Course Overview:
This course will focus on normativity, with a special interest on the resources of the pragmatist tradition for engaging questions about normativity, especially concerning the theory and structure of normativity. We will tour through a range of readings in classicopragmatism and neopragmatism with an eye toward two questions.
Call the first question the ‘method without metaphysics’ question. What is at stake in William James' inaugural claim of pragmatism as "a method only"? What does this facilitate? And what does it elide? What makes possible "philosophy as method"? And what is excluded by the "only"?
Call the second question the ‘normativity without foundations’ question. How does pragmatism, construed as a philosophical methodology (if that’s even possible, as per the first question), engage the structure of normativity (both epistemic and ethical normativity) as well as particular normative orders? How do the classicopragmatist categories of "problems" and "reconstructions" facilitate an understanding of normative content? How do neopragmatist social construals of social assessments (e.g., Brandomian "entitlements", "commitments", and "material incompatibilities") facilitate or block the same? What about recent naturalist takes on the classicopragmatist categories (e.g., Kitcher’s pragmatic naturalism)?
Behind both of these questions are a set of background issues current in other streams of contemporary philosophy. Take for instance contemporary revisionist scholarship on Hegel. What is the relationship of pragmatism (as methodological and also accounting for the uibiquity of normativity, in Hilary Putnam’s phrase) to Hegelian accounts of determinacy (and indeterminacy)? What about to the category of contradiction often (perhaps all-too-often) attributed to Hegel? Another way of framing the background of this debate would be through debates in Wittgenstein scholarship on rule following. If one of the cardinal insights of Wittgenstein’s later philosophy is that no rule (or concept) can contain the rules guiding its own application, then what does this tell us about giving an account of the normativity (the rule-ishness of rules or the guiding-ness of concepts)?
Readings:
Required Primary Texts:
William James, The Writings of William James (University of Chicago Press)
John Dewey, Essays in Experimental Logic (Dover Press edition; you must have this edition)
Robert Brandom, Making It Explicit (Harvard University Press)
Philip Kitcher, The Ethical Project (Harvard University Press) – see me before you buy this one
William James, Principles, selections on doubt, [pdf]
Charles Santiago Peirce, 1877-1878 PSM articles [pdf]
Highly Recommended Secondary Literature:
Gerald Myers, William James – best comprehensive ref. on James
Robert Westbrook, John Dewey and American Democracy – best comprehensive ref. on Dewey
Richard Bernstein, The Pragmatic Turn –the best contemporary commentary on pragmatisms
Richard Rorty, Truth and Progress – doing his own thing, but see the chs. on James & Dewey
Michael Bacon, Pragmatism – new and interesting intro book, and fits our themes well
Robert Brandom, Perspectives on Pragmatism – criticisms of classical pragmatists
Philip Kitcher, Preludes to Pragmatism – celebrations of classical pragmatists
Colin Koopman, Pragmatism as Transition – I can send digital copies; obviously I recommend this
Other Supplementary Readings:
Charles Santiago Peirce, "Pragmatism" (1907) [pdf]
Readings & Seminar Schedule:
Date Assigned Primary Reading(s)
Apr 1 Introduction to the class and framing of core themes
Charles Sanders Peirce
Apr 3 “The Fixation of Belief” (1877) – experimental method of inquiry
“How to Make Our Ideas Clear” (1878) – pragmatist method of meaning
William James
Apr 8 Principles of Psychology (1890), “The Perception of Reality”, pp. 283-291, 318-320
Pragmatism (1907), Lectures I & II – the pragmatist method
Apr 10 Pragmatism (1907), Lectures II + VI, & VII – the pragmatist theory of truth
Apr 15 A Pluralistic Universe (1909) , Lectures I, III, & V – critique of dialectic
Apr 17 A Pluralistic Universe (1909), Lecture VII – continuity of experience
Some Problems of Philosophy (posth.), Chs. IV-VI – percept and concept, pp. tba
Apr 22 Flex Session (a fifth WJ session or save a session for JD, RB or PK?)
John Dewey
Apr 24 Essays in Experimental Logic (1903/16), Chs. VI & XII – pragmatism
Apr 29 Essays in Experimental Logic (1903), Chs. II & III – critique of idealism
May 1 Essays in Experimental Logic (1903), Chs. IV, V, & VIII – instrumental logic
May 6 Logic (1938), Ch. 6 plus Chs. 4 & 8, pp. tba – the pattern of inquiry
May 8 Flex Session (a fifth JD session, or a Rorty session, or save for another RB or PK session?)
Robert Brandom
May 13 Making It Explicit (1994), Preface, and Chapter 1 – normative pragmatics
May 15 Making It Explicit (1994), Chapter 2 – inferential semantics
May 20 Making It Explicit (1994), Chapter 3 – normative & inferential discursive practice
Philip Kitcher
May 22 The Ethical Project (2011), Intro §§1-2 + Pt. I §§3-5, 11, 14, 21, 22, & 27 – naturalist ethics
May 27 The Ethical Project (2011), Pt. II §§29-31, 32-39, 41, 43 – metaethics
May 29 The Ethical Project (2011), follow up on Pt. II + Pt. III §44-45, 51-56, 57 – normative ethics
Conclusion
May 30 Research Paper (First Version) Due – Thursday
Jun 3 Flex Session (readings and focus to be determined based on class interest)
Jun 5 Flex Session (readings and focus to be determined based on class interest)
Jun 10 Research Paper (Final Version) Due – Monday
Course Requirements:
The current plan is that there will be two main aspects of your work in this class – these are seminar participation and a research paper. Previously I had been planning on also asking students to undertake an in-class presentation. We can still do this if people want, but as for now, it will not be a requirement.
1) Participation, 20% of final grade (these requirements also apply to auditors).
This course will be a seminar. It requires active participation in a series of discussions that will extend throughout the quarter. I will expect that everyone (including auditors) to be very well-prepared at the beginning of every class session.
• 5% of grade - Toward this, then, I will ask that everyone (including auditors) come to class with a written or printed copy of a well-prepared question (or pair of questions, or trio of questions) concerning the assigned readings for that text.
• 5% of grade - On any given day, I may ask one of you at random to initiate a discussion by starting us of with this question. So I want you to always be prepared to do that.
• 10% of grade – I expect active participation in the class by all students. We have a nice small seminar group which means we have excellent conditions for conversations. I will strive to make the class a welcoming environment for all, but please let me know what I can do further.
2) Final Research Paper (in Two Stages), 80% of final grade (does not apply to auditors)
You will write a final research paper, which will be developed and due to me in two stages.
• 35% of grade – You will write a short argumentative essay, due late in Week 9, both in hardcopy in my office and by email.
• You are expected to develop your own essay topic, with the sole constraint being that the essay must address the subject matter of the course, namely James, Dewey, Brandom, or Kitcher (note also that anyone taking this course for ‘Analytic’ field credit must write on Brandom or Kitcher, and anyone taking it for any other field credit can write on any figure or theme).
• The first shorter version of your paper should be about 8-10 pages (or about 2500 words exclusive of notes and references). Your essay should discussed assigned primary readings as well as secondary readings (which I can help you locate, so visit my office hour).
• You will revise this essay and expand it into a longer final research essay due at the end of the term. But this version of the essay should be polished and well-argued. You are expected to turn in a finalized piece of writing, and not a draft. You will revise this finalized piece of writing once more, but that just shows that revision is an extensive process. Think of it this way. My written feedback on your paper will be more useful to you if you turn in to me a piece of work that you think is perfect. If you turn in something that you know to have shortcomings, then my written feedback will likely only reflect what you already know.
• 5% of grade – You will include at the front of your paper two short abstracts of different length, according to customary conference-submission and journal-publishing standards. The first abstract should be a 100-word summary describing the core argument of the paper. The second abstract should be a longer 250-word version of that. If you need to see a sample abstract please ask me for one.
• 30% of grade – You will then take the first version of your research essay, along with my comments, and other peer comments (if you swap with a peer, which you should), and write a final research essay. This will be due early in exam week.
• This will be a revision of, improvement upon, and expansion upon your shorter argumentative essay from earlier in the term. This essay should engage with one both the assigned primary literature and relevant secondary literature.
• The final essay should be about 12 pages in length (aim for 3000-3500 words exclusive of notes and references, i.e. a conference-length paper). Note that 3500 words is a hard limit. I want you to do everything you can to stay within this limit because this is a typical conference-length paper limit (e.g., at the Society for the Advancement of American Philosophy (SAAP) conference, which will soon send out a CFP with a Sept. 1 deadline).
• 5% of grade – In addition, you must turn into me a one-page (single-space) set of revisions notes (of the kind you will be expected to submit to a journal if you get a ‘revise and resubmit). This will explain all major revisions you made in your paper. It will also explain any decision you have made to not institute revisions in light of reviewer (i.e., instructor, i.e., me!) comments.
• 5% of grade – You should revise your abstracts as per my comments on the first version of your abstracts and as per your own revisions of your paper.
[back to courses]
[back to home]
[blog]
[email]