Introduction to Philosophy

Contents

1. Course Text ………………………………………………………. page 4
2. Lectures ……………………………………………………… …… page 4
3. Seminars ………………………………………………………….. page 4
4. Aims ……………………………………………………… ……….. page 5
5. Structure of the Course ………………………….........…… page 5
6. Preparation …………………………………….....…………….. page 6
7. Books and Reading ………………………....………………… page 7
8. The Web ………………………………………………...………… page 8
9. Assessment …………………………………………...…………. page 10
10. Queries …………………………………………………………… page 14
11. Complaints ……………………………………………………… page 14
12. What You Can Expect of Philosophy Staff page 15

SYLLABUS in short………………………………………………………….. page 15
In more detail

Section 1 ……………………………………………………………….. page 15
Section 2 ………………………………………………………………. page 17
Section 3 ………………………………………………………………. page 19
Section 4 ………………………………………………………………. page 20
Section 5 ………………………………………………………………. page 22

Essay Writing Guidelines …………………………………… page 26
Examination Guidelines ………………………………………. page 32
Criteria for marks ………………………………………………. page 35
Learning in Philosophy ………………………………………… page 39
Central Support Services…………………………………… page 40

NAME & COLLEGE: …………………………………………………………………………………………………………

PHIL 100: INTRODUCTION TO PHILOSOPHY

Welcome to the Centre for Philosophy. This booklet contains all the information you need to know about the course, so please keep in a safe place for future reference.

PHILOSOPHY CONTACT POINTS

Postal Address:
Centre for Philosophy
Institute for Environment, Philosophy and Public Policy
Furness College
Lancaster University
Lancaster LA1 4YG

Tel: (01524) 592490
Fax: (01524) 592503
Email: philosophy@lancaster.ac.uk

World Wide Web: http://www.lancs.ac.uk/fss/ieppp/

Part I Director of Studies:
Dr. Sean Crawford, Room B25, Furness College
ext. 93692
email: s.crawford@lancaster.ac.uk

Undergraduate Secretary:
Mrs. Julie Pearcy, Room C.18, Furness College, ext. 92490
(email: j.pearcy@lancaster.ac.uk)

THE TEACHING STAFF ON PART 1 PHILOSOPHY

Dr Rachel Cooper, Lecturer. Studied at Nottingham and Cambridge Universities, and taught at Bristol and Bradford Universities, before coming to Lancaster in 2004. Her research interests are mainly in the philosophy of science and medicine. She has just finished a book on philosophical problems with classification in psychiatry.

Dr Sean Crawford, Lecturer, studied philosophy in Canada before moving overseas to the UK and taking his doctorate at Oxford. Before joining Lancaster, he taught philosophy at The Open University, the University of Birmingham, the University of Oxford, and Simon Fraser University in Vancouver. His chief research interests lie in philosophy of mind and language and focus on problems surrounding the relation between thought and reality. He has published articles on this topic in the journals Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Analysis, and Philosophical Papers and has written a book, Aspects of Mind, which is an introduction to the historical development of the concept of mind in western philosophy.

Professor John O’Neill, studied at Lancaster University and taught in Beijing and the University College of North Wales and Sussex University before returning to Lancaster. His philosophical interests are in social and political thought, especially concerning socialism and the market, environmental ethics and economics, and the history and philosophy of science and mathematics, His publications include Ecology, Policy and Politics and Worlds without Content. He is on the editorial board of Capitalism, Nature and Socialism and Anarchist Studies. His main non-philosophical activity is climbing rock, snow and ice.

Mr Vernon Pratt, Senior Lecturer, trained in Philosophy at Manchester University in the early sixties, took the B.Phil. at Oxford with Gilbert Ryle as his supervisor, and worked for nine years at Cardiff, before the Philosophy Department there was merged with Journalism. He spent formative time at the University of Ife in Nigeria just after the Civil War (Nigerian). He came to Lancaster in 1976, joining the neonate School of Independent Studies, where he became “Happy as a sandboy” (Christopher Driver, The Guardian). He was Dean of The County College, its Principal and the University Provost of Colleges before moving to the Department of Philosophy in 1994. Books include Thinking Machines (1986) and The Philosophy of the Social Sciences (1976). He has also written in the history and philosophy of biology, to which he is still trying to contribute. He relaxes by lounging about.

Dr Garrath Williams, Lecturer, previously has lectured at the University of Central Lancashire (in Philosophy) and at the University of Manchester (in Political Thought), as well as being a Visiting Fellow at the University of St Andrews (in the Centre for Ethics, Philosophy and Public Affairs). His research interests are mainly in moral and political philosophy, and in applied ethics. His current theoretical research centres on two things: the nature of moral agency and responsibility, with a special interest in the implications of moral and practical disagreement; and on the role of institutional and political frames in fostering or hindering responsible action. His previous work and publications have focussed on these themes in philosophers as diverse as Kant, Hobbes and Hannah Arendt. In applied ethics, he has worked on a range of topics, publishing and/or training on genetics, police ethics and research ethics.

ABOUT THE COURSE

1. COURSE TEXT

It is essential to buy a copy of the course text: Reason & Responsibility: Readings in Some Basic Problems in Philosophy, 11th edition, edited by Joel Feinberg and Russ Shafer-Landau, £19.99, which is available at Waterstones Bookshop on campus (there should also be some on sale at the used bookshop on campus).

2. LECTURES

There are two lectures per week:

MONDAYS: 4.00pm in George Fox Building, Lecture Theatre 1
TUESDAYS: 4.00pm in George Fox Building, Lecture Theatre 1

3. SEMINARS

You attend one seminar group per week. You will have been allocated a group on enrolment day. The full list of groups will be on the noticeboard in the Reception Area (mixing bay) on C.floor, Furness College from the first week of term if you need to check your group and room number etc. Tutors, times and places of seminars may be changed from one term to another, so you should check the seminar lists on the noticeboard of Week 1 at the beginning of each term.

There is a helpful guide for getting the most out of your Philosophy seminars at: http://www.lancs.ac.uk/depts/philosophy/seminartips.htm
The site deals with all sorts of problems and questions encountered in seminars and how both students and tutors can resolve them.

Attendance at seminars is compulsory, and seminars are conducted on the assumption that you have attended lectures and prepared the required reading and any seminar exercises. Seminar tutors are required to keep records of seminar attendance. If you need to change your seminar time please consult Julie Pearcy, Teaching Secretary, in C18, Furness (ext. 92490, email: j.pearcy@lancaster.ac.uk). If you cannot come to the seminar because of illness etc., you must let Julie know, who will inform your seminar tutor. If you have a prolonged illness we require a sick note from your doctor, or you can obtain a self-certification form from the Office (C.18).

If you wish to change any of your Part I courses you must obtain a change of enrolment form from the Undergraduate Registry, University House and obtain signatures from the relevant department offices, checking that they will allow you on their Part I course, because many of the courses are full after initial registration in intro week. You are allowed to change courses up to the end of the second week of the Michaelmas Term. After that you are not allowed to change because you would be behind on the course you would be moving to.

4. AIMS

• This course aims to introduce students who have not previously studied the subject at University level to some of the central problems of philosophy, and to its technical concepts and forms of analysis.

By the end of the course you should be able to:

• explain in outline what is involved in (most of) the problems listed below;
• set out some of the influential argumentation that has been developed in relation to each;
• begin an independent evaluation of it and so make some progress towards developing authoritative views of your own.

5. STRUCTURE OF THE COURSE

This course offers an exploration of five central areas of the subject.

Section 1: Michaelmas Term (Weeks 1-4) Freedom, Causality and Determinism: we begin by looking at one important difference between our attitudes to people and our attitudes to (other) things: it is only people who are held responsible for what they do. People are responsible because they choose what to do and are free to choose not to do it. But doesn't science more and more reveal that what people do results from factors beyond their control? So are we as free as we may suppose?

Section 2: Michaelmas Term (Weeks 6-9) Mind and Body: concerns the differences between bodies and minds, and the problems which arise when one tries to give a clear account of how the two are related to each other. Are minds just brains? Or are they something distinct? Are we just complicated organic computers, and could computers think and feel as we do?

Section 3: Lent Term (Weeks 1-4) Personal Identity and Knowledge: covers two areas of what is sometimes called “metaphysics” – namely personal identity and theory of knowledge. The first part looks at criteria of identity in general, and at the problem of how to define personal identity in particular. The second part considers the extent to which we can rely on our senses to give us knowledge, and raises the sceptical question of whether we can claim to know anything at all.

Section 4: Lent Term (Weeks 6-9) Religion and Argument: covers two topics in Philosophy: the study of reasoning, and philosophical questions about religion. We shall look at deductive and inductive types of reasoning, and their application to the issue of the existence of God.

Section 5: Summer Term (Weeks 1-4) Morality: concerns one important human activity, valuing. Humans often criticise selfishness for being immoral, debate the principles upon which conflicts between interests are settled, condemn the violation of rights, the deliberate infliction of pain, the breaking of promises, and so on. We shall examine how, if at all, the judgements people make about these matters can be justified.

6. PREPARATION

It is usually worth taking notes from lectures, and from things that you read, and there will be an opportunity in the seminars to raise any points you wish to from these. So please come prepared, and make sure that at the very least you have done the ‘basic’ reading and looked over your notes before the seminar.

For each week of the course there is a suggested study question set out in the list: "Topics, Readings and Seminars" below. They are related to ideas and issues introduced in that week's lectures, so it is probably not worth addressing them until that week. Use the questions to help you to think about the topics discussed in the readings and lectures, and be prepared to state your thoughts about them. These questions may be discussed in seminars, although seminar tutors may also choose to set a different exercise relevant to the lectures and readings for that week (which they will let you know beforehand).

7. BOOKS & READINGS

As you will see from the list of "Topics, Readings and Seminars", the recommended readings for each week are usually divided into "Basic" and "Further". You should read all of the "Basic" items, and certainly those from Reason & Responsibility, and dip into some of the "Further" items for at least some of the topics. All the "Basic" items are on short-loan in the Library, together with those "Further" items marked with an asterisk. Don't feel yourself restricted to this list - do, for instance, browse around the Philosophy shelves in the library (class-marks A...), and look at other material in Reason & Responsibility, and its suggestions for further reading.

You may well find reading philosophical writings pretty difficult and slow-going, especially to begin with; therefore it is usually better to read a little, carefully, than a lot, carelessly. Expect to have to read things several times over; and try noting down what you don't understand as well as what you do. (It is often more helpful to take notes just after you have done the reading rather than as you go along.) Do not get bogged down by a single sentence or paragraph or page that you cannot follow, if that is going to stop you getting to the end. You can always go back to the unintelligible bit later on; it may make more sense next time round.

Other books you might like to buy, especially for an overview of problems in Philosophy are M. Hollis, Invitation to Philosophy , T. Nagel, What Does it All Mean? and S. Blackburn, Think. A recent attempt to interest newcomers in philosophy is Adam Morton's Philosophy in Practice (Oxford, 1996, Blackwell). You will find a lively introduction to the subject in Robert Solomon’s The Big Questions: A Short Introduction to Philosophy, 6th ed. A graspable picture of the whole panorama of Western Philosophy is offered by The Oxford Illustrated History of Western Philosophy (Oxford, 1994, OUP), edited by Anthony Kenny.

Like other disciplines, philosophy has a lot of its own technical terms, including strange names for (often strange) ideas; and it also sometimes uses common terms but with its own technical meanings. Reason & Responsibility contains a useful Glossary (page 775 onward). One volume dictionary/encyclopaedias of philosophy have been, happily, in spate recently. The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy (Cambridge, 1995, CUP), edited by Robert Audi is by a large panel of experts and has an American style; The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy (Oxford, 1994, OUP), edited by Simon Blackburn is a lively one-man band. A Dictionary of Philosophy (Pan, 2002, new edition) edited by Anthony Flew and Stephen Priest is well-established, and excellent value for money. A.R. Lacey's, with the same title, is also very helpful; and both include brief entries on famous philosophers. Less like other disciplines, no philosopher will altogether agree with another philosopher's dictionary-entries (you will have to get used to there being no 'absolute authority' in Philosophy).

There are the very helpful Routledge Encyclopaedia of Philosophy (ed. E. Craig, 10 volumes; this is now available on-line too, see below) and Encyclopaedia of Philosophy (ed. P. Edwards, 8 volumes), located near the Philosophy journals in the Library, at A1, and also the shorter Concise Routledge Encyclopaedia of Philosophy.

8. THE WEB AND OTHER OPPORTUNITIES FOR DOING PHILOSOPHY

Course web pages

The course website is at http://domino.lancs.ac.uk/ieppp/Phil100.nsf
You can also reach this by going from www.lancs.ac.uk to, under departments, IEPPP (also at http://www.lancs.ac.uk/fss/ieppp) and then clicking the link marked ‘current undergraduates’ and then the link to ‘Phil 100’.
Once you are at the website, you will find that its structure is quite complex. Here are some guidelines for navigating around it; these guidelines are also posted on the noticeboard in Furness (where your seminar times and lists are) and you will given advice by your tutors on using the website in the first seminars.
(a) discussion site. When you first enter the Phil 100 site you will see a page showing lots of messages for discussion. To read those that are there, just click on them and reply if you want. Or start a new topic for discussion by clicking on ‘start new topic’. If you have questions relating to the course, including on use of the website, please post them here, as staff (and other students) check the website regularly and will reply. This is a very good way to get answered any general questions you have about the course.
(b) on the left-hand side of the page, you will see a set of links. One of these says ‘noticeboard’. Click on this and a new set of folders will appear. One of these is called ‘General’. Click on this and you will see that it contains miscellaneous files that are useful to the course in general, e.g. this handbook, details about the end-of-year exam, etc. You can download these files and print them out. The other folders (e.g. ‘Morality Lectures’), when you click on them, contain the handouts which accompany the lectures for each part of the course. Lecturers will post their handouts here shortly before the lectures each week. Please check the contents of these folders regularly and print out the handouts as they are put up on the site. You will know when a new lecture handout has gone up because a little red button shows next to it. You should bring your print-outs of the handouts with you each week to the lectures. Each week’s handout is available as a separate file for downloading.
(c) Going back to the left hand side again, you will see there is another link marked ‘Phil 100 Site’. This leads to a separate web-page maintained by Vernon Pratt, who puts the handouts and presentations that accompany his lectures here. Click on the link to get to his handouts.
Café Philosophy

This course has its own web forum for communication and exchange concerning philosophical issues from the course. Here you can post your questions and thoughts about the philosophers you are studying and enter into discussion with other students in the course. You can find Café Philosophy at http://domino.lancs.ac.uk/ieppp/ugcafephil.nsf
To logon, you need your LAN login (the username and whatever password you use for the Lancaster system, i.e. the login you use for computers on campus; some students may need to use the ‘lancs\’ prefix).

Other resources on the www:
www.epistemelinks.com
www.liv.ac.uk/Philosophy/philos.html
plato.stanford.edu/ (the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy)
philosophypages.com/dy/index.htm (Dictionary of Philosophical Terms)

The Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy is now available on-line. This is an excellent resource for finding out about all kinds of philosophical terms, ideas and thinkers. To access it on campus, go to the library database page: http://libweb.lancs.ac.uk/online.htm and click on REP Online (go down the list). Access is then obtained by clicking ‘Log In’ (no user name or password is needed). From off campus you need a user name and password. This can be obtained from http://libweb.lancs.ac.uk/auth.htm by typing in your library card number and password, selecting REP Online then clicking on the Password List button.

Philosophy seminar series

The Institute for Environment, Philosophy and Public Policy has a seminar series which is open to all and held every other Thursday, 5-7pm in Furness College, C.13. There is usually a paper given by a guest speaker, followed by discussion. For more details, have a look at the schedule, which is posted in the Institute.

9. ASSESSMENT

The assessment for the course consists in three parts: coursework, class tests, and a final exam taken in the summer term.

Coursework assessment

Assignment 1 is on Section 1 of the course. This assignment is due at 5 pm, Weds of week 6 in Michaelmas Term (November 10th 2004).
Assignment 2 is on Section 3 of the course. This assignment is due at 5 pm, Weds of week 6 in Lent Term (16th February 2005).
Both assignments consist of an essay of 1,500 words in length. You can expect to receive your marked assignments back from your seminar tutors in week 8.

Submission and collection of essays
Essays should be handed in via the essay box which is on the wall in the Reception area near the Part I Board on C. Floor in Furness College. Please fill in a cover sheet for your essay and attach it to your essay before posting in the box, and make sure that you have signed the submission statement at the bottom of the cover sheet. The cover sheet that you should use will be attached to the essay question when it is given out, but spares will be available by the essay box. Please do not put your essay in a plastic folder. This is because we have to date stamp each essay and record them in - taking them out of folders is time consuming for us. Essays must be double-spaced, word-processed, and with a margin for comments (Further guidance is provided in Appendix 1 of this handbook.) Please do not hand in essays directly to your seminar tutor.

Late work and penalties
Do not post essays in the essay box after the deadlines given, unless you have asked the Part I Director of Studies for an extension. Extensions for essays will only be given if you have a valid reason - all illnesses should be covered by a sick note/self-certification note. If you are granted an extension you will be allowed normally no longer than the week the marked essays are given back to students. If the marked essays have been given back and you still more time, you will have to work on a different essay title which can be obtained from the Centre for Philosophy office. Extensions of this kind will, however, only be granted in exceptional circumstances.

Penalties:
(1) Please note that if your essay is not completed by the stated deadline and you have not agreed an extension, your essay will lose 10% if it is up to seven days late. Work more than seven days late and without an agreed extension will receive a zero.
(2) Work that is between 10% and 50% overlength will be penalised 5 marks. Work that is more than 50% over length will not be marked at all.

Detailed guidelines on completing assignments 1 and 2 follow:

PHIL 100 Introduction to Philosophy
Term 1 2004-2005

Assignment 1
Please write an 800 word précis of the extract “The Problem of Free Will” by W.T. Stace that appears in the Reader (Reason and Responsibility). Then write 400 more words giving, as clearly as you can, your own assessment of the claim that ‘free will means being undetermined by causes’ (the last words of the extract).
In preparing the précis you may find it difficult not to copy chunks out. Don't! Beginning students often have this difficulty, and this exercise is designed in part to help you discover the alternative, which is to read your source, understand it, and then express what you have understood, speaking for yourself and not as a mouthpiece for somebody else.
What we are trying to do in designing this task is:-
• to give you practice in getting an understanding of a philosophical argument
• to give you practice in the key skill of being able to summarize clearly and accurately what somebody else has written.
• to give you practice in formulating your own argument clearly and succinctly
• and thus to help you develop your own thinking on this topic.
The deadline is 5pm, Wed. 10th November 2004 (Week 6 of Michaelmas Term).. The completed assignments should be posted in the Part I essay box, by the notice board in the Institute foyer (Furness C Floor, opposite C22). Use the cover sheet attached which asks you to fill in your name, college, seminar group (e.g. lOOG etc.) and seminar tutor's name. Spare cover sheets are available near the essay box. Use a word processor please, and leave a margin for comments. Please don't use plastic folders.
It's not easy to know what a philosophical piece of writing (such as we are asking for) is meant to be if you are new to the business. The best advice is often to have a go without worrying too much and see what your tutor says. Please don't hesitate to ask one of us if you are stuck.
Short extensions to the deadline may be given in exceptional circumstances (e.g. ill health etc.): requests should be made to the Director of Part I Studies, Sean Crawford, in person or in writing, prior to the deadline unless this is impossible.

PHIL 100 Introduction to Philosophy
Term 2 2004-2005

Assignment 2
Consider the thesis that when you see something you are actually aware not of the thing itself but of a mental representation of it (e.g. an 'image'). Write a dialogue between two people, one defending this thesis and one arguing against it.
The heart of your discussion should be the representational theory of perception, what it is, the arguments for and against. The straightforward thing would be to have your two discussants agree over what exactly the thesis was and then proceed to argue with each other, taking one point for each 'turn' of the conversation. These are just suggestions, not instructions; you may have a less straightforward way of constructing a dialogue like this.
Marking will look for clarity and logical power of argumentation, not literary merit: but the dialogue form is a requirement.
Your essay should draw on at least one piece of philosophical reading. This could be the extract from John Locke's Essay Concerning Human Understanding to be found in Reason and Responsibility, pp 209-217. (This is also available on-line (http://www.lancs.ac.uk/depts/philosophy/courses/211/Locke's Essay.htm)
Also available on-line is Russell's discussion, which you may find easier than Locke's (http://www.ditext.com/russell/rus1.html)
For help with essay writing please see the guidance in the Part I handbook, also available on-line under the ‘General’ notices listed on the noticeboard at: http://domino.lancs.ac.uk/ieppp/Phil100.nsf
Your essay should be word-processed and double-spaced. Please leave a margin for comments. You should provide a bibliography (including web references) for any sources you use. The word length is 1500 words. The deadline is Wednesday, February 16th at 5pm. The completed assignments should be posted in the Part I essay box, by the notice board in the Institute for Environment, Philosophy and Public Policy foyer (Furness C Floor, opposite C22). Use a pink cover sheet which asks you to fill in your name, college, seminar group (e.g. lOOG etc.) and seminar tutor's name, and make sure you sign the submission statement on the bottom. (Spare cover sheets are available near the essay box.) Please don't use plastic folders.
Short extensions to the deadline may be given in exceptional circumstances (e.g. ill health etc.): requests should be made to the Director of Part I Studies, Sean Crawford, in person or in writing, prior to the deadline unless this is impossible.

Assessment (continued): Class tests (NB: this section differs from the printed handbook; what follows below is correct; what is in the printed handbook is incorrect)
These are held in week 9 of each term. You will be provided with a list of four questions beforehand, of which two will appear on the exam. You will not know which two. The exam will consist of two of these four questions. You must choose one question from among these two to answer. You simply turn up for your seminar as normal, but instead of discussion you will be provided with two of the four seen questions. You must answer one question in 50 minutes.
The first class test in week 9 of Michaelmas Term will relate to Section 2 of the course. The second test in week 9 of Lent Term relates to Section 4 of the course.
The aim of these tests is to get you to bring together your understanding of the topics covered in the corresponding sections of the course, and to provide you with practice for the final exam. You should prepare for the class tests by revising your notes from the lectures, seminars, and readings for that section of the course, and by rereading the lecture handouts.

Final exam

The final exam for the course is held in the Summer Term (usually in June). The exact date will be announced at the start of Summer Term.

The Exam Format

The exam is three hours long. You are required to answer three questions all of which carry equal weight in terms of marks.

The exam paper is divided into two sections:

Part A relates to the first four sections of the course. There will be 8 questions in Part A altogether (2 on each section of the course).

Part B relates to the fifth section of the course (on which you have not been asked to do any coursework or tests). Part B consists of 4 questions.

You have to answer two questions from section A and one question from section B.

Your answers should be around 4 sides long for each question, depending on handwriting.

On the subject of handwriting we cannot mark what we cannot read, so do try to be legible.

Further guidelines on revising and exam technique are in ‘Appendix 2’ to this handbook.

How your final mark for this course is calculated

Your final mark at the end of the year is made up of your coursework mark and your final exam mark. The coursework mark is calculated from your marks in all your assignments and class tests (each of which counts equally towards the mark).

For your final mark at the end of the year, your coursework mark counts for two-thirds and your exam mark for one third. However you must get a passing mark in each part of the course (i.e., in both coursework and exam) to pass in Philosophy as a whole. The pass mark is 40%. (In order to go on to Major in Philosophy, though, you need an average of at least 45%.)

The relationship between numerical marks and final Part I grades is fully explained in the Examinations section of the University Undergraduate Courses Handbook.

For guidance on Part I essay writing and examination guidelines please see Appendix 1 and 2 at the end of this booklet.

10. QUERIES

We hope you have an enjoyable and productive time at Lancaster, but recognise that sometimes problems can affect your ability to study. Please do not forget that it is your degree and your responsibility to seek help if you are experiencing difficulties. The University will do whatever is possible to assist you, within the Rules and Guidelines of the University, if you are having problems provided that we are aware of those problems. The problems may be personal, financial or academic. If you find yourself getting into difficulties we strongly urge you to consult your College in the first instance, (either the College Office, your College/Personal Tutor, or the College Senior Tutor). Alternatively you may wish to contact the Counselling Service, the Student Support Office, the department, or the Students' Union Advice Centre (for further information on central support services, see page 40).

Finally, if you have any queries about anything to do with the course, please ask your seminar tutor, or the person giving the lectures during that part of the course, or the Director of Part I Studies. Office hours of when they are available are posted on noticeboards outside their rooms. A list of Philosophy Part I seminar tutors is posted on the Part I noticeboard in the reception area of the Centre for Philosophy.

If you are unsure who to contact or have a problem call in at the Centre for Philosophy’s Office and see Julie (email: j.pearcy@lancaster.ac.uk) or (email: philosophy@lancaster.ac.uk) in C.18, Furness.

11. COMPLAINTS

If things have gone wrong or are going wrong, we very much want to hear about them: you will be doing us a service if you keep us informed. Please have a word with whoever is easiest for you: your seminar tutor, the person giving the lectures, Julie in the Centre’s offices, or the Director of Part I Studies. Student reps. are elected at the beginning of the session, and their names are posted on the board: this gives you a way of making your point without revealing your identity to Philosophy staff.

12. WHAT YOU CAN EXPECT OF PHILOSOPHY STAFF

• Professionally competent lectures
• Professionally run seminars
• Professional departmental administration
• Professional assessment of your coursework, which should be returned by the due date, annotated so as to help you with learning points
• Professional assessment of your exam scripts
• Access to your tutor during their office hours for informal discussion related to the course
• Access to those lecturing on the course during their office hours as a back up to your tutor
• Access to the Part I tutor during their office hours as a back-up to your tutor
• Social and intellectual exchange with human beings who from time to time may be at large in the Centre.

SYLLABUS IN SHORT

MICHAELMAS TERM

SECTION 1 (weeks 1-4): FREEDOM, CAUSALITY AND DETERMINISM
Lecturer: Vernon Pratt
[Assignment on this Section due Weds of week 6]

SECTION 2 (weeks 6-9): MIND & BODY
Lecturer: Rachel Cooper
[Class test on this Section in your seminar, week 9]

LENT TERM

SECTION 3 (weeks 1-4): PERSONAL IDENTITY & KNOWLEDGE
Lecturer: Vernon Pratt
[Assignment on this Section due Weds of week 6]

SECTION 4 (weeks 6-9): RELIGION & ARGUMENT
Lecturers: John O’Neill and Sean Crawford
[Class test on this Section in your seminar, week 9]

SUMMER TERM

SECTION 5 (weeks 1-4): MORALITY
Lecturer: Garrath Williams

SYLLABUS (IN FULL DETAIL)

TOPICS, READINGS AND SEMINARS FOR EACH TERM

SECTION 1: WEEKS 1-4, MICHAELMAS TERM – FREEDOM, CAUSALITY AND DETERMINISM

(* - on short loan in the Library)

Lecturer: Vernon Pratt

Basic readings are in the course Reader, Reason & Responsibility, edited by Joel Feinberg and Russ Shafer-Landau, (Wadsworth, 11th edition 2002, hereafter: Reason & Responsibility).

Further Reading: the Reader for the module, Reason & Responsibility, has been chosen because it provides a range of articles and excerpts on all our topics for you to take your reading further. Please find time to browse amongst these and engage with those that speak to your concerns.

WEEK 1: THE SCIENTIFIC WORLD - VIEW AND HUMAN FREEDOM

Basic Reading: Walter T. Stace: “The Problem of Free Will”, pp 486-491 in Reason & Responsibility.

This is also the time to have a quick first read of the Introduction to Part IV. of Reason & Responsibility. It should read more clearly and helpfully at the end of the half-term.

Suggested study exercise: write down a list of three features of human beings which you think are the most difficult for the scientific approach to account for. Post your answer on the Part I Philosophy discussion site, Café Philosophy (details for how to do this are in the Part I handbook).

WEEK 2: THE HUMAN BEING "AS A SUBJECT FOR SCIENCE"

Basic Reading: Roderick M. Chisholm: “Human Freedom and the Self”, Reason & Responsibility, pp. 492-499.

Suggested study question: in your own experience, do you feel there have been times when you have arrived at a decision freely? If so, what would persuade you this had been an illusion? Have you ever taken a decision, believing it to be "free" and later discovered that it hadn't been?
WEEK 3: ATTEMPTS TO RECONCILE FREEWILL WITH SCIENTIFIC DETERMINISM

Basic Reading: A.J. Ayer: “Freedom and Necessity”, Reason & Responsibility, pp. 481-486.

Suggested study question: what difference would it make to the way we behave if we came to believe we were mechanisms? Is this a trick question? Have you ever met anybody you suspected was a mechanism? What was happening to Arnie as he began to understand why people sometimes wept?

WEEK 4: THE PRINCIPLE OF CAUSALITY

Basic Reading: David Hume, excerpt from An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding (1748), Reason & Responsibility, section headed 'Part II',
pp. 271-274.

Suggested study question: try to imagine a world which was exactly like ours except that everything that happened in it happened by accident. Can you? Might our world in fact, when we come to think about it, be like that itself? Or would the chances against this being the case be too high? (Here is an example of an accident: your car won't start on your birthday.)

WEEK 5: ESSAY WRITING GUIDANCE

There are no lectures this week but seminars will be held as usual. Your seminars will focus on guidance and discussion for writing philosophy essays. Please be sure that you have read Appendix 1, “Essay Writing Guidelines” in the Part I Handbook. Come to the seminar with questions or problems on essay writing for which you would like some advice. These may be general questions, or questions related specifically to the first essay assignment.

SECTION 2: WEEKS 6-9, MICHAELMAS TERM – MIND AND BODY

Lecturer: Rachel Cooper
E-mail: R.V.Cooper@lancaster.ac.uk

As you begin this section of the course you might like to have a look at the editors’ introduction to “Part III: Mind and Its Place in Nature” in Reason and Responsibility, pp. 337-341.

For a generally useful reference book, see Samuel Guttenplan’s A Companion to the Philosophy of Mind, in the library. Other books with useful sections on the philosophy of mind are: N. Warburton (1995) Philosophy: The Basics; T. Nagel (1987) What Does It All Mean?; A. O’Hear (1985) What Philosophy Is; J. Heil (1998) Philosophy of Mind.

Websites: For some philosophy of mind links: www.epistemelinks.com and then click on Philosophy of Mind. David Chalmers has a rich collection of papers on the philosophy of mind at: http://jamaica.u.arizona.edu/~chalmers/online.html
For a helpful on-line dictionary: www.artsci.wustl.edu/~philos/MindDict/dictindex.html

WEEK 6: THE MIND-BODY PROBLEM & DUALISM

Basic reading: Keith Campbell, “Dualisms”, Reason and Responsibility, pp. 342-355.

Further: T. Nagel (1987) What Does It All Mean?, Chapter on the Mind-Body problem. For Descartes’ arguments for dualism see “Meditations on First Philosophy”, Reason and Responsibility, pp.175-82 and pp.196-204; and then see N. Warbuton (1998) Philosophy: The Classics, Ch. 5, for a simple explanation. B. Magee (2000) The Great Philosophers, also contains a nice chapter on Descartes.

Suggested study question: What is meant by “qualia”, “consciousness”, and “intentionality”? To what extent do these features make minds unique?

WEEK 7: BEHAVIOURISM AND THE IDENTITY THEORY

Basic readings: Paul Churchland, “Behaviourism, Materialism and Functionalism”, Reason and Responsibility, Sections on behaviourism and identity theory only. pp. 368-375

Further: For arguments for behaviourism read J.B.Watson “Talking and Thinking” in W. Lyons (ed.) Mind and Cognition, or the beginning of B.F.Skinner’s Science and Human Behaviour, or Beyond Freedom and Dignity. If you find Skinner persuasive quickly cure yourself by reading D. Dennett “Skinner Skinned” in his (1978) Brainstorms. For discussion of the identity theory, see Peter Carruthers, “The Mind is the Brain”, in Reason and Responsibility, pp. 359-368.

Suggested study question: If I behave as if I hate you, might I really love you? What do you think? And, what would a behaviourist and an identity theorist say? Post your answer on the Part I Philosophy discussion site, Café Philosophy.

WEEK 8: FUNCTIONALISM

Basic readings: William Lycan, “Robots and Minds”, Reason and Responsibility,
pp. 397-402.

Further reading: H. Putnam (1967) “The nature of mental states” and N. Block (1978) “Troubles with functionalism” both reprinted in N. Block (ed) Readings in the Philosophy of Psychology.

Suggested study question: Could a robot ever feel fear?

WEEK 9: QUALIA

Basic reading: Frank Jackson, “The Qualia Problem”, Reason and Responsibility, pp. 355-359.

Further: T. Nagel (1974) “What is it like to be a bat?” Available at http://members.aol.com/NeoNoetics/Nagel_Bat.html
For someone who is sceptical about qualia-talk see D. Dennett (1988) Quining Qualia. Available at http://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/papers/quinqual.htm (note: this paper is quite hard. Just try to get the general idea of Dennett’s argument).

Suggested study question: Does the “qualia problem” show that physicalism is false?

WEEK 10: REVIEW WEEK - NO LECTURES OR SEMINARS

SECTION 3: WEEKS 1-4, LENT TERM – PERSONAL IDENTITY & KNOWLEDGE

Lecturer: Vernon Pratt

I suggest a single basic reading for each week. For Further Reading, the Reader, Reason and Responsibility, is a very useful first resort.

WEEK 1: CRITERIA OF IDENTITY

Basic Reading: Daniel C. Dennett, “Where am I?” Reason & Responsibility, pp. 420-428.

Suggested study question: Which is the real ship of Theseus – the one made of the original timbers, or the one that has been continually refurbished? In justifying your answer explain how you are interpreting the notion of “spatio-temporal continuity”.

WEEK 2: PERSONAL IDENTITY

Basic Reading: Terence Penelhum: “Survival: the Problem of Identity”, Reason & Responsibility, pp. 428-434.

Suggested study question: When did YOU begin to exist? When (i.e. under what kind of circumstances) will you cease to exist?

WEEK 3: THE PROBLEM OF PERCEPTION

Basic Reading: John Locke, Excerpt from An Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1690), Reason & Responsibility, pp. 209-217.

Suggested study question: According to Locke, how do we know that something, say a piece of white paper, exists?

WEEK 4: DO WE KNOW ANYTHING AT ALL?

Basic Reading: René Descartes, Excerpt from Meditations on First Philosophy (1641), Reason & Responsibility, pp. 173-182 (Synopsis and First and Second Meditation)

Suggested study question: How do you know that you are not the “star” of the Truman Show, or the victim of Descartes’ “evil genius”? Do you think you know that this is at least unlikely? What kind of evidence could you have?

WEEK 5: ESSAY WRITING GUIDANCE

There are no lectures this week but seminars will be held as usual. Your seminars will focus on guidance and discussion for writing philosophy essays. Please be sure that you have read Appendix 1, “Essay Writing Guidelines” in the Part I Handbook. Come to the seminar with questions or problems on essay writing for which you would like some advice. These may be general questions, or questions related specifically to the second essay assignment.

SECTION 4: WEEKS 6-9 LENT TERM – RELIGION AND ARGUMENT

Lecturer: weeks 1 & 2 John O’Neill; weeks 3 & 4 Sean Crawford

This section of the course considers some of the arguments to be found in the philosophy of religion. We begin with two weeks of logic to give you some basic grounding in inductive and deductive arguments, and then we go on to look at these in the context of arguments for and against the existence of God.

WEEK 6: ARGUMENTS IN PHILOSOPHY: DEDUCTION

Before we examine some of the arguments which have occurred in the philosophy of religion we first need to look at the nature of arguments and the methods for their assessment. The basic concepts are summarised on p. 3 of the course reader Reason and Responsibility and will be elaborated in detail in lectures.

In this week we look at the nature of deductive arguments. Good introductions to the material we will be covering are found in I. Copi Introduction to Logical Theory part 1, and W. Newton-Smith Logic ch.1.

Suggested study question: what is the definition of validity and what is the connection between validity and truth?

WEEK 7: ARGUMENTS IN PHILOSOPHY: INDUCTION

This week we turn our attention from deductive to inductive arguments. The basic reading is David Hume, An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding, sections IV and V, in Reason and Responsibility, pp. 268-280.

For further discussion see A. Chalmers What is this thing called science? Chs 1, 2 and 4; B. Russell The Problems of Philosophy ch.6.

Suggested study question: Can induction be justified? Could science do without induction?

WEEK 8: INDUCTION AND RELIGIOUS BELIEF: THE TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT

Basic Reading: William Paley, 'The Argument from Design' in Reason and Responsibility, pp. 40-45 and David Hume, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion Parts II & III in Reason and Responsibility, pp. 46-54.

Further Reading: Thomas McPherson, The Argument from Design is a good starting point. Classic discussions may be found in Richard Swinburne, The Existence of God, pp. 133-151 and J. L. Mackie, The Miracle of Theism, pp. 133-149. A recent defence of the 'designed' character of the world may be found in Mark Wynn, God and Goodness: A Natural Theological Perspective.

Suggested study question: Does the world look as if it has been 'designed'? Post your answer on the Part I Philosophy discussion site, Café Philosophy (details for how to do this are in the Part I handbook).

WEEK 9: THE PROBLEM OF EVIL

Basic Reading: Fyodor Dostoevsky, ‘Rebellion’ (from The Brothers Karamazov) and J.L. Mackie, ‘Evil and Omnipotence’, both reprinted in Part I of Reason and Responsibility.

Further Reading: Peter Van Inwagen, ‘The Magnitude, Duration, and Distribution of Evil: A Theodicy’, reprinted in Part I of Reason and Responsibility; Evil and the God of Love, John Hick; The Problem of Evil, eds. M. McCord Adams and R. M. Adams; The Problem of Evil: Selected Readings, ed. M. L. Peterson; Richard Swinburne, The Existence of God, chs 9-11.

Suggested study question: Is the free-will defence a satisfactory solution to the problem of evil?

WEEK 10: REVIEW WEEK – NO LECTURES OR SEMINARS

SECTION 5: WEEKS 1-4, SUMMER TERM - MORALITY

Lecturer: Garrath Williams

As you begin this section of the course you might like to have a look at the editors’ introduction to “Part Five: Morality and its Critics” in Reason and Responsibility, pp. 538-546.

A good, accessible overview of moral philosophy is Simon Blackburn’s recent book, *Being good.

WEEK 1: UTILITARIANISM

Basic Reading: Peter Singer, “Famine, Affluence, and Morality”, Reason and Responsibility, pp. 708-715

Optional: J.S. Mill, "Utilitarianism", Reason and Responsibility, pp. 694-707.

Further: Martin Curd, Argument and Analysis, pp. 183-195. James Rachels, The Elements of Moral Philosophy, Ch. 8. J. Hospers, Human Conduct, 1st ed., ch. 12, or 2nd ed. ch. 4. R. Norman, *The Moral Philosophers, ch. 7, is a good discussion of Mill, especially of the higher v. lower pleasures distinction. D.D. Raphael, *Moral Philosophy, ch. 4, and P. Pettit, Judging Justice, ch. 11, provide decent introductions to utilitarianism; and for discussion of some standard problems, see ch. 13 of Hospers, op.cit. Ch. 7 of Hospers is useful on the claim that happiness/pleasure is the only intrinsic good. The role of utilitarian reasoning in relation to the rights and wrongs of euthanasia is discussed in Reason and Responsibility by James Rachels, “Active and Passive Euthanasia”, pp. 727-731, and Tom Beauchamp, “A Reply to Rachels on Active and Passive Euthanasia”, pp. 731-739. A useful overview of issues and theories in moral philosophy is M. Hollis *Invitation to Philosophy, ch. 7, "The Ring of Gyges" (the title refers to a passage in Plato's Republic).

Suggested study question: How would a utilitarian decide on the rights and wrongs of:

(a) Keeping or breaking promises?
(b) Telling the truth or lying?
(c) Punishing or not punishing someone?
(d) Helping or not helping someone in need overseas?

WEEK 2: KANT

Basic Reading: Onora O’Neill, “Kantian Approaches to Some Famine Problems”, Reason and Responsibility, pp. 716-722.

Further: Robert Arrington’s *Western Ethics has a good chapter on Kant and Thomas Hill’s chapter, ‘Kantianism,’ in Hugh La Follette (ed), The Blackwell Guide to Ethical Theory, ch 12, is also very useful. Richard Norman's *The Moral Philosophers, ch. 6, is a helpful introduction to Kant's ethics, and so us Onora O’Neill’s ‘Kantian ethics,’ in P Singer (ed), *A Companion to Ethics.

Also: J. Rachels, The Elements of Moral Philosophy, chs. 9-10. Difficult, but rewarding, is J. Kemp's The Philosophy of Kant, ch. 3, esp. pp. 56-75. For an introduction to Kant’s philosophy more generally, see Roger Scruton’s Kant.

Suggested study question: How would a Kantian decide on the rights and wrongs of:

(a) Keeping or breaking promises?
(b) Telling the truth or lying?
(c) Punishing or not punishing someone?
(d) Helping or not helping someone in need overseas?

WEEK 3: ARISTOTLE

Basic Reading: Aristotle, “The Nature of Virtue”, Reason and Responsibility, pp. 624-640. Please note: You are not asked to read all of this, but instead to scan through the text and pick out a particular topic of interest, and just read that section (a couple of pages is fine) thoroughly.

Further: A clear introduction is J.O. Urmson's, Aristotle's Ethics. See also: J. Rachels, The Elements of Moral Philosophy, "The Ethics of Virtue"; R. Norman, The Moral Philosophers, Part I "Aristotle". For another in depth look at this topic in ethics, try Rosalind Hursthouse’s recent book, On Virtue Ethics.

For a contrast between the approaches discussed over the past weeks, see M Baron, P Pettit & M Slote, *Three methods of ethics: a debate, where three important writers in ethics each set out defend their chosen theory – Kantianism, utilitarianism, and virtue ethics.

Suggested study question: How would an Aristotelian decide on the rights and wrongs of:

(a) Keeping or breaking promises?
(b) Telling the truth or lying?
(c) Punishing or not punishing someone?
(d) Helping or not helping someone in need overseas?

WEEK 4: BUT IT'S ALL RELATIVE, ISN'T IT? MORAL RELATIVISM, SUBJECTIVISM AND SCEPTICISM ABOUT VALUES

Basic Readings: James Rachels, "The Challenge of Cultural Relativism", Reason and Responsibility, pp. 616-623; Russ Shafer-Landau, “Ethical Subjectivism”, Reason and Responsibility, pp. 604-616.

See also Bernard Williams, *Morality: an introduction to ethics
(chs on ‘the amoralist,’ ‘subjectivism’ and ‘relativism’) and relevant chapters in Peter Singer’s *A companion to ethics.

Further: Mary Midgley, "Trying Out One's New Sword", inTwenty Questions, pp. 587-590. Curd, Argument and Analysis, pp. 171-174. P. Singer, Practical Ethics, 2nd ed., ch. 1, esp. pp. 4-8. The Open University, *Introduction to Philosophy (R. Hursthouse), Units 13-15, pp. 9-20 and 47-61, are good on what's meant by 'subjectivity'; D.D. Raphael *Moral Philosophy, chaps 2 and 3, discusses the objectivity (or otherwise) of moral judgements; and J. Mackie's Ethics, chap. 1, is interesting but quite difficult on this.

Suggested study question: do you agree with Rachels that cultural relativism "is not so plausible as it first appears to be?" Why, or why not? Post your answer on the Part I Philosophy discussion site, Café Philosophy.

WEEK 5: REVISION LECTURE FOR EXAM (NO SEMINARS)

APPENDIX 1: PART I ESSAY WRITING GUIDELINES

Those who mark your essays are chiefly looking for two things:

(a) your understanding of material covered in or relevant to the course, reflected in your ability to analyse arguments concisely;
(b) your ability to develop your own criticisms of arguments and to develop arguments to support your own conclusions.

Hints on achieving these two:

Philosophy is not painting by numbers, and these are not the numbers! Use them with intelligence. In philosophy, as in painting, one learns how to do it by close inspection of the work of philosophers (or painters). If in doubt about how to write, write as if to explain things to people who know less philosophy than you do – try it out on your friends.

Analysis

All disciplines involve reasoning but there is a special focus on it in philosophy. In Section 4 of the course, you will be introduced to different kinds of reasoning and a vocabulary designed for talking about reasoning and argument. It is important that you master this vocabulary and get into the habit of using it when thinking about your own and other people’s arguments.

The aim of an analysis of an argument is to show what the bare bones of the argument are. This is not a précis and is often best done backwards! – read on …

Ask:

1. What question is this piece asking?
2. What answer is given to that question?
3. What reasons are given in support of that answer?
4. What reasons are given in support of those reasons - and so on until you reach 5.
5. What are the ‘premises’ (i.e. assumptions or reasons for which no reasons are given)?
6. What sort of support are the reasons supposed to be providing for the conclusions?
7. Bear in mind throughout that you want to sift out everything which is not absolutely vital to the case being made – you want to reveal what is essential.
8. It is a fairly natural human failing to misinterpret (more or less wilfully) arguments for conclusions you disagree with, thereby making them seem weaker than they are – be wary.

Criticism

Once you have your ‘wiring diagram’ of the argument, you can set about criticising it relevantly:

Internal criticisms:
How well do the reasons support the conclusion?
Are there stronger reasons than the author gives for the same conclusion?
Do the reasons equally support an alternative conclusion?
Are there reasons for not accepting the conclusion, or any of the assumptions?
Does anything follow from the conclusion, which might appear to be grounds for rejecting it?
Are there ambiguities in any of the terms or claims made?
Are there alternative interpretations of what is being argued?

External criticisms:
Are there alternative answers to the question, which the author has not considered?
What reasons could be given to support these answers?

Next:
1. How might the author respond to your criticisms – it is unlikely that any of the authors you read would just say “Oh, silly me, back to the drawing board” – philosophers are not like that!
2. How would you respond to the author’s supposed response?
3. Set up a dialogue (as Plato did!).

Originality

Doing this sort of analysis of philosophical writings will prepare you for presenting your own approach to philosophical questions in a similar way. You are encouraged to be creative and use your imagination and certainly to put forward your own views on questions asked, but you need to do so within the discipline of philosophy. It is often best to say what your conclusion is at the start of your essay (philosophy is not a detective story) then the reader knows where you are going and can better appreciate how you are getting there.

Ideally, essays should begin with an abstract – i.e. brief statement of the thesis of your argument and the main reasons you are offering in support of it. An abstract is not just a précis: it does not have to and usually should not preserve the order of presentation of the main body of the essay. Abstracts are usually better written after the rest of the essay.

Get into the habit of writing abstracts of everything you read. To discover what an abstract is, try reading abstracts (where they appear) of journal articles and short reviews of books.

Quotes

It is rarely necessary to quote at length in philosophy. Quotations should be offered only in support of a point or interpretation which you have also explained in your own words. You should never use the quote to ‘do your talking for you’.
Quotations should be clearly marked as such: put them in quotation marks and give a precise reference which enables the reader to find the quote – this requires page numbers and edition number where relevant.

Inclusive Language

The Centre for Philosophy is committed to the University’s advisory guidelines on Inclusive Language and Social Diversity, which are intended to raise awareness and assist staff and students in avoiding language which excludes, degrades or gives unintentional offence. For example, “learning difficulties” is preferred to “mentally handicapped”; “black” is preferred to “coloured”; “her/his” or “she/he” is preferred to “he”; and “humankind” or “human” is preferred to “mankind” or “man”. For University guidelines see http://www.lancs.ac.uk/users/equalopp/

Bibliographies

All texts you have referred to or used in the preparation for your essay should be listed in alphabetical order along with publishers and dates of publication. Make a note of these details of everything you read as you go along. Example: A.J. Ayer, ‘Freedom and Necessity’ in Reason and Responsibility, 11th edition, Joel Feinberg and Russ Shafer-Landau, eds. (Wadsworth, 2002).

Use of Sources

It is important that your reader be left in no doubt about what you are doing when you use sources, and this can be ensured by following some conventions:
1. Verbatim quotations, long or short, should be enclosed in inverted commas. If they are more than 3 lines long, they should be indented (like this paragraph). References should be given in footnotes, in sufficient detail to allow the reader to look up the passage quoted, e.g.: A.J. Ayer, ‘Freedom and Necessity’, p. 483. Full bibliographical details should be included at the end.
2. Passages of close paraphrase or summaries of an author's views should also be acknowledged in the same way as quotations.
3. If an argument or view, though expressed without close verbal parallel to the source, is derived from a particular author, it is appropriate to acknowledge the debt.

Observance of these conventions is good scholarly practice. It gives to the authors whose work has been used what is due to them. It enables a tutor to know whose work he or she is commenting on and assessing. It ensures that the writer does not fall under suspicion of dishonest work - passing off as his or her own the mental work of others.

Generally speaking verbatim quotations should be confined to short passages, and should have a specific purpose: e.g. you may wish to discuss the meaning of a particular word or sentence. Quoted passages should never be strung together in place of your own exposition, because extensive quotation gives little evidence that the material has been understood.

'Paraphrase' can include a variety of things. The Concise Oxford Dictionary defines it as 'free rendering or amplification of a passage, expression of its sense in other words'. The latter can cover the humble activity of rewriting the passage with systematic minor changes; certain words replaced by synonymous words or phrases, with changes in grammatical construction, and so on - a rather mechanical process. But paraphrase can be the activity of re-expressing the content of a passage in a way that frees it from obscurity, presents its points in a more perspicuous order, and brings out the structure of its argument by identifying the conclusion and distinguishing the various premises and revealing their relationships. The important distinction to grasp is between slavish paraphrase and critical paraphrase. The slavish variety is in general to be avoided (whether acknowledged or not) because it can be done even with the most superficial understanding of the passage that is being re-expressed. An essay which consists largely, or even wholly, of critical paraphrase can on the other hand be of great value to the writer. To be able to articulate an argument independently, as distinct from parroting it, is an achievement in itself, and is also the best way into the more ambitious task of criticism.

It is a good idea to practise the art of critical paraphrase not only when writing an essay but also when making preparatory notes on your reading. It is also a good idea in note-taking to observe the conventions of using quotation marks and noting sources. The former is a good training, and the latter is a way of making sure that you do not inadvertently incorporate quoted material into an essay, having forgotten that you had copied it verbatim into your notes.

LANCASTER UNIVERSITY AND PLAGIARISM

University core value of academic integrity:
Core values of academic integrity (honesty and trust) lie at the heart of our academic enterprise, and they underpin all activities within the University. The University values a culture of honesty and mutual trust, and it expects all members of the University to respect and uphold these core values at all times, in everything they do at, for and in the name of the University. Academic integrity is important because, without honesty and trust, true academic discourse becomes impossible, learning is distorted and the evaluation of student progress and academic quality is seriously compromised. Consequently, the University is committed to
a. defending the academic credibility and reputation of the institution
b. protecting the standards of its awards
c. ensuring that its students receive due credit for the work they submit for assessment
d. advising its students of the need for academic integrity, and providing them with guidance on best practice in studying and learning
e. educating its students about what intellectual property is, why it matters, how to protect their own, and how to legitimately access other people’s.

The meaning of plagiarism:
Plagiarism involves the unacknowledged use of someone else’s work, usually in coursework, and passing it off as if it were his/her own. This category of

cheating includes the following:
1. collusion, where a piece of work prepared by a group is represented as if it were the student’s own;
2. commission or use of work by the student which is not his/her own and representing it as if it were:
? purchase of a paper from a commercial service, including internet sites, whether pre-written or specially prepared for the student concerned
? submission of a paper written by another person, either by a fellow student or a person who is not a member of the university;
3. duplication of the same or almost identical work for more than one module;
4. the act of copying or paraphrasing a paper from a source text, whether in manuscript, printed or electronic form, without appropriate acknowledgement;
5. submission of another student’s work, whether with or without that student’s knowledge or consent.

Why Plagiarism is unacceptable:
1. It involves unacceptable practices, particularly literary theft (stealing someone else’s intellectual property, and breach of copyright) and academic deception (in order to gain a higher grade)
2. It involves poor or careless academic practice (including poor note-taking and poor procedures for preparing academic work)
3. It prevents the student who plagiarises from knowing how well they have performed (by yielding a false grade), thus denying them the opportunity to learn lessons, improve their study skills, and improve their knowledge and understanding
4. If plagiarism goes undetected and unpunished, it effectively penalises and can demoralise those students who do not plagiarise

Detection and Penalty:
Academic markers will be making a positive effort to identify possible plagiarism, using a variety of means, including electronic systems such as Copycatch and Turnitin.com. Where apparent plagiarism is detected, the matter is investigated, the student's previous record on plagiarism examined and, if necessary, a panel is arranged to discuss the matter with the student. Plagiarism can attract a number of different penalties, depending on the severity of the offence and how many offences the student has committed. Penalties range from a formal warning and note on student records, through the awarding of 0, to appearance at Standing Academic Committee, with the recommendation for exclusion from the University. Full details of these procedures can be found on the CELT homepage or a copy is kept in the Teaching Office, C18, Furness College.

APPENDIX 2

PART I EXAMINATION GUIDELINES & ADVICE

Exams are not simply memory tests – we have machines (or parrots) to do that. So do not just remind us of what we said to you in lectures – that is too easy.

Exams are an opportunity for you to exercise the skills of reasoning which Part I Philosophy is geared to encourage you to develop. Of course, in order to display these skills you do need to know the philosophical theories and positions about which you are reasoning (e.g. if you don’t know what Cartesian Dualism is or how Ryle criticised it, you will be hard pressed to answer a question on whether the criticism is a fair one).

Examination skills are in demand in all walks of life: to be sure, you do not elsewhere have to exercise them sitting in silent straight lines – that is a privilege of academia – but you do get put on the spot – in committees, the workplace, the board room, parliament, tv, the pub, wherever – to use what you happen to know at the time in the best way you can to bear upon a question you have just been asked and not necessarily thought about in quite that form.

Revision

Start by looking at some old exam papers, select the questions on the areas of the course you feel happiest with then practice sketching out answers to those questions. The point of this is two-fold:
1. it reveals to you gaps in your knowledge – your revision can then take the form of filling in those gaps. So, what you revise has a context and that makes it easier to remember;
2. it constitutes practice in the skill which exams test – arranging material in a way which produces a relevant answer to a question you have not had prior warning of.
Having revised one topic, it is wise to set up exam conditions for yourself and see how much you can write in one hour. This will enable you to avoid running out of time in the exam.

Revise materials in bundles and practice re-arranging the bundles to gear them to different questions – this sort of thing can be done in the bath, on a hillside … and can actually be fun. Revising should be an active process of exploring how the things you have studied during the course fit together – special things start to happen when they all get into your head together. There are many connections between different sections of the course – the exam is an opportunity to use these connections. Do not be afraid to use material from one section of the course in an answer to a question from another section if you feel it is relevant.

You answer 3 questions in the final exam. Revising only three topics is obviously cutting it much too fine. Revising the whole course is a bit excessive. Choose somewhere between the two with which you feel safe.

Writing Exams

Select the questions you intend to answer at the beginning. If you leave, e.g. the choice of a third question until after you have written 2 answers, you will be tired and might choose unwisely.

Sketch out plans (a bit like essay abstracts or seminar preparation) for each answer. While you are writing the first answer, extra things might occur to you to put into the later answers. Write them down – you might forget them.

So, selection and planning time is probably about 15 minutes, which leaves you with 2 hours and 45 minutes for writing – divide that by 3 and that gives you 55 minutes per answer. But then there is reading through time. This is fairly important – it is easy, in the heat of the moment to leave out the odd word, like ‘not’, which might be a bit crucial. So it is wise to leave 15 minutes for that which leaves you with 50 minutes for writing each answer.

Divide your time equally between the three questions. It is virtually impossible to make up for a missing or very short answer by two long ones.

This, of course, is in the ideal world. I do not expect anyone has ever been so organised in any exam!

Each answer should show:
(a) familiarity with and understanding of the relevant material;
(b) ability to engage critically with it – what is involved in this is just as in an essay – so, see those guidelines – or the sort of thing you have been doing in seminars all year.

If you seem to have run out of things to say, just imagine a seminar group challenging what you have just said and defend yourself against it.

Do ensure that you answer the question – not that there’s only one way of doing that. Organise the material you have to address the question asked. Lecture material will be relevant, but not just as it was presented in lectures. You can lose marks for putting in things irrelevant to the question. If you are in doubt about what the question is getting at, or fear you have misinterpreted it, say so and justify your interpretation as a possible one.

Remember that there are always arguments for and against any thesis. Remember that there is a BIG difference between disagreeing with something as a sort of gut reaction and giving arguments against it.

Remember, another human being is going to read what you write. If you have left something out, add a footnote. If you see any deficiency in what you have written, explain it – it shows critical awareness which is a philosophical virtue.

Finally

Do not panic. All Part 1 students have a right to resit if they fail, but it costs money and messes up your summer.

You will perform better if you are healthy, rested, and have had enough sleep and food. Do not wear yourself out revising, though it can be the best way of not panicking. If you revise just by reading your notes right up to the last minute, you might have difficulty switching from ‘input’ to ‘output’ when you get a pen in your hand. There is a tradition in Universities that the older generation tells the younger generation to take a holiday prior to exams so as to be fresh for the occasion. I doubt if any younger generation has ever taken this advice seriously. Go into the exam with confidence that you have learnt a lot in the year and here is your opportunity to shine. Who knows, you might even enjoy the peace and quiet of the exam room and being waited on by invigilators – no ‘phones ringing, no one to nag you, no worries!

APPENDIX 3

CRITERIA FOR THE AWARD OF MARKS ON AN ESSAY OR EXAM ANSWER

First: 70% - 100%; Part One Code: M1

The work meets the criteria for a 2/1 and in addition -

70% - 80%,
shows evidence of:
Lucidity of argument
Extremely clear and well organised structure
Strong critical awareness
Mastery of problem being addressed
Thorough familiarity with a range of relevant and challenging literature
A creative approach to the argument

80-90%

Criteria as above for a first, plus:
Strong argument for an original position, going beyond that in the literature, and backed up by appropriate evidence and reasoning

For a mark above 90%

All of the above, and of a quality suitable for publication in an international refereed journal.

CLASS 2 DIVISION 1 = 60%-69%, Part One Code: M1

There is:
clarity of thought and expression
ability to marshal arguments into a sustained and well-organised statement
a good grasp of the philosophical problem being addressed
critical awareness
a tight sense of relevance
and normally -
knowledge and understanding of relevant literature.

CLASS 2 DIVISION 2 = 50%-59%, Part One Code: M2

the majority of the text is clear enough to be understood
the answer has a structure
a basic grasp of the question is demonstrated

There is:
critical awareness
some coherent argumentation
evidence of serious study
a sense of relevance being exercised

and normally:
some knowledge is shown of relevant literature

Distinguished from a 2.1 therefore by:
lower level of coherence
lower level of critical awareness

and normally:
lower level of knowledge and understanding of relevant literature

THIRD = 45%-49%, Part One Code = M3

The majority of the text is clear enough to be understood. There is a degree of structure. Some grasp of the question is demonstrated; some attempt at argument is made

There is:
some evidence of serious study
some sense of relevance

and normally:
some knowledge of relevant literature

Thus distinguished from 2.2 by some of:
limited knowledge of relevant material
limited powers of organisation of material
absence of critical discussion
lack of clarity
lack of relevance

PASS 40%-44% = Part One Code: Q

The work shows:
some clear text
some evidence of study
some evidence of an attempt to provide a relevant answer
some attempt at argument

So distinguished from 3rd by:
relative weakness in the features listed
lack of structure

FAIL = 0%-39%, Part One Code: F
30-39%
Work that fails to meet the criteria for a Pass, and with some or all of the following characteristics:
Some awareness of the issues at stake, but inadequate knowledge of relevant literature
No critical discussion
Little structured argument
Lack of clarity and lucidity

20-29%
Work with some or all of the following characteristics:
Very basic or general knowledge of the subject area with little or no reference to relevant literature
Fundamental flaws in the argument or complete misunderstandings of key positions
Failure to engage with central questions
Serious and endemic lack of clarity and lucidity

10-19%
A bare hint of knowledge displayed; or some knowledge but complete misinterpretation of the question

1-10%
One paragraph or less of writing (examination only)
Only one or two relevant points (examination only)
Almost complete incoherence or almost complete irrelevance (examination and essay)

0%
Nothing written, (examination only) or nothing of any relevance at all written (examination and essay)

PLEASE NOTE:

For all of the above, particular strength under one of these heads is seen as compensating for weakness under another.

Every effort will be made to construe the work as relevant to the question set. These criteria only come into play when the work is accepted as the student's own.

GLOSSARY

'critical', as in 'critical argument': argument that shows awareness that claims are open to test and evaluation.
'critical awareness': awareness that claims are open to test and evaluation.
'material': arguments and discussion on the topic derived from books or independent thought

APPENDIX 4
WHAT WE PLAN FOR YOU TO LEARN IN PHILOSOPHY AT EACH STAGE:

Year 1 Years 2 & 3
Lucidity Present simple philosophical ideas and arguments clearly Avoid confusion in the presentation of more difficult ideas and more complex argumentation
structure of presentation Present a limited number of related arguments or considerations in a clearly structured way Synthesise a wider range of ideas and arguments into a single coherently structured written presentation. At Level 3, students should be able to structure longer pieces of work in the form of dissertations.
grasp of problem The beginnings of a grasp of some dimensions of the philosophical problems at issue Grasp at least some of the main dimensions of a philosophical problem at issue in such a way as to support the beginnings of critical independent thought about it. At Level 3, independent critical thought should be developed further in dissertations.
critical awareness Show an awareness that claims are open to test and evaluation Maintain throughout a limited study the sense that claims are open to test and evaluation. At Level 3, students should be able to maintain critical awareness throughout dissertations.
coherence of argumentation Work with the distinction between validity and invalidity in argument Work with a sharp sense of validity and invalidity in relation to complex lines of argumentation
evidence of study Show the benefits in one's writing of careful listening, reading and thought Draw intelligently in one's own reading, writing and thinking on a range of challenging contributions made by others. At Level 3, students should demonstrate detailed study of selected areas of philosophy in dissertations.
knowledge and grasp of relevant literature Read and have a basic understanding of at least eight pieces of philosophical literature Read and have a good understanding of at least some aspects of some challenging contributions to the problem at issue
sense of relevance Know the difference between points that are straightforwardly relevant and points which are irrelevant to a particular argument or issue Work with a sense of relevance in relation to a limited project as a whole, both in choice of reading and in presentation of argumentation. At Level 3, this should be sustained over the length of a dissertation.

APPENDIX 5: CENTRAL SUPPORT SERVICES

Student Advisory Service Desk:
The Student Advisory Service is situated in the foyer of University House and is open Monday to Friday for the first two weeks of each term, and during Intro. Week. The Advice Desk offers a one-stop help and information service to students on a wide range of issues and works closely with academic and other departments within the University. Ext: 93323

Student Support Office:
The Student Support Office, which can be found on the ground floor of University House in Room A35, provides both specialist and general guidance and support to students and assists individual students if they encounter serious difficulties that cannot easily be resolved by their college or academic department. Tel: 92010. Specialist advisers are also available to help students with disabilities and dyslexia, international students and students with financial problems:

i) Disabilities Service
The Disabilities Service co-ordinates support for students with disabilities, including dyslexia. This may involve note-taking, wheelchair pushing, personal care support, and diagnostic assessments. The Disabilities Service should be your first point of contact for arranging any alternative examinations. Tel: 92109.
ii) Access Centre:
Administered via the Disabilities Service, University House, the Access Centre can carry out assessments to determine study aids and strategies for students, and others, with disabilities.
Tel: 92109.
iii) International Students
The International Student Advice Service offers specialist advice on immigration and related issues, together with adjustment and welfare issues. Tel: 92010/94619
Access to Learning Funds:
Government Funds, usually given in the form of non-repayable grants, to home students who, after having taken out the Student Loan and Hardship Loan, are still experiencing financial difficulties. You can apply at any time - you do not have to wait until you have run out of money to apply. Assessment is based upon the relationship between income and essential expenditure over the academic year.

Information leaflets about the Hardship Loan and Access to Learning Fund are available in the College foyers and the Student Support Office. Application forms are available from the Student Support Office and the Students' Union Advice Centre.

Disabled Students Allowance (DSA): Students with disabilities may be eligible for additional help towards course related costs. Further information from the Disabilities Adviser. Tel: 92109.

Student Aid Fund: available to help those students who do not qualify for Government help through the Hardship Loan and Fund (likely only to be international students). Only available on a very limited basis to students who encounter a serious emergency situation. For further information contact your Senior Tutor or the Student Support Office.

Counselling service: Situated in Furness College - a confidential, professional service, open 5 days a week for appointments with one of six Counsellors. A drop-in service is also available. Tel: 92690

The nurse unit: Located in the Reception Lodge; a confidential, non-judgemental, easily accessible service open 24 hours during term-time. See below for further details.

Careers Service: May be used throughout your time at Lancaster and is situated above the Reception Lodge opposite the Chaplaincy Centre. You should not wait until nearly the end of your final year before accessing the Careers Services. The Service will support you through the whole process of identifying career choices and this can be important in your first year when you are making choices about 2nd year courses. Tel: 92480. The Careers Service provides relevant information to departments, via departmental careers tutors about impending Careers events and vacancies.

The Chaplaincy Centre: An ecumenical environment providing another source of welfare, advice & often practical support from the various Chaplains. Tel: 94071

Harassment Network: The Harassment Network provides confidential support for any student or staff member who feels they are subject to harassment. Contact network members by phone (see internal telephone directory or by email at HarassNet@lancaster.ac.uk. For further information about the network contact Rosemary Turner, Harassment Network Co-ordinator. Tel 94028
Students' Union Advice Centre: Situated in Slaidburn House offers a full range of financial and welfare advice to students. Advisers will also undertake an advocacy role for students facing academic sanctions. Tel: 92200

Nightline: A listening service run by the Students' Union, operated by trained students between 10pm and 8am during term time. Tel: 94444.

Security : available on a 24 hours basis. Tel: 94541

Health Services on Campus
The Nurse Unit: Located in the Reception Lodge is a confidential, non-judgemental, easily accessible, drop-in service open 24 hours during term-time. The experienced nursing team can offer advice on a wide range of health-related matters from healthy lifestyles through to specific medical conditions. The nurses will be able to deal with minor ailments and can perform wound dressings, remove sutures and clips and various other treatment-room procedures. The Unit has bedded facilities that can accommodate students who need temporary short-term care. Nurses are available to make 'home' visits on campus in an emergency situation. Pregnancy testing only 50p. Tel: 94737

Emergencies: In case of an emergency requiring an ambulance on campus you should dial 999 on an internal telephone (or 01524 594541 if using another telephone) in order to contact the Security Office --staffed 24 hours every day of the year. Security will arrange for an ambulance and ask staff from the Nurse Unit to attend if required. Security staff will meet the ambulance and direct to the site. Please do not use mobiles for direct emergency calls. Precious time can be lost when the ambulance driver is unfamiliar with the University.

Medical Practice: A General Practice, housed at the Health Centre on campus (located on the perimeter road near to the Pre-School Centre), and available to students registered with the Practice. Registered patients can also been seen at the King Street Practice in Lancaster. Tel: 94130/94134.

Dental Clinic: Offers private treatment to students who are registered and is adjacent to Bailrigg House. Tel: 94595. The Local NHS Trust provides a Dental Access Clinic offering emergency treatment for those not registered locally. Contact the Nurse Unit for further details.

Pharmacy: located alongside the Dental Clinic. Ext: 94598

Alternative Health Care: at the Chaplaincy Centre there is an alternative & complementary health care service with discounted rates for students. Tel: 94071

From the Part ! Handbook 2004-5

Index to VP's 100 Presentations