Philosophy 12_13 SHP - Trinity College Dublin

Philosophy at Trinity College Dublin

2014–2015

TR014

PHILOSOPHY & POLITICAL SCIENCE

In the event of any conflict or inconsistency between the General Regulations published in the University Calendar and information contained in this handbook, the provisions of the General Regulations will prevail. The University Calendar is located here: http://www.tcd.ie/calendar

http://www.tcd.ie/calendar

2

Contents The History of the Department of Philosophy ......................................... 3

The Department’s Who’s Who ................................................................ 5

Undergraduate Studies in Philosophy at Trinity ..................................... 8

Course Outlines .................................................................................... 11

Junior Sophisters .............................................................................. 11

Senior Sophisters ............................................................................. 23

Examination and Assessment .............................................................. 36

Junior Sophister ............................................................................... 37

Senior Sophister ............................................................................... 40

Guidelines on Grades ........................................................................... 47

Note on Writing Essays ........................................................................ 47

Plagiarism ............................................................................................. 67

Conveners ............................................................................................ 70

College Tutors ...................................................................................... 71

Peer Mentoring ..................................................................................... 72

The Library ........................................................................................... 73

Prizes in Philosophy ............................................................................. 76

Computers ............................................................................................ 81

The Metaphysical Society ..................................................................... 83

Student Health Service ......................................................................... 85

Careers Advisory Service ..................................................................... 86

3

The History of the Department of Philosophy

The Department of Philosophy is one of four constituent departments of

the School of Social Sciences and Philosophy. The Chair of Moral

Philosophy was established in 1837, the (former) School of Mental and

Moral Science in 1904 and the Department of Philosophy in 1964, but

philosophy has been an important part of the Trinity College curriculum

since its foundation in 1592. Undoubtedly the College’s most significant

contribution to philosophy to date has come from George Berkeley

(1685 – 1753) who has a permanent place in any list of the great

philosophers. Most of his more famous works, such as, An Essay

Towards a New Theory of Vision (1709) and A Treatise Concerning the

Principles of Human Knowledge (1710) were written during his time as a

fellow of Trinity College Dublin. After Berkeley, the most significant

philosopher to come out of Trinity was the political philosopher, Edmund

Burke (1729 – 1797), who, while a student at Trinity, inaugurated a

debating society that, after merging with the Historical Club, became the

College Historical Society, the oldest undergraduate society in the

world. His most famous work is Reflections on the Revolution in

France (1790) and among his other texts is an influential book on

aesthetics A Philosophical Enquiry into the Origin of our Ideas of the

Sublime and Beautiful was written while Burke was reading for his B.A.

degree at Trinity.

In the 19th and 20th centuries the major influences on Trinity philosophy

were Platonism, German Idealism and Berkeley. These themes were

http://www.tcd.ie/ssp

4

propagated by a number of influential scholars who occupied the Chair

of Moral Philosophy during this period. Some of the more eminent

philosophers to hold the position were the noted Hegelian Henry S.

Macran and the great scholar of Berkeley and his philosophy, A. A.

Luce. In recent years the department has continued to maintain strong

interests in these areas, but has also broadened out to incorporate

contemporary analytic philosophy, continental philosophy,

psychoanalysis and a range of specialised interests in the history of

philosophy. In the current academic year we are six full-time members,

supplemented by a number of associate and adjunct faculty and

graduate teaching assistants.

5

The Department’s Who’s Who Office hours will be posted on each staff member’s door, as well as on

the Department notice board, at the beginning of each term. In an

emergency, a student may seek an interview with any member of the

department by making an appointment through the Executive Officer,

Ms. Una Campbell.

Assistant Professor Lilian Alweiss holds a BA honours in psychology

and sociology from the University of Durham, a Diplôme d’Études

Approfondies from the University of Strasbourg and an MA and PhD in

philosophy from the University of Essex. Her research interests include

post-Kantian philosophy in particular transcendental idealism and

phenomenology. She is author of The World Unclaimed (2003) and has

published numerous articles, mainly in the field of phenomenology. Her

current research focuses on the problems of perception, self-reference

and self- knowledge. Her office is room no. 5007.

Ms Una Campbell is the Executive Officer for the Department of

Philosophy. Her office is the departmental office, room no. 5009, and

her office hours are on a notice on the door of the department office.

Assistant Professor Antti Kauppinen joined the department in

September 2010. He received his PhD from the University of Helsinki in

2008. From 2007 to 2009 he was a Teaching Fellow at the University of

St. Andrews and from 2008 also a Postdoctoral Researcher at the

University of Amsterdam. His research interests in ethics and political

philosophy include philosophical moral psychology, metaethics, well-

6

being, and the foundations of human rights. His publications include

‘Meaningfulness and Time’ (Philosophy and Phenomenological

Research, forthcoming), ‘What Makes a Sentiment Moral?’ (Oxford

Studies in Metaethics, 2010), and ‘The Rise and Fall of Experimental

Philosophy’ (Philosophical Explorations, 2007). He is currently working

on a monograph on sentimentalism in moral psychology.

Associate Professor James Levine has been in the Department since

1991 and was Head of Department from 2002–2006. He was an

undergraduate at Harvard, and a postgraduate student at the University

of California at Berkeley. His areas of research interest are Philosophy

of Language, Philosophical Logic, Epistemology, and especially the

History of Analytic Philosophy. He has recently published articles on

Bradley, Russell, Wittgenstein and Frege. His office is room no. 5004.

Associate Professor Paul O’Grady has been in the department since

1997. He did his BA and MA at UCD, and received his Ph.D. from

Trinity in 1996 on the philosophies of Carnap and Quine. He was a

lecturer and tutor at St Catherine’s College, Oxford, 1996-97. His

interests include Epistemology and Philosophy of Religion and he has

published papers in both areas. He is the author of Relativism (2002),

Philosophical Theology (2008) and the editor of The Consolations of

Philosophy: Reflections in an Economic Downturn (2011). His office is

room no. 5017.

Associate Professor Vasilis Politis has been in the department since

1992 and is Head of Department since July 2012. He obtained his

education (B.A., B.Phil., and D. Phil.) in Oxford. His areas of research

interest are, especially, Ancient Philosophy, with special emphasis on

7

Plato and Aristotle. He also has an interest in Metaphysics, Ethics, Kant,

and Wittgenstein. Besides many articles on ancient philosophy, he has

published the Everyman Edition to Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason, The

Routledge guidebook to Aristotle’s Metaphysics, and an edition and

translation of Paul Natorp’s Plato’s Theory of Ideas. His office is room

no. 5006.

Professor Peter Simons joined the Department in 2009 and is Head of

School since July 2012. He studied Mathematics and Philosophy at

Manchester, before teaching at Bolton, Salzburg (Austria) and Leeds.

His research interests include metaphysics and ontology, philosophy of

language and logic, philosophy of mathematics, philosophy of

engineering, and the history of Central European and early analytic

philosophy, particularly in Austria and Poland. He is the author of Parts

(1987), Philosophy and Logic in Central Europe from Bolzano to Tarski

(1992) and over 200 articles. He is a Fellow of the British Academy and

a Member of the Academia Europaea. His current research centres on

topics in pure and applied metaphysics. His office is room no. 5008.

8

Undergraduate Studies in Philosophy at Trinity

Trinity's undergraduate programme is unique in taking four years, not

the usual three. This means that students have two whole years to find

their way and make themselves at home in their subject and university

life, before, in their final two years, things become serious and every

mark counts toward the final degree.

This structure is well suited to the study of philosophy. In their

first two years, students are introduced to a wide variety of philosophers

and topics through lectures and tutorials that are obligatory; whereas in

the third year each staff member concentrates on his or her specialised

area in relatively smaller seminars that students select. The final year is

made up of, first, a number of small work–in–progress seminars whose

teaching–and–learning is distinguished by a high level of student

participation and the openness to experimentation; and, second, the

writing of a dissertation in which students have the opportunity to work

closely and over a longer period with a supervisor of their choice on a

topic of their choice.

Our approach to the subject, in the Department of Philosophy,

stands out above all by its openness to a variety of approaches – for it is

a fact that philosophers argue, and disagree greatly, even about the

nature and content of their own subject. We teach both Analytic and

Continental Philosophy (and some of us deny the distinction), as well as

Ancient Philosophy. While we try to be on top of the latest

developments, and to contribute to them, we recognise that philosophy

has a long history, the study of which is itself philosophical and an

9

important part of the training; thus about half of the courses are

historical in emphasis.

We try to link together, as closely as possible, teaching and

research. All of us, most of the time, teach in the areas in which we do

our research and publish our publications; and this principle – that

teaching and scholarship go together – shapes the structure of our

programme.

Our teaching is delivered by three categories of staff, who try to

work together as closely as possible and to form a single, coherent

teaching body. First, the permanent staff, who are in charge of the

lectures and of putting together the programme. Secondly, a good

number of young Adjunct Lecturers, likewise in charge of lectures;

typically they will have recently finished their Ph.D. and be in the

process of finding a more permanent position. And third, a good number

of Teaching Assistants, who are in charge of the Tutorials that serve as

supplement to the Lectures and are an important part of the learning

process; generally they will be graduate students busily working on their

Ph.D.s.

How about the 'student experience'? Lectures, tutorials,

seminars, thesis supervision, not to mention long hours in the library …

these are only one part of the life of the Department. The other part is

the body–and–soul that the students bring to the whole thing: the

regular meetings of the student society, the Metaphysical Society

(popularly known as 'The Metafizz', their facebook page can be found

here), notorious also for their convivial side; the reading groups that

kindred students spontaneously organise; the countless discussions

with each other; the parties …

Why, then, study Philosophy? As Plato says somewhere, sight

is desirable both for its own sake and for its consequences: by training

http://metafizz.csc.tcdlife.ie/

https://www.facebook.com/groups/metafizz/

10

our eyes to see clearly and distinctly, we become better at navigating

the world and negotiating its obstacles; but we also become better at

distinguishing and appreciating things that are worth contemplating and

engage in an activity that is enjoyable in itself. At its best, the same can

be said of the study of Philosophy. Through the training in Philosophy,

we gain skills that are greatly useful in all areas of life, both professional

and private: to raise questions about things generally thought to be

obvious and unquestionable; to articulate our thoughts with clarity and

precision; to argue for our beliefs; to detect hidden assumptions in our

beliefs and those of others, and to be able to question them; to argue

against others, or indeed ourselves; to recognise nonsense for what it

is; to analyse our thoughts and the concepts we use in them; to

recognise confusions in our own thinking and that of others; etc.

However, all going well, this also helps us to recognise, articulate, and

become gripped by problems that are of real interest and significance in

their own right – basic philosophical problems – and this is an ability

that, though of course it too is useful, may affect radically who we are

and what we come to be.

11

Course Outlines Junior Sophisters

1st Semester/Michaelmas Term Title: PI3002 Political Philosophy (10 ECTS credits) Lecturer(s): Prof. Antti Kauppinen

Contact Hours: Lectures: 22 lecture hours

Module Content/Outline: Are there some things that should not be for sale? Should the state

actively regulate and limit the operation of the free market? In this

module, we will look at historical and contemporary arguments both for

markets in everything and for placing limitations on what can be bought

and sold. We will discuss the relations among property rights, freedom,

and equality, and look at specific issues such as exploitation, greed, and

organ sales.

Learning Outcomes:

At the end of this course students will be able to:

• engage critically with arguments for unrestricted voluntary

exchange of property and labour;

• critically evaluate arguments for blocking or regulating markets on

grounds of equality, corruption, and proper valuing;

• articulate and defend views on concrete political questions about

regulating or limiting markets. Recommended Texts/Key Reading:

As advised/circulated by lecturers during their lecture series

Assessment and Examination:

Assessment: Essays x 2 — 50%

12

Examination: 1 x 3 hour examination — 50%

Title: PI3007 Moral Philosophy (10 ECTS: 5 ECTS for each component / semester) Michaelmas Term/1st Semester: Prof. Antti Kauppinen

Hilary Term/2nd Semester: Dr. Stefan Storrie Michaelmas Term/1st Semester: Lecturer(s): Prof. Antti Kauppinen


Module Content/Outline: This module examines contemporary moral issues from a philosophical

perspective. We begin with a quick look at the major moral theories, but

will focus on examining concrete ethical questions such as the moral

permissibility of abortion, euthanasia, and factory farming. Addressing

such issues involves philosophical examination of the grounds of moral

concern and respect, well-being, and the badness of death, among

other things. Finally, we will turn to foundational issues in metaethics,

such as whether there is moral truth and how we can hope to come to

know it.

Learning Outcomes:


• understand major normative theories;

• critically analyse proposed answers to concrete moral problems;

• evaluate metaethical views on moral metaphysics and

epistemology.

Recommended Texts/Key Reading: As advised/circulated by lecturers during their lecture series


13

Assessment: 2 essays (one for each component / semester) — 50%


Title: PI3009 Logic and Philosophy (10 ECTS credits)

Lecturer(s): Prof. Peter Simons

Contact Hours: 22 lecture hours

Module Content/Outline: Topics addressed will include: Aristotelian logic and its differences with

contemporary logic; existential import; modal logic - the logic of

necessity, possibility, and impossibility; and issues concerning the

infinite and set theory. Throughout, we will attempt to consider both

technical and philosophical aspects of the topics covered.

Learning Outcomes:


• Elucidate the characteristics distinguishing contemporary from

traditional logic

• Explain selected problems concerning the interpretation of

contemporary logic

• Explain and discuss ancient and modern problems associated with

the concept of the infinite





Title: PI3013 Topics in Continental Philosophy (10 ECTS) Lecturer: Prof. Lilian Alweiss Contact Hours: 22 lecture hours

14

Module Outline:

This course focuses on the nature of perception by drawing on the

writings of Husserl. The aim is to show that the traditional (Cartesian)

model of perception is out of tune with the way we actually perceive the

world. The course will explore the extent to which phenomenology

provides a different account of the nature of perceptual consciousness

which has a bearing on how we understand our relation to the world and

our knowledge of the world around us.

Learning Outcomes: At the end of this course students will be able to:

• Understand the core aspects Husserl’s phenomenology.

• Think philosophically about the role of perception in cognition

• Understand the crucial but difficult primary texts in the history of

continental philosophy

• Demonstrate the nature of key interpretive controversies relating to

Husserl’s phenomenology, such as the problems of

consciousness, embodiment, psychologism and scepticism

• Understand Husserl’s thought in relation to contemporary

philosophical problems.

Title: PI3016 Philosophy of Fiction (10 ECTS) Lecturer: Paal Antonsen Contact Hours: 22 lecture hours Module Outline: Reflecting on our ordinary practices of engaging with fiction quickly

leads to puzzles. In this course we will tackle three such puzzles that

emerge, drawing on examples from literature, comics, video games,

movies and theatre plays.

Part i semantics

15

‘Kaidan is on Mars’, says Clara. Of course, Kaidan isn’t actually. In fact,

he’s nowhere in the whole universe, Mars or otherwise. Kaidan is a

fictional character from the video game series Mass Effect. But given

that Clara made her utterance in fiction discourse she has intuitively

said something true. How can we make sense of claims being true

because they accurately portray what goes on in a fiction? What

changes, if any, do we need to make to a standard semantic framework

to accommodate this?

Part ii emotions

Legend has it that Aeschylus’ tragedies were so horrific that pregnant

women in the audience would spontaneously miscarry. It’s doubtful that

this has happened to you, but fictions often have a great effect on us.

We shiver and jitter when the murderer hiding in the dark sneaks up on

his prey; we cry when our favourite characters suffer hardships; we

rejoice when things go their way. Thousands, maybe millions, have

crushes on fictional characters from films and video games – many of

them have their own fan clubs. How can fictions affect our emotions at

all, when we know that the events occurring in them don’t actually

happen?

Part iii epistemology

In an interview Noam Chomsky speculated that maybe the sciences

would never develop to the point that we can learn more about human

psychology from them than from literature. It’s obvious enough that

fictions can affect us psychologically, but can we learn anything from

them? How could a fiction be a source, or transmitter, of knowledge? If

they can at all, it’s not done in a straightforward way. We don’t acquire

any knowledge by reading that a young boy named Pip was raised by a

smith, helped a fugitive, and in the end melted the heart of a girl bent on

humiliating male suitors. None of that happened, so trivially we can’t

16

know that it did. What kind of knowledge, then, could we gain by reading

a work like Dickens’ Great Expectations?

Learning Outcomes:


• Provide different analyses of the semantics of sentences uttered in

fiction discourse.

• Assess the philosophical significance of the psychology of fiction.

• Discuss fictions from a philosophical point of view, in particular the

epistemological and metaphysical status of fictions.

Core Readings: The following texts form the core readings for the course:

• Carroll, N. (1990) The Philosophy of Horror (excerpt).

Routledge. New York.

• Carroll, N. (2002) ‘The Wheel of Virtue: Art, Literature, and

Moral Knowledge’. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism. 60. 3

– 26.

• Currie, G. (1986) ‘Fictional Truth’. Philosophical Studies. 50.

195 – 212.

• Currie, G. (1995) ‘The Moral Psychology of Fiction’.

Australasian Journal of Philosophy. 73. 250 – 259.

• Gendler, T. (2000) ‘The Puzzle of Imaginative Resistance’. The

Journal of Philosophy. 97. 55 – 81.

• Gendler, T. (2008) ‘Alief and Belief’. The Journal of Philosophy.

105. 634 – 663.

• Lamarque, P. (1981) ‘How Can we Fear and Pity Fictions’.

British Journal of Aesthetics. 21. 291 – 304.

• Lewis, D. (1978) ‘Truth in Fiction’. American Philosophical

Quarterly. 15. 37 – 46.

17

• Nussbaum, M. (1992) Love’s Knowledge (excerpt). Oxford UP.

Oxford.

• Searle, J. (1975) ‘The Logical Status of Fictional Discourse’.

New Literary History. 9. 319 – 332.

• Reimer, M. (2005) ‘The Ellipsis Account of Fiction-Talk’. Ellipsis

and Non-Sentential Speech. Elugardo & Stainton (eds.) Kluwer.

Dordrecht.

• Stolnitz, J. (1992) ‘On the Cognitive Triviality of Art’. British

Journal of Aesthetics. 32. 191 – 200.

• Walton, K. (1978) ‘Fearing Fictions’. The Journal of Philosophy.

75. 5 – 27.

• Walton, K. & Tanner, M. (1994) ‘Morals in Fiction and Fictional

Morality’. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society. 27 – 66.

In addition to the core readings, there will be a selection of

supplemented readings. The reading material will be available on

Blackboard.

2nd Semester/Hilary Term Title: PI3003 Topics in Ancient Philosophy (10 ECTS credits)

Lecturer: Prof. Vasilis Politis


Module Content/Outline: Plato and Aristotle: Epistemology and Metaphysics There is much to the epistemology and metaphysics of Plato and

Aristotle. We shall concentrate on three great works. 1. Plato’s Theaetetus. Socrates asks ‘What is knowledge?’, and the

young mathematician Theaetetus proposes that knowledge is sense-

perception. This proposal is then subjected to extended examination, in

the course of which the thesis that knowledge is perception is

18

associated with relativism and subjectivism. The thesis is ultimately

rejected on two grounds: it makes rational discourse impossible; and it

misses the crucial point about knowledge, namely, that it grasps being.

The proposal that knowledge is sense-perception, and Plato’s

arguments against it, are as interesting and important today as when

this masterpiece came out.

2. Plato’s Timaeus. There is much in this dialogue, but we shall

concentrate on Plato’s cosmology and physics, that is, his science of

the physical (spatio-temporal) universe – his science of nature. Plato’s

science of nature is shot through with metaphysics; in this regard it

resembles the more speculative side of current physics. Plato argues,

among other things, that nature is an image of super-sensible essences,

and that this is the only way to explain the orderliness and intelligibility

of nature; and that these essences can be operative in nature, and so

provide a foundation for its orderliness, only if we suppose that nature is

not only intelligible (i.e. subject to explanation), but intelligent – it is a

huge embodied mind.

3. Aristotle’s Metaphysics.

A. In the third book of the Metaphysics Aristotle argues that the starting-

point of primary philosophy cannot be anything else but: basic

philosophical problems, or aporiai. And he goes on two articulate some

fifteen such aporiai. We shall consider this method of philosophy, and

some of the aporiai – which are not only questions in metaphysics, but

questions about the very nature and possibility of metaphysics.

B. One such question is whether primary philosophy is to be identified

with logic (i.e. the science of the principles of reasoning) or ontology (i.e.

the science of being). We know that Aristotle will defend the latter view,

but how does he do so and what does he think is wrong with thinking

that logic is the basis of philosophy and indeed of all science?

19

C. Finally, what exactly is ontology for Aristotle? Why does he think

there is a science of being, over and above the various specialized

sciences which treat of some kind of being or other: mathematics of

countable and measurable beings; physics of moving beings; biology of

living beings, etc. How can there be anything more to study about being,

or what there is? Aristotle owes us an answer, if we are not to end up

with Quine and the view that metaphysics and the question ‘What is

there?’ is adequately and fully dealt with by the specialized sciences.

Learning Outcomes:


• Describe and assess key concepts and methods of Plato and

Aristotle

• Outline their principal metaphysical doctrines

• Critically discuss the role of aporia in ancient metaphysics

Recommended Texts/Key Reading:





Title: PI3006 Topics in Analytic Philosophy (10 ECTS credits)

Lecturer(s): Prof. James Levine


Module Content/Outline:

This course will focus primarily on the philosophical writings of Frege,

Russell, Wittgenstein, Quine, and, if time permits, Kripke. Frege and

Russell were initially concerned with issues in the philosophy of

mathematics—including the nature of numbers and our knowledge of

them—but these issues led them to develop influential views regarding

20

the nature of language, including meaning, reference, and, in the case

of Russell, vagueness. We will examine both aspects of the views of

Frege and Russell as well as subsequent views of language of

Wittgenstein, Quine, and (possibly) Kripke. The emphasis will be on

primary texts.

Learning Outcomes:


• Critically compare and assess views of Frege and Russell

regarding propositional contents.

• Critically compare and assess Russell’s view of vagueness and

Quine’s view of inscrutability of reference.

• Critically compare and assess Wittgenstein’s early and later views

of language and philosophy.





Title: PI3007 Moral Philosophy (10 ECTS: 5 ECTS for each component / semester) continued from Michaelmas Term/1st Semester

Lecturer(s): Dr. Stefan Storrie



Meta-ethics seeks to understand the nature of ethical properties,

statements, attitudes, and judgments. Unlike moral theory, meta-ethics

attempts to step back from particular substantive debates within morality

to ask about the views, assumptions, and commitments that are shared

by those who engage in the debate. Some issues that will be raised in

21

the course are: What does moral language mean? Do moral facts exist?

If so, what are they like, and are they reducible to natural facts or are

they social constructs? Is there a connection between making a moral

judgment and being motivated to abide by it?

Learning Outcomes:


• Understand representative theories in the domain of meta-ethics

and normative ethics.

• Critically analyse the theories presented in class.

• Evaluate and offer their own views on applied issues in ethics.


Core Reading: Russ Shafer-Landau Whatever Happened to Good and Evil?


Assessment: 2 essays (one for each component / semester) – 50%

Examination: 1 x 3 hour examination – 50%

Title: PI3008 Philosophy of Religion (10 ECTS credits)

Lecturer(s): Prof. Paul O’Grady



This course develops the introductory material on philosophy of religion

from the freshman years. Its focus is the philosophy of religion of

Aquinas. He is treated as an exemplar of classical theism whose

approach is amenable to analytical philosophical analysis. Topics

include whether he is classifiable as a philosopher of religion, his

account of faith and reason, his positive arguments for God’s existence,

the problem of evil, the problem of naturalism, perfect-being theology,

22

God’s nature, including simplicity, existence, eternity, omnipotence,

omniscience and omnibenevolence. In the process Aquinas’s work is

brought into engagement with Kant, Hume, Darwin, Wittgenstein, Quine,

Russell and a range of contemporary philosophers of religion.

Learning Outcomes:

• At the end of this course students will be able to:

• Describe and evaluate the distinction between theistic and

nontheistic religion

• Assess the significance of the existence of many religions

• Critically discuss theism and its relationship to modern science





23

Senior Sophisters 1st Semester/Michaelmas Term

Title: PI4028 Philosophy of Language: Self–Refutation Arguments: What are they, and what, if anything, do they show? (5 ECTS) Lecturer(s): Prof. James Levine


Module Content/Outline: Throughout the history of philosophy, the charge has often been made

that a given position is “self-refuting” or that it cannot be coherently

thought or stated. Such a criticism is often made, for example, against

certain forms of relativism; but it is also made by Berkeley against the

“realism” he opposes, as well as by critics of Kant, who claim it is “self-

refuting” for him to hold that we can know nothing about things “as they

are in themselves”. The purpose of this seminar is to examine such

“self-refutation” arguments—in particular, to consider if they have a

common structure and to examine what, if anything, they establish. To

do so, we will look at a number of sources, including recent writings of

such philosophers as Donald Davidson (“On the Very Idea of a

Conceptual Scheme”), Thomas Nagel (The View from Nowhere. The

Last Word), Paul Boghossian (Fear of Knowledge), Barry Stroud

(Engagement and Metaphysical Dissatisfaction) and Graham Priest

(Beyond the Limits of Thought) as well as earlier writings from

Parmenides, Plato, Berkeley, Kant, Russell, Wittgenstein, A. N. Prior, J.

L. Mackie, and John Anderson, the influential Australian philosopher.

Some of the readings we will look at will attempt to articulate the

structure of self-refutation arguments; others either use such arguments

against others or defend themselves against the charge that their own

position is self-refuting.

24

Learning Outcomes:


• Identify similarities and differences in different uses of self-

refutation arguments.

• Critically assess whether metaphysical conclusions can be drawn

from self-refutation arguments.

• Describe and assess the role of self-refutation arguments in this

history of philosophy.



Assessment: Seminar paper x 1 – 70%


Title: PI4029 Ethics (5 ECTS) Lecturer: Prof. Antti Kauppinen Contact Hours: 22 lecture hours Module Outline: This module focuses on contemporary debates in moral psychology and

their philosophical relevance. We will discuss findings from experiments,

surveys, and neuroscience regarding the role of emotion and intuitive

cognition in moral judgment, the role of character traits in shaping our

behavior, and the role of conscious reasoning in everyday choices. We

will look at models of moral thought proposed on the basis of such data,

and their alleged implications for understanding moral motivation and

knowledge, virtue, and free will.

Learning Outcomes:


• understand recent empirical studies of human moral thinking and

25

behaviour;

• analyse the psychological assumptions made by normative and

metaethical theories;

• critically evaluate the relevance of empirical findings to

philosophical topics





Title: PI4040 Epistemology – Knowledge and Wisdom (5 ECTS) Lecturer(s): Prof. Paul O’Grady


Module Content/Outline: While philosophy is etymologically linked to the notion of ‘wisdom’, and

while this notion was analyzed in ancient and medieval philosophy,

since the early modern period few philosophers have dealt with it. In this

course recent work in virtue epistemology is examined and wisdom is

there explored as an intellectual virtue. Some speculation is made as to

why wisdom has been sidelined in contemporary analytical philosophy

and three recent analytic treatments of wisdom are also examined – by

Nozick, Ryan and Baehr.

Learning Outcomes:


• Explain the significance and structures of virtue epistemology

• Assess the notion of wisdom as an intellectual virtue

• Suggest reasons why the notion of wisdom has not featured widely

in modern philosophy.

26

• Critically assess recent conceptual analyses of wisdom





Title: PI4033 Refutations of Idealism (5 ECTS) Lecturer: Dr. Stefan Storrie Contact Hours: 22 lecture hours

Module Outline:

Like every term of abuse, ‘idealism’ is difficult to define. Provisionally,

idealism is a metaphysical view of reality that holds that what exist on

the most fundamental level are minds and mental things such as ‘ideas’.

This has been taken as an outrageous position both to common sense

and by the majority of philosophers because it appears to divest the

external world of reality. One influential view of the history of idealism

has therefore stated that it was only with the onset of modern

philosophy and its reorientation towards subjectivity and interiority that

the preconditions for conceiving of idealism were at all possible. Rather

than develop an account of the nature of idealism through the history of

thought we will explain idealism in terms of how Kant understood the

term. That is, in terms of certain elements in the philosophical views of

Descartes, Leibniz and Berkeley.

Though idealism came to be seen as a scandal of philosophy, it was

thought to be a probable conclusion of a number of philosophical

positions at the time. Accordingly, the 16th and 17th century is the time

in history that saw some of the most vigorous debates about

philosophical idealism. What was it about early modern philosophy that

invited that position? Idealism was pertinent to two debates that shaped

27

the philosophical landscape. The first debate concerned the nature of

causation. The other debate concerned the nature and sources of

knowledge.

The aim of the seminar is to explore Kant’s attempts to refute idealism.

Can one or a number of general strategies to refute Idealism be

identified? Does he develop different arguments to refute his three main

opponents? From his very first publications Living Forces and the New

Elucidation to notes from the end of his life, he is claiming to having

refuted idealism. Why this ‘intellectual hypochondria’? 1. Kant attacks

different philosophical views under the term ‘idealism’. 2. Kant’s own

view of idealism develops with his increasing understanding of these

views. 3. Kant’s conception of what counts as a correct philosophical

method and doctrine develops in tandem with his conception of his

idealist enemies. Can one or a number of general strategies to refute

Idealism be identified? Does he develop different arguments to refute

his three main opponents? Suggestion for main lines to follow through

the course: What is the function of the human body in the different

arguments against idealism? How does the arguments against idealism

relate to Kant’s conception of space, time and causation at the time?

Learning Outcomes:


• Understand the scientific and historical setting in which idealism

became an issue.

• Critically evaluate the viability of philosophical idealism.

• Assess Kant’s refutation of idealism.


Immanuel Kant, The Critique of Pure Reason, Cambridge.

- Theoretical Philosophy, 1755-1770, Cambridge

- Theoretical Philosophy after 1781, Cambridge

28

- Lectures on Metaphysics, Cambridge

Leibniz, Philosophical Essays, Hackett.

Berkeley, Treatise on the Principles of Human Knowledge, any edition

Descartes, Meditations on First Philosophy, any edition




Title: PI4034 Meaning and Value (5 ECTS) Lecturer: Paal Antonsen Contact Hours: 22 lecture hours

Module Outline:

At the heart of our practice of making value judgements – e.g. when we

judge that eating meat is wrong or that Pride and Prejudice is an elegant

story – there is a puzzle that has proved particularly resistant to a

straightforward analysis. On the one hand, we do not seem to be merely

making judgements about some objective reality independent of our

own perspective. On the other hand, we don’t seem to be merely

expressing our subjective attitudes and feelings in linguistic clothing.

How then should understand value judgements? Can we provide an

analysis that avoids collapsing into one of the unattractive alternatives

provided by simple objectivism or subjectivism?

Pursuing this issue, we will review three attempts to solve the puzzle:

expressivism, contextualism and relativism. Our starting point will be

expressivism, both in its traditional and contemporary version. After

having looked at some problems for expressivism we move our focus to

contextualism and relativism as recent attempts to provide a solution.

We will spend some time looking at the differences between them,

29

before considering to what extent, if any, contextualism or relativism

provide a more satisfactory analysis than expressivism. Readings will

mostly be drawn from contemporary analytic philosophers, including

Simon Blackburn, Allan Gibbard, Keith DeRose, Tamina Stephenson,

Peter Lasersohn and John MacFarlane.

Learning Outcomes:


• Distinguish different versions of expressivism, contextualism and

relativism.

• Critically discuss some recent developments in philosophical

semantic.

• Relate issues in semantics to intentional psychology and

metaphysics.





2nd Semester/Hilary Term Title: PI4024 Ancient Philosophy – Plato: Dialectician or Visionary? (5 ECTS) Lecturer(s): Prof. Vasilis Politis


Module Content/Outline: It is generally supposed that, for Plato, the highest knowledge that we

aspire to, and may be capable of, is the knowledge of the essence of

things that is spelled out in a general definition – it being the task of

30

dialectic, in Plato’s sense of the term, to search for this. Such

knowledge consists in knowing the truth of certain kinds of propositions,

those that articulate general definitions; it is, therefore, propositional

knowledge.

This view of Plato was not always as orthodox as it is today, and it has

come under renewed criticism in the past decade or so. Those who

challenge it come in two varieties. Some argue that (at least in the early

dialogues) Plato did not think it is possible for us to attain knowledge of

the essence of things, and that this is what he intended us to recognize.

We may call their Plato: ‘Plato-the-Sceptic’.

Others, however, while holding on to the view that, for Plato, knowledge

of essence is what we need to aim at, argue that this knowledge is not

propositional but in some way intuitive. This means that essence is

something we must try to grasp directly, in the way in which vision is

naturally thought to be direct and non-propositional or certainly non-

rational; though, for Plato, this intuitive knowledge is not simply sensory

– my cat, excellent eyesight though it has, is not capable of anything like

it. Their Plato is, as we may say: ‘Plato-the-Visionary’ – or, as people

used to say, ‘The-Mystic’.

The aim of the seminar is to take up the debate between Plato-the-

Demander-of-Definitions and Plato-the-Visionary. A major objective will

be to consider the very idea of intuitive knowledge, and the analogy

between sensory and intellectual intuitive knowledge. And to consider

how such knowledge may be related to propositional knowledge.

To address this topic, we will need to study closely some of the most

fascinating passages in the Platonic corpus; especially from the central

books of the Republic (V-VII): the Sun Analogy; the Line; the Cave; and

the account of Dialectic.

Learning Outcomes:

31


• Understand the difference between Plato-the-Demander-of-

Definitions and Plato-the-Visionary.

• Assess the debate between these two views.

• Consider the very idea of intuitive knowledge and the analogy

between sensory and intellectual intuitive knowledge, and how such

knowledge may be related to propositional knowledge





Title: PI4041 Post Kantian Philosophy (5 ECTS) Lecturer(s): Prof. Lilian Alweiss


Module Content/Outline: When we speak or think we cannot avoid making use of the personal

pronoun. We say 'I think', 'I am in pain', 'I am hungry' or 'I was born in

the last century'. In all these instances reference to a bearer of thought

seems inevitable. Yet there are many who wish to convince us that what

seems inevitable in everyday speech, is nothing other than a linguistic

convention. The words ‘I’ and ‘my’ are mere adornments of speech.

There is a ‘necessity of syntax’ which compels us to speak of a

positional self, however as soon as we have a closer look we come to

realise that the pronoun ‘I’ is not a place-holder for anything in

particular. Indeed, without much trouble we can replace ‘I was thinking’

with ‘there was thinking going on’, and ‘I am in pain’ with ‘there is pain’

32

since there is no self separable from the thought or the sensation of

pain. Proof of this is that we cannot perceive such a self but only objects

of thoughts, feelings, sensations or impressions. Versions of such a no-

ownership theory of consciousness are presented by (Hume,

Anscombe, Wittgenstein, the early Husserl and the early Sartre).

Against this view this course wishes to show why we need to hold fast

to the claim that there is something distinctive about the use of the first

person pronoun. No description, not even one containing indexicals

(other than the first person pronouns themselves) can be substituted for

'I'. We shall do this by focusing, in particular, on the writings of

Descartes, Kant and Husserl.

Learning Outcomes:


• reflect upon the problem of the self

• be familiar with the problem of self-consciousness, self-reference

and the unity of consciousness.

• understand how these problems have been addressed by Hume,

Descartes, Kant, Anscombe, Wittgenstein, Evans and Husserl

• show how these problems are still relevant today.






Title: PI4042 Metaphysics (5 ECTS credits) Lecturer(s): Prof. Peter Simons



33

Augustine of Hippo wrote, “What then is time? If no one asks me, I know

what it is. If I wish to explain it to him who asks, I do not know.”

Questions about the existence and nature of time have troubled

metaphysicians since antiquity and continue to trouble them today. Is

time real or is it an illusion? Does it exist outside the mind? Does it flow?

Is the future real? Is it open or fixed? Is there more than the present?

Does time exist independently of events -- can there be time with

nothing happening? Is time absolute or relative? Does it have an

intrinsic direction? Does it have a beginning and an end? Can it be

cyclic? Can there be time travel? In this seminar we will confront these

questions, with the assistance of thinkers past (Aristotle, Ockham,

Newton, Leibniz, Kant, Einstein, McTaggart, Whitehead, Reichenbach,

Prior) and present (Smart, Mellor, McCall, Van Fraassen, Markosian, Le

Poidevin)

Learning Outcomes:


• Name, discriminate and where possible define the principal

temporal concepts

• Name and elucidate the main theoretical positions on the

philosophy of time

• Present reasons and arguments for and against these positions

• Relate the theory to historical philosophers and where relevant to

past and contemporary science


Suggested Preliminary Reading: R. Le Poidevin and M. MacBeath, eds.,

The Philosophy of Time. Oxford 1993.




34

Title: PI4035 Plato’s Theory of Perception – Sense Perception and Knowledge in Plato (5 ECTS) Lecturer: Dr. Peter Larsen Contact Hours: 22 lecture hours Module Outline:

It has become somewhat of a truism that, for Plato, perception cannot

furnish knowledge, but that it is rather through the soul’s rational activity,

if anywhere, that knowledge may be achieved. In this course we will

subject this idea to scrutiny. Beginning with sense perception

(aisthēsis), we will bring together the passages in which Plato engages

with this topic, and attempt to piece together a coherent and consistent

view. Of particular interest for us will be Plato’s thoughts on three

aspects of perception: (1) the subject of perception – that which actually

perceives; (2) the content of perception – that of which a perceiver

becomes aware when she perceives; and (3) the process by which a

perceiver becomes aware of perceptual content.

Once we have considered Plato’s position on the structure and process

of perception, we will turn to his views on knowledge (epistēmē) and

knowledge acquisition. In particular, we will look at how perception

either contributes to or impedes the pursuit of knowledge. We will ask

first if, for Plato, the content of perception can be known. If it cannot, we

will consider how, if at all, the perceptual capacity can contribute to

knowledge. Along the way we will encounter a number of related

capacities including memory (mnēmē) and imagination (phantasia). We

will look closely at these capacities and how they relate both the

perception and to knowledge.

Learning Outcomes:


35

• Discuss the elements involved in Plato’s theory of sense

perception.

• Critically evaluate the role that sense perception plays in the

acquisition of knowledge.


The following texts form the core readings for the course:

• Plato, Theaetetus (156–184)

• Plato, Philebus (31–50)

• Plato, Timaeus (41–47 & 55–69)

• Plato, Republic (Books 5–7)

• Plato, Phaedo (65–85 & 96–102)




36

Examination and Assessment

The Marking (or Grading) System

Each essay will be marked out of 100. Each examination script also will

be marked out of 100. The marks will correspond to percentages and

classes as follows:

ESSAY MARK EXAM. MARK

70 – 100

60 – 69

70 – 100

60 – 69

First Class

Second Class-1st Division 50 – 59

40 – 49

PASS

50 – 59

40 – 49

Second Class-2nd Division

Third Class

FAILURE

30 – 39 30 – 39

F1

0 – 29 0 – 29 F2

For further explanation of grades see section on Guidelines on Grades (click here).

37

Junior Sophister

GENERAL STATEMENT

The Junior Sophister year is Part I of the Moderatorship or degree of BA

at Trinity College. For this reason, the final grade in your Junior Sophister year counts towards your final degree grade and so class of degree.

RULES CONCERNING ESSAYS IN THE JS YEAR

(A) Essays must not exceed 2500 words in length. Going beyond that

limit will render essays liable to a deduction of marks.

(B) All essays must be typed or word processed. Students are also

required to submit their essays via Blackboard with a hard copy

being submitted to the Departmental Office.

(C) PHIL/POL students are required to submit TWO essays for each of

the THREE courses as listed on the Junior Sophister Course

Choice Form (i.e. a total of SIX ESSAYS in the year as a whole).

(D) In the case of those courses which have two parts taught by

different lecturers, students are required to submit one essay from

each of the two parts.

(E) In regard to late essays, extensions may be granted only by the

written agreement of the JS Convener (which must be obtained

before the regular date of submission), and may be granted only

for medical or ad misericordiam reasons. Essays must be handed

into the Philosophy Department and stamped. Essays received up

to seven days late will be marked with the deduction of ten marks. Essays received more than seven days late will receive no marks in the assessment unless accompanied by written prior

38

extension granted by the JS Convener.

(F) There are no supplemental essays in the JS year.

(G) At the end of teaching term, students who have not fulfilled the

requirements for their year’s work (i.e. who have not submitted the

requisite number of essays) may be returned to the Senior Lecturer

as unsatisfactory.

RULES CONCERNING EXAMS IN THE JS YEAR

(A) All students are required to sit one three hour examination paper (April/May) in each of the courses they have chosen to study.

(B) For every examination, each paper will typically contain nine

questions, and students must answer three questions. How the

exam papers are laid out will vary from course to course.

(C) JS examination results are usually published around mid-June.

(D) All moderatorship exams, including Junior Sophister ones, are

liable to be marked by both internal and external examiners.

(E) The grading (or marking) scheme is the same as for the

Freshman years, see above (click here).

(F) Students may not repeat material from essays in examinations i.e.

you cannot be assessed twice on the same material. To do so is to

be liable to be penalised.

SUPPLEMENTAL EXAMINATIONS IN THE JS YEAR

(A) There are supplemental examinations in the JS year PHIL/POL

students.

39

BREAKDOWN OF JS EXAM MARKS

For students who intend to Major or Minor in Philosophy: The final grade in your Junior Sophister year counts towards 50% of your final degree grade and so class of degree. For students who intend to take both subjects in their final year: The final grade in your Junior Sophister year counts towards 35% of your final degree grade and so class of degree.

3 modules (totalling 50%) comprising:

6 essays (25%) – 4.16% for each essay.

3 exams (25%) – 8.3% for each 3-hour exam.

The remaining 50% of your JS grade comes from your other TSM

subject.

40

Senior Sophister

GENERAL STATEMENT

The Senior Sophister year, or Moderatorship Part II, is the final year of

the BA degree and is the second of the years whose results count

towards the final degree grade and so class of degree.

RULES IN REGARD TO THE THESIS (DISSERTATION) FOR THE SS YEAR

(A) PHIL/POL students who are required to write a THESIS during the

year will do so on some philosophically acceptable subject for

which a supervisor is available.

(B) The limitations on length – of between 4,000 and 7,000 words (up

to 10000, with written permission from supervisor) (or in the case

of formal logic, something of equal weight) – are part of the

assessment regulations and failure to observe them will be

penalized in the marking.

(C) Before the year begins you should at least have decided upon the

general area of your thesis and preferably have settled on a title.

You should then consult the member(s) of the Department most

likely to be able to advise you further and request one of them to

be your thesis supervisor. (Consult the “Departmental Who’s Who”

at the front of this Handbook.) The choice of supervisor form

must be completed and returned to the departmental office before

the end of Week 5 of Michaelmas/1st semester. See your supervisor regularly, at least three times before Christmas and at

least three times after. Make sure the supervisor sees, and goes

through, the thesis/dissertation before you submit it.

41

(D) An interim report (format as agreed with your supervisor) is due

by the end of Michaelmas term/1st semester.

(E) A major draft of your thesis (format as agreed with your

supervisor) is due approximately a month before the deadline for

final submission.

(F) The interim report and the major draft are obligatory: the thesis

may not be submitted unless they have been done, and done on

time. They are not, however, assessed: the grade is based on the

final submission alone.

(G) Students will be advised at the start of MT/1st semester of the

submission date for dissertations.

(H) When submitting their theses, students should hand in two copies

to the Departmental office; these must be accompanied by a

completed declaration form, which is obtainable from the

Departmental office. Students should note theses are not returned

as they form part of the examinable material.

RULES IN REGARD TO THE ESSAYS FOR THE SS YEAR

(A) Students are required to attend, and submit essays on the topics of

the research seminars they take. Essays should be typed or word-

processed and between 2,000 and 2,500 words. Students are also

required to submit their seminar papers via Blackboard with a hard

copy being submitted to the Departmental Office.

(B) The limitations on length are part of the assessment regulations

and failure to observe them will be penalized in the marking.

(C) Essays submitted for research seminars in Michaelmas Term/1st

Semester must be handed in by a date usually set for early

January, but students should check the class notice board for the

42

exact date.

(D) Essays submitted for research seminars in the second term or

Hilary Term/2nd Semester must be handed in by a date usually set

after the last week of Hilary Term, but students should check the

class notice board for the exact date.

(E) Being part of the examining process, essays cannot be returned to

students.

(F) At the end of teaching term, students who have not fulfilled the

requirements for their year’s work (i.e. who have not submitted the

requisite number of essays and a thesis) may be returned to the

Senior Lecturer as unsatisfactory.

RULES FOR EXAMINATIONS IN THE SS YEAR

(A) Students are required to sit two types of examination papers at the

end of the year:

(i) A general paper, Problems in Philosophy, which is not aimed at

testing the knowledge or understanding of any specific course, but

at testing the range and depth of your reading and thinking in

philosophy over your four years in College, and your ability to write

clearly, cogently and imaginatively.

(ii) Seminar Papers examining material covered in the seminars

the student has taken. Seminar Paper 1 will cover material from

the Michaelmas Term seminars; Seminar Paper 2 will cover

material from the Hilary Term seminars.

(B) The grading or marking scheme for these examinations (as for the

essays and thesis) is the same as for the Freshman years; see

above (click here).

(C) There will be seminars before the end of Hilary Term/2nd semester

to help students prepare for these exams.

43

(D) Students may not repeat material from essays in examinations i.e.

you cannot be assessed twice on the same material. To do so is to

be liable to be penalised.

HOW THE ABOVE RULES APPLY TO SS STUDENTS

1. PHIL/POL students who are majoring in Philosophy will sit two three–

hour papers covering the material from the six seminars they have

taken. (each seminar worth 5 ECTS, totalling 30 ECTS). Seminar Paper

1 will cover the material from the Michaelmas Term seminars; Seminar

Paper 2 will cover material from the Hilary Term seminars. The relative

weighting in SS year is 70% for the seminar paper (essay), and 30% for

the exam question on each seminar.

They will write a thesis (worth 20 ECTS).

They will sit a general philosophy paper (worth 10 ECTS).

44

2. PHIL/POL students taking both subjects equally have a choice.

They may attend, submit assessment and be examined in four seminars

(at least one in each term totalling 20 ECTS) and a general paper (10

ECTS) (similar to TSM pattern A).

Alternatively they may choose to attend, submit assessment and be

examined in two seminars (one from each term, totalling 10 ECTS) and

write a thesis (20 ECTS).

The relative weighting in SS year is 70% for the seminar paper (essay),

and 30% for the exam question on each seminar.

ALL SENIOR SOPHISTER STUDENTS NOTE:

1. The University Regulations forbid (a) any supplementary "retake" of the S.S. examinations and other written requirements for Moderatorship and (b) any repeats of the S.S. year. 2. Any seminar essay or thesis handed in after the published

submission dates will be treated as follows:

(a) up to seven days late the work will be accepted with a deduction of

10 marks.

(b) work submitted eight or more days late WILL RECEIVE NO MARK

WHATEVER and will be returned unexamined to the candidate.

45

BREAKDOWN OF FINAL EXAM MARKS

For students who are Majoring or Minoring in philosophy: The final grade in your Senior Sophister year counts towards 50% of your final degree grade and so class of degree. For students who are taking both subjects in their final year: The final grade in your Senior Sophister year counts towards 65% of your final degree grade and so class of degree.

PHIL/POL (Major) Six seminars (exam questions (15%) + seminar papers (35%)) 50% General exam 16.6% Thesis 33.3% ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total mark SS year 100%

Note: Each Seminar exam question is worth 2.5%, and each Seminar

paper is worth 5.83%, of the SS grade.

PHIL/POL (Minor) Note: Those students minoring in philosophy do not take any

philosophy assessments in the SS year.

PHIL/POL (with thesis option) Two seminars (exam questions (5%) + essays (11.6%)) 16.6% Thesis 33.3% ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total mark SS Philosophy 50%

Note: Each Seminar exam question is worth 2.5%, and each Seminar

46

paper is worth 5.83%, of the SS grade. The other 50% of your SS grade

is contributed by your assessment in Political Science.

PHIL/POL (with exam option) Four seminars (exam questions (10%) + seminar paper (23.3%)) 33.3% General exam 16.6% ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Total mark SS Philosophy 50% Note: Each Seminar exam question is worth 2.5%, and each Seminar

paper is worth 5.83%, of the SS grade. The other 50% of your SS grade

is contributed by your assessment in Political Science.

47

Guidelines on Grades First class honors I (70–100)

First class honors in the School of Social Sciences and Philosophy is divided into grade bands which represent excellent, outstanding and extraordinary performances.

A first class answer demonstrates a comprehensive and accurate answer to the question, which exhibits a detailed knowledge of the relevant material as well as a broad base of knowledge. Theory and evidence will be well integrated and the selection of sources, ideas, methods or techniques will be well judged and appropriately organised to address the relevant issue or problem. It will demonstrate a high level of ability to evaluate and integrate information and ideas, to deal with knowledge in a critical way, and to reason and argue in a logical way.

70–76 EXCELLENT First class answers (excellent) demonstrate a number of the following criteria:

• comprehensiveness and accuracy; • clarity of argument and quality of expression; • excellent structure and organization; • integration of a range of relevant materials; • evidence of wide reading; • critical evaluation; • lacks errors of any significant kind; • shows some original connections of concepts and theories; • contains reasoned argument and comes to a logical conclusion.

This answer does not demonstrate outstanding performance in terms of independence and originality.

48

77–84 OUTSTANDING In addition to the above criteria, an outstanding answer will show frequent original treatment of material. Work at this level shows independence of judgement, exhibits sound critical thinking. It will frequently demonstrate characteristics such as imagination, originality and creativity.

This answer does not demonstrate exceptional performance in terms of insight and contribution to new knowledge.

85–100 EXTRAORDINARY This answer is of a standard far in excess of what is expected of an undergraduate student. It will show frequent originality of thought, a sophisticated insight into the subject and make new connections between pieces of evidence beyond those presented in lectures. It demonstrates an ability to apply learning to new situations and to solve problems.

What differentiates a first class piece of work from one awarded an upper second is a greater lucidity, a greater independence of judgement, a greater depth of insight and degree of originality, more evidence of an ability to integrate material, and evidence of a greater breadth of reading and research.

Second Class, First Division II.1 (60–69) An upper second class answer generally shows a sound understanding of both the basic principles and relevant details, supported by examples, which are demonstrably well understood, and which are presented in a coherent and logical fashion. The answer should be well presented, display some analytical ability and contain no major errors or omissions. Not necessarily excellent in any area.

Upper second class answers cover a wider band of students. Such answers are clearly highly competent and typically possess the following qualities:

49

• accurate and well-informed; • comprehensive; • well-organised and structured; • evidence of reading; • a sound grasp of basic principles; • understanding of the relevant details; • succinct and cogent presentation; and • evaluation of material although these evaluations may be

derivative. One essential aspect of an upper second class answer is that is must have completely dealt with the question asked by the examiner. In questions:

i) all the major issues and most of the minor issues must have been identified;

ii) the application of basic principles must be accurate and comprehensive; and

iii) there should be a conclusion that weighs up the pros and cons of the arguments.

Second Class, Second Division II.2 (50–59)

A substantially correct answer which shows an understanding of the basic principles.

Lower second class answers display an acceptable level of competence, as indicated by the following qualities:

• generally accurate; • an adequate answer to the question based largely on textbooks

and lecture notes; • clearly presentation; and • no real development of arguments.

50

Third Class Honors III (40–49) A basic understanding of the main issues if not necessarily coherently or correctly presented.

Third class answers demonstrate some knowledge of understanding of the general area but a third class answer tends to be weak in the following ways:

• descriptive only; • does not answer the question directly; • misses key points of information and interpretation • contains serious inaccuracies; • sparse coverage of material; and • assertions not supported by argument or evidence.

Fail F1 (30–39)

Answers in the range usually contain some appropriate material (poorly organised) and some evidence that the student has attended lectures and done a bare minimum of reading. The characteristics of a fail grade include:

• misunderstanding of basic material; • failure to answer the question set; • totally inadequate information; and • incoherent presentation.

Bad Fail F2 (0–29)

Answers in this range contain virtually no appropriate material and an inadequate understanding of basic concepts.

51

Note on Writing Essays PREPARATION a. Allow yourself enough time Do some preliminary reading as soon as possible. Give yourself enough

time to write both rough version(s) and a final neat finished copy. Try to

finish the final draft with at least a few days to spare. This will allow you

to put the essay away for a couple of days before reading it afresh.

Revise and write the final copy.

b. How to use reading lists and the library Do not spend long hours reading passively, one item after another, in

the library, and do not even try to read everything in the reading lists.

Use reading lists intelligently.

Before you start reading at all, ask yourself what questions you are

addressing and what you are looking for and trying to find. Ask yourself

whether a book is one to be read right through or whether sections will

meet your purpose. When you have read one item, and before you

move on to the next, ask yourself how these questions have been

clarified and modified, what new questions have arisen, and the like.

Only then should you move on to the next item. In other words, look for

reading that you can genuinely and actively engage with, and then

concentrate on it. (Remember that when the essay question concerns a

particular text or asks you to consider an author’s views, you need to

read the original text, not merely someone else’s comments on it.)

52

Looking for good reading, and staying with it once you have found it, is

an important and rewarding task in its own right.

c. What to read, and how

There is not one type of reading, but two.

The one type is by far the most important: look for a few key texts that

you think deserve dedicated and extended reading, and take your time

with them. (E.g. ‘I shall spend the Christmas break reading Descartes’

Meditations’, or ‘one or two articles by Davidson’, or ‘this dialogue of

Plato’s’, etc.) You may gradually find that some readings you want to

return to, over months and even years.

The other type is much less important: reading this or that secondary

literature, for the purpose of seeking help and clarification when writing

an essay. This kind of reading serves a useful purpose, but a limited

and clearly secondary one.

Do not confuse these two kinds of reading!

d. How to take notes when reading When you take notes, do not just passively summarize the reading.

Rather, take notes primarily of what you find interesting and relevant for

the questions you are addressing. (If nothing emerges, read another

item.)

e. Discussing with others, and reading groups

This is vital. Philosophy comes to life only through discussion. So try to

balance reading with discussing. However, discussions can be a waste

of time, or worse (‘barstool philosophy’ about ‘God, the world, and this

and that’), if it is not properly focused. So when you start a discussion,

agree in advance what questions you want to concentrate on, try to

53

articulate these as carefully as you can, and then stay with them for that

discussion – do not jump from one thing to the next. (Philosophical

discussion should not be modelled on debating societies.) A good way

of ensuring good and focused discussion is to structure it around a

piece of reading, so make a reading group of it.

f. How to turn notes into an essay An essay is not simply the writing up of notes, but there is an extended

and creative process between the notes and the finished essay. This

process begins by ‘distilling’ the notes you have taken, from lectures,

readings, and discussions, into a set of clearly formulated questions,

thoughts, and references (including quotations) – always with the essay

topic clearly in mind. Only when you are happy that you have ‘distilled’

the essence of your labours can you begin to write the essay.

WRITING THE ESSAY

1. Engage directly with the essay title, as the title is formulated. This means, if the essay title is a question, then engage with, address,

and answer the question. If the title is a quotation followed by ‘discuss’,

then do the same. Do not use the title merely as an occasion to talk

about the relevant topic.

For example, suppose the title is ‘How, if at all, is the mind related to the

brain?’, then you need, at the very least, to clarify what you take ‘the

mind’ to mean, ‘the brain’ to mean, some ways in which the two may be

thought to be related, whether you think they are related and why, and

how you think they are related and why. What you should not do is use

this title merely as an occasion to report on some views in the

philosophy of mind.

54

2. Decide, before you even begin writing the essay, and state clearly early in the essay, how you understand the essay question, and why you think this question is interesting and potentially important, and how you want to address it – what angle and focus you want to take.

The emphasis here is very much on ‘decide’. Writing an essay should

be a matter of actively engaging with a question, not passively reporting

on some material. In the introduction to your essay, state succinctly

what your main point and your overall strategy are, then get down

quickly to the set topic. (Do not give enormous vague meandering

introductions.)

3. Make sure the scope of your answer is manageable, so that you can develop, properly and thoroughly, each point you make. Make sure, in other words, that the essay is AS FOCUSED AS POSSIBLE.

An essay should be a structured argument which sustains one or two

central points, i.e. the ones you decide to concentrate on, and you

should carefully develop them. At the outset, clearly articulate what

these points are, so that there is no unclarity as to what you are

intending to show, and how the structure of the essay and each

paragraph in it contributes to establishing that claim. Only in this way

can you ensure the essay stays properly focused. Ask yourself how

each paragraph you write contributes to developing your point and

answering the essay question.

As a rule of thumb, each paragraph should have one and only one topic

which is fully developed. (Beware of a lot of anaemic paragraphs of only

two or three sentences each; they are probably not fully developed.)

55

Like links in a chain, each sentence should be clearly and logically

linked to the topic of that paragraph. Likewise, every paragraph should

be clearly and logically related to the preceding and succeeding

paragraphs. Where necessary, use transitions to ensure the reader is

following you and knows where you are in your argument and how you

got there.

The alternative, which you should simply avoid, is that the essay

becomes a list of points, one after the other, with no visible link between

them and no adequate attention and care given to any one of them. To

avoid this, you will need to limit the scope of the essay – your motto

should be: better to do one or two things properly (with care, patience,

attention, focus,…) than to do many things superficially.

4. You cannot be too clear in a difficult subject like philosophy. Write not for your lecturer but for an intelligent interlocutor who does not know anything much about the topic. This is vital. Do not assume anything; do not take anything for granted.

Starting with the essay question, but also throughout the essay, clarify

key terms, set things up and explain the issue for the reader and

command their interest. For example, if the question is ‘How, if at all, is

the mind related to the brain?’, you will need to explain what is meant by

‘the mind’, ‘the brain’, and ‘the relation’. Of course, you will need to

explain this not in general, but to the extent that you think this is

necessary to address the question.

An indispensable tool for both good argument and clear expression is a

sensitivity to – even a passion for – the careful and correct use of

words. Do not use words about whose meaning you are uncertain. Do

not adopt the vocabulary of some book you have just consulted. Use

your own vocabulary, avoid jargon and, of course, make sure not to

56

forget basic but crucial things, such as accurate spelling, punctuation,

and grammar, which are all aids to clarity.

5. Distinguish, and link up, exposition and critical engagement.

Exposition (e.g. the presentation of a particular view or argument) is

important, and should be done with particular care. The more focused

the exposition, the better.

Exposition should serve the overall essay, that is, the engagement with

the question. It should not be a mere summary – a merely textbook

exposition.

Exposition should be distinguished from critical engagement. The safe

rule is not to do both in a single paragraph.

Exposition should properly link up with critical engagement. It should

prepare for that engagement.

Critical engagement can take many forms. Obviously, it can be that you

state your own view on the question. If so, however, you need to defend

that view, to consider objections to it, to address such objections, etc.

However, criticism can also be that you state, honestly, that you cannot

make up your mind, and why; or it can be that you indicate that, and

why, you think there is some ambiguity in some key concepts contained

in the essay question, or even in the question itself; or it can be that you

do some careful critical analysis of a particular text…and so on. In all of

the above forms of critical engagement the core of your discussion

should be a defence of the answer you give to the essay question.

Define your position carefully and defend it with reasons, arguments,

and (textual) evidence.

6. When you refer to a view, argument, or theory, do so as precisely and specifically as possible, and critically assess it.

57

Often a quotation is ideal. However, avoid just stringing together

quotations. Quotations should be short, and should serve some

particular point. A quote can illustrate a certain view for you, or it can

show that a particular person holds a certain view, but a quote cannot

prove a point for you, no matter what great thinker you are quoting from.

On other occasions, a careful reconstruction of an argument (with

references to the source) may be what you need. Sometimes a

combination of both is required. However, you should never just

paraphrase, summarise, or quote views without comment. This is of no

value: anyone can read. If you refer to someone’s views, you must

critically assess the worth of these views.

Similarly, when your argument depends on facts, do not invent them.

Find out what really are the facts. Do not engage in economics or

sociology or psychology without licence. Do your homework by asking

an economist, sociologist, etc., or by consulting a reputable book on

economics, sociology, and so on.

Being precise and specific means that you should avoid general or

vague references or summaries, and avoid trading in wild

generalizations, dogmatic assertion, unargued moralizing, or pure

invective, – philosophy takes place on paper, or in dialogue (with

another or with oneself), not in the realm of nebulous ideas, half-baked

theories, generalities, -isms.

7. When you refer to a view, argument, or theory, refer to the primary source. It is vital that you directly engage with the theories, arguments, or views

that the essay question refers to. For example, if the essay question

asks you to compare Berkeley’s and Russell’s views on the problem of

universals, then you cannot write the essay without referring to (in some

58

of the above ways) and critically engaging with Berkeley’s and Russell’s

views as they are expressed in their writings. It is not enough to base

your essay on, say, Hospers’ account of their views in his Introduction to

Philosophical Analysis or any other such secondary source. To put it

bluntly, to rely on one writer as your source of information regarding

another writer’s views is to rely on hearsay rather than evidence.

Secondary sources are often helpful, but they cannot be a substitute for

the primary sources.

8. Think of the essay not least as a piece of craftsmanship.

An essay should be something that is enjoyable to read, and to read

closely and perhaps even repeatedly. This means that the essay is not

simply a summary of your lecture notes, or of what you’ve read and

thought. It is a product that emerges when you turn all this – carefully –

into a piece of craft. So you will need to work long and hard – through

several drafts – at turning your notes to the finished product.

9. Include proper references, footnotes, and bibliography. This is imperative. If you quote a passage, summarize, or refer to a

view, you need to be accurate in your use of quotation marks and

include proper references to your sources. Otherwise you may be guilty

of plagiarism!

Your referencing should be consistent and as precise as possible. You

should provide all the information that is required for the reader to locate

the particular passage you are quoting from or referring to, i.e., you

must include page numbers! For example, when referring to or quoting

Russell’s claim that “[a]ll a priori knowledge deals exclusively with the

relations of universals”, your reference should be to: Russell, The

59

Problems of Philosophy, p. 59, or: Russell, 1912, 59 (not: Russell, The

Problems of Philosophy, Ch. 10, or: Russell, 1912, or: Russell, Ch. 10).

10. Formalities

Please remember the following when submitting your essay:

• You are required to submit both a hard copy and electronic

one.

• Use the Philosophy Department’s essay cover sheet and

complete all the details, including your Teaching Assistant’s

name and the number and title of the component for which the

essay is for – this helps immensely with distributing essays to

markers! (Essays which are submitted without a properly filled-

out cover sheet will take longer to process and may be returned

to you for re-submission.)

• Stay within the assigned word limit. Longer essays are typically

too ambitious, or repetitive, or full of digressions and your mark

will suffer accordingly.

• Use the following format: in-text references and bibliography;

footnotes rather than endnotes; 1.5 or double spacing for the

main text, single spacing for stand-alone quotations and

footnotes; 12 point type for the main text, 10 point for stand-

alone quotations and footnotes; justified wide margins to allow

for detailed, and so more useful, comments from your marker;

numbered pages (except first page); word count for the essay

(not counting footnotes and bibliography); sheets stapled in top

left corner close to the edge (no binders required).

For further details please see the Referencing Style Sheet below.

60

11. Resources

For further details on how to write a philosophy essay, how to practice

your essay writing skills, and how to revise a philosophy essay through

several drafts, please see the following:

Peter Horban (Simon Fraser University): Writing a Philosophy Paper

http://www.sfu.ca/philosophy/resources/writing.html

Jim Pryor (New York University): Guidelines on Writing a Philosophy

Paper

http://www.jimpryor.net/teaching/guidelines/writing.html

Joe Cruz (Williams College): Paper Writing Strategies for Introductory

Philosophy Courses

http://web.williams.edu/wp-etc/philosophy/jcruz/jcruz/writingtutor/

REFERENCING STYLE SHEET Each piece of writing you produce should contain references to all and

only those works that you discuss or rely on. You should not simply

reproduce your reading list in the bibliography. It is not there to show

how much you have read, but only to give the full details of works you

refer to in the text. If you found something interesting while preparing for

your essay, but end up not using it, do not put it in your bibliography.

Your references should enable the reader to identify your sources with

no scope for error, and it is your responsibility to make it as easy as

possible for your reader to locate any passage of text to which you refer.

http://www.sfu.ca/philosophy/resources/writing.html

http://www.jimpryor.net/teaching/guidelines/writing.html

http://web.williams.edu/wp-etc/philosophy/jcruz/jcruz/writingtutor/

61

There are two basic approaches to references. The traditional approach

(such as the Oxford and Vancouver systems) is to include full

references in footnotes to the relevant passages of the text, as well as a

full bibliography at the end (bibliography and footnotes). In recent times

parenthetical referencing systems (such as Harvard) are becoming

standard in many philosophical publications. In this approach, citations

are enclosed in parentheses and embedded in the text and a full

bibliography is given at the end only (bibliography and in-text

references).

While you should familiarise yourself with both, you should use the

second of these approaches (bibliography and in-text references) for

your academic work. The first approach looks messy, as a reference-

laden page can soon end up with ten or fifteen footnotes at the bottom.

There are many different citation styles in use for formatting

bibliographies and in-text references. They are all in principle equally

valid, provided that they are consistent and that they include all the

necessary information (author, year, publication details), in an easily

recognisable form. You should feel free to use any of the standard

systematic conventions; you can copy style from any philosophy book or

journal such as Mind. Here is a description of one of the most widely

used citation styles.

A. The format for a bibliography

For a bibliography of works referred to, set them out in alphabetical

order (by author's surname). Where more than one work by an author is

listed, order them chronologically. The year of publication is cited

immediately after the author's name. If there is more than one work by

the same author in the same year, use 'a', 'b', 'c', etc. at the end of the

year to differentiate them. Titles of books and journals should be in

62

italics; titles of articles should be in single quotation marks. Place of

publication and publisher should be included (for books) as should page

numbers of articles in journals. The main types of entry are formatted as

follows:

Journal article:

Craig, E. 1982. 'Meaning, Use & Privacy'. Mind 91: 541–564.

I.e. Author's surname [comma] author's initials [with full stops] year of

publication [full stop] article title in single quotes [full stop] journal title in

italics followed by volume number [colon] page numbers.

Authored book:

Quine, W. V. 1960. Word & Object. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.


publication [full stop] book title in italics [full stop] place of publication

[colon] publisher.

Editors, translators and edition can also be indicated after the book title,

where relevant.

Edited collection: Lepore, E. ed. 1986. Truth & Interpretation: Perspectives on the

Philosophy of Donald Davidson. Oxford: Blackwell.

I.e. like authored books, adding 'ed.' after editor's name and initials (or

'eds.' if there is more than one).

Article in collection:

Quine, W. V. 1975. 'Mind & Verbal Dispositions'. In S. Guttenplan, ed.

Mind & Language. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

63


publication [full stop] article title in single quotes [full stop] [In] Editor's

initials [full stop] editor's surname [comma] [ed. or eds., if more than

one] book title in italics [full stop] place of publication [colon] publisher.

If the article had already been published prior to the collection you are

citing, replace 'In' with 'Reprinted in'.

B. How to refer to works within one’s text

References within the text to a work take the following form: (Quine

1960, p. 20). If it is clear from the context which author is being

discussed, the reference can be abbreviated to (1960, p. 20); if it is also

clear which work is discussed, all that is needed is the page reference

(p. 20). Example:

There has been much recent philosophical discussion of the

emotions (Oakley 1992; Taylor 1985). Philosophers have

attempted to provide characterisations of the type of mental

entity that emotions are; in addition, they have offered analyses

of particular emotions, such as love, jealousy, pride and fear.

Gabriele Taylor has made a study of the 'emotions of self-

assessment', which include pride, shame and guilt (1985). In

her study she takes issue with Davidson's (1976) well-known

cognitive theory of pride. She rejects Davidson's account for its

insistence on “a form of rationality [...] which is not necessary

for an understanding [...] of the emotional experience in

question” (Taylor 1985, p. 5).

This Style sheet is an adaptation of the one provided by UCL on

www.ucl.ac.uk/philosophy/LPSG

64

COMMON MISTAKES – Style, Grammar, Spelling,

Punctuation

A run-on sentence is one in which two or more independent clauses

are improperly joined, this is usually done with a comma fault. This

sentence is a run-on sentence, the first sentence was as well. Break the

passage up into separate, shorter sentences; the use of semi-colons

can help too.

A sentence fragment is an incomplete sentence. Like this one.

Something to be avoided. As a rule. Make sure each sentence has a

subject and predicate (with a finite verb).

Mistakes in the use of apostrophes have become quite widespread in

students’ writings, and such mistakes distract the person marking your

essay from properly considering your ideas. When something belongs

to someone or something, or is their possession, you must use an

apostrophe. When the possessor is single, the ‘s’ follows the

apostrophe: The man’s coat. When the possessors are plural, the

apostrophe follows the ‘s’: The girls’ books. [Compare: The men’s coats]

When names end with ‘s’, either position is acceptable: James’ dog, or

James’s dog; however, be consistent. Do not use apostrophes with

possessive pronouns: his, hers, its, ours, yours, theirs. For example,

‘it’s’ is a contraction meaning ‘it is’; ‘Its’ is the possessive: “It’s easy to

teach this dog its tricks.”

Do not use contractions in academic work; for example, ‘It’s’, ‘don’t’,

‘won’t’, ‘who’s’, ‘you’re’, etc; instead, use: ‘it is’, ‘do not’, ‘will not’, ‘who

is’, ‘you are’, etc.

65

‘e.g.’ means ‘for example’, follow with a comma and one or more

examples. ‘i.e.’ means ‘that is’: follow with a comma and a restatement

or clarification. It is often better style to avoid such abbreviations and to

write out ‘for example’ and ‘that is’ in full.

Avoid using ‘as’ to mean ‘because’; it has a meaning closer to ‘like’.

For example: “Humans can see as far as the eye can see, because that

is how we are structured.”

Incorrect: “…, as that is how we are structured.”

Do not begin sentences with conjunctions, e.g., ‘But’, ‘And’, etc.

‘That’ / ‘, which’: Correct: “I understand that you study philosophy, which is an excellent

subject that will serve you well.” Incorrect: “…, that is an excellent

subject which will serve you well.”

Some common confusions:

accept/except, passed/past, advice/advise, patience/patients,

affect/effect, peace/piece, allusion/illusion, personal/personnel,

breath/breathe, plain/plane, choose/chose, practise/practice,

cite/sight/site, precede/proceed, complement/compliment,

presence/presents, council/counsel, principal/principle, descent/dissent,

quiet/quite, device/devise, rain/reign/rein, elicit/illicit, raise/raze,

eminent/immanent/imminent, respectfully/respectively, every

day/everyday, right/rite/write/wright, fair/fare, stationary/stationery,

formally/formerly, their/they are/there, then/than, its/it is (it’s),

weather/whether, loose/lose, whose/ who is (who’s), your/you are

66

(you’re)

67

Plagiarism

Some students seem not to understand exactly what is and is not

plagiarism.

Plagiarism is taking another person’s actual sentences or theories and presenting them in your essay (or seminar paper or thesis etc.) as if they were your own sentences or theories.

To give some examples:

(a) To quote from Ryle’s The Concept of Mind p. 96, but to fail to put

quotation marks around Ryle’s words, is plagiarism.

(b) To paraphrase chapter VI of The Concept of Mind without mentioning in

any way (in the text or in a footnote) that the material is a paraphrase, is

plagiarism.

(c) To present Ryle’s distinction between ‘Knowing How’ and ‘Knowing That’

in your own words, and then to make an explicit or implicit claim that it is

an invention of your own, is plagiarism.

(d) To copy another student’s work is plagiarism.

(e) To enlist the help of another person to complete an assignment on your

68

behalf, is plagiarism.

It is accepted that all members of the academic community use and

build on the work of others. However, whenever this is done it should

always be acknowledged. The safe, honest, scholarly and generous

thing to do, is always to take great pains to document the sources of

your written work. This includes internet sources as well as books and

articles. A student who is found to have plagiarized work will be returned

to the Senior Lecturer as non-satisfactory for that term. This means

that the student may be refused permission to take the annual

examinations, and may be required by the Senior Lecturer to repeat the

year.

Note also students should not submit the same work for different

assignments. If they are uncertain whether their work for different

assignments overlaps too much, they should consult the convener for

their year.

For further details, see the College Calendar at Part II, General

Regulations and Information, Academic Progress, Sections 82–90,

located here: http://www.tcd.ie/calendar/1415-2/part-2-undergraduate-

courses-and-other-general-information/general-regulations-and-

information/academic-progress/

http://www.tcd.ie/calendar/1415-2/part-2-undergraduate-courses-and-other-general-information/general-regulations-and-information/academic-progress/



69

70

Conveners

For each year, there is an academic member of staff who has been

appointed as convener. The role of the convener includes helping

students with enquiries specifically relating to the work of that year. For

example, if a student wishes to clarify a matter relating to the layout of

exams or the content of the courses, the convener is the person to see.

Students should also go to the convener if they need an extension on

an essay. Essay extensions will only be granted in extreme

circumstances – usually on presentation of a medical certificate showing

that the student was ill and unable to complete the essay on time. Essay

extensions will not be granted retrospectively, i.e., if the student has

already passed the deadline, an extension cannot be granted.

Students will be advised of the names of the current conveners for each

year at the beginning of MT/1st semester.

71

College Tutors

Trinity College is the only university in Ireland to operate what is known

as the Tutorial system. Every student at Trinity is allocated a college

tutor. Your college tutor is an academic member of staff who has been

appointed to look after your general welfare and deal with queries in

confidence. At the start of the academic year, your tutor’s name will be

posted to you. It is advisable that you arrange a meeting with your tutor

as soon as possible after starting college.

The tutor’s role includes such relatively straightforward tasks as

answering queries in the early days, signing forms certifying that you

are a student at Trinity, or writing character references. Tutors are also

there to help with personal problems such as illness, domestic, financial

or emotional problems. They may not be able to help with every

problem, but they will put you in contact with someone who can.

If it turns out that you don’t get on with your tutor for whatever reason,

you can apply to the Senior Tutor for a change of tutor. The Senior

Tutor’s office is in House 27. If you wish to make an appointment,

please telephone 896-2551 or e-mail [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

72

Peer Mentoring

Student 2 Student

From the moment you arrive in College right the way through to your

end of year exams Student 2 Student (S2S) is here to make sure your

first year is fun, engaging and a great foundation for the rest of your

time in Trinity. You will meet your two S2S mentors in Freshers’ Week

and they’ll make sure you know other people in your course before your

classes even start. They’ll keep in regular touch with you throughout

your first year and invite you to events on and off campus. They’ll also

give you useful information about your course and what to look out for.

Mentors are students who have been through first year and know

exactly what it feels like, so you never have to worry about asking them

a question or talking to them about anything that’s worrying you.

S2S also offers trained Peer Supporters if you want to talk confidentially

to another student or just to meet a friendly face for a coffee and a chat.

S2S is supported by the Senior Tutor’s Office and the Student

Counselling Service. http://student2student.tcd.ie,

E-mail: [email protected], Phone: + 353 1 896 2438

http://student2student.tcd.ie/

mailto:[email protected]

73

The Library

Trinity College Library is spread over a number of different buildings on

the campus - the names 'Berkeley Library’, ‘Hamilton Library’ and so

forth refer to these different locations. As philosophy students, what you

will be using for the most part is the Ussher Library.

Where Can I Find the Philosophy Books?

The main philosophy section is on the fourth floor of the Ussher Library. These books are arranged according to the Dewey Decimal

system, in which philosophy books are numbered 100-199. There are

multiple copies of some of the more important books on the courses

(although it is recommended that you buy the core texts - the library

could let you down in an emergency!). Some books on interdisciplinary

subjects (i.e. where two or more subjects overlap) are to be found in

other parts of the library. For example, some books on philosophy of

science are in the science section, which is in the Hamilton Library.

Many books are not on the open shelves, but in the Stacks or Santry

Book Depository. To obtain these books, you must look up a reference

number in the library catalogues (see below). You then fill in a (very

simple) form, and hand it in at the desk in the Berkeley or Hamilton

library.

74

The Library Catalogues

If you know your way around, you can sometimes find books you need

by just browsing on the shelves, but often you will need to use the

library catalogues. Most of the books you need can be found on the

online library catalogue. There are computer terminals throughout the

different parts of the library on which you can access this catalogue.

Books can be looked up under author, title, and title-keyword or subject-

keyword. The online catalogue can also be accessed on the web at

www.tcd.ie/Library. Some older books in the library are not yet on the

online catalogue, but can be found in the Accessions Catalogue, a set

of large, hardbound volumes located on the ground floor of the Ussher.

Even older books (pre-1870) are in the Printed Catalogue, in the same

place.

Reference Works and Periodicals

Reference works are shelved in the Berkeley following renovations.

Helpful reference works include the Routledge Encyclopedia of

Philosophy and the Philosopher’s Index. The latter is a quarter-yearly

guide to new books and articles published in philosophy; it is also

available online and can be accessed through the library website. You

can look up items by author or by subject, and brief summaries of most

items are provided.

Much useful material for study is to be found not in books but in articles

published in periodicals. This is especially true if one is interested in the

very latest developments in philosophy, or in new scholarship. The

library has many philosophy periodicals; the current year’s issues of a

periodical are to be found in the lower basement of the Ussher (i.e. two

floors below the ground floor), under PER 100. Back issues are either in

the basement of the Ussher, or in the Stacks or Santry. These latter are

http://www.tcd.ie/Library

75

obtainable in the same way as books.

Inter-Library Loans

If you need a book or periodical which is not available in Trinity College

Library, you should be able to get it on Inter- Library Loan. This involves

our library borrowing the book or periodical from another library. All you

have to do is fill in a form and hand it in to the counter in either the

Berkeley or Hamilton. You can also, for a fee, obtain photocopies of

periodical articles which are not in the Trinity library.

Further Information

For further information, see the Library Guides, which can be found at

the library counters. The staff at the counters in the various libraries

should be able to help with most enquiries, but for enquiries specifically

concerning philosophy material in the library, you may need to consult

the Subject Librarian who can be reached by e-mail.

76

Prizes in Philosophy

A number of academic prizes are available for which philosophy

students can compete.

John Isaac Beare Prize in Philosophy

(JF, SF and JS essay prize)

This prize was founded in 1953 by a bequest from W.E.P. Cotter in

memory of John Isaac Beare, Fellow 1887-1918. It is divided into three

parts, and one part is awarded in each of the first three years of the

honours course in philosophy. Part I is awarded at the end of Trinity

Term in each year to the Junior Freshman student who has submitted

the best essays during the academic year. Similar regulations apply to

parts II and III in the Senior Freshman and Junior Sophister years

respectively. The prizewinners may select books to the value of €89 at

the University booksellers.

John Henry Bernard Prizes

(JF and JS exam prize; SF Foundation Scholarship exam prize)

These prizes were founded in 1929 by a subscription in memory of John

Henry Bernard, Provost 1919-27. A prize is awarded annually in the

Junior Freshman year and in the Junior Sophister year on the results of

the honours examinations in philosophy; in the Senior Freshman year

the prize is awarded to the candidate who performs best at the

Foundation Scholarship exam. The prize is open to candidates in (a)

philosophy only, or (b) philosophy as part of a combined honours

programme. In the case of (b), only the candidate’s performance in

77

philosophy is taken into account. Value of each prize, €108.

Madeleine Farrell Memorial Prize in Philosophy of Mind

(SS Philosophy of Mind Dissertation Prize)

A prize of €250 has been provided by a benefactor and former student

of philosophy and medicine at Trinity College, Dr. Thomas Farrell, in

honour of his mother, Madeleine Farrell. The prize will be awarded each

year to the person who gains the highest mark for a Senior Sophister

thesis in philosophy of mind, given that, according to the examiners, a

sufficiently high standard has been achieved.

Arthur Aston Luce Memorial Prize

(SS exam prize)

This prize was founded in 1977 from a general bequest to the college by

Arthur Aston Luce, Fellow 1912-77, Professor of Moral Philosophy

1934-47, Berkeley Professor of Metaphysics 1953-77. It is awarded

annually to the student who obtains the highest mark in the Problems in

Philosophy paper at part II (Senior Sophister) of the moderatorship

examination. Value, €166.

Lilian Mary Luce Memorial Prize

(Freshman years – prize for special exam on Berkeley)

This prize was founded in 1941 by a gift from the Rev. Arthur Aston

Luce, in memory of his wife, Lilian Mary Luce, gold medallist in Mental

and Moral Science. It is awarded on the result of a written examination

held annually at the beginning of Trinity Term conducted by two

examiners appointed from the honours examiners in philosophy. The

course consists in the main of portions of Berkeley’s philosophical

78

works, preferably those not specified in the honours course. Works

about Berkeley may also be included. The course, which may be varied

from year to year, is prescribed by the Head of the Department of

Philosophy. The examination is open only to students taking the single

honour course in philosophy or taking philosophy as part of a two-

subject moderatorship course. It may be taken in either the Junior

Freshman or the Senior Freshman year, but no student may be a

candidate on more than one occasion. Notice of intention to compete

must be sent to the Senior Lecturer by 15 February. In the case of a

close tie the Board may divide the prize, on the recommendation of the

examiners. Value, €381.

Henry Stewart Macran Prize

(Any year – prize for special Hegel exam and essay)

This prize was founded in 1941 by a bequest from Miss Eileen Frances

Gertrude McCutchan in memory of Henry Stewart Macran, Fellow 1892-

1937. It is awarded annually to the candidate who gains the best

aggregate of marks at a written examination on Hegel’s system of

philosophy and for an essay ‘on a subject of a metaphysical or ethical

and not merely psychological or logical character’.

Candidates must be under M.A. standing, and if undergraduates must

have their names on the College books. No candidate may win the prize

more than once, but an unsuccessful candidate may compete again.

The examination is held in Trinity Term. The course consists of (1) a

prescribed portion of Hegel’s works (100 marks) and (2) a critical or

expository work on Hegel (100 marks). Notice of intention to compete

must be given to the Senior Lecturer at the beginning of Hilary Term.

The subject of the essay (200 marks) is one of a number of topics

prescribed annually by the Professor of Philosophy and two other

79

examiners appointed by the Board, or else a topic proposed by the

candidate at least three weeks before the end of Hilary Term and

approved by the examiners. It must be 8,000-9,000 words in length. It

must be handed to the Head of Department on the morning of the first

day of the examination, and must be signed by the candidate and

accompanied by a list of authorities consulted, and by a statement that

the essay is the candidate’s own work. Value, €318.

George McCutchan Prize

(SS prize for Hegel exam – not presently available)

This prize was founded in 1941 by a bequest from Miss Eileen Frances

Gertrude McCutchan, in memory of her father, George McCutchan. It is

awarded annually by the Board on the recommendation of the Professor

of Philosophy and moderatorship examiners to the candidate for

moderatorship in philosophy, or for a two-subject moderatorship in

which philosophy is included, who obtains a first or second class

moderatorship, and shows the best knowledge of Hegel in an essay

relating to some aspect of his system of philosophy, as agreed by the

candidate and the Head of Department. Value, €508.

Wray Prize

(SS dissertation prize)

This prize was founded in 1848 by a gift from Mrs Catherine Wray,

widow of Henry Wray, fellow 1800-47, to encourage metaphysical

studies. This prize is awarded annually to the student who submits the

best thesis at the moderatorship exam in philosophy. Value, €445.

Wray Travelling Scholarship

80

(SS exam prize)

This prize was founded in 1977 out of funds accumulated through the

gift from Mrs Catherine Wray described above. The purpose of this prize

is to enable a student to spend time abroad visiting or studying at some

centre of philosophical learning (to be chosen in consultation with the

Head of the Philosophy Department); and it is awarded to a student who

achieves a very high standard at the moderatorship examination. To

qualify, a student must submit evidence of having been admitted to an

overseas university to study on an approved postgraduate course in

philosophy. The prize will not necessarily be awarded annually. Value,

€3,175.

81

Computers As all course assessment work must be submitted in typewritten form, it

is in your interest to familiarise yourself with the computers in college

and their use. The college has both PC’s and Macintoshes.

Where are they?

Computers which are available for undergraduate students to use can

be found at various locations around campus. For up-to-date locations

and information please see here:

http://isservices.tcd.ie/facilities/computer-rooms.php

Up-to-date information about printing is available here:

http://isservices.tcd.ie/facilities/printing.php Getting Started

When you register, you will be given a login ID and a password, both

of which you will need to access the college’s computers. You will also

be given a college e-mail account. Brief starter courses in computer

use will also be offered during the week of registration.

Every student will also be provided with personal filestorage. This

means that you can save material on the college network, so you can

access this material on any computer in any of the above locations, and

not have to rely entirely on fragile floppy discs. It is of course

recommended that you save all your work onto floppy discs as well.

Anything you save on your personal filestorage will be safe from prying

eyes, as it can only be opened using your own password.

http://isservices.tcd.ie/facilities/computer-rooms.php

http://isservices.tcd.ie/facilities/printing.php

82

Any problems you have with computers should be brought to

Information Systems Services (IS Services). Their helpdesk is in

Áras an Phiarsaigh, contact information is located here

http://isservices.tcd.ie/help/helpdesk_contact.php. For further

information, see the IS Services Handbook, which is available from the

helpdesk, or consult their website that is located at:

http://isservices.tcd.ie/

Some Useful Websites

Philosophy resources can be accessed at the following sites:

• http://listserv.liv.ac.uk/archives/philos-l.html

(“Philos-L”, c/o the University of Liverpool Philosophy Department)

• http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/philinks.htm

(Guide to philosophy on the web, no longer being updated since

2003)

• http://www.epistemelinks.com/index.asp

(Episteme links, no longer being updated since 2011)

• http://www.philosophers.co.uk/index.htm

(The Philosopher’s Magazine)

http://isservices.tcd.ie/help/helpdesk_contact.php

http://isservices.tcd.ie/

http://listserv.liv.ac.uk/archives/philos-l.html

http://listserv.liv.ac.uk/archives/philos-l.html

http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/philinks.htm

http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/philinks.htm

http://www.epistemelinks.com/index.asp

http://www.epistemelinks.com/index.asp

http://www.philosophers.co.uk/index.htm

http://www.philosophers.co.uk/index.htm

83

The Metaphysical Society

The Metaphysical Society is a student society whose purpose is to allow

students to discuss philosophical issues in an informal setting. It should

not be confused with the Philosophical Society (also called ‘The Phil.’),

which is a general debating society, and not particularly philosophical in

orientation.

The Early Years...

The Society was founded in 1929 under the guidance of Professor A.A.

Luce. In its early years, students read papers to the society to have

them discussed by their peers. The society’s activities also included

debates, discussions and Question Times. The last were panel

discussions on questions of philosophical interest, such as ‘Is war

inevitable?’, ‘Is the rose red in the dark?’ or ‘Is philosophy the talk of idle

old men to ignorant youth?’ Guest speakers were also invited, and the

society was addressed by such eminent figures as C.E.M. Joad, Erwin

Schrödinger, Gilbert Ryle (twice), J.L. Austin, John Mackie, Anthony

Flew and Bernard Williams. Academic gowns were compulsory at

meetings, but the proceedings were probably not excessively formal, as

one early report on the society’s activities tells us that the society

purchased ‘a liberal supply of best Donegal poitín.’

... to the Present

The society seems to have been less active in the 1980’s and early

84

90’s, but it underwent something of a renaissance from 1997 onwards.

A new addition to the society’s activities is the Philosophy Café. The

members of the society meet once a week or so to discuss a topic of

philosophical interest, which is briefly introduced by one person. Topics

have included ‘Good God or God Awful?’ (the relationship between

religion and morality), ‘The Mind’s “I”‘ (the nature of personal identity),

and ’Me, Myself and I’ (egoism and altruism). Although the society no

longer supplies poitín, it does supply coffee and wine. Guest Speakers

are still invited by the society, and recent speakers have included the

philosopher Robert Solomon and the physicist Julian Barbour. The

society also organises excursions to places of philosophical interest,

such as Berkeley’s birthplace of Thomastown, Co. Kilkenny. They also

sometimes show films of broadly philosophical interest - including,

recently, Ingmar Bergman’s allegorical The Seventh Seal and Derek

Jarman’s Wittgenstein. Academic gowns are no longer compulsory at

these events.

The society possesses its own ever-growing library of

philosophical texts, which the members can borrow. This can be very

useful for study purposes, as the college library can sometimes be

overstretched.

The Metaphysical Society has a noticeboard just outside the

Philosophy Department office. This board gives news of forthcoming

events as well as the society’s library opening hours.

85

Student Health Service

Student Clinics

The Health Centre is open during term and non-term time.

Consultations are normally by prior appointment only, but emergencies

are accommodated. General practitioner clinics are held daily, these

include:

• Minor psychiatry

• Contraception

• Smears

• Vaccinations

• Eye Testing

• Sexual Health Clinic

• Confidential H.I.V. Counselling and Testing

• Ante-Natal care

Please see http://www.tcd.ie/collegehealth for further information.

http://www.tcd.ie/collegehealth

86

Careers Advisory Service

TCD Careers Advisory Service helps students and recent graduates of

the College make and implement informed decisions about their future.

A full range of services are available on http://www.tcd.ie/Careers/

http://www.tcd.ie/Careers/

Documents

Philosophy 12_13 SHP - Trinity College Dublin