lighting, written comments, questions, etc. Making a text your own is a good practive. Do not make the mistake of selling your textbook back immediately: you signed up for Plato for some reason and you are about to invest months in it, but we will, in the grand scheme of things, read only a portion of the book. I hope you will read more of it later and or re-read what we cover. You should keep the book.
  

1. Argument analyses: we discuss the passages and how to analyze them.
   
2. Lecture and discussion: in the remaining time, your fellow students will present articles or I will. What I say is usually be based on secondary readings (which are indicated on the schedule and you may read as well: this is a good idea, but not required). I am most happy if the class turns into a good discussion. I am also happy to talk myself, far too much. I am extremely happy if the discussion includes many people and not always the same people.
3. The material from the class presentations will be on the final: you need to take notes so that you understand the notes that will be provied online. You may also go read the articles yourselves.
   

IMPORTANT NOTES ABOUT WRITTEN WORK: Experience has taught me to be explicit about these things and to put them in the syllabus.

• Use non-sexist language. Plato talks about "men," because he lived in an almost uniformly sexist world and was himself sexist, but you should talk about "people" and "humans."
  
• Related to this, it used to be just wrong to write something like "When one reads Plato, they should be aware that they are reading a translation." It is now, I believe, becoming correct.
  
• Be careful about grammar: you can use grammatically correct non-sexist language.
  
• If an assignment is to be printed, printing problems are not an excuse: try telling your boss that you missed a deadline because you didn't plan well enough to get the document printed in time. Just once would be too much. Don't go to the library to print it right before class. Plan.
  
• If you are having a time-crunch problem, let me know by email AHEAD OF TIME. The day of is too late for an extension. Telling me the day after is just plain disrespectful and a horrible habit to be in. I understand full well that sometimes there is too much to do, and I will be flexible IF you foresee it and responsibly address it. That is one of those "soft skills" people talk about and will serve anyone well.
• Late work is simply not accepted. You can simply have that argument analysis be the one that is dropped or do another presentation.
  
• ALWAYS keep copies of your work, both a hard copy and an electronic copy.
  

• If a class happens in my absence, please hand in comments anyway.
• NO MAKEUPS.
• If you are sick for an extended period, that makes completing the semester difficult. We MAY be able to figure out a way for you to do the equivalent of what you missed.
  

• Every week of this semester, you will be asked to analyze a small part of the Plato text assigned to the class. This is called an "Argument Analysis."
  
• The aim of this exercise is:
• To extract the argument from a passage
• To put that argument into your own words
• To construct an argument that works logically
• To identify key assumptions that are necessary for the argument to work
• To assess any faults or problems with the argument
• The format:
• Argument Analyses must be typed up, submitted, AND saved as a file somewhere: I may ask you for another copy and you should be able to provide it.
  
• Arguments should be presented in steps, much like the following trivial argument:
1. Every Seuqcaj wears a vest. (source of claim goes here)
   
2. Every Ylliab is a Seuqcaj. (source of claim goes here)
3. Therefore, by 1 and 2, every Ylliab wears a vest. (source of claim goes here)
• The argument assumes that there are Seuqcaj's as well as Ylliab's (or does it? if there are none, isn't it still true that every one wears a vest, and also that every one does not wear a vest?)
• The Structure of the argument is a simple syllogism.
  
• Note that each step is numbered/bulleted, and the first two are the evidence/reasons for the third. That is why the third refers to the first two by number. Evidence/reasons/premises must precede the conclusion. Also note that where you got each claim is put in parentheses, using Stephanus page, letter, and line number) The bulleted points are meta-observations about the structure of the argument, added to help explain what the argument is. Rather than form a part of the argument, they comment upon the argument.
• While there is no indentation in this simple example, indentation is a very powerful tool to indicate subordination. Use it if it helps you.
  
• Sometimes, it will be difficult or impossible to make the argument strictly logical: do your best. There is always some sort of structure to Plato's text, even if you don't think it is logically valid or sound. Make the structure clear.
  
• You are free to be innovative and to play with various ways to make your analysis clearer or better.
  
• NOTE WELL:  please give the stephanus page and letter (always) and line number (if possible) for every line of the argument.
  
• This sort of thing is always a good idea: leave your reader a breadcrumb trail to find the evidence and source of what you say. I need this in order to understand and evaluate your work better.
  
• We will see many such arguments: observe various ways to do them and think about them and you will do better and better on subsequent assignments. Those of you who have taken logic classes should try to use it here and will be able to help us all out, I hope.
• These assignments are never to be longer than 300 words.Yes, I will mark it down/ignore whatever is longer than 300 words: being concise is a valuable and essential skill, among the most important writing skills.
• Timeline for Argument Analysis assignments:
• This is a somewhat complex assignment, but the pattern will occur repeatedly, so it should not be a problem.
  
• On the day the argument analysis is due: bring 3 copies of your argument analysis to class. Exchange argument analyses with 2 fellow students.
  
• Read your fellow student's argument analysis.
• Give me one copy and give the others to two fellow students.
  
• Consider what we said in class and what your fellow student did, and use that to FULLY revise your argument analysis.
  
• The class session AFTER the argument analysis was due: hand in a printed copy of your revised argument analysis.
  
• There will be several of these Argument Analyses: If you miss one, it will not hurt your grade. If you miss two, it will hurt, because it will be a zero. Do not miss one lightly: you may really need it later.
• Grading rubric: not all of your argument analyses will be graded, but you won't know which ones will be graded until later in the semester: this is my way of dealing with the workload problem of assigning writing in a large-ish class.
• Writing is thinking, and thinking is recursive. So is writing. If you are not rethinking and rewriting, you are doing it wrong.
  
• I encourage you to use the writing center and your peers to hone these analyses. They are short assignmnets, but difficult in spite of and because of that.
  

Article Summaries and Presentations:

• Scholarly articles/book chapters are the basis of my lectures and your presentations.
  
• For each article we cover, two (or more) students will write a summary and present that article's contents to the class.
  
• These articles are assigned because they cover important aspects of Plato's thought. They are not easy. They are cutting-edge contributions about current concerns by top scholars.
  
• It is HIGHLY recommended that you come talk to me about the article.
• You must get a hold of and read the article well ahead of time and set up a meeting with me if needed to make sure you understand the basics of the article you choose.
• The articles will be assigned in the third week of the semester.
• Part of this assignment is an individual written assignment, called an "article summary."
• An article summary should be no more than 3 pages long. That means you have to pack material in tightly and use your words carefully.
• A good summary does the following:
• State the most important conclusions/message/claim/result of the article, which can be rephrased as stating what the article is trying to do, what gap in previous knowledge it is filling, what material it is surveying, or what it is correcting. In other words, it answers the question, what task does the article accomplish?
  
• This should be done with a sentence or a paragraph right at the start of your summary.
  
• Give a clear idea of how the article is structured by indicating:
• What each section of the article covers
• In what order the article proceeds and why in that order
• This part could be a paragraph or so and should come right after the most important conclusions/message/claim/result.
• Better yet, this part could also be integrated into each paragraph: you might say "Before explaining Platonic Forms, 'Socratic Forms' need to be examined" and then have a paragraph about 'Socratic Forms.' Following that, you might start a new paragraph with "Platonic forms differe from 'Socratic Forms' in several ways." And then another paragraph with "The article also considers the following: _____, ____, and ____."
• In other words, use very brief remarks about what order the article follows and why it does that, to show your reader how the article is structured.
• Give the most important details about the article's content. Rehash the basic arguments and evidence for the conclusions if the article is arguing for a particular position. Summarize the most important content if the article is a survey. This is the biggest part of the summary: it is the justification of the conclusions.
  
• The idea is to reproduce the article's most important claims, arguments, and content, and to give the evidence for those claims.
  
• Put the ideas into your own words and phrases.
  
• Please DO NOT QUOTE verbatim from the article, except for short phrases or at most a sentence. 95% of this summary should be your own words.
  
• This is not an assignment that can be successfully completed the night before it is due: a good summary will have gone through much editing and careful thought.
• IDEAL Timeline: times are somewhat flexible: mandatory steps and mandatory times are boldfaced.
  
• 2 weeks ahead: read article. Underlining, note-taking, and outlining as you read should help.
• 10 days ahead: write initial draft of your 'summary.' This draft should be significantly longer than 3 pages.
  
• 9 days ahead: whittle it down. Condense and analyze what is most important in the article. Have a friend read it and comment.
• 8 days ahead: re-edit, bringing it close to a final draft.
• 7 days ahead: proofread, read it aloud to yourself to make sure it flows well, have a friend read it and comment.
• 7 days ahead: e-mail your summary with the subject "Article Summary" to me. This step must be completed before you schedule and meet with me and probably also before you meet with your partner. The e-mail subject line must be "Article Summary" so that I know what to do with it: otherwise it may get lost and you will not get credit. This summary must be at least 3 pages long.
  
• 7 days ahead: email the other students who summarized the same article and set up a time to meet and divide the task of presenting the article.
• 6-5 days ahead: meet with your fellow students and discuss the article as well as divide up the task of presenting the article.
• There are at least two tasks involved: the oral presentation and the creation of a visual aid or handout (i.e. notes for the class and yourselves).
  
• I do not have any particular format or division of labor in mind, as long as you are all satisfied that you are each treated fairly and treat the others fairly.
  
• By this time, I may have re-read the article and have it present in my mind, so you are welcome to meet with me if you desire to clear up any questions. Before this time, we can meet, of course, but I may not have the article's contents ready in my mind.
  
• 2-4 days ahead: a full rehearsal of the presentation straight through without interruption, including on-line notes for the presentation.
• Do not commit the common error of assuming that your audience has read the text and can read what you put in front of them: you should present the whole argument from start to finish as if they have not read it at all (remember that there is a good chance some of them have not yet completed the reading assignment). You are there to be a guide, and guides need to go over everything confidently and completely as (if) their audience wants to hear what they say. You should plan for your entire presentation to take no more than 20 minutes if it is uninterrupted (which it will not be: the best presenters will provoke and manage discussion well).
• At least one day before presentation: make sure that the on-line notes will be available in the classroom. We can access the web as well as your e-mail from the classroom, but do not assume that the computer there has anything but an internet browser and old and basic software. Do not risk arriving at class and not having your visual aid working. Come try it out well beforehand.
  
• Day of presentation: each person brings a hard copy of his or her own individual  summary to class to hand in to me. This hard copy should be at most 3 pages and should be a revision of the one you e-mailed me earlier. I must have the e-mailed version a week earlier for this summary to count.
• You will present these articles in pairs, and you will have a handout or online notes/visual aid that you create. Your summary is done as an individual. Your grade is based on the summary and the handout you prepare for the presentation. Your grade is not based on the presentation itself. I'd like to think it will work best to divide up the presentation roughly evenly, but I don't mind how you do it.
  

• Factual matters: These are things like the birth and death dates of Plato and Socrates, the titles of the works of Plato, who the characters are in the works of Plato, why he is named Plato, etc. In other words, these are things that have right and wrong answers that you either know or you do not know and cannot be argued about.
• Short answer ID's: you supply a few sentences about a concept from Plato's text or our lectures/discussions.
• Text ID's: a passage from Plato for you to identify and analyze (what dialogue? what's it about? why is it important? etc.).
  
• Essay question(s), perhaps.

It will never cease to amaze me, but once in a while, a student just plain misses an exam or skips an assignment altogether, then emails me or shows up and asks when they can make it up, or doesn't even acknowledge it. "That's just not allowed," is all I can say. Basically, you get a zero, and that pretty much drops you into the submergent grading zone for the semester. Don't go there. I'm saying this now, because every once in a while, that student who missed the exam gets stroppity about what it says on the syllabus (this shouldn't have to be on a syllabus). Basically, "Don't make your problem my problem."

Schedule:

Spring 2021 Semester Schedule

1. Feb. 2, 4
• Recording of Feb.2 class (audio starts around minute 11 or 12, so start there)
• Tues: Introduction to Plato via Hippias Minor. If you don't have the text yet, here's a PDF.
• For Thurs.: read Plato's Euthyphro. If you have The Hackett edition of Plato, edited by Cooper, please read that translation. If you don't have the book yet, here's a PDF.
  
• Documents I will show in Thurs. class:
• Euthyphro text with some highlights.
• Your comments.
• Recommended: if you have never read it, read Plato's Apology and Critias around now.
  
2. Feb. 9, 11
• WE NEED A 'PEER NOTETAKER': WOULD SOMEONE PLEASE VOLUNTEER!
• Due Tues. Argument Analysis of Euthyphro 10d-11b. Bring 3 copies of your analysis to class, clearly marked "draft."
• Scroll down below for a description of what an "argument analysis" is.
• Weekly Reading: Read Euthyphro by Tues. and Gorgias by Thurs.
• Recommended: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article 'Callicles and Thrasymachus' by Rachel Barney (online: search for it)
  
• If you want to work with someone in particular from the class on your article presentation, please let me know by email now.
  
• We need at least one more person to volunteer to present an article the week of Feb. 23, 25.
  
• DUE Thurs.: Final version of Argument Analysis of Euthyphro passage from Tues. please hand this in on blackboard
• Bailly notes on Euthyphro
• Structure of the Euthyphro
• Euthyphro argument 10dff.: a decent stab at it, not great.
• Bailly notes on Gorgias (what he'll present/talk about in class: feel free to read ahead of time)
• Rudebusch on Gorgias and more
• Short list of questions the Gorgias tries to address
  
• More on Gorgias: some arguments, including short notes on eschatological myth at the end
3. Feb. 16, 18
• DUE Tues. argument analysis: find and analyze the argument in the Gorgias that it is better to be wronged than to do wrong (474b, I think). Post on Blackboard AND Teams.
• Weekly Reading: Republic Book I and II, start Book V, VI, and beginning of VII.
• We will concentrate on Book II this week.
• Assignment of article presentations will be made this week. You can horse-trade for something that suits you better during this week.
  
• DUE Thursday: Final version of Gorgias argument analysis from Tues.
• Bailly notes on Republic 1 and the immoralist challenge to justice
4. Feb. 23, 25
• DUE TUES.: Argument analysis of the argument that the soul has three parts in Republic 436b-441c.
• READING: finish R. V, VI, and beginning of VII (up to 522)
• DUE THURS: final version of Argument Analysis of Republic passage from last week.
• Look carefully at Meno 80e-86b (this is a long passage: concentrate on what "recollection" is and Socrates' claims and arguments about it rather than the long geometric problem discussed as an example in this passage).
  
• Articles for presentations:
• Francis Vigoreaux, Bryce Gross, Gavin Wilczynski on Gail Fine, 'Knowledge and Belief in Republic 5-7,' Cambridge Companions to Ancient Thought, i: Epistemology, (CUP 1990), 85-115 ( also printed in Fine Plato 1)
• Recommendations:
• You will want at some point in your life to read the rest of the Republic: there is no time like the present.
• And once you have done that, you will really appreciate Karl Popper's The Open Society and its Enemies: vol. 1 Plato. A seriously compelling philosophical work, a page-turner: but it only makes sense after reading the Republic. Also, it's not absolutely clear that Popper is fair to Plato.
• Notes:
• Plato's Intellectual/Historical Milieu: a whirlwind tour, courtesy of Malcolm Schofield.
• Plato's Republic: highlights, courtesy of Dominic Scott
• We never got to talking about this in class: feel free to read it if you are interested: the notes are supposed to make sense even without someone presenting them (but the hope is that a person presenting them helps too).
5. March 4
   
• March 2 Town Meeting Day
• Weekly Reading: Phaedo
  
• DUE THURS: First draft, Argument analysis of Republic 475d to the end of Book V. (your analysis of this should be heavily informed by the presentation of Gail Fine's article last week, which you may want to consult yourself: it is available on the Gail Fine channel of our class Team: click on files).
  
• Articles:
• Irwin, Chapter 10 of Plato's Ethics, OUP (on Forms: Phaedo + bits of R. + Meno, Cratylus, etc.: also 'Plato's Theory of Forms' in Fine Plato 1)
• Emily Flavin, Abby Anderson's Presentation
  
• Dominic Scott, 'Platonic Recollection,' in Fine's Plato 1, excerpted from Recollection and Experience: Plato's Theory of Learning and its Successors (Cambridge, 1995), 3-80 (mostly about Phaedo, Phaedrus, Meno, 80-85 are about R. and Tht.)
• Danshi Antinoph, Jake Bair
• Audio of Presentation
• Slides for Presentation
• Plato's Theory of Forms: the standard account (based on Malcolm Schofield's chapter)
6. March 9, 11
• Weekly reading: Symposium
• DUE TUES: Final draft of argument analysis of Republic 475d to end of book V.
  
• DUE THURS: First draft, Argument analysis of Phaedo 74a-76e.
• Bailly's pre-first draft efforts.
• Articles:
• Hendrik Lorenz, 'Plato on the Soul' in The Oxford Handbook to Plato, p. 243 ff.
• Bailly Notes
• Alexander Nehamas, 'Plato on the Imperfection of the Sensible World,' American Philosophical Quarterly 12, 1975, 105-117 (also in Fine Plato 1) (mostly about Phaedo 72-78)
• Annie Coleman?, John Dane
• Bailly Notes
• Gregory Vlastos, 'The Individual as an Object of Love in Plato,' Platonic Studies, Princeton Univ. Press, 1973), 3-34, also in Gail Fine Plato 2.
• Annaliese Holden and William Todt
7. March 16, 18
• DUE TUES: Final Draft Argument Analysis on Phaedo 74a-76e.
• Articles:
• McCabe "Plato's Way of Writing" in Oxford Handbook to Plato.
• Bailly Notes
• Plato, Platonists, and Platonism
• Santas 'The Form of the Good in Plato's Republic,' in Gail Fine, Plato 1.
• Maegan Winters
8. March 23, 25
• DUE THURS: 3 page philosophical dialogue branching off from a specific point of your choosing in one of the dialogues we have read so far.
• READING:
• Parmenides
• NOTE: this link has a lot of Greek in it: ignore all that is surrounded by the thin-lined rectangles: that is about the Greek and is not going to be relevant to our class, although we may take a peek at it for fun.
• So, your task is to read the English between the rectangles.
• Bailly Notes on Parmenides
• Bailly Notes on Zeno (Parmenides' follower)
• Aristotle on Socrates/Plato
• 'The Theaetetus' in OHP by Mi-Kyoung Lee: an introduction and whirlwind tour of the dialogue
• An even shorter look at Theaetetus (all Bailly)
9. March 30, April 1
• Weekly reading: Theaetetus (read at least 2/3 of it)
• Due TUES: Draft Argument Analysis analysis of Theaetetus 187e-189b.
  
• Articles:
• M.F. Burnyeat, 'Knowledge is Perception: Theaetetus 151D-184A,' from The Theaetetus of Plato, (Hackett, 1990), 7-31 (also in Fine Plato 1) (Theaetetus)
• Jonathan Decatur, John Dane: part 1 and part 2
• Bailly Notes on this article (in case anyone is interested, but doesn't have time for the full article).
• Michael Frede, 'Observations on Perception in Plato's Later Dialogues,' in Essays in Ancient Philosophy, 1987 (Clarendon Press) (also in Fine Plato 1) (Theaetetus)
• Bailly Notes
• John McDowell, 'Identity Mistakes: Plato and the Logical Atomists,' Proceeding of the Aristotelian Society, 70, (1969-70), 181-196 (also in Fine Plato 1) (Theaetetus)
• Oscar Eldh Jahn and Matt Haverty's Presentation
• John M. Cooper, 'Plato on Sense Perception and Knowledge (Theaetetus 184-186),' Phronesis 15 (1970), 123-146 (also in Fine Plato 1) (Theaetetus)
• Alina Fensterer and Mary Herrera's Presentation
  
10. April 6, 8
• Weekly Reading: finish Theaetetus.
  
• Due TUES: Final draft Argument Analysis analysis of Theaetetus 187e-189b.
• Due THURS.: first draft Argument Analysis of Parmenides 137c-138b.
• Articles:
  
• Peterson 'The Parmenides' in OHP : Bailly Notes
11. April 13
• April 15, reading/respite day
• Weekly reading: Parmenides (at some point, your eyes may glaze over: don't worry about it, everyone's do)
• DUE TUES: Final Argument Analysis of Parmenides 137c-138b.
  
• Bailly notes about Parmenides 127e1-128a2
• Introduction to the Sophist, our next reading
• Articles:
• G.E.L. Owen, 'Notes on Ryle's Plato,' in Logic, Science, and Dialectic: Collected Papers in Greek Philosophy, ed. M. Nussbaum (Cornell Univ. Press, 1986), 85-103 (also in Fine Plato 1) (Parmenides)
• Zach Howenstein: to access this presentation, go into our Microsoft Teams team, then in the lefthand column of article channels, select "Owen Notes on Ryles Plato", then play 'Meeting in"Owen Notes on Ryles Plato"' which is 8:40 minutes long.
• Bailly's notes in this article
• S. Marc Cohen, 'The Logic of the Third Man,' Philosophical Review, 80 (1971), 448-75 (also in Fine Plato 1) (Parmenides 132a-b)
• Brad Lampert, Jack Luna, Tyler DiNapoli
• Bailly Notes on Cohen (based on not just this article)
12. April 20, 22
• Weekly Reading: Sophist
• Tuesday: finish up two presentations from Parmenides above.
  
• Due THURS: draft Argument Analysis: Sophist 248a-249b.
  
• Articles:
  
• 'Plato's Philosophy of Language' in OHP, by Crivelli.
• Jack Lynch, Michael Scott: available in the team channel for Crivelli's article.
• G. E. L. Owen, 'Plato on Not-Being,' from Plato, i: Metaphysics and Epistemology, Vlastos, ed., 1970 (Doubleday Anchor) (also in Fine, Plato 1) (Sophist) 
• Charlie Murphy and Katie Peterson's presentation
• Sophist 254ff., a walk-through
• Sophist 247-249, just the text
13. April 27, 29
• Weekly reading: Timaeus.
• Due TUES: Final draft Argument Analysis: Sophist 248a-249b
• Tues. April 27: Lesley Brown, 'Being in the Sophist: a Syntactical Enquiry,' Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy, 4 (1986), 49-70 (also in Fine Plato 1) (Sophist) 
• Miranda McAdams and Willem Slade's presentation
• Due THURS: draft Argument Analysis due: Timaeus 28a-30a.
  
• Articles:
• Thomas Johansen's 'The Timaeus' in OHP
• Bailly Notes
• Steven K. Strange, 'The Double Explanation in the Timaeus,' Ancient Philosophy 5 (1985), 25-39 (also in Fine, Plato 1) (Timaeus and Phaedo)
• Hannah Ste Marie and Jackson Trauben's presentation
• Bailly's notes for anyone interested
14. May 4, 6
• Remember, you can revise your Republic tripartite soul argument analysis one more time before I grade it: the assignment is now open for resubmissions.
• Due TUES: Final Argument Analysis due: Timaeus 28a-30a.
• Articles:
• David Sedley, 'The Ideal of Godlikeness,' in Plato 2, Gail fine (ed.), OUP, 1999, 309-328.
• Maddie Walker, Skylar Winberry
15. May 11
• Letter 7 (at the back of our book after the dialogues there are the "Letters" of Plato: this one may be genuinely by Plato, but that is debated)
• Bailly Notes on 7th Letter
• Due May 11: Another alternative path in Plato: 3 page dialogue verging off from a point in one of the dialogues we have read. 2 copies.
16. FINAL: MAY 14, 2021, 9AM on Blackboard
1. This is what will be on the final, except that you will be asked to do only one of the essay options, and there will be quite a few quotations for you to identify. Please prepare thoroughly.
2. The final will open at 9 and close at 11 on May 14.
3. Be sure to do your own work and use only your own words (academic honesty), and to prepare well.