Spring Semester 2004.
History and Philosophy of Science, University of Pittsburgh
Instructor: Rick Grush (email@example.com)
Office Hours: TBA
Office Phone: TBA
[ Requirements and Grading ]
[ Email list ]
Texts: The required readings will be available as password-protected .pdf files from this webpage, and also available in hard copy in the HPS department (maybe in Phil too, if I can secure a drawer). The readings for weeks 1-10 are available here as a large (8.6MB).pdf file. This file needs a password to be openned (since some of the article sin it are copyrighted). Email me for the password if you get the file before the fisrt session. I will give it out in seminar.
Content. We will trace the topic of the experience and representation of time from the 18th centeruty to the present, with readings in philosophy, psychology, and (towards the end of the seminar) cognitive neuroscience.
Structure. Each week there will be one or more assigned readings which we will discuss in seminar. I will begin each session by speaking for 15-30 minutes in order to provide a quick overview of the readings and how they fit into the context of the other readings. The remaining time will consist of detailed discussion of specific issues and questions concerning the readings raised by participants in the seminar. Students will have the option of writing three short papers or one long paper.
Le Poidevin, 'The Experience and Perception of Time'
Locke, Essay Concerning Human Understanding Book II, Ch. 14
Hume, Treatise of Human Nature Book I, Part II, Section 3
James, Principles of Psychology Chapter 15
Kant, Critique of Pure Reason, Transcendental Aesthetic
& 4, January 22, 29:
Brough, 'Husserl's Phenomenology of Time Consciousness'
Husserl, Lectures on the Consciousness of Internal Time
& 6, February 5, 12:
Sellars, Science and Metaphysics Chapter 1
Sellars, Science and Metaphysics Apppendix
Sellars, Carus Lectures, Lecture II, Section 7
van Gelder, 'Wooden Iron?'
Varela, 'Present time-consciousness'
Dennett and Kinsbourne, 'Time and the observer'
Rao, Eagleman and Sejnowski, 'Optimal smoothing in visual motion perception'
Grush, The Machinery of Mindedness, Chapter 1.[pdf here]
Grush, The Machinery of Mindedness, Chapter 2. [pdf here]
Grush, The Machinery of Mindedness, Chapter 3. [pdf here]
Grush, The Machinery of Mindedness, Chapter 4. [pdf here]
Grush, The Machinery of Mindedness, Appendix B. [pdf by April 8]
There are 2 requirements for this course: (A) participation in seminar discussion, and (B) either (i) three short 5-10 page papers or (ii) one long 20-30 page paper.
A. Seminar participation. Before each session, seminar participants must do two things. First, do all the readings, carefully. Second, come up with two questions/issues on the readings. They might be argument or claims in the readings that you don't understand, or any briefly specifiable point that could form the basis for longer discussion. For example "On pages P1 and P2, A seems to think he's established that P, but it looks like he's only established Q. Is this right?"; or "I can't figure out what A means by <expression>, but it is key to his argument. What could it mean?". Each session, after I talk for 15-20 minutes, the rest of the time will be devoted to discussion of these questions/topics -- I'll list them on the board or on a handout, and we'll jointly decide which ones to spend time on, and in what order. These questions/topics should be mailed to the email list (see below) no later than two days before the seminar meeting (i.e., Tuesday evening) so everyone has a chance to look them over and think about them before we meet.
B(i). Three short papers. Short papers should be 5-10 pages at most. It is not expected that these papers will articulate and defend an original thesis -- they can be mostly exegetical. The effect you want is for me to read the paper and think something like 'this person has read the relevant material carefully and given the issues real thought'.
B(ii). One long paper. A long paper should be 20-30 pages at most. Unlike short appers, mere exegesis is not sufficient (unless it is exegesis that is of something sufficiently difficult and important -- some of Husserl's notions could be amenable to sufficiently important eegetical treatment, for example). Some sort of interesting positive thesis should be articulated and defended. A long paper is good to the extent that after reading it I thing something like 'this person has come up with an interesting thesis, articulated it well, placed it clearly in the context of the relevant literature, and done a good job of anticipating and defending against potential objections.'
Some hard to define combination of A and B above.
There is an email distribution list for this course -- firstname.lastname@example.org -- and subscribing to it is required. The two purposes of the list are i) to allow me to distribute information regarding changes of schedule, etc., and ii) to provide a means for students to ask questions and continue discussion outside of class time. The list is set up so that all and only people subscribed can post to the list.
To subscribe: send an email FROM THE ACCOUNT THAT YOU WANT TO BE SUBSCRIBED to email@example.com. The subject line and the body of the email can be blank. They will be ignored by the software that subscribes you.
To post: send the message you wish to post to firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe: send an email FROM THE ACCOUNT THAT YOU WANT TO BE UNSUBSCRIBED to email@example.com. The subject line and the body of the email can be blank. They will be ignored by the software that unsubscribes you.