Phil 153 Student Handbook Spring 2023

PHIL 153
Fundamental Questions in Philosophy (Sustainability)
STUDENT
HANDBOOK
Professor Matt Halteman
Section 153-D, MWF, 11:00 am-11:50 pm, HH 335
Spring 2023
Table of Contents
How to Use This Handbook………………………………………………….......1
Course Syllabus…………………………………………………………….....2-11
Assignment Log……………………………………………………………..12-40
Week 1………………………………………………………………………41-45
Week 2………………………………………………………………………46-49
Week 3………………………………………………………………………50-54
Week 4………………………………………………………………………55-60
Week 5………………………………………………………………………61-65
Week 6………………………………………………………………………66-72
Week 7…….………………………………………………………………...73-75
Week 8………………………………………………………SPRING BREAK!!!
Week 9………………………………………………………………………76-79
Week 10……………………………………………………………………..80-83
Week 11……………………………………………………………………..84-89
Week 12……………………………………………………………………..90-94
Week 13……………………………………………………………………..95-99
Week 14…………………………………………………………………..100-102
Week 15…………………………………………………………………..103-104
PHIL 153: How to Use This Handbook
PHIL 153: Fundamental Questions in Philosophy

How to Use This Handbook
Welcome to Philosophy 153! This handbook is your go-to guide for all the written materials you will need to succeed in
this course (with the exceptions of the required Course Readings Packet (CP), the required course texts available for
purchase through the Campus Store, and any additional handouts I may circulate in class). I recommend that you print
this document, three-hole punch it, and bring it to class with you every day in a one-inch-binder; you may wish to print it
one-sided so that you can take notes on the backs of the adjacent pages as we move through course material.
This handbook includes the following documents:
Syllabus—The syllabus lays out everything you need to know about what the course is and how it works. Look to the
syllabus to find out which books you need to purchase (required materials), what material we’ll be covering (course
description), what we’re aiming to learn (student learning objectives), what you’re expected to do in order to earn credit
(requirements and grade assessment), how you can get specific kinds of help with challenges you may face
(accommodations), how to stay honest in your work (plagiarism), and what you should be doing week-to-week to stay on
track (course calendar).
How to use the syllabus:

ü Please review the syllabus carefully before the semester begins and feel free to express any questions or
concerns to me at mch7@calvin.edu.
ü The syllabus is the easiest way to refresh your memory about course procedures and expectations, so check
it regularly when questions arise.
ü The course calendar at the end of the syllabus is easiest way to get an overview of what we’re covering
week-to-week (and day-to-day), so keep it handy throughout the semester.
Assignment Log—The assignment log includes all weekly reading exercises that are due for participation credit. To help
you manage your time and workload wisely, the first page of the assignment log provides a table of contents with a
checklist of all weekly reading exercises; the checklist also indicates in red print which ones can be written up for
participation credit and when they are due (9 are eligible for write-up credit; you must complete 6 to meet the participation
requirement). This resource gives you the opportunity on day one to put all the important dates in your calendar—right
down to the due dates of reading question write-ups. (To the type-A nerds like me out there: you’re welcome! To everyone
else: I’m sorry! J)
How to use the assignment log:

ü As you work through weekly readings, make sure that you consult the assignment log to find the question
set or exercises associated with the reading that is due so that you can get the most out of it.
ü Use the assignment log checklist to plan which write-ups you’ll complete to meet the participation
requirement and to check them off when you’ve completed them.
Weekly Course Materials—For each week of the course, there is chapter of course materials that includes (1) a list of
learning objectives (what we’ll be covering) and (2) lecture helps and handouts organized in the order I am planning to
cover them as the week unfolds.
How to use the weekly course materials:

ü Use the lecture supplements and handouts to help guide you through and/or review in-class lectures and/or
podcasts/videos.
ü Commit to taking a good set of your own personal and detailed class notes, separate from (or perhaps
embedded within) the materials in the Student Handbook. Studies show that there is no substitute for good
note-taking when it comes to understanding and retaining material, so DO NOT make the mistake of relying
too heavily on these helps if you want to get the most out of the course.
If you have questions or concerns or need help at any time, please email me at mch7@calvin.edu to let me know how I
can be of service or to schedule office hours in person, by telephone, or by video-conference. I will reply to your inquiry
as promptly as I can. Interacting with students is my favorite part of my job, so never hesitate to get in touch! Looking
forward to working with you on one of life’s most rewarding things: the pursuit of wisdom! J
1
PHIL 153: Syllabus
PHIL 153: Fundamental Questions in Philosophy (Sustainability)

Section 153-D, MWF, 11:00-11:50 am, HH 335
Spring 2023
Professor: Matt Halteman
Office: 353 Hiemenga
E-mail: mch7@calvin.edu
Phone: 526-6726
Office Hours: by appointment
I. Required Materials
Descartes, Meditations on First Philosophy
Gandhi, An Autobiography: The Story of My Experiments with Truth
Mathewes-Green, The Illumined Heart: Capture the Vibrant Faith of Ancient Christians
Seneca, Letters from a Stoic
Warners and Heun, Beyond Stewardship: New Approaches to Creation Care
Course Packet (available for purchase in the bookstore)
II. Course Description

Philosophical inquiry serves many purposes under many different names. As a method of theoretical
analysis, it helps us to clarify the nature of things and to distinguish truth from falsity. As an approach
to interpreting the meaning of life, it awakens us to the open-endedness of human existence and to the
importance of our communities for making sense of ourselves, others, and the world around us. As a
spiritual discipline, it aids us in our efforts to pursue the goal of a life well lived. And as a social
coping mechanism, it helps us to make judicious policy decisions and to find solutions to social and
political problems. This course is an introduction to four different (but complementary) approaches to
asking the questions “What is philosophy?” and “How is it relevant to everyday life?”. The prospective
answers we’ll explore together show that these four approaches offer sustaining wisdom for striving
toward flourishing selves, just communities, and a beautiful, fertile, habitable creation.
The four approaches to philosophical inquiry that we will cover are as follows:
Analysis: Philosophical inquiry is a capability that avails a person of a reflective standpoint from
which to analyze and assess the nature of the world and its contents. Philosophy, thus, is both the
refinery and the test-laboratory for thinking: it converts the raw materials of definitions, intuitions,
thought experiments, and arguments into viable accounts of the way the world is, and then it tests the
accuracy, completeness, and explanatory power of those accounts against alternatives.
Hermeneutics: Philosophical inquiry is an interpretive activity that inevitably reflects the assumptions
and previous experiences of the thinker; the answers one finds, in other words, are determined in part
by the questions one asks. Philosophy, thus, is an ongoing process of examining the underlying
assumptions that have shaped one’s thinking and of testing them against those of other outlooks and
traditions so that one might become more aware of one’s hidden assumptions and thereby more open to
revising or changing them if necessary.
Spiritual Discipline: Philosophical inquiry is a lived discipline (not just a passive, reflective endeavor)
that transforms a person through the practice of daily exercises aimed at bringing her whole being into
accordance with a unified vision of human flourishing. Philosophy, thus, is the lived pursuit of wisdom
in one’s daily affairs—a work upon the self that has far-reaching effects on how one thinks about and
acts towards oneself, others, and the world.
2
PHIL 153: Syllabus
Pragmatism: Philosophical inquiry is a social coping mechanism that can aid people in achieving their
individual and collective life goals (survival, happiness, power, political stability, liberty and justice
for all, etc.) by encouraging them to adapt to and sustain life in their ever-changing environments.
Philosophy, thus, is a tool for diagnosing outmoded practices of thought and action that are no longer
effective in achieving their prescribed goals and replacing them with new and more sustainable
alternatives.
III. Student Learning Objectives (SLOs)

All sections of PHIL 153, regardless of instructor, have the following student learning objectives:
1. Students will demonstrate basic skills of philosophical analysis and expository writing.
2. Students will be able to articulate features of a Reformed Christian framework of reflection and
practice for the purpose of cultural discernment.
3. Students will demonstrate an understanding of foundational philosophical questions and responses
concerning God, the world, and human nature.
Because these required SLOs are very general, it is important to clarify how they will be concretized in
this section. My approach to teaching PHIL 153 is designed to help you meet the following five more
specific objectives within the broader context set by the required SLOs:
Objective One: Achieve an introductory familiarity with each of the above approaches to philosophy,
emphasizing the value of each approach for sustaining and improving earthly life (human, animal, and
environmental flourishing). A carefully chosen list of manageable reading assignments serve two
purposes: (a) “baseline” readings provide an introduction to the guiding principles of each approach;
and (b) “case study” readings provide specific examples of each approach as practiced in various
historical and disciplinary contexts.
Objective Two: Achieve a critical yet charitable understanding of the advantages and drawbacks of
each approach (particularly in view of one’s own personal and social interests and goals). You are
encouraged through lecture, class discussion exercises, and writing opportunities to engage the models
exemplified in the readings. Daily lectures take one of two primary formats. For the first few class
meetings and on days when a new unit is introduced, lectures are lengthier and more formal, aimed at
providing necessary background information as well as a framework for interpreting supporting
readings. During sessions directed at “case studies,” by contrast, my input is more informal to allow
maximum time for discussion. To stimulate critical reading and thinking and to encourage
preparedness for discussion, I often ask you to prepare and turn in written discussion exercises
pertaining to the day’s reading.
Objective Three: Develop the critical skills required for investigating and practicing each model.
Writing assignments help you to develop the skills of careful reading, critical analysis, and the
strategic organization of ideas. In addition to written discussion exercises and two essay-based exams,
there is one 5-page paper on an assigned topic that is due toward the end of the semester. Though
regular participation in in-class activities or discussion forums will provide ample opportunities for
sharpening critical skills, I encourage you to solicit my guidance as often as you like via e-mail,
telephone, video-conference, or office visits. I’m in this business because I love working with people
like you, so please don’t be shy if you want more feedback or if you need extra help!
Objective Four: Create an inclusive classroom community where we’re responsible to each other. In a
course of this kind, vigorous discussion is important to the process of understanding, appreciating, and
3
PHIL 153: Syllabus
applying course material. In my experience, people tend to come to class better prepared and
contribute more vigorously when they have a sense of affinity for and responsibility toward their
instructor and fellow students. It is essential, therefore, to foster an atmosphere of community and
camaraderie by providing ample opportunities for enjoyable and productive interaction. I hope to
convey a contagious excitement (and a good sense of humor) about what I take to be fascinating and
highly relevant material, to model respect for and interest in the contributions of all participants, and to
facilitate discussion that is well-directed enough to illuminate the issues at stake, but open-ended
enough to inspire a sense of wonder and enjoyment in as many of you as possible!
Technology policy: Since creating this kind of classroom community has proven difficult in
the face of distractions such as laptops, cell phones, and tablets, I generally discourage the use
of electronics during in person classes except with written permission from the Student Success
Center (if you have accommodations for use of such devices, I wholeheartedly support and
encourage it!). The ideal to which I aspire under ordinary classroom conditions is that
envisioned by my friend and fellow philosopher Julia Legas, who—at the top of all her
syllabi—declares that “This classroom will be a device-free haven of intellectual vigor and
excellence at all times. The internet will still be there when class is over.”
Objective Five: Discern the possibilities and the challenges that each model presents for thinking and
living as a welcoming, diverse, and inclusive community of Christ-followers. Calvin is a place that
aspires to be a welcoming community of Christ-following scholars and servants. Naturally, the
question of how best to pursue faithful thinking and living as Christ-followers is a recurring motif of
our inquiries. However, I do not assume that all students are Christ-followers or interested in the
Christian vision and I strive to teach the course in a way that is welcoming to and inclusive of
people from different religious and non-religious traditions. I aspire to teach a class in which
everyone feels welcomed, embraced, and inspired to learn. If there is something I can do to be more
welcoming to you, please let me know. As a philosophy professor, I have learned many times what a
valuable gift constructive criticism can be, so never hesitate to offer critical comments.
Diversity, inclusion, and anti-racism at Calvin University—In thinking about how best to pursue
the goal of being an inclusive and diverse community at Calvin University, it is important and helpful
to look to the documents and media that the university has officially adopted to declare its aspirations
in these regards, and to do our part to hold our community accountable to these aspirations.
From Every Nation: Recognizing in humility that we still have a long way to go, Calvin
University aspires to be an explicitly anti-racist institution, as articulated in its 2004 From
Every Nation: Revised Comprehensive Plan for Racial Justice, Reconciliation, and Cross-
Cultural Engagement document (available here: https://calvin.edu/about/diversity-
inclusion/commitment/from-every-nation.html).
If you have questions about Calvin University’s policies on diversity and inclusion and anti-racism,
please consult this helpful FAQ: http://calvin.edu/about/diversity-inclusion/faq.html.
IV. Requirements and Grade Assessment

This course fulfills the core graduation requirements for humanities and sustainability. To receive a
passing grade in the course, each of you must fulfill the following requirements:
Participation (Reading Question Write-ups, Attendance, Class Discussion)—20%
4
PHIL 153: Syllabus
Because some of us are naturally inclined to sharing and discussing our thoughts and others of us are
not, frequency of verbal input in class or written input in discussion forums isn’t always the most
reliable indicator of who’s involved. As such, you can do perfectly well in this course without speaking
up a lot in class, and I will never call on people at random or put you on the spot. I will do my best to
regulate discussion so that everyone who wants to get a word in will feel comfortable speaking up.
Reading Question Write-ups: To ensure fairness and to make our classroom friendly to a variety of
different approaches to participation, then, most of your participation grade will be determined in view
of the effort you invest in responding to reading questions. As you’ll see in the Assignment Log, there
are 9 opportunities to turn in write-ups on assigned reading questions for participation credit; of those
9, you must turn in 6 on-time write-ups to meet the participation requirement.
The purpose of reading question write-ups: The purpose of the reading question write-ups is to get
you thinking in advance about the ideas that come up in class lectures and discussion; these write-ups
are NOT intended to check the accuracy of your understanding of course material (that task is
reserved for exams). Accordingly, the reading question write-ups are marked based on effort rather
than accuracy on a check scale rather than a number scale. A grade of “check” (recorded as a 2 in
Moodle) means “good effort,” a grade of check-minus (recorded as a 1 in Moodle) means “inadequate
effort,” and a grade of check-plus (recorded as a 3 in Moodle) means “extraordinary effort.” Checks
(2) are by far the most common mark, while check-minuses and check-pluses are rarer. Because the
purpose of these assignments is to get you prepared for class, you will not receive written feedback on
them apart from the check/check-minus/check-plus grade that is registered in the Moodle gradebook.
If you would like to receive more specific feedback on the accuracy of your daily
assignments, please make an appointment to review your assignments with me and I will
provide concrete feedback.
Attendance: Regular attendance is required. I will circulate an attendance sheet each day in
class which you must initial to receive attendance credit for that day. It is your responsibility to
make sure that you initial this attendance sheet each class period you are present; if you are
late, please remember to initial the attendance sheet after class before you leave the room. Each
student gets three free unexcused absences without penalty. Absences are considered
unexcused unless a student provides official university-sanctioned paperwork in support of the
absence (a note from Health Services or another healthcare provider, Student Life, a Calvin
athletic director or coach, etc.). Students with more than 3 unexcused absences may incur a
significant participation penalty. Students with more than 5 unexcused absences risk becoming
ineligible to pass the course.
Class Discussion: For in-class discussions, my expectation is that you will be always attentive
and respectful of your colleagues. My hope is that everyone will feel free to contribute, and
regular contributions can boost your participation grade, but I do not require in-class
contributions to discussion; attentive, respectful listening is enough.
How participation grades are established: I will calculate your final participation grade by
converting the check grades for the reading question write-ups to numbers (check-minus = 1, check =
2, check-plus =3), adding the numbers into a final participation point total (that includes additional
points for attendance record, discussion participation, and other participation factors), and then
assigning a number grade to the point total based on how you have performed compared to your peers.
Grades vary from year to year depending on how classes perform, but in an average year, students who
5
PHIL 153: Syllabus
turn in the required six write-ups on time and receive a check on each assignment can usually expect a
participation grade in at least the high B range (86+), before other factors (attendance, discussion
participation, email correspondence, etc.) are figured in. This participation system is designed to be
generous and flexible, to minimize anxiety about speaking up, and to reward those who put effort into
the daily work (even if philosophy isn’t their thing).
Short Paper—25%
Each of you will write a 5-page paper in response to an assigned prompt. The paper will be assigned
toward the end of the semester and will have a rolling deadline (which I’ll explain as the time
approaches), but the last day to turn in the paper for credit is Friday, 4/14/23.
Exams—55%
There will be take-home midterm (25%) and final (30%) examinations. These exams will be take-
home, open-book/open-note, essay-based exams. The Assignment Log provides detailed exam review
sheets and study tips that aim to give you ample time and resources to get very well prepared to
succeed on the exams, and the course calendar below covers the due dates. Always feel free to consult
me for advice or help with your preparations. J
Assignments will be graded on the following scale:

100-94, A
93-90, A-
89-87, B+
86-84, B
83-80, B-
79-77, C+
76-74, C
73-70, C-
69-67, D+
66-64, D
63-60, D-
59-0, F
V. Accommodations
Calvin University will make reasonable accommodations for a student with a documented disability.
You should notify a disability coordinator in the Student Success Center (located in the Spoelhof
Center) in order to arrange your accommodations. Once you have made those arrangements, please
talk with me sometime during the first two weeks of class so that we can get your accommodations up
and running.
VI. Plagiarism
Plagiarism is a very serious form of academic dishonesty that is covered in detail in the Calvin
University Student Handbook and Student Conduct Code available at
https://calvin.edu/directory/policies/student-conduct-code#VI. As a student of Calvin University, you
are responsible for having read and understood this information, and I will conduct class with the
expectation that you are aware of and responsible to the university’s definitions, policies, and sanctions
concerning plagiarism. I am not trying to scare anyone here, but it is my duty to make you aware that
Calvin University takes academic honesty very seriously. I am obligated to report all suspected
cases of plagiarism to Judicial Affairs for investigation. Confirmed cases of plagiarism remain on
6
PHIL 153: Syllabus
your academic record and sanctions range from a grade of zero on the offending assignment to
failure of the course depending on the severity of the infraction.
To promote thorough understanding of what plagiarism is and how to avoid it, I am providing you here
with some helpful information on plagiarism from the Calvin University English Department. My
expectation is that you will read this information carefully and ask any questions you may have
about it before turning in your first written daily assignment for this class.
From the Calvin University English Department Statement on Plagiarism

(available at https://calvin.edu/academics/departments-programs/english/writing-at-calvin/plagiarism-
policy/.):
“Definition of Plagiarism
Students plagiarize when they do not credit the sources of their writing—the words, information, ideas,
or opinions of others. Plagiarism takes several forms; plagiarism in all its forms deserves a response
from the student’s instructor and from Calvin University
Context for the policy

Calvin University divides its core curriculum into three parts: knowledge, skills, and virtues. Studying
in core courses like [Philosophy 153], students expand their knowledge of God’s world, develop their
ability to act effectively in that world, and deepen their commitment to living for God and for others.
When students plagiarize, they reject the opportunity to learn something new, to understand alternative
perspectives, and to develop their own opinions; they fail to develop the skills of research and writing
that enhance their ability to understand, inform, and persuade; and they act contrary to the virtues that
ought to guide their lives, virtues such as diligence, honesty, courage, stewardship, and justice. Acts
of plagiarism affect not only the plagiarizer but also the entire academic community. First, plagiarism
taints the trust between instructor and student, creating a climate of suspicion. For example, instructors
who have encountered plagiarism might be more inclined to question students’ integrity. Moreover,
hoping to deter students from plagiarizing, instructors might be more likely to craft exceedingly
narrow assignments, limiting students’ freedom to pursue academic research as their interests lead
them. Acts of plagiarism also taint relationships among students and compromise the fairness of
grades. Finally, acts of plagiarism challenge the academic reputation of Calvin University and all its
graduates.
Extended Definition
A first step toward avoiding plagiarism is understanding plagiarism in all its forms. The English 101
Committee, therefore, provides the following extended definition of plagiarism.
1. Students plagiarize if they submit as their own work any of the following:
a. An entire essay written by someone else. This form of plagiarism includes, for example, essays
purchased from web sites that specialize in academic essays, essays published on the web or in other
sources, and unpublished essays written by others.
b. The exact words of someone else without quotation marks around those words. This form of
plagiarism can include copying exact wording without quotation marks even if a student provides
documentation in the “Works Cited” section.
c. A paraphrase of someone else’s words without documentation. This form of plagiarism includes
reordering or replacing someone else’s words while keeping the main idea or the central information.
7
PHIL 153: Syllabus
d. A summary of someone else’s words or ideas without documentation. This form of plagiarism
includes using some, few, or even none of the original words to reproduce a shorter version of some or
all of someone else’s ideas or text.
e. Undocumented use of information from someone else. In this kind of plagiarism, a student takes
information that she found in a particular source and presents it as her own knowledge or as common
knowledge. A student must document information that appears in one or only a few specialized
sources, is the work or idea of a particular person, or represents a controversial stance on a topic. A
student need not document information that is common knowledge.
f. Undocumented use of information that someone else has collected. A student must document
research aids such as web-based “research” services and annotated bibliographies.
g. The sequence of ideas, arrangement of material, pattern of thought, or visual representation of

information (images, tables, charts, or graphs) from someone else. This form of plagiarism includes
any of these textual features even if students present the ideas or information in their own words.
2. Students are accomplices to plagiarism if they do any of the following:
a. They allow a fellow student to submit their work as the student’s own, or they write an essay for
another student and allow that student to submit it as his or her own.
b. They do not report a fellow student who plagiarizes.
c. They contribute an essay to a collection of essays (among friends or at a web site) that they know
provides opportunity for other students to plagiarize.”
VII. Course Calendar

We’ll likely need to make some changes along the way, but we’ll attempt to stick as closely as possible
to the following schedule. “CP” indicates that the reading is in the course packet.
Week 1 Preliminaries and Course Overview

M. Jan. 9 Welcome and introductions
Understanding our task: What is philosophy, why should we care, and what’s
sustainability got to do with it?
W. Jan 11 Understanding our task, continued

1. Aminah Al-Attas Bradford, “Symbiotic Stewardship,” in Warners and Heun,
Beyond Stewardship, 67-80.
2. Calvin University Statement on Sustainability, available online at:
https://calvin.edu/dotAsset/dc0a78fe-0730-44c5-8184-12ea766eba3b
F. Jan 13 Baseline: Introduction to Analysis
Week 2 Unit One: Analysis—Sustaining Our Conceptual Scaffoldings

M. Jan. 16 Introduction to Analysis, continued
Case study: Metaphysics
Peter van Inwagen, “Introduction to Metaphysics”, CP pp. 1-9
W. Jan 18 Metaphysics, continued
8
PHIL 153: Syllabus
F. Jan 20 Case study: Epistemology

Rene Descartes, selections from Meditations, Editor’s Preface (vii-ix), Meditations 1-3,
pp. 13-35
Week 3
M. Jan. 23 Epistemology, continued
W. Jan. 25 Case study: Ethics

Peter Singer, “Famine, Affluence, and Morality”, CP pp. 10-17
F. Jan. 27 Ethics, continued
Week 4
M. Jan. 30 Case study: Philosophy of Religion—The Problem of Evil
J.L. Mackie, “Evil and Omnipotence”, CP pp. 18-24
W. Feb. 1 Philosophy of Religion, continued
F. Feb. 3 Catch-up day
Week 5 Unit Two: Hermeneutics—Sustaining and Evolving Communal Understanding

M. Feb. 6 Analysis Wrap-Up and Transition to Hermeneutics
Baseline: Introduction to Hermeneutics
Hans-Georg Gadamer, “Man and Language”, CP pp. 25-30
W. Feb. 8 Introduction to Hermeneutics, continued
F. Feb. 10 Case study: The Other and Sexism

Required: Simone de Beauvoir, “Introduction to The Second Sex,” CP pp. 31-38
Week 6
M. Feb. 13 Case study: The Other and Sexism, continued
W. Feb. 15 Case study: The Other and Racism*

Frantz Fanon, from Black Skin, White Masks, Intro. and Chapter 1, CP pp. 39-56
*There is significant anxiety and some confusion in Christian circles (and beyond) these
days about what it means to discuss matters of race in the context of contemporary
political/ideological culture wars. This recent article from Reformed Journal by Caleb
Lagerwey, a teacher at Holland Christian High School, is a great resource for
approaching these discussions with wisdom and charity rather than fear and finger-
wagging: https://reformedjournal.com/crt-and-the-christian-school/
F. Feb. 17 The Other and Racism, continued

Case study: Environmental Racism and Institutional Injustice
Gail Gunst Heffner, “Making Visible the Invisible: Environmental Racism”, Beyond
Stewardship, 147-157.
*Take-home midterm examination assigned
9
PHIL 153: Syllabus
Week 7*
M. Feb. 20 Case study: The Other, Ableism, and Intermeshed Oppressions
Sunaura Taylor, “Interdependent Animals: A Feminist Disability Ethic of Care”
(handout)
W. Feb. 22 Case study: Are Animals Others? Speciesism and Intermeshed Oppressions
1. Halteman and Zwart, “Reimagining Our Kinship with Animals,” Beyond
Stewardship, 121-134.
2. Matthew C. Halteman, “Meat and Evil”, available online at
https://matthewchalteman.weebly.com/uploads/2/9/5/7/29570471/halteman-
meat_and_evil__uncorrected_proofs_.pdf
F. Feb 24 Are Animals Others, continued.

*Take-home midterm examination due via Moodle by Fri, 2/24 at 11:59 pm
Week 8
Feb 27-Mar 3 NO CLASS MEETINGS—SPRING BREAK
Week 9
M. Mar. 6 Case study: The Hermeneutics of Christian Belief and Discipleship
Wolterstorff, from Reason within the Bounds of Religion, CP pp. 57-64
W. Mar. 8 The Hermeneutics of Christian Belief and Discipleship, continued

Case study: Eating as an Act of Christian Discipleship—Food and Sustainability
1. Wolterstorff and Augustine (handout from De Trinitate, see Assignment Log p. 24)
2. Halteman, “Eating Toward Shalom: Why Food Ethics Matters for the 21st-century
Church,” online at https://www.thebanner.org/features/2018/02/eating-toward-
shalom-why-food-ethics-matters-for-the-21st-century-church
F. Mar. 10 Case study: Eating as an Act of Christian Discipleship, continued
Week 10 Unit Three: Spiritual Discipline—Sustaining Holistic Flourishing

M. Mar. 13 Hermeneutics Wrap-up and Transition to Spiritual Discipline
W. Mar. 15 Baseline: Introduction to Spiritual Discipline

Hadot’s Architecture of Transformation
1. Pierre Hadot, “Spiritual Exercises”, CP pp. 72-86
2. Pierre Hadot, “Philosophy as a Way of Life”, CP pp. 65-70
F. Mar. 17 Hadot’s Architecture of Transformation, continued.
Week 11
M. Mar. 20 Architecture of Transformation + Case study: The Example of Socrates
Plato, “Socrates Defense (Apology)”, CP pp. 95-107
W. Mar. 22 NO CLASS MEETING—ADVISING DAY
F. Mar. 24 Architecture of Transformation + Socrates + Case study: The Example of Seneca

Seneca, Letters from a Stoic (letters 2,5,7,8,18,33,41,48,88,108,110)
Writing workshop—Short paper assigned
10
PHIL 153: Syllabus
Week 12
M. Mar. 27 Socrates and Seneca, + Case study: The Example of Thoreau
Thoreau, from Walden, “Economy,” parts A-E (parts marked by asterisks), available
online at https://www.gutenberg.org/files/205/205-h/205-h.htm
W. Mar. 29 Socrates, Seneca, Thoreau + Case Study: The Example of Gandhi

Gandhi, The Story of My Experiments with Truth, see Assignment Log for page #’s
F. Mar. 31 Socrates, Seneca, Thoreau, and Gandhi, continued
Week 13
M. Apr. 3 Case study: The Example of Jesus
1. Frederica Mathewes Green, from The Illumined Heart, pp. 1-12, 25-35
2. Jaroslav Pelikan, “The Rabbi”, CP pp. 108-114
W. Apr. 5 The Example of Jesus, continued
F. Apr. 7 NO CLASS MEETING—EASTER BREAK
Week 14 Unit Four: Pragmatism—Sustaining Common Goods in a World of Compromises

M. April 10 NO CLASS MEETING—EASTER BREAK
W. April 12 Spiritual Discipline Wrap-Up and Transition to Pragmatism
F. April 14 Introduction to Pragmatism

Short paper due via Moodle by 11:59 pm
Week 15
M. April 17 Case study: Pragmatism and Education
Rorty, “Education as Socialization and as Individualization”, CP 115-121
*Take-home final examination assigned
W. April 19 Pragmatism and Education + Case study: Pragmatism and Religion

Richard Rorty, “Failed Prophecies, Glorious Hopes”, CP pp. 122-126
Th. April 20* Pragmatism, continued

Course Retrospective: “What is Philosophy and Why Should We Care? Sustaining
Flourishing Selves and Just Communities”
*Thursday, April 20 is a Friday schedule.
Exam Week*
Time TBA
Exam due dates are established in advance by the university and cannot be changed except in
cases of medical or family emergency.
11
PHIL 153: Assignment Log

Assignment Log
Introduction
This Assignment Log is designed to give you immediate, clear, and easy access to PHIL 153’s reflection questions and
written assignments as well as their expectations and deadlines. This document includes: (1) reading questions to help
you prepare assigned texts for class engagement; (2) review sheets to help you prepare for the take-home midterm and
take-home final examinations (the exams themselves will be issued separately via Moodle approximately one week before
they are due); and (3) the short paper assignment for the 5-page paper due near the end of the semester. All work for PHIL
153 (including daily assignments, take-home exams, and the short paper) will be submitted electronically via Moodle.
This document contains a reflection exercise or set of questions for most reading assignments. I strongly advise everyone
to read through and reflect upon each exercise or set of questions as you prepare to discuss the reading in class. However,
to keep your workload manageable and to allow you maximal flexibility in how you meet the participation requirement
for the course, only 9 of these reading assignments are eligible to be written up for participation credit, and you must
complete 6 of the 9.
The 9 reading assignments that are eligible for participation credit are starred and appear in red ink below. As long as you
complete 6 of these assignments on time (by the deadline included on the assignment), you will fulfill the participation
requirement. There is no additional credit offered for exceeding the requirement, so once you’ve got 6 write-ups on the
books, CONGRATULATIONS! You’re done! J
Table of Contents Page #
Introductory Materials
c Calvin Statement on Sustainability + Al-Attas Bradford on “Symbiotic Stewardship”……………….…….13
Unit One: Analysis (Conceptual Engineering)

c *Metaphysics, Van Inwagen, “Introduction to Metaphysics” (due 1/16 by 10 am)…………………..…….14
c * Epistemology, Descartes, Meditations on First Philosophy (due 1/23 by 10 am)………..………….….…15
c Ethics, Singer, “Famine, Affluence, and Morality”……………………………………………………….…16
c * Philosophy of Religion, Mackie, “Evil and Omnipotence” (due 1/30 by 10 am)…………………….……17
Unit Two: Hermeneutics

c *Intro to Hermeneutics: Gadamer, “Man and Language” (due 2/6 by 10 am)……… ……………………...18
c * The Other and Sexism, Beauvoir, “Introduction to The Second Sex” (due 2/13 by 10 am)………………. 19
c The Other and Racism, Fanon, Black Skin, White Masks…………………………………………………… 20
c The Other, Ableism, and Intermeshed Oppressions…………………………………………………………..21
c Are Animals Others? Speciesism and Intermeshed Oppressions……………………………………………..22
c *Hermeneutics of Christ-Following: Wolterstorff, Reason Within the Limits of Religion (3/6, 10 am)……. 23
c Wolterstorff & Augustine on “Faith Seeking Understanding” + Eating as an Act of Discipleship…..…..24-25
Unit Three: Spiritual Discipline

c Intro to Spiritual Discipline: Hadot, Philosophy as a Way of Life…………………………………………....26
c *The Example of Socrates, Plato’s “Apology” (Socrates Defense) (due 3/20 by 10 am)……………………27
c The Example of Seneca, Letters from a Stoic………………………………………………………….……..28
c *The Example of Thoreau, Walden (due 3/27 by 10 am)…………… ………………………..…………….29
c *The Example of Gandhi, The Story of My Experiments with Truth (due 3/31 by 10 am)……...………….. 30
c The Example of Jesus, Mathewes-Green/Pelikan, Illumined Heart/ “The Rabbi”…………………….….….31
Unit Four: Pragmatism

c Pragmatism and Education: Rorty, “Education as Socialization and Individualization”………………...…..32
c Pragmatism, Religion, and Politics: Rorty, “Failed Prophecies, Glorious Hopes”…………………….….…33
Take-home Midterm Exam Review (exam assigned 2/17; due 2/24 by 11:59 pm)……………...…………… .34-35
Short Paper Assignment (assigned 3/23; final due date is 4/14 by 11:59 pm)……………..……………….….36-38
Take-home Final Exam Review (assigned 4/17; see Moodle/syllabus course calendar for due dates)………...39-40
12

What is Philosophy, Why Should We Care, and What’s Sustainability Got to Do With It?
Week 1: Prepare for class discussion starting on Wed, 1/11*
*These reflection questions are NOT eligible for write-up credit, but please do the reading assignment carefully, review
your notes from the first day, think through the questions below, and come ready to discuss them in class.
Please review the syllabus, read Aminah Al-Attas Bradford’s “Symbiotic Stewardship” (pp. 67-80 in Warners’ and
Heun’s Beyond Stewardship: New Approaches to Creation Care) and Calvin University’s Statement on Sustainability
(https://calvin.edu/dotAsset/dc0a78fe-0730-44c5-8184-12ea766eba3b).
In light of these readings, start brainstorming about how a course like this one might illuminate the question of how to
live more sustainable lives and make the world a more beautiful place. How might a life of wonder end up being a more
sustainable life? Think about your own life, here, but also think more broadly about the world at large—how might
cultivating wonder and creating a culture of wonder in our educational and life practices serve the end of living a more
sustainable life or make life on our planet more sustainable? What do you think?
Some specific questions for reflection
1. How might the “four commitments” of philosophy help us to pursue the goal of “sustainable living” as
described on p. 1 of the “Calvin College Statement on Sustainability”?
2. When you peruse the Statement on Sustainability, you’ll see that “sustainable living” cuts across virtually
every aspect of daily life at Calvin. And yet, many Christians ignore the importance of caring for creation
or see its importance as secondary. Why? (Bradford’s “Symbiotic Stewardship” might help you here.)
3. Bradford targets “anthropocentrism” and “objectification” (68 ff) as two problems with fallen human beings’
outlook on themselves and the rest of creation. What are these problems and how might philosophy
(understood in terms of the four above commitments) help us to address them? How might an orientation of
wonder, in particular, help us to guard against these vices?
13

Metaphysics Case Study: van Inwagen, “Introduction to Metaphysics”
Week 2: Prepare for class discussion starting Mon, 1/16
Eligible for write-up credit, due Mon, 1/16 via Moodle by 10:00am
*Remember that there are 9 opportunities over the course of the semester to write up questions from the Assignment
Log for participation credit; to be eligible to pass the course, you must turn in 6 on-time responses over the course of the
semester. This assignment on Peter van Inwagen’s “Introduction to Metaphysics” is the first opportunity to turn in a
participation write-up for credit. If you turn it in, terrific! You’ve got one of your required 6! If you choose to skip it, no
problem! You’ve got 8 opportunities left to get the 6 you need! J
NOTE: The first couple of reading question write-ups for PHIL 153 may take some getting used to if you’re new to
philosophy. If you feel unclear on what I am looking for in your responses, please check the syllabus (p. 4) for important
information on the purpose of these assignments and the criteria on which they are evaluated. If you’re still puzzled,
please feel free to drop me an email. Always remember that reading question responses are graded on effort rather
than accuracy, so you’ll usually end up where you need to be as long as you demonstrate a sincere commitment to the
assignment (through engaging with what the text says (even if you get it wrong), citing evidence of your familiarity with
the text or passages from the text where helpful, and struggling to give your best effort even when you are confused).
Please note that the page numbers referenced below refer to the numbers written on the bottom right of the pages in
your course pack.
1. On page 2 (bottom of the right column), van Inwagen claims that “the statement that there is no ultimate reality
is…self-refuting”. In your own words, explain what he means by this claim.
2. “What are the questions whose answers would be the ultimate truth about things?” van Inwagen suggests that
there are three such questions. What are they?
3. van Inwagen begins by giving us an idea of what metaphysics is (pp. 1-4). In the middle of the first column on
page 4, however, he changes his strategy and tells us a bit about what metaphysics is not. What disciplines does
he claim should not be confused with metaphysics, and why?
4. Get familiar with the branches of philosophy other than metaphysics (p.5). Briefly define each of these
disciplines, and explain what van Inwagen means when he claims that these branches “cannot be regarded as
absolutely distinct from metaphysics”?
5. What do you make of van Inwagen’s claim, in the last several pages of the assignment, that in metaphysics “there
is no body of established fact”? If this is so, why is it still important to work out and defend metaphysical
positions?
No late assignments can be accepted for credit, but because everyone can miss 3 out of 9 eligible assignments, there is
plenty of leeway to get 6 assignments in on time.
14

Epistemology Case Study: Descartes, Meditations on First Philosophy
Week 2-3: Prepare for class discussion starting Fri, 1/20
Eligible for write-up credit, due Mon, 1/23 via Moodle by 10:00 am
*This assignment is the second of 9 opportunities to turn in participation write-ups for credit. You must turn in 6 on-
time responses to reading questions over the course of the semester. If you did not turn in the first assignment, it might
be a good idea to turn this one in so that you’ll still have a couple skips left as the semester gets busier. J
Carefully read pages vii-ix (Editor’s Preface) and pages 13-24 of Descartes’ Meditations (Meditations One and Two).
The following discussion questions will help you work through the reading.
**This book is available in the bookstore and I prefer that you use that edition, but in a pinch you could use the online
version available here: http://www.classicallibrary.org/descartes/meditations/
NOTE: Some of these questions are pretty challenging; don’t worry if you can’t figure them all out. The point of these
assignments, please remember, is not to get the answers right, but to grapple with the text before we discuss it in class.
I’ll make sure that you know what you need to know when the time comes. As ever, feel free to contact me with any
questions you may have.
Meditation One
1. How does the first paragraph of Descartes’ first meditation exemplify the analysis approach to philosophy?
2. What role does “doubt” play in helping Descartes to destroy all of his opinions and get back to the
foundations? (hint: look at your notes under “Methods of Analysis (Tools at the Analyst’s disposal)”—which
tool does Descartes seem to be using in talking about “doubt”?)
3. After giving examples of how the senses deceive us, and of how dreams can make things seem real to us when
they aren’t, Descartes realizes that there are still beliefs out there that would seem to be indubitable (arithmetic,
geometry, etc.). At the bottom of page 16, he invokes the “evil genius” argument in order to call those beliefs
into doubt. What is his point here?
Meditation Two
1. Descartes’ stated purpose in the first paragraph of Meditation two is to call everything he has ever known into
doubt in hopes of discovering the foundation of all certainty. In terms of the vocabulary we’ve been using in
class, one might say that he is searching for a completely “disinterested” standpoint. Why does he think that
doubting everything will help him to find it?
2. In the middle of page 19, Descartes says “Here I make my discovery.” What is his discovery, and why does he
think that this discovery is certain—that is, immune to the effects of the evil genius’s deceptive powers?
3. On the bottom page 20: “…I see a light, I hear a noise, I feel heat. These things are false, since I am asleep. Yet
I certainly do seem to see, hear, and feel warmth. This cannot be false.” Why not?
15

Ethics Case Study: Singer, “Famine, Affluence, and Morality”
Week 3: Prepare for class discussion starting Wed, 1/25
This assignment is NOT eligible to turn in for credit, but this material is still fair game for the exam.
This exercise has three parts:
1. Carefully review Peter Singer’s “Famine, Affluence, and Morality” (pp. 10-17 in your course pack). As you
review, write notes in the margins to indicate the key concepts and definitions, bracket important paragraphs,
and take special note of the places in the article where Singer shifts his emphasis or moves on to discuss a
different set of issues.
2. Once you have a careful reading of the text under your belt, sketch an outline of the development of Singer’s
argument, using the reading notes you made in the margins (as well as the outline headings below).
3. When you’re finished outlining the argument, write a short paragraph on a concern or criticism you have
about Singer’s position. As you were reading, was there anything that jumped out at you as implausible,
impractical, or just plain false?
The following general framework should help you to tackle the outlining (the page numbers below refer to the numbers
on the article itself, not the course pack page numbers):
1. Introduction (pp. 229-230)

2. Singer’s two assumptions (p. 231)
3. The controversial implications of the second assumption (pp. 231-235)
4. The outcome of the argument (duty vs. charity distinction is “upset”) (pp. 235-236)
5. Possible Philosophical Objections to Singer’s argument (pp. 236-239)
6. Possible Practical Objections to Singer’s argument (pp. 239-242)
7. Conclusion (pp. 242-243)
16

Philosophy of Religion Case Study: Mackie, “Evil and Omnipotence”
*This is the third of 9 opportunities to turn in a write-up for participation credit. You must turn in 6 on-time responses
to reading questions over the course of the semester, so if you have not turned any in yet, and you choose to skip this
one, you must turn in ALL the remaining assignments. Don’t do that to yourself! J
The following questions will help you to focus your reading of the text for our case study in philosophy of religion, J.L.
Mackie’s “Evil and Omnipotence.”
NOTE: “Omnipotent” means “all powerful” or “able to do anything”. “Theist” means a person who believes in God.
1. Mackie states the problem of evil in three propositions. What are these propositions, and what problem do they
create for the theist? (Be specific! How many of these propositions can the theist hold at once before the problem
rears its ugly head?)
2. Mackie considers four proposed solutions to the problem of evil that he thinks will not work. Write a one
paragraph explanation (for each proposed solution) as to why Mackie thinks it won’t work:
a. “Good cannot exist without evil” or “Evil is necessary as a counterpart to good”

b. “Evil is necessary as a means to good”
c. “The universe is better with some evil in it than it could be if there were no evil”
d. The “Freewill” solution to the problem
17

Introduction to Hermeneutics: Gadamer, “Man and Language”
Eligible for write-up credit, Mon, 2/6 via Moodle by 10:00 am
The following questions will help you to work through Hans-Georg Gadamer’s “Man and Language” (pp. 25-30 in your
course packet), the introductory reading for our second unit on the “hermeneutics” approach to philosophy.
NOTE: This article is challenging. You will likely have to read some passages more than once to get a sense of what is
going on. Do your best with these questions, but don’t worry if you have to do a bit of guessing. That’s part of the process,
and we’ll make sure to get clear on what’s going on in these questions in class.
1. On page 27 (left column), Gadamer writes: “…all thinking about language is already once again drawn back into
language. We can only think in a language, and just this residing of our thinking in a language is the profound
enigma that language presents to thought.” Explain what you think Gadamer means here.
2. Gadamer discusses three important features that he suggests are characteristic of language: “self-forgetfulness”,
“I-lessness”, “universality”. How does language embody these three characteristics, on Gadamer’s view? Give
an example from your own experience of the self-forgetfulness, I-lessness and universality of language.
3. In discussing the “I-lessness” of language, Gadamer compares dialogue and conversation to a “game”. In what
sense does a good conversation resemble a game? In what sense does language in general resemble a game?
4. “For the motivational background of a question first opens up the realm out of which an answer can be brought
and given.” Gadamer seems to be suggesting here that the motives that are behind the questions we ask can affect
the answers we find. How is this view different from the analysis approach?
18

The Other and Sexism Case Study: Beauvoir, “Introduction to The Second Sex”
Week 5-6: Prepare for class discussion starting Fri, 2/10
Use the following questions to focus your reading of the introduction to Simone de Beauvoir’s Second Sex (CP 31-38).
Please note that there is an additional, lengthy reading and discussion preparation (no write-up) assignment on the next
page that we’ll also begin discussing during Week 6, so please budget your time wisely in preparing these case studies.
Note: The page numbers referenced below are from the article, not the CP. (pp. 93-107)
1. On page 98, Beauvoir writes “[t]hus it is that no group ever sets itself up as the One without at once setting up
the Other over against itself.” What role does “the Other” play in helping us to constitute our own identities as
individuals and communities?
2. Why does Beauvoir think that women are in a particularly unique situation with respect to their “alienation”? In
other words, how is the alienation of women substantially different from that of other oppressed groups?
3. Beauvoir writes on page 103 that “…the dominant class bases its argument on a state of affairs that it has itself
created.” What does Beauvoir mean by this statement? How has male-dominated culture succeeded in denying
women full equality for so long, according to Beauvoir? (Hint: Who controls societal institutions, and how do
those institutions affect who has the privileges and power?)
4. Which audience do you think Beauvoir is writing for in this article? Men (“the one”)? Women (“the other”)?
Both? Explain your answer.
5. Can you think of some examples of institutional sexism in contemporary culture? List and describe two
examples, illuminating them in view of Beauvoir’s analysis or one of the articles below.
Need some help finding examples of institutional sexism in contemporary culture?
Sexism in the video-gaming industry: http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-27824701

The gender pay gap: http://www.aauw.org/research/the-simple-truth-about-the-gender-pay-gap
In sports: http://www.themarysue.com/sports-sexism-serena-williams-wimbledon
In business: http://www.topmba.com/blog/harvard-study-confirms-sexism-business-mba-news
19

The Other and Sexism + Racism Case Study: Fanon, selections from Black Skin White Masks
This week we will discuss the similarities between structural/institutional sexism (as addressed in Simone de Beauvoir’s
Introduction to The Second Sex) and structural/institutional racism (as addressed in Frantz Fanon’s Black Skin, White
Masks and the supporting readings below). We’ll also have a look at a case study from Gail Heffner that spotlights how
systemic racism can hide and entrench environmental problems that make sustainable living harder for certain
communities. I will NOT collect a write-up, however, I guarantee that working through the following issues carefully
will pay off on the midterm.
Required Readings—These required readings will help us see how institutional racism works in general and in the
specific context of environmental issues that are explicit matters of concern in a course on sustainability.
1. For Wed, 2/15, read Frantz Fanon’s Black Skin, White Masks (Introduction and Chapter One, CP pp. 39-56). This
reading by the famous French Antillean philosopher and psychoanalyst will familiarize you with some of the ways
that colonialism has entrenched institutional racism in colonized countries.
2. For Fri, 2/17, read Gail Heffner’s “Making the Visible Invisible: Environmental Racism” (in Beyond Stewardship:
New Approaches to Creation Care).
Recommended Readings (browsing and skimming encouraged)—. These recommended readings will help you achieve
a more sophisticated understanding of how institutional racism sustains (often self-forgetfully) oppressive and
exclusionary attitudes, actions, and social practices in the United States.
3. Ta Nehisi Coates, “Letter to My Son”. This reading will help you to think through the effects of institutional racism
on people of color in the contemporary United States. Read this article online at
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/07/tanehisi-coates-between-the-world-and-me/397619
4. Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor, “Picking Up the Threads of Struggle.” This reading will help to illuminate the intersection
of institutional racism and classism in contemporary American culture on all sides of the ideological spectrum. Read
this article online at https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/05/black-lives-matter-baltimore-obama-racism-freddie-
gray-election-whitelash
5. Institutional Racism in the For-Profit Prison System. This article/set of excerpts will explore a specific contemporary
example of institutional racism in the United States. Read this article online at
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2015/07/15/columbia-university-divesting-from-private-
prison-companies-why-other-schools-should-too
Discussion Preparation Exercises

1. Bring the Fanon and Heffner readings (and Coates and Taylor readings, if you look at them) into dialogue with
Beauvoir. As you read the new material, make some notes about the similarities between the Fanon, Heffner, and Beauvoir
readings. How do these texts illustrate the hermeneutics approach to philosophy at work? In each text, think through the
questions of: “Who is the One?”; “Who is the Other?”; “What are the means that the One uses to maintain an advantage
over ‘the Other’?”; “How is the One negatively affected by this domination?”; “How is the Other negatively affected?”
2. Institutional Oppression. You may have noticed in both of these readings that the sexism and racism involved in these
case studies is deeply entrenched not only in the “One’s” personal and individual attitudes toward the “Other”, but also
in the “structures of societal interaction”—the practices and institutions through which we relate to one another as human
beings: language, culture, society, the work place, neighborhoods, law enforcement and the justice system, churches,
commerce, etc. Since these practices are so ingrained, moreover, we might have trouble seeing these problems due to our
“self-forgetfulness”. What examples of “institutional sexism and racism” can you think of that are hidden in our own
practices and institutions (here in the U.S. more broadly, but in our own lives as well)? For additional ideas and resources,
see the case study on “Anti-blackness and institutional oppression” included with the Week 6 materials in your Student
Handbook.
20

The Other, Ableism, and Intermeshed Oppressions Case Study
Week 7: Prepare for class discussion starting on Mon, 2/20
This case study is an opportunity to continue our hermeneutic work of exposing and exploring self-forgetfulness where
the experience of othered groups is concerned and also moving toward deeper understanding and fellowship across our
differences. As ever, our goal is not to motivate guilt or assign blame, but rather to make the invisible visible: to come to
terms with oversimplifications and injustices that are often hidden from our view due to our different hermeneutic
situations.
As a bonus, the work of philosopher Sunaura Taylor gives us important insight into the way that the systems of oppression
we’re studying—sexism, racism, and (this week) ableism and speciesism, too—can intermesh and overlap, entrenching
and sustaining injustice across multiple communities. Taylor’s essay, “Interdependent Animals: A Feminist Disability
Ethic-of-Care” considers the ways that sexism, ableism, and speciesism intermingle when we think about the dependence
of disabled human beings on able-bodied people and the dependence of animals on human beings.
NOTE: In reading Taylor, it is very important to understand that her intention is not to compare the experiences
of people with disabilities to the experiences of nonhuman animals, and certainly not to say that these experiences
are “the same” or “equally important” or “equally unjust”. Her interest is to illuminate parallel forces at work in
the logic of oppression—the ways that our culture thinks about, talks about, and treats members of groups who
are different from the dominant group, especially when they are dependent (and/or perceived to be dependent)
in particular ways on the dominant group.
Required Reading:
Sunaura Taylor, “Interdependent Animals: A Feminist Disability Ethic-of-Care” (handout)
Required Viewing:
Examined Life: Judith Butler & Sunaura Taylor (14 minutes)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0HZaPkF6qE
Recommended Viewing:
“Animal and Disability Liberation with Sunaura Taylor” (14 minutes)
https://www.justwondering.io/animal-disability-liberation-with-sunaura-taylor/
Questions for Reflection:

1. On page 110, Taylor discusses the “oppressive histories, of being both cared for and a carer”. This phrasing
might initially strike one as counterintuitive, given that we usually tend to think of caring as a good thing. What
is potentially oppressive about caring, on Taylor’s view, and how does this problem shine a light on our intuition
that dependence is largely “bad” or “negative”?
2. Under the heading of “Disabled, domesticated, and dependent” on pages 111-120, Taylor uses the concept of
dependence to spotlight the ways in which the oppression of people with disabilities and the oppression of
nonhuman animals are intermeshed. How does the idea of “dependence” illuminate these enmeshments, on her
view? Do you agree with Taylor that this juxtaposition is illuminating? If so, why? If not, why not?
3. Taylor notes that ableist cultures often presume, self-forgetfully, that human beings and animals who are
dependent in various ways are less capable or even incapable of valuing and enjoying their lives. Can you think
of any examples of this prejudice in contemporary culture or in your own attitudes and actions toward yourself
or others you perceive as dependent?
Additional Resources for Engaging Taylor’s Work:

“Where Disability Rights and Animals Rights Meet: A Conversation with Sunaura Taylor”
https://edgeeffects.net/sunaura-taylor/
Sunaura Taylor, “Disabled Ecologies: Living with Impaired Landscapes”

https://belonging.berkeley.edu/video-sunaura-taylor-disabled-ecologies-living-impaired-landscapes
21

Are Animals Others?—Speciesism and Intermeshed Oppressions
This case study is an opportunity to consider how your hermeneutic situation has affected your attitudes toward and
practices with respect to animals used for food. After reading and watching the assigned texts and video, and (if you
choose) watching one or more of the optional films** listed below, please reflect on how specifically your hermeneutic
situation is shaping your response to these materials.
NOTE: Remember that the point of these hermeneutics case studies is not to motivate guilt or assign blame, but to
open the possibility for deeper understanding of ourselves, others, and the world. The hope is that by taking a closer look
at how “others” are affected by our institutions and our daily practices, we might raise our consciousness of potential
areas of self-forgetfulness in our own lives. In short, we don’t need to agree with the perspectives of these authors/film-
makers in order to be challenged by their work.
I. Required Reading
1. Halteman and Zwart, “Reimagining Our Kinship with Animals,” Beyond Stewardship, 121-134 (also online at:
https://philpapers.org/archive/HALQSR.pdf
2. Halteman, “Meat and Evil,” available online at
https://matthewchalteman.weebly.com/uploads/2/9/5/7/29570471/halteman-meat_and_evil__uncorrected_proofs_.pdf
3. Leonard Vander Zee’s “And Also Many Animals” (The Banner, April 2011)*
http://www.thebanner.org/features/2011/01/also-many-animals
3. Malcolm DeKryger’s “A Farmer’s Perspective” (The Banner, July 2011)*
http://www.thebanner.org/features/2011/01/a-farmer-s-perspective
*These articles from The Banner represent some different opinions under discussion in the Christian Reformed Church.
II. Required Viewing

Melanie Joy, “Beyond Carnism” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0VrZPBskpg
III. Optional Viewing

As a supplement to these readings, please consider viewing the following films**:
1. Humane Animal Handling in Beef Packing Plants (with Temple Grandin):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VMqYYXswono
2. Humane Society of the United States Prompts Largest Beef Recall in U.S. History
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrxvxewC-gA2
3. Farm to Fridge (A video by Mercy For Animals): https://vimeo.com/58527215
4. Wegmans’ Cruelty: http://www.wegmanscruelty.com
**These films are OPTIONAL because they depict graphic images of animal suffering; viewer discretion is
advised. Please be aware of and respect your own comfort levels.
IV. Questions for Reflection

1. How has your background affected your attitudes toward and practices with respect to animals? Do you think that
the interests of animals demand our moral consideration? Are there limits to what it is morally “okay” to do to
animals?
2. Does Joy’s description of “carnism” seem accurate of our culture? How did your beliefs or suspicions about the
author’s/filmmaker’s hermeneutic situation shape your response? If you watched the films, which (if any) did you
find persuasive and why? Do you have any criticisms to offer of the way these films portrayed the subject matter at
hand? How is your hermeneutic situation affecting your views here?
3. As the reading describes, our attitudes and actions toward animals also greatly affect our own lives, the lives of many
other human beings, and the creation we share. What are some of these repercussions for the rest of creation?
22

The Hermeneutics of Christian Commitment: Wolterstorff, Reason within the Bounds of Religion
Week 9: Start reading over Spring Break! (A Prof can dream…)
Read pages 57-64 of your course packet. Begin with the last paragraph of the left column of page 57 (the one that starts
with the sentence “My contention is what follows is that…”) and then read sections 10 (“Authentic Christian
commitment”) and 11 (“How authentic commitment ought to function in theorizing”) in their entirety.
Note: For the purposes of this reading, you should understand Wolterstorff’s use of the words “theory” and “theorizing”
as meaning more or less the same thing as what we have been calling “conceptual engineering” or “analysis”. Also, you
should understand “Christian commitment” as meaning “Christian hermeneutic situation”, and you should understand
“control beliefs” as those background assumptions, values, etc., that are always already operating in one’s hermeneutic
situation. When Wolterstorff says that things “comport well”, he means that they “fit together coherently” or that “they
go together well”. (The following page numbers are the ones on Wolterstorff’s text, not the CP)
1. The title of the book that this reading is drawn from is Reason within the Bounds of Religion. We can translate
this title into the language we’ve been using in class as follows: “Conceptual engineering within the Bounds of
the Christian Hermeneutic Situation”. How does this title illustrate the relationship between Analysis and
Hermeneutics?
2. Describe the relationship between “actual Christian commitment” and “authentic Christian commitment”.
3. Wolterstorff interprets the call to follow Christ as a call for Christians to live their daily lives as “witnesses,
agents, and evidences” of the coming of God’s kingdom. Explain.
4. Wolterstorff claims that authentic Christian commitment is not just about “subscription to dogmas” or “the
supernatural”. What risks might he see in reducing Christianity to a set of beliefs about “the next world”?
5. Does Wolterstorff think that “authentic Christian commitment” is the same for all times and places? Why or why
not?
6. On page 78, Wolterstorff says “…the Bible cannot function as a black book of theories for the Christian scholar”.
What does he mean here? Does Wolterstorff think that all Christians have to agree on the same theories? Why
or why not?
23

Wolterstorff and Augustine: “Faith Seeking Understanding”
In reading Nicholas Wolterstorff on Christian belief and action, one might be surprised to find a pillar of the Christian
Reformed faith claiming that authentic Christian commitment “is relative to persons and times”. What Wolterstorff is
saying does not amount to a “relativism” of Christian belief, but speaks to the issue of how hermeneutically-situated
Christ-followers are gifted in different ways and called to different pursuits, and thus always have more to learn as they
strive more fully to love an infinite God. A commitment to understanding this infinite God requires one constantly to be
seeking God faithfully in one’s finite, historical traditions and communities.
This tradition of “faith seeking understanding” is by no means original to Wolterstorff, but has been a staple of the
Christian tradition since the very beginning. Consider the following passage from St. Augustine (The Trinity, Book XV,
paragraph II), which was written in 417 (over 1,600 years ago!). For class discussion, think through the question of
how this passage illustrates both the hermeneutic approach to philosophy in general, and Wolterstorff’s claims
about “authentic Christian commitment” in particular. (HINT: How does the idea of “seeking that one may find,
finding that one may seek again” go along with the process of “mediating” the assumptions of our hermeneutic situations
with ongoing experience? Does Augustine think that we can ever cease this activity of deepening our faith through the
process of ongoing understanding?) Once you’ve read this passage, read the article “Eating Toward Shalom” (see course
calendar for the link) with Augustine and Wolterstorff in mind and then turn the page and think through the discussion
questions there.
24
Reflection Questions for “Eating Toward Shalom”:

1. What resonances do you see between Wolterstorff’s account of Fundamental Christian Commitment,
Augustine’s idea of “faith seeking understanding,” and the idea that eating can be a Christian discipleship
practice?
2. What are the potential rewards of viewing eating as an act of Christian witness, agency, and evidence of God’s
work of renewal in the world, according to this article?
3. What reservations do you have, if any, about the idea of thinking of eating as an act of Christian discipleship?
25

Introduction to Spiritual Discipline: Hadot, “Philosophy as a Way of Life” and “Spiritual Exercises”
The following two articles from Pierre Hadot’s Philosophy as a Way of Life will serve as our introductory readings for
the Spiritual Discipline unit. This is a hefty assignment, but I hope you’ll agree that the personal payoff of digesting these
texts is equally big!
The page numbers that appear in the questions below are from the articles themselves (rather than the course packet).
I. Philosophy as a Way of Life (CP 65-71)
1. Hadot claims that leading a philosophical life can lead to the achievement of “independence” and “inner
freedom”. How does this transformation take place?
2. Hadot notes a distinction between “discourse about philosophy” and “philosophy itself”. What is the
difference between philosophical discourse and philosophy? What role does the former play in the pursuit
of the latter?
3. Hadot discusses “the danger of Scholasticism” and claims that it is “still recognizable in philosophy today.”
What is this danger? Have you experienced it at Calvin?
4. Discuss each of the “three tasks which must be kept in mind at each instant” (p. 274): (1) vigilance over
one’s thoughts; (2) consent to the events imposed by destiny; (3) duty always to act in the service of the
human community.
II. Spiritual Exercises (CP 72-86)
5. On page 84, we get a glimpse of how philosophical principles can inform every act of life: “You must not
separate yourself from these general principles; don’t eat, sleep, drink, or converse with other men without
them.” Discuss how the acts of eating, sleeping, drinking, etc. can be viewed as spiritual disciplines.
6. In what way do spiritual exercises “teach us to live”? (pp. 82-89)
7. Philosophy is preparation for death. Explain. (see pp. 93-101)
8. In what respect is “reading” an important “spiritual discipline”? (see pp. 101-109)
26

Case Study on the Example of Socrates: Plato, “Apology” (Socrates’ Defense)
Carefully read through the questions below. Keeping these questions in mind, read Plato’s “Apology (Socrates’ Defense)”
on pp. 95-107 of your course packet, and then address the following five questions. Please note that these questions will
require you to do some cross-referencing to the Hadot readings from the last assignment.
1. Briefly summarize the narrative of Socrates’s “Defense”. What is the primary accusation against Socrates? How
does he go about defending himself? What is the result of his defense?
2. In passage 38a on CP 105, Socrates suggests that “the unexamined life is not worth living”. What do you think
he means by this statement? How does Socrates’s understanding of living the “examined” life relate to Pierre
Hadot’s notion of “learning how to dialogue”?
3. How does the life of Socrates exemplify Hadot’s statement that philosophy aids us in preparing for death or
“learning how to die”?
4. Though Socrates is being tried for crimes against the state (“corrupting the youth”, etc.), he believes that he is in
fact performing a very important service to the citizens of Athens. What service does he see himself as providing?
Find a good passage to support your answer.
5. How does Socrates’ life and mission exemplify Gadamer’s statement that “Philosophy is the way not to forget
that man is never God”?* What concrete examples of spiritual discipline do you see in Socrates’s attempts to put
this kind of philosophy into practice?
*This statement is found in a Gadamer text that we did not read in class, but after the hermeneutics unit, you might still
have some insight into what Gadamer means and how it applies to Socrates.
27

Case Study on the Example of Seneca: Seneca, Letters from a Stoic
Week 11: Prepare for class discussion starting Fri, 3/23
The following questions will help to guide your reading of Seneca’s Letters (Seneca, Letters from a Stoic, letters 2, 5, 7,
8,18, 33, 41, 48, 88, 108). This assignment is NOT eligible for write-up credit, but Seneca’s work is an excellent source
to draw from on both the short paper and the final exam, so engaging these letters deeply will be well worth the time.
1. As you read, please keep a list of the spiritual disciplines that Seneca uses in his daily pursuit of wisdom
(examples: letter writing, avoid the “crowds”, etc.).
2. Seneca remarks that “The first thing philosophy promises us is the feeling of fellowship, of belonging to mankind
and being members of a community.” What do you think he means by this? How is philosophy (as a way of life)
a communal endeavor? Does it seem strange at all that this communal endeavor also seems to demand that we
strive for independence and self-sufficiency? What is the relationship between the “free” individual and her
philosophical community?
3. “Cease to hope and you will cease to fear.” What do you think Seneca means by this statement? Is he really
suggesting that living the philosophical life precludes a life of hopefulness?
4. Seneca says “To win true freedom you must be a slave to philosophy”. Explain what Seneca means by this
statement, using an example from Socrates’s life and mission to illustrate your explanation.
5. Seneca suggests that living philosophically means being able to distinguish between what is superfluous and
what is essential in daily living. What does he mean?
28

Case Study on the Example of Thoreau: Thoreau, Walden
Use the following questions to aid you in reading the “Economy” section of Thoreau’s Walden, available free online at
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/205/205-h/205-h.htm. As usual, I advise you to digest these questions BEFORE you
read so that you’ll know what to look for on the outset; there’s a lot of text here, and I’m not opposed to your doing
some guided skimming.
NOTE: At first, some people have difficulty understanding how Thoreau’s Walden fits into the spiritual discipline unit.
Remember Hadot’s clue: “don’t eat, drink, sleep, or consort with others without vigilance!” Your guiding question as you
read should be: how does Thoreau’s Walden experiment help him to lead an examined life?
1. In what respect is Thoreau’s report on the “Economy” of his Walden experiments a discourse about spiritual
discipline? What thematic similarities do you notice between Thoreau’s discourse and those of Hadot, Plato
and Seneca?
2. What specific activities does Thoreau undertake as spiritual disciplines? How do these activities exemplify
an underlying “love of wisdom”? How might their daily practice aid us in living more sustainable lives?
3. What does Thoreau believe himself to have learned in the process of his Walden experiments? Is he
suggesting that we all should live our daily lives as he lived at Walden all the time? If not, what do you
think the purpose of the Walden experiment is? Can you think of any shorter-term spiritual disciplines that
might help you to accomplish the same sorts of things in your own life?
4. Thoreau claims that “most of the luxuries, and many of the so called comforts of life, are not only not
indispensable, but positive hindrances to the elevation of mankind.” He cites fancy houses, extravagant
clothing, industrial progress, and the transportation revolution as examples. How, according to Thoreau,
can these seemingly beneficial luxuries end up alienating us from ourselves and impeding our flourishing?
Do they always impede our flourishing, or does Thoreau think that it is a matter of our attitude toward
these luxuries?
5. Thoreau praises the virtue of “self-sufficiency,” i.e., taking responsibility for the necessities of one’s own
life. What, on Thoreau’s view, are the advantages of cultivating this self-sufficiency? Can you think of any
philosophical risks or problems that might accompany the attempt to cultivate this characteristic?
29

Case Study on the Example of Gandhi: Gandhi, The Story of My Experiments with Truth
Eligible for write-up credit, due Fri, 3/31 via Moodle by 10:00 am
Please read the following chapters in Gandhi’s The Story of my Experiments with Truth (don’t worry: some of the chapters
are very short, so it looks like much more than it is). As you read, pay attention to (1) Gandhi’s understanding of the
responsibilities of the individual to society, to one’s community, to one’s principles; (2) his motives for and methods of
fasting; (3) the results of his dietetic experiments; (4) his understanding of the importance of ahimsa (nonviolence),
brahmacharya (celibacy), and satyagraha (nonviolent acts of civil disobedience); (5) the importance of humility.
NOTE: This assignment will go better if you read the explicit treatment of ahimsa that Gandhi offers on pages
348-350 FIRST and then interpret the rest of reading through that lens.
I. Readings
Forward and Introduction (these will help you get your historical and contextual bearings) (xii-xxix)
Part I
X Glimpses of Religion (31-35)
XV Playing the English Gentlemen (48-51)
XVI Changes (52-55)
XVII Experiments in Diatetics (55-58)
XVIII Shyness my Shield (59-62)
XX Acquaintance with Religion (67-70)
XXI Nirbala ke bala Rama (70-72)
Part II
XV Religious Ferment (135-138)
XXII Comparative Study of Religion (158-161)
Part III
VI Spirit of Service (202-204)
VII Brahmacharya—I (204-207)
VIII Brahmacharya—II (208-211)
IX Simple Life (212-214)
XXII Faith on its Trial (246-248)
Part IV
V Result of Introspection (264-266)
VII Experiments in Treatments (269-271)
VIII A Warning (271-273)
XXVI The Birth of Satyagraha (318-319)
XXIX Domestic Satyagraha (325-328)
XXX Towards Self-Restraint (328-330)
XXXI Fasting (330-332)
XXXIV Training of the Spirit (338-340)
XXXVI Fasting as Penance (342-244)
XXXIX A Spiritual Dilemma (348-350)
Part V
III Was it a Threat? (377-380)
IX Founding of the Ashram (395-396)
XIV Face to Face with Ahimsa (409-412)
XXI A Peep into the Ashram (428-430)
XXIII The Kheda Satyagraha (434-436)
XXIX The Rowlatt Bills and My Dilemma (454-457)
FAREWELL (503-505)
II. A Page on “Ahimsa”—In 1-2 pages, briefly describe what Gandhi means by “ahimsa” and then discuss how his
lifelong commitment to this principle served to transform various aspects of his life (concrete examples please: how did
his experiments with satyagraha reflect this commitment? Brahmacharya? Dietary experiments?).
30

Case Study on the Example of Jesus Christ: Mathewes-Green, The Illumined Heart/Pelikan, “The Rabbi”
There are two short reading assignments for this case study:
1. Frederica Mathewes-Green, The Illumined Heart, 1-12, 25-35

2. Jarislav Pelikan’s “The Rabbi”, CP 108-114
The reading from The Illumined Heart is very straightforward, so I am not assigning reading questions. The following
questions, however, will help you to focus your reading of “The Rabbi” (CP pp. 108-114). This assignment is NOT
eligible for write-up credit, but the material is eligible for the final examination.
1. On page 10, Pelikan claims that “Everyone must acknowledge…that Christian tradition had precedence,
chronologically and even logically, over Christian Scripture; for there was a tradition of the church before there
was ever a New Testament, or any individual book of the New Testament.” How does the distinction here
between “Christian tradition” and “Christian Scripture” map onto Hadot’s distinction between philosophy and
philosophical discourse?
2. How does Pelikan’s portrait of Jesus as Rabbi (or Teacher) aid our understanding of how Jesus’s life exemplifies
the issues we have been discussing in the spiritual discipline unit?
3. At the bottom of page 12 and following, Pelikan discusses what makes Jesus different from the other Rabbis.
What is it? How does this make him different (at least from within the Christian perspective) from the other
teachers we’ve learned about in this unit (Socrates, Seneca, Thoreau, Gandhi)?
4. On the middle of page 15, Pelikan describes Jesus’s message in the Beatitudes as follows: “The sense of the
commentary is an intensification of the commandment, to include not only its outward observance but the inward
spirit and motivation of the heart”. How does this distinction between what we might call the “letter of the law”
and the “spirit of the law” pertain to the distinction between philosophical discourse and philosophy?
5. What concrete spiritual disciplines does Christ model for and/or recommend to followers? How about the Apostle
Paul? What other spiritual exercises do Christians practice? Compose a list of spiritual exercises that are
important within the Christian tradition. If you are from a different religious tradition or are non-religious, what
spiritual exercises are the most important ones in your vision of authenticity?
31

Introduction to Pragmatism and Case Study on Pragmatism and Education
Carefully read Richard Rorty’s “Education as Socialization and as Individualization” (in the course pack, 115-121) and
come to class prepared to discuss the following questions. This assignment is NOT eligible for write-up credit, but the
material is eligible for coverage on the final exam, so it is in your best interest to work through the questions carefully.
1. Rorty describes two sides of the debate about education, and claims that both sides argue to a “natural connection
between truth and freedom”. What does he think is the difference between the “right” and the “left”, as he calls
them?
2. Rorty claims that the “left” thinks that “continuing to inculcate the conventional wisdom [of the “right”] amounts
to betraying the students.” Why, according to Rorty, does the “left” think this way?
3. “Both [the right and the left] tend to ignore the fact that the word ‘education’ covers two entirely distinct, and
equally necessary, processes—socialization and individualization”. Explain what Rorty means by this statement.
4. “There is no such thing as human nature…nor is there such a thing as alienation from one’s essential humanity
due to societal repression…There is only the shaping of an animal into a human being by a process of
socialization, followed (with luck) by the self-individualization and self-creation of that human being through
his or her own later revolt against that very process.” This statement obviously cuts against the grain of the
understanding of human existence that we have been talking about, but do you see any similarities between
Rorty’s view and the picture of humanity we have been pursuing?
5. Rorty gives a rather strange definition of hope: “Hope—the ability to believe that the future will be unspecifiably
different from, and unspecifiably freer than, the past—is the condition for growth.” How does this vision of hope
resonate (or not) with the Christian vision of hope?
6. Rorty writes: “From an administrative point of view, the professors often seem self-indulgent and self-obsessed.
They look like loose cannons, people whose habit of setting their own agendas needs to be curbed. But
administrators sometimes forget that college students badly need to find themselves in a place in which people
are not ordered to a purpose, in which loose cannons are free to roll about”. Why does Rorty think that this
exposure to “loose cannons” is so important for students?
32

Case Study on Pragmatism, Religion, and Politics: Rorty’s “Failed Prophecies, Glorious Hopes”
Use the following questions to help you think through Richard Rorty’s “Failed Prophecies, Glorious Hopes”. This
assignment is NOT eligible for write-up credit, but the material is eligible for coverage on the final exam, so it is in
your best interest to work through the questions carefully.
1. Rorty’s pragmatic standpoint is clearly reflected in the title and opening sentence of the article: “Failed
Prophecies, Glorious Hopes” and “Failed prophecies often make invaluable inspirational reading”. Explain.
2. Rorty says the following about Christianity: “…no scoffer can be sure that what evangelical Christians call
‘becoming a New Being in Christ Jesus’ is not a genuinely transformative, miraculous experience. But those
who claim to have been reborn in this way do not seem to behave as differently from the way they behaved in
the past as we had hoped.” Do you think that Rorty’s appeal to the way Christians behave is a good argument
against Christianity? Why or why not?
3. “We should raise our children to find it intolerable that we who sit behind desks and punch keyboards are paid
ten times as much as people who get their hands dirty cleaning our toilets, and a hundred times as much as those
who fabricate our keyboards in the Third World. Our children need to learn early on to see the inequalities
between their own fortunes and those of other children as neither the will of God nor the necessary price for
economic efficiency, but as an evitable tragedy.” Rorty obviously thinks that it is possible to be committed to
social justice without looking for a transcendent foundation to ground our vision of social justice. Do you agree
or disagree? Explain.
4. “If one treats Christianity as the name of one such appeal [to what Lincoln called ‘the better angels of our nature’,
rather than as a claim to knowledge], then that word still names a powerful force working for human decency
and human equality.” What does Rorty mean by this statement?
33

Midterm Exam Review Sheet
The take-home midterm exam will be assigned via Moodle on Fri, 2/17
The take-home midterm exam is due via Moodle on Fri, 2/24 by 11:59 pm
The following review will help to refresh your memory as to some of the important themes and issues that we have
covered to this point in the semester. For topics on the list that look unfamiliar to you, I’m happy to provide hints as to
where to look to refresh your memory, but please make a good faith effort to do your homework first (comb readings
and class notes, check the syllabus and student handbook, etc.)! You will see questions similar to some of these on
the take-home midterm exam.
STUDY TIPS: (a) Review notes and handouts and be sure to be very familiar with all “key terms”; (b) for questions in
which you are asked to “provide examples from the text” (see below), comb through the texts in advance and choose
specific, detailed supporting examples that demonstrate your mastery of the reading (all the better if we didn’t discuss it
in class).
PLEASE NOTE: Your written responses to daily assignments are NOT the most reliable study guides. The point
of those is to get you ready for class lecture and discussion, NOT to measure the accuracy of your initial, pre-lecture and
discussion understanding of the text. Class readings, notes, and materials from the Student Handbook are the sources that
will best prepare you for the exam. Though group study can be helpful, beware of “divide and conquer” strategies for
“getting answers to the review sheet”. There’s no substitute for the hard work of thinking through these things yourselves
when it comes to writing original, specific essays that show off your understanding of the material.
1. What does the word “philosophy” mean? What four commitments did we suggest that all four of the approaches
we are studying share in common?
2. Way back at the beginning, we suggested that the philosophical life is one of “increased autonomy”. What did
we mean? (How does philosophy serve to make us “free”?)
3. In “Symbiotic Stewardship,” Al-Attas Bradford discusses the problems of “anthropocentrism” and
“objectification” in explaining why some Christians struggle to see the care of creation as an important issue.
Explain each of these problems. How might a philosophical orientation of wonder help us to guard against these
problems?
4. What is conceptual engineering? (hint: “reflection” vs. “use”) How does it relate to “the disinterested
standpoint”?
5. According to van Inwagen, what are the three “big questions” of metaphysics?
6. Why is metaphysics still important even though there is no “established body of fact” in metaphysics?
7. What does “epistemology” mean, and what sorts of questions does it ask?
8. Analysts carry out “conceptual engineering” by using definitions, intuitions, and thought experiments in the
construction of arguments for their views. What is meant by “intuition” in this context? What is a “thought
experiment”? Cite some specific examples of the use of intuitions and thought experiments in the case studies
we covered in the conceptual engineering unit.
9. What is “Hypothetical Doubt”? How does Descartes use this “thought experiment” to find the indubitable
foundation of all knowledge (more specifically, what are the three “candidates” for the foundation of all
knowledge that Descartes considers and how does he use hypothetical doubt to eliminate each one)?
10. According to Descartes, why is the “cogito ergo sum” doubt-proof?
11. What is Descartes’ strategy for “getting off the lonely island of the cogito”? (Be prepared both to explain the
strategy in general and to recount the specific steps of the “trademark” argument) Does his strategy work? What
problems arise for his argument? (hint: the “Cartesian Circle”)
12. What are the two key assumptions of Peter Singer’s argument in “Famine, Affluence, and Morality”? What two
controversial implications arise from the second assumption? What is the outcome of Singer’s argument?
13. Both Singer and Mackie use a particular three-step strategy in order to try to make their arguments as convincing
as possible to their audiences; briefly explain the three-step strategy (hint: see at the beginning of your notes on
Singer’s “Famine, Affluence, and Morality”)
14. What are the three propositions that make up “The Problem of Evil”? What exactly is the problem?
15. Discuss the difference between “weak” and “strong” solutions to the problem of evil.
16. Mackie discusses four “fallacious solutions” to the problem of evil? What are they, and why does he think that
they fail?
34
17. Why might a theist think that the world is a better place with some evil in it than it would have been if there were
no evil in it?
18. What’s the difference between “1st order” and “2nd order” good and evil? What “3rd order” good do theists posit
as the justification for God’s allowance of 1st and 2nd order evils?
19. Whose mustache is the sweetest: Tom Selleck, Mark Twain, Rollie Fingers, or Friedrich Nietzsche?
20. Explain the transition from Analysis to Hermeneutics. How do these two approaches to philosophy relate to one
another (see handout)?
21. What is the “hermeneutic situation”? How does the hermeneutic situation evolve? (hint: 3 steps—“If this is how
language works, how does understanding take place?”)
22. Gadamer says that “language is not a tool”. What does he mean? If language is not a tool, what exactly is it (hint:
a “mode of being”)?
23. Hans-Georg Gadamer describes three essential features of language: self-forgetfulness, I-lessness, and
universality. Explain what he means by each.
24. Self-forgetfulness, I-lessness, and Universality all have fascinating implications for the question of why
committing to more sustainable ways of living is so difficult in a culture where the consumerism and convenience
are the dominant norms. How does each of these features of language bear on this challenge?
25. Explain the “problem of self-forgetfulness.” Describe the two levels (two risks of self-forgetfulness) on which
our failure to diagnose and overcome the problem of self-forgetfulness may corrupt us (“self-deception” and “the
alienation of the other from herself/himself”). Be able to cite specific examples of these problems from the texts
we read (Beauvoir, Fanon, Heffner, Taylor, Halteman and Zwart, etc.).
26. Why is the “Other” so important to our ability to understand ourselves? How did the articles by Beauvoir, Fanon,
and other authors we engaged in the hermeneutics unit reinforce this point? (Be able to provide SPECIFIC
examples from the reading that will convince me you actually read it.)
27. What is the difference between “overt sexism/racism/ableism, etc.” and “institutional sexism/racism/ableism,
etc.”? When these -isms are structurally entrenched in our hermeneutic situations and institutions, they not only
create disadvantages for “the other” but also unacknowledged advantages for “the one.” What are some concrete
examples from readings? From your day to day life?
28. What reasons does Beauvoir give for thinking that women’s experience is uniquely different from the experience
of other “Others”?
29. Define institutional domination and explain how it works.
30. In “Black Skin, White Masks,” Franz Fanon addresses the issue of how the language of “the One” can perpetuate
the institutional domination of the “the Other”. Explain the general idea here and provide concrete examples
from the text in support of your explanation.
31. Explain the idea of “environmental racism” and discuss some specific examples from Gail Heffner’s “Making
Visible the Invisible”.
32. In Week 7, we looked at two different definitions of “ableism”—one from Kumari Campbell and one from Talia
Lewis. How does Lewis’ definition expand and complicate the more basic definition offered by Campbell? (hint:
intermeshed oppressions). Cite some specific examples from Maria R. Palacios poem “Naming Ableism” that
helped these definitions come to life for you.
33. In “Interdependent Animals,” Sunaura Taylor explores the idea that “caring” and “being cared for” can have a
dark side, especially where ableism is in play in our understanding of dependence (and who is dependent and
who is, supposedly, self-reliant). What is the problem? And how does this problem shed light on the way our
culture treats non-human beings?
34. How does the situation of contemporary animals used for farming illustrate the problem of self-forgetfulness?
What are some of the important questions to think through in considering the question of whether animals are
“others” whose lives have moral significance?
35. The article “Meat and Evil” suggests, following Cornelius Plantinga, that our contemporary food system is a site
of intermeshed oppressions. What forms of oppression are entrenched here, according to the article, and how are
they connected?
35

Short Paper Assignment: Expositing Philosophical Discourse
The short paper will be assigned on Fri, 3/23
This assignment has a rolling deadline* but the final deadline is Fri, 4/14 by 11:59 pm ET
*What is a rolling deadline?! If you want comments (in addition to your grade) before the end of the semester, your
paper is due by Mon, 4/3 by 11:59 pm ET. If you just wish to know your paper grade before the final exam, your paper is
due Wed, 4/12 by 11:59 pm ET. Except in cases of documented family or medical emergency, no papers will be accepted
after the final deadline of Fri, 4/14 by 11:59 pm, so please manage your time wisely.
Choose ONE of the following topics and write a 5-page paper in response to it.
1. In an interview some years ago, Gadamer was asked: “What is Philosophy?”. He replied: “Philosophy is the way
not to forget that man is never God.”** Apart from being a fascinating statement of the hermeneutic
understanding of philosophy, Gadamer’s answer is relevant in a number of interesting ways to Simone de
Beauvoir’s argument in “Introduction to The Second Sex.” In the first four pages, give a careful exposition of
Beauvoir’s “Introduction to The Second Sex”, taking care to highlight the major steps in her argument. In the last
page, explain how her approach exemplifies Gadamer’s statement.
2. In “Spiritual Exercises”, Pierre Hadot discusses the philosophical life in terms of four themes: “learning how to
live”, “learning how to dialogue”, “learning how to die”, and “learning how to read”. Discuss each of these
themes in detail by reference to concrete passages from Hadot’s essay, taking care to provide supporting
illustrations of these themes from the lives of Socrates, Seneca, Thoreau and Gandhi. (Note: You do not need to
come up with an example of each theme for all four thinkers, but your paper should reflect your familiarity with
the different sources in which we’ve seen these four themes come to life!)
**This passage is not in the reading assigned in class.
Things to keep in mind:
ü Clear, careful, systematic exposition (i.e., explaining what the text says) of a philosophical text is the main point
of this exercise. Make sure that you support your exposition by citing key passages from the relevant texts.
Papers that do not stay close enough to the text or that rely significantly on lecture summary (rather than the
primary text itself) will be graded down.
ü Any consistent, complete form of citation is acceptable (parenthetical, footnotes, endnotes, etc.), so long as all
quoted passages are appropriated cited. Failing properly to document ALL quotations from the text is not
acceptable in a college paper and will be graded down.
ü No title, separate title page, or separate works cited page is necessary for this short paper. Just list any works
cited immediately following the concluding paragraph of the paper.
ü The 5-page requirement (double-spaced with 10- or 12-point type) is a minimum, not a hard limit. If you find
that you have more than 5 pages of material after you have rigorously edited your final draft for clarity and
streamlined out any unnecessary repetition, that’s just fine. Fewer than 5 pages will not be enough to do an
adequately rigorous job on this prompt, however, so please plan to meet or exceed the minimum.
36

Tips and Tricks for Writing Your Short Philosophy Paper
The following points of strategy may help you to write a more effective short paper. Please don’t hesitate to let me know
if you need some extra help along the way.
(1) Avoid wordy introductions and redundant “rehash” conclusions—Philosophers aim to write clear, concise papers;
please refrain from starting your paper with the ol’ “Since the dawn of time…” routine, or ending it with a rehash of what
you just finished saying a page or two ago. In a short paper, your introduction should be simple and to the point (see
below) and you can simply wrap up the paper when you’ve said everything you have to say. Everyone’s paper should
begin with roughly the same two sentences:
CONTEXT SENTENCE: “In [insert article name here], [insert philosopher’s name here] argues/explains that
[insert your brief description of the central thrust of the argument here].*
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE: “In this paper, I will exposit [philosopher’s] argument/view and then [insert your
explanation of how you plan to engage the argument/view]. Specifically, I will show that…”*
*Obviously, you don’t have to follow this EXACT format in terms of the words you use; those will differ based on which
topic you choose. But you do want to make sure that your paper begins with a context sentence that gives your reader a
sense of the big picture, and a statement of purpose that explains to the reader what you will do in your paper.
(2) Use the first person—In writing academic prose, it is perfectly okay (and, in fact, preferable) to use the first person:
“I will argue that,” “on my view”, etc.
(3) Excellent transitional sentences make all the difference—At the beginning of each new paragraph, write a
transitional sentence that connects what you wrote about in the last paragraph to the topic you will be writing about in the
current paragraph. For instance, let’s suppose you just finished discussing Peter Singer’s two main assumptions. Start
your next paragraph as follows: “With his two main assumptions in view, Singer goes on to explain two controversial
implications of his second assumption, namely that…” This strategy will ensure that your reader always knows exactly
where your paper is headed, which will make it much easier to follow along.
(4) Don’t just sit down and start writing! STRATEGIZE FIRST! The following five-step method can help you to
avoid that sinking feeling of sitting in front of a blank computer screen without knowing what to do next!
--Do a careful reading taking notes in the margins.

--Do a second reading selecting key quotations that you want to highlight in your
exposition.
--Outline the flow of your argument paragraph by paragraph.
--Draft your transitional sentences for the entire paper
--Cut and paste the quotations you’ve chosen to use in order to support your
interpretation of the key moments in the argument.
Now you’ve got the majority of the work done before you’ve even started writing! Congratulations!
Frequently Asked Questions

Q: Should I interject my own opinion along the way, as I’m expositing the main argument?
A: No, this strategy is generally not a good one for a paper like this one. The better strategy is to keep the expository voice
and the evaluative voice separate.
Q: May I send you a draft of my paper for feedback?

A: No, I do not read full drafts for two reasons: (1) I want students to become good critics of their own writing, and
sending full drafts without specific, targeted critical questions risks making students too passive and dependent on
professorial input (“here’s what you did wrong, now fix it!”); (2) I cannot read full drafts for everyone, and so I do not
read full drafts for anyone. What I will do is to provide as much feedback as you want if you initiate an email
correspondence and send me targeted, self-critical questions with representative passages to help me see the problem
you’re concerned about; that way, we can enter into a dialogue about how to fix the problem.
37
Q: Do I need to do outside research for this paper?

A: No. No outside research is required or recommended. It is A-OK, indeed, it is preferred, simply to use the assigned
texts that we have worked with together in class. If you do decide to conduct outside research and you end up using that
research to frame your paper in any way, whether in terms of organization or content, you must cite that work so that I
can check the source if I need to do so.
Q: If I turn in the paper for the earliest deadline to get feedback, do I get a chance to revise the paper and turn it in for a
higher grade?
A: No, the benefit of the early submission opportunity is the rigorous feedback for those seeking to really dial in their
academic writing; because it takes a long time to produce that kind of feedback, I ask people to get the paper in early if
they want it.
What other questions do you have? Please feel free to ask me anything! J
REMEMBER: I am your ally here! I want you to do well and achieve your goals, so please let me know how I can
help!
38

Final Exam Review Sheet
The take-home final exam will be assigned Mon, 4/17
The final exam due date depends on your section; see Moodle/syllabus for details.
The take-home final exam will be similar to the midterm in structure, featuring a combination of shorter and longer essay
options from which you may choose, and which you are free to use your books and notes to complete.
The following list of ideas and themes will help you to prepare for the take-home final examination. Remember that the
quality and specificity of textual examples is often what raises an answer to the next level, and on a take-home exam,
the expectations for textual engagement are higher than an in-class exam because (a) you have access to the texts
when you do the work and (b) the people who take wise advantage of that access tend to write the exams that set the
standard.
SUSTAINABILITY SPOTLIGHT! As you prepare your take-home final exam, remember that one of our guiding aims
this semester was to shed light on the question of how philosophy can help us to live more sustainable lives. Essays that
creatively and cleverly address this important question in their handling of the prompts will be especially well received,
and all the more so if you anchor your treatment in textual specifics from assigned readings.
1. The philosophical life is one of increased autonomy. Explain.

2. The transition from analysis to hermeneutics (How do these two approaches relate to one another?)
3. The hermeneutic situation
4. The importance of “the Other” for understanding ourselves
5. For Wolterstorff’s Reason Within the Bounds of Religion, you’ll want to understand and be able to mobilize all the key
ideas: “Actual” vs. “Authentic” Christian commitment, Christ-following as witness/agent/evidence, the nature of
fundamental Christian commitment, “faith seeking understanding,” etc. How does the article “Eating Toward Shalom”
build on Wolterstorff’s idea that Christ-followers should be witnesses, agents, and evidence of God’s work of renewal in
the world?
6. The transition from hermeneutics to spiritual discipline
7. The two moments of a spiritual discipline? (“Reminds us of…and propels us toward…?” How do these two moments
work together to change the practitioner?)
8. Philosophical discourse vs. philosophy (Hadot)
9. Explain the three goals of a spiritually disciplined life: peace of mind, inner freedom and independence, cosmic
consciousness. Be sure to exhibit knowledge of the relevant assigned texts in addition to mastery of lecture notes. How
are these goals relevant to the challenge of living more sustainably?
10. The three parts of the soul (Plato’s “charioteer” metaphor)—how does this metaphor illuminate the idea of “inner
freedom and independence”? What specific examples from assigned readings can you find of philosophers striving for
the goal of inner freedom? Why might a person who is more free in this way also have an easier time bucking the cultural
trends of consumerism and convenience?
11. Explain the three tasks that help us achieve transformation: “Vigilance over one’s thoughts, consent to the events
imposed by destiny, service to community” (Hadot). How does practicing these tasks serve to help us achieve the above
goals? Examples from assigned readings?
12. Explain the four practical effects of living a spiritually disciplined life: “Learning how to live, learning how to die,
learning how to dialogue, learning how to read” Examples from assigned texts? One might argue that learning to live, die,
dialogue, and read, in Hadot’s sense, would lead naturally to a person’s living more sustainably in a variety of respects.
Do you agree? If so, why? If not, why not?
13. Discuss the relationships between and among the goals, tasks, and practical effects. We observed that making progress
toward one of the goals usually means making progress toward all of them (explain). How does each task help to promote
progress toward each goal?
14. Socrates: summarize the narrative of the dialogue “Plato’s Apology” (Socrates Defense); what was he accused of and
why? How does his life illustrate the above goals, tasks, and practical effects?
15. Seneca: how do his life and teachings illustrate the goals, tasks, and practical effects of the spiritually disciplined life?
What spiritual disciplines does he practice? (Please be able to give CONCRETE examples from his letters)
16. Thoreau: how do his life and teachings illustrate the goals, tasks, and practical effects of the spiritually disciplined
life? What concrete spiritual disciplines does he practice? How does his idea of self-sufficiency play into the idea of
sustainable living? (Please be able to give CONCRETE examples from Walden)
17. Gandhi: how do his life and teachings illustrate the goals, tasks and practical effects?
39
18. How do Gandhi’s main spiritual exercises (define “satyagraha”, “brahmacharya”, dietary experiments) serve the end
of his commitment to ahimsa? One might argue that a life lived in pursuit of ahimsa would necessarily be a more
sustainable life. How would that argument go?
19. In what way is Christ’s example different from the other examples we’ve considered, at least from the standpoint of
a Christ-follower?
20. Theology vs. theosis (Frederica Mathewes-Green). One might argue that the process of theosis entails ongoing growth
in one’s caring for God’s creation. How would that argument go?
21. How is “Anna’s” outlook on her Christ-following different from that of many contemporary Christians? (Hint: what
is the worst thing about sin, as far as Anna is concerned? How does she understand God’s grace? Be able to discuss the
differences between the “Consolation Prize” and “Invitation to Transformation” views of grace.) (Mathewes-Green) One
might argue that an uncaring attitude toward God’s creation is evidence that one views grace as a “consolation prize”.
How might that argument go? Do you agree or disagree?
22. Pelikan says that “Christian tradition is chronologically and logically prior to Christian Scripture”. Explain this
statement and how it is relevant for understanding Christ-following in terms of living a spiritually disciplined life.
23. The four names of Jesus. What are they and what do they illustrate about Christ’s life and teachings? Which two titles
are contemporary Christians usually most familiar with, and why is it important that we also come to terms with the
importance of the other two?
24. Name some Christian spiritual disciplines and give a detailed explanation of how they fulfill the two moments of a
spiritual discipline. Why do we practice them? What Christian spiritual disciplines are especially well tuned for helping
us live more sustainable lives?
25. The main difference between pragmatism and the first three approaches is…? (hint: transcendent truth vs. instrumental
truth)
26. Public sphere vs. private sphere (and the relation between them) and their connection to education as socialization vs.
education as individualization (Rorty). How do these separate facets of the educational process map onto the public/private
distinction?
27. Rorty suggests that Marxism and Christianity have a lot in common as “failed prophecies, glorious hopes”. What
does he mean by this claim? How does the title of the essay “Failed prophecies, Glorious Hopes” illustrate Rorty’s
attitude toward the quest for transcendent truth?
28. [Insert hilarious mustache joke here.]
40
PHIL 153: Week 1

Week 1: What is Philosophy, Why Should We Care, and What’s Sustainability Got to Do with It?
Week 1 Objectives
I. Discuss Aristotle’s intriguing claim that “Philosophy begins in wonder.”
II. Welcome everyone to PHIL 153 and review some course procedures.
III. Establish a baseline on the question “What is philosophy?” by clarifying “four commitments” that all four
approaches to philosophy we’re studying share in common.
IV. Respond to the question “Why should we care?” by looking at four arguments for thinking that philosophy is
something we all have good reasons to take seriously.
V. Discuss the question “What’s sustainability got to do with it?” with some help from Aminah Al-Attas
Bradford’s “Symbiotic Stewardship” and Calvin University’s Statement on Sustainability.
I. Philosophy begins in wonder!

The literal meaning of philosophy is “the love of wisdom” from the Greek words philia (meaning “love”) and sophia
(meaning “wisdom”). For the ancient Greeks and philosophers in antiquity generally, the love of wisdom was by no
means a passive affair for those keen to sit around navel-gazing, but a very active form of living devoted to the soul-
stirring pursuit of wisdom.
Unlikely example: Woody Woodpecker and the blueberry pie.
Of this soul-stirring pursuit of wisdom—the good, true, and beautiful life—the legendary ancient Greek philosopher
Aristotle famously said “Philosophy begins in wonder.” What does that mean, exactly?
Discussion exercise:
1. In a sentence or two, define “wonder”. What does it mean to wonder? What is wonder like? What
characteristics does it have?
2. What is exciting about wonder?
3. What is risky or uncomfortable about wonder?
4. What is something in particular that you wonder about, and do you consider your wonder about this topic
a good thing, a bad thing, or a mixed bag?
II. Welcome to PHIL 153

Allow me to take a moment briefly to introduce myself, my approach to teaching, and our approach to doing philosophy
together. Much of what I say here is described in more detail in the syllabus, so if you haven’t done so already, please
carefully read the course syllabus and feel free to ask me any questions or express any concerns you may have (whether
that’s in class, in a video-conference, or via email to mch7@calvin.edu). The most rewarding part of teaching for me is
helping you to achieve your goals for the class, so never hesitate to let me know what those goals are and how I can aid
you in realizing them!
III. What is Philosophy?

In this class, we consider four different but compatible approaches to the questions “What is philosophy and why should
we care?”: analysis, hermeneutics, spiritual discipline, and pragmatism.
You can check the syllabus for a quick synopsis of the nature and goals of each approach, if you’re curious. For now,
though, it is less important to know what these four approaches are like in their specific details than to understand why
they all belong together under the heading of “philosophy” notwithstanding their differences.
41
PHIL 153: Week 1
So, here are four commitments that all four of the approaches to philosophy we’re studying this semester share in common.
Each approach to the love of wisdom is committed to…
1. Promoting intellectual caretaking: all four approaches to philosophy teach us to understand and take much
better care of our intellectual resources and the many things we build from them.
Thought exercise: Imagine the workshop of a master furniture designer and builder. As we tour the
workshop, what do we find? How is the workshop organized?
Should things be any different for our intellectual workshops? Why are they so under-furnished,
shabbily-kept, and poorly organized?
2. Cultivating intellectual and emotional flexibility: all four approaches to philosophy help us to cultivate
flexibility in our intellectual commitments and emotional responses to our personal circumstances and the
world around us.
Thought exercise: Imagine getting ready to do strenuous exercise of some sort. What do you always do
first and why?
What are we like when we are inflexible? What risks attend to being inflexible?
What advantages are there to being more flexible? Are there any disadvantages?
3. Sharpening tools of the trade: all four approaches to philosophy help us to become more rigorous and
charitable readers, writers, critical thinkers, interlocutors (i.e., discussion partners), and creative problem
solvers.
4. Integrating thought and practice: all four approaches to philosophy help us (a) to acknowledge the intimate
connection between our attitudes and actions—how we frame and what we think about the world and how
we act on the basis of those orientations and beliefs—and (b) to bring our thought and practice into more
authentic harmony in the way we live.
IV. Why Should We Care?

Because interest in philosophy doesn’t come naturally to many of us, it is crucial to address the question of why
philosophy matters right off the bat. What reasons does one have to care about learning philosophy in this class, even if
one has no plans ever to crack another philosophy book once the class is over?
Let’s articulate a variety of reasons! When we’re thinking about what would count as good reasons for caring about
philosophy, it’s useful to remember that we human beings are complicated creatures with a wide variety of different
motivations for doing things. We’re motivated to do some things for self-interested or “egoistic” reasons because doing
them provides a benefit to us as individuals or to members of our group or family. And we’re motivated to do some things
for other-focused or “altruistic” reasons because they benefit other people or the world at large. Sometimes, our
motivations for doing things combine egoistic and altruistic reasons, as in cases where we feel that doing some particular
thing is a “win/win” both for ourselves and for others.
So in thinking about the question “Why should we care about philosophy?”, let’s look at a variety of arguments in favor
of caring that appeal to a variety of motivations, both self-interested or “egoistic” and other-focused or “altrustic.” That
way, we have a better chance of appealing holistically to the whole person, providing reasons that address a diverse array
of human concerns.
Four arguments in favor of taking philosophy seriously:
1. Practical advantage argument: Practicing the four commitments described above gives one a practical edge over
one’s competitors. Why?
42
PHIL 153: Week 1
If you’re still skeptical, here are some additional resources for exploring the practical advantage argument:
Here’s an article that explains why studying philosophy is the perfect complement to one of Calvin’s most
popular majors:
“Why Future Business Leaders Need Philosophy”

http://graspmag.org/education/rethink-mgmt-edu/why-future-business-leaders-need-philosophy
43
PHIL 153: Week 1
And here’s an article that shows just how incredibly diverse and impressive the pool of well-known
people with philosophical training really is: Martin Luther King Jr., Angela Davis (social activist),
Stephen Colbert (comedian and tv host), Stephen Briar (supreme court justice), Carly Fiorina (former
HP CEO and Republican Presidential candidate), Pope John Paul II, Juan Williams (journalist), Rashida
Jones, (actor), Kumail Nanjiani (comedian), Phillip Glass (composer), and Christy Turlington
(supermodel), to name just a few.
“Who studies philosophy?” (American Philosophical Association)

https://www.apaonline.org/page/whostudiesphilosophy
2. Personal depth argument: Practicing the four commitments described above makes one a deeper, more reflective,
more self-aware, and self-assured person. Why?
To make headway on this question, it might help to think first about the disadvantages of NOT being deep—of
being “shallow”. What qualities do you associate with being shallow? And rather than just thinking about other
people being shallow, let’s start from a place of humility and be honest with ourselves: we’re all shallow
sometimes about some things. What are we like when we are being shallow?
Now let’s think in the antithesis about personal depth. What qualities do “deep” people have? When we are
committed to cultivating personal depth, what sorts of attitudes and actions do we display?
Considering what we’re like when we’re shallow and what we’re like when we’re striving to cultivate personal
depth, which state of being seems more conducive to living one’s best life?
3. Better servant argument: Practicing the four commitments described above increases the likelihood of one’s
becoming a more willing and able servant of others in need. Why?
Given the qualities we associated with the cultivation of personal depth above, why think that taking up the four
commitments of philosophy would make one a better servant?
*Note: I never assume that all my students are Christ-followers because (newsflash!) Calvin is a more diverse
place religiously than many people realize. But for those who are aspiring Christ-followers, please notice that
the better servant argument—if true—should be a very strong reason for people who aim to follow Jesus to care
about philosophy.
4. Increased autonomy argument: Practicing the four commitments described above results in a marked increase in
personal freedom. Why?
In thinking about freedom, philosophers often make the distinction between “freedom from” various bad things
and “freedom for” various good things.
From what bad things does the practice of the four commitments of philosophy liberate us?
For what good things does the practice of the four commitments of philosophy make us free?
The philosopher Simon Blackburn has said that the folkways—the folks in charge, the status quo, the norms of
society—don’t always love philosophy, which suggests that there are risks associated with a philosophical life
of increased freedom. What risks might accompany experiencing a greater degree of freedom in these regards?
V. What’s Sustainability Got to Do with It?

I’ve asked you to review the syllabus, read Aminah Al-Attas Bradford’s “Symbiotic Stewardship” and Calvin
University’s Statement on Sustainability, and start brainstorming about the question of how a course like this one
might illuminate the question of how to live more sustainable lives and make the world a more beautiful place. What
do you think?
44
PHIL 153: Week 1
Some questions for reflection (you can also find these on the Assignment Log):
1. How might the “four commitments” of philosophy help us to pursue the goal of “sustainable living” as
described on p. 1 of the “Calvin College Statement on Sustainability”?
2. When you peruse the Statement on Sustainability, you’ll see that “sustainable living” cuts across virtually
every aspect of daily life at Calvin. And yet, many Christians ignore the importance of caring for creation
or see its importance as secondary. Why? (Bradford’s “Symbiotic Stewardship” might help you here.)
3. Bradford targets “anthropocentrism” and “objectification” (68 ff) as two problems with fallen human beings’
outlook on themselves and the rest of creation. Explain each of these problems.
4. How can philosophy help us to repent of our fallen tendency to “deny our creatureliness”?
Things to Continue Mulling Over…
Week 1 is packed with fascinating things to think and talk about with your colleagues and me! Here are three of them:
1. Wonder—The topic of wonder gives us plenty to work with this week. How did you define wonder? What did
you find exciting or risky about it? What is something specific that you wonder about and why?
2. Why should we care about philosophy?—We looked at four different arguments for thinking that each and
every one of us has good reason to take philosophy seriously. What did you think of those arguments? Are you
convinced? If so, why? Which arguments appealed to you the most? Are you skeptical? What concerns do you
have? Are there better arguments for caring about philosophy that I failed to cover? What are they? Are there
good reasons to think that people would be better off without philosophy that I swept under the rug? What are
they?
3. How might a life of wonder end up being a more sustainable life? Think about your own life, here, but also
think more broadly about the world at large—how might cultivating wonder and creating a culture of wonder in
our educational and life practices serve the end of living a more sustainable life or make life on our planet more
sustainable?
45
PHIL 153: Week 2

Week 2: Introduction to Analysis + Metaphysics Case Study
Week 2 Objectives
I. Introduce the analysis approach to philosophy by reference to the key ideas of reflection, the disinterested
standpoint, and conceptual engineering.
II. Explain the connection between reflection and problems, and discuss some of the main philosophical problem
areas that conceptual engineers are concerned to clarify through systematic reflection (with special reference
to Blackburn’s Think and van Inwagen’s “Introduction to Metaphysics”).
III. Check out some of the tools that conceptual engineers use to make headway in these problem areas:
definitions, intuitions, thought experiments, and arguments (noting that thought experiments and arguments
come in especially handy in our next case study, Descartes’ epistemology).
I. The Analysis Approach to Philosophy: Some Key Terms
Reflection (the activity)—the activity of abstracting ourselves from our particular situations and thinking through matters
in a more objective, unbiased, or impartial way. [Question: why have we noted that it is “a more objective way” rather
than simply “an objective way.”]
Reflection doesn’t happen all the time—much of our time is spent just completely immersed in the world around
us. Example: driving with the music on…
Still, reflection is not some crazy, abstract philosophical activity that most people never do. On the contrary,
reflection happens all the time. Some ordinary examples of reflection: What shall I wear today and why? Should
I go to the party?
Question: What is the connection between reflection and things going wrong (problems arising)?
Disinterested Standpoint (where the activity takes place)—When we abstract ourselves from our particular interests
and biases in order to reflect on some question or problem, we are attempting to think from the “distinterested
standpoint.” “Disinterested” is another word for “objective,” “unbiased,” “impartial.”
If human beings can’t be fully disinterested in our thinking, it still makes sense in many cases to try to be more
disinterested than we are naturally inclined to be. Why? What are some benefits of being more disinterested in
one’s thinking?
Examples: Assessing the pros and cons of an outfit, a job, a relationship, an activity, or perhaps a philosophical,
moral, or theological issue.
Conceptual Engineering (the purpose of the activity)—“Reflecting in a systematic way on the conceptual scaffolding
that you ordinarily just use.” Considering the integrity of the “scaffolding of your beliefs and actions” and making the
requisite improvements in the way that an engineer or an architect would assess the structural integrity of a building.
Example: Living in a house vs. designing a house. Explain…
Simon Blackburn: “To process thoughts well is a matter of being able to avoid confusion, detect ambiguity, keep things
in mind one at a time, make reliable arguments, become aware of alternatives, and so on.” (Think, 5)
Notice the general theme here: conceptual engineering helps us troubleshoot important questions and problems within
our conceptual scaffolding that might otherwise lead to a weakening or even a collapse of the scaffolding in a particular
area.
Examples: Conflicting beliefs, cognitive dissonance, moral hypocrisy, theological confusion, etc.
46
PHIL 153: Week 2
II. Problems—What sorts of issues are conceptual analysts concerned to address?
If analysis or “conceptual engineering” is reflecting in a systematic way on the conceptual scaffolding you ordinarily just
use, there are some common problem areas in all of our conceptual scaffoldings that tend to loom larger than some others.
Metaphysics—The study of questions concerning ultimate reality: What is the world and what is in it? Why
does the world exist? What is the purpose of human beings and other creatures? (CP, 1-3)
Peter van Inwagen’s “Introduction to Metaphysics” is our case study for metaphysics.
Epistemology—"The study of the nature, scope, and conditions of human knowledge” (CP, 4): Is it possible to
know ultimate reality? Is it possible to know that we know it?
Rene Descartes’ Meditations is our case study for epistemology.
Ethics—The study of value questions: What is the good life? What actions are ethical and what actions are
morally wrong? Are there facts about what is “right” and what is “wrong” or are these views just a matter of
social convention? How do we become ethical people?
Peter Singer’s “Famine, Affluence, and Morality” is our case study for ethics.
Philosophy of Religion—The study of questions concerning God and religious beliefs and practices: Is there
such a person as God? Can God’s existence be proved? If so, how, and if not, is it still rational to believe that
God exists? Is it possible to have knowledge of God? What is prayer and how does it work? What is liturgy and
how does it work?
J.L. Mackie’s “Evil and Omnipotence” is our case study for philosophical of religion.
As van Inwagen points out in today’s reading, metaphysics is a common thread that joins all these different problem areas,
since making headway in any of these areas requires making certain metaphysical assumptions about the way the world
is as a starting point for our engineering projects.
Example: van Inwagen discusses the metaphysical implications of the ethical statement “Hitler is evil.”
Q: If there is no established body of fact in metaphysics, why would a sensible person care about doing it?
A: It is all the more important to know what your metaphysical assumptions and to have good arguments for
them when you can’t make reference to an established body of fact or have “proof” that your assumptions are
the right ones.
Many of the most important and meaningful things we believe and take for true are things that cannot be proved,
and so it is all the more important in those cases to have thought through our beliefs about what is ultimately real
and their implications for our attitudes and actions in the world at large.
III. Methods—What tools do conceptual analysts have at their disposal for addressing these problems? Once you
get a basic handle on these tools, start combing the assigned readings for them. Where do you see van Inwagen, Descartes,
Singer, and Mackie using these tools? Concrete examples are the best way to show mastery on exams, so consider keeping
a tally in your notes somewhere of particularly good example of these tools at work.
Let’s look at these four basic tools: definitions, intuitions, thought experiments, and arguments:
Definitions—Clear descriptions of the meaning and use of an idea, concept, or term that help analysts to clarify their
intentions and avoid misunderstanding.
Example: We’ve already seen a helpful instance of the importance of definitions at work in van Inwagen’s
“Introduction to Metaphysics”—basically the whole chapter is a definition! J
47
PHIL 153: Week 2
Intuitions—Deep-seated, pre-reflective notions concerning a philosophical question or problem that provide a starting
point for ongoing analysis of the issue. [Why just a starting point? Why is it a bad idea to just “follow your intuitions”?]
Example: The tortured squirrel case.
Thought Experiments—Hypothetical narratives that serve as “intuition pumps” and test laboratories for clarifying,
honing, and revising our intuitions.
Sometimes a question is so complex that it isn’t clear what our intuitions are or where we should start to try to get a handle
on it, so we need a thought experiment to help us bring our intuitions to the surface and test them against alternatives.
Think about the question of what factors should figure into understanding the value of a human life. We might not have
clear intuitions on a question this complex, or we might even have conflicting intuitions on the matter. What can we do?
Perhaps a famous thought experiment can help! ***NOTE: A thought experiment does not have to be “realistic” or “likely
to happen in life” in order to be tremendously helpful to us in clarifying the range of possible ways to think about and act
in the face of a given question or problem. A thought experiment can be as zAnY and CrAzY as you like, as long as it
serves to help us surface, clarify, test, and find support for our intuitions.*** IMPORTANT for understanding
Descartes!
In thinking through this thought experiment, it is much less important to “decide what you, personally, would
do” than to reflect in a more disinterested way for the purpose of getting clear about the range of things a
reasonable, ethical person might consider doing. When you’ve considered that broad range of possibilities,
you’ll have, perhaps, a clearer sense of which ones are defensible and which ones won’t work.
As you think through the possibilities, also consider the motivations and the assumptions behind those
possibilities and keep a running tally of what you’re learning.
Thought experiments are pretty cool (at least to nerds like me), and we’ll learn more about one of the most famous thought
experiments in the history of philosophy—Descartes “hypothetical doubt” experiment—next time.
OPTIONAL: If you can’t get enough of thought experiments, and you’d like some more ideas for thrilling
(torturing?) your friends and family members at (appropriately socially distanced) parties, check this out:
48
PHIL 153: Week 2
https://bigthink.com/scotty-hendricks/seven-thought-experiments-thatll-make-you-question-everything
For a window into how professional philosophers use thought experiments in their research, check out what the
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has to say: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/thought-experiment/
Arguments—A chain of reasoning offered for or against a particular outlook on a philosophical question or problem that
helps us to examine the plausibility, truth, and falsity of our views.
Deductive arguments follow the rules of logic in order to construct valid chains of reasoning in which there is
no way the conclusion can be false if the premises are true. A valid argument is an argument in which the
conclusion follows logically from the premises: if the premises are true, there is no way the conclusion can be
false. A sound argument is a deductively valid argument with true premises.
Inductive arguments make plausible inferences about the future on the basis of the past. Even though such
arguments aren’t valid in the logical/technical sense of the term, they can still be cogent in that they offer
convincing, compelling reasons for the positions they put forward (even if their conclusions do not follow
deductively from the premises).
*Don’t worry too much about the intricacies of deductive and inductive arguments for now. We’ll look more closely at
these issues as we consider more specific arguments organically in the contexts in which we are discussing them.
Things to Mull Over…
1. Which problem areas that conceptual engineers work in (metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, philosophy of
religion) seem like the most interesting to you and why? Are there any specific questions within these subfields
that seem particularly pressing? Why?
2. In the train-track thought experiment described in the lecture supplement below, what possible actions might a
person take in that situation and why? Remember that we’re trying to think from a more disinterested standpoint
here, so the actions you consider taking don’t have to be the ones you’d actually be inclined to take—if someone
might be inclined to take them, that’s reason enough to think through what the action would be and what the
reasons are that motivate it.
3. One big advantage of being a good conceptual engineer is that you can build a more sustainable conceptual
scaffolding and also fix breakdowns more easily. How might conceptual engineering help you, specifically, to
build a more sustainable conceptual scaffolding? Are there any threats to the integrity of your scaffolding that
need special attention? Which ones? And why?
49
PHIL 153: Week 3

Week 3: Analysis—Epistemology (Descartes) and Ethics (Singer) Case Studies
Week 3 Objectives
I. Offer brief historical context for the importance of Descartes’ project in view of the 17th-century culture war between
religion and science that he hoped to end with his “rational foundationalist” approach to the study of knowledge.
II. Clarify the point of Descartes’ hypothetical doubt thought experiment in Meditations 1&2, tracing it through the three
stages of hypothetical doubt to the discovery of the indubitable foundation of all knowledge: cogito ergo sum!
III. Explain Descartes’ strategy—the “trademark argument”—for “getting off the lonely island of the cogito” (and back
to full confidence in the truth of his clear and distinct perceptions) by proving the existence of a perfect God using only
the contents of the cogito.
IV. Briefly introduce our ethics case study on Peter Singer’s “Famine, Affluence, and Morality”.
I. Historical Context: What is Descartes up to and Why is it Important?
The original faith vs. science culture war: The seventeenth century—“early modernity”—in central Europe was a time
when bloody religious wars were causing suffering and death, and the church and the new science (heliocentric physics)
were increasingly at odds. Though Christian theology of various competing varieties was still the ascendant authority for
the most part in matters of politics and ethics, the success of the new science at predicting and controlling human
circumstances and deepening our understanding of the world led some to question whether the God hypothesis and faith
in special revelation (the Bible) were really necessary for knowing and being in the world. In part because of his
disapproval of what seemed like senseless bloodshed in the name of religion and in part because of the remarkable success
of science, Descartes was keen to model his philosophical inquiries on the allegedly more disinterested and objective
“scientific method” rather than on faith in specially revealed (Biblical) religion.
Within this modern context, Descartes set his sights on an approach to philosophy that had the following goals, method,
and epistemological outlook (approach to the study of knowledge):
The Goals à certainty (setting reason on an indubitable foundation), universal science (convergence on a
single explanatory scheme for understanding everything), reconciling science and religion (give mechanistic
science in the context of heliocentric physics its due, but preserve spiritual realities and human freedom).
The Method à Rationalism: intuition (God-given, innate ideas that do not need to be derived from other truths
or from sense experience but are given “by light of nature”) + deduction (logical inferences from other certain
truths).
The Epistemology à Rational Foundationalism: the strategy is to employ hypothetical doubt to strip away
the possibly false foundations of his beliefs and rebuild his knowledge of God, himself, and the world on the
foundational certainty of the indubitable “cogito ergo sum”: “I am thinking, therefore I am.” (Discourse on
Method)
It’s not boring! Seriously! Okay, well, if it seems boring to us in the 21st-century, let’s at least admit that it was anything
but in Descartes’ moment. The stakes, in fact, were extremely high, because other thinkers who gave a privilege to
scientific method over the teachings of the church were paying for it big time. Just 7 years before Descartes wrote
Meditations, the Italian physicist Galileo who championed the Copernican idea that the Earth is not the fixed (as people
thought the Bible claimed), but in fact moves around the Sun, was tried for heresy, convicted, and sentenced to life
imprisonment.
Descartes’ ambitious aim: Descartes wants to use philosophical analysis to have his cake and eat it too. On the one hand,
he wants to make the world safe for the new science, and that means convincing the church that the new science is
consistent with the existence of the Christian God. On the other hand, he wants to compel those who are keen to model
their work on the new science to see that God is an essential component of their work: he wants to furnish an analysis of
human knowledge that provides a science-caliber proof of the existence of God—using reason alone, and not the dictates
of faith—that will convince even those who do not accept the existence of God by faith or by scriptural revelation. If he
succeeds, it’s a win/win:
50
PHIL 153: Week 3
The church gets a compelling proof of the existence of the Christian God and a host of converts compelled by
the doubt-proof method.
Proponents of the new science and the philosophical inquiry modeled after it are free to pursue their revolutionary
new research without the interference of the church.
Everyone gets the benefit of a more objective method for engaging the world that will perhaps lead to more
agreement and less senseless bloodshed over matters of faith.
II. Hypothetical Doubt and the Discovery of the “I am thinking” (Cogito) (Meditations 1 and 2)
A Whirlwind Tour of Meditations One and Two: The worry (what if everything I know is built on falsehood?) à The
method (from hypothetical doubt to certainty) à The doubt inducing arguments (error, dreaming, evil genius) à The big
discovery (“Cogito ergo sum: I am thinking, therefore I am.”—the indubitable foundation of certain knowledge) à The
threat of solipsism (I know I’m a thinking thing, but it’s awfully lonely in here!) à The need for a non-deceiver God
(“the divine guarantee”)
With the context of Descartes analysis in view, we are ready to embark with him on one of the most famous thought
experiments ever performed throughout the history of philosophy, so fasten those seat belts.
As we begin, let’s remind ourselves why we’re doing this: the point is to be able to see the assumptions, the problems,
and the methods or tools of analysis in action in an exemplary philosophical text.
On the basis of what you’ve read, I hope you can see the relevance of Descartes’ text to these themes:
1. Disinterested standpoint—First of all, there’s the disinterested standpoint. Simon Blackburn says that we’re
thinking from the disinterested standpoint—or doing “conceptual engineering”—when we stand back and reflect
upon concepts that we ordinarily just use.
Descartes isn’t prepared to take the beliefs of his everyday experience (the ones he just uses without reflecting
upon) for granted; he wants to get underneath them and find the certain foundation on which they rest. Until he
finds the foundation of their certainty, he is not prepared to trust them.
2. Problem: epistemology—So, Descartes is setting out to do some disinterested reflection on the epistemological
question of how we can know what we know with certainty: he’s searching for the indubitable foundation of all
knowledge.
3. Tools of analysis—And he’s clearly using the tools of analysis throughout the search:
(a) Intuitionà Our ability to reflect from the disinterested standpoint gives us everything we need to know
the world with certainty, and even to prove the existence of God. We don’t need to avail ourselves of
articles of faith or scriptural revelation in order to know these things.
(b) Thought experimentà If we’re going to find this foundation of all knowledge through pure reflection,
we’re going to need a way to organize our efforts. After all, as we look for suitable candidates for the
role of “foundation of all knowledge,” we can’t sift through every last existing human experience or
belief, or it would take ten lifetimes.
(c) Arguments à Lots of examples throughout Meditations, but we’ll be looking at the “trademark
argument” for the existence of God specifically.
So, let’s drum up a thought experiment that will help us to zero in on potential candidates for the indubitable foundation
of all knowledge, and eliminate those candidates that don’t measure up to the task.
Note—Remember how in our train station thought experiment last week, we emphasized that thought-
experiments do not need to be realistic in order to help us zero in on important information about our intuitions?
You need to keep that in mind as you read Descartes. What we’re dealing with in the Meditations is not
Descartes’s belief that his senses really are completely unreliable, or that an Evil Demon really does exist. What
we’ve got, rather, is an analytic tool for sorting through beliefs and retaining only those that are not susceptible
51
PHIL 153: Week 3
to doubt. If want a certain foundation for everything we know, according to Descartes, we need a foundation
that cannot be doubted.
Hypothetical Doubt Thought Experiment

Walk with me through the three stages of the hypothetical (why “hypothetical”?) doubt thought experiment:
COGITO ERGO SUM as Indubitable Foundation: “I am thinking, therefore I am.”

But if all three of these candidates fail to meet the standard of certainty, all is not lost. Because as Descartes reflects on
his situation, he discovers that there is one item of knowledge that he thinks he can be certain of even in the face of the
evil genius’s deceptions. “I think, therefore I am” = cogito ergo sum.
Why does Descartes think that the cogito is doubt-proof? Keep in mind that “I am thinking, therefore I am.” is not a
bare thought for Descartes, but an intellectual realm of thinking, perception, feeling, memory, doubt, etc. There’s a whole
world in there of whose immediately given presence we can be certain; the question is whether those givens link up to the
world outside, and if so, how we can know that they do.
Now think about trying to doubt the cogito: even trying to doubt it just proves that it is true—doubting is a
sub-species of thinking, after all (I cannot doubt that something is true without thinking about it), and if I am
thinking, then, at least in some minimal sense, I am there—I exist!
To see that this certainty applies to everything inside the cogito, think about the difference between these two
claims:
1: “It appears to me that there is a chair, a table, and a bunch of students in front of me.”
52
PHIL 153: Week 3
2: “There is a chair, a table, and bunch of students in front of me.”
Notice that, in the cogito, 1 is true even if 2 is in fact false—that is, it may be that “in the real world”, there is no
chair, table, or bunch of students in front of me; maybe I’m a brain in a vat in Asheville, NC and some scientist
is pumping these perceptions into me. Nonetheless, it certainly appears to me that there is a chair, a table, and
a bunch of students in front of me even if that is false.
So there are a lot of certain truths in the cogito, Descartes thinks, but the place is lonely. At this point, all he knows
is that he is a “thinking thing”.
Some questions: Does he know that there is in fact a world outside of him?
Does he know that he has a body that is extended in space?
III. The Trademark Argument: Proving the Existence of a Perfect, Non-deceiver God (Meditation 3)
When we last left our hero, Descartes had just finished following his thought experiment through the three stages of
hypothetical doubt to what he claims is the indubitable foundation of all knowledge: cogito ergo sum (“I am thinking,
therefore I am”). Because it is impossible to doubt the cogito without thinking, and impossible to think without “being
there” in some way, Descartes is confident that he has reached the indubitable foundation of all knowledge. But the cogito,
as we discussed, is a VERY lonely place; at this point, all Descartes knows for sure (or so he thinks, anyway) is that he is
a “thinking thing”—as yet, he still can’t even be sure if he has a body, much less if he can trust the things that his senses
tell him about the world around him.
Trapped on an Island? God to the Rescue! The strategy: If I can prove the existence of God (using only the contents
of the cogito), then I can know that everything I perceive clearly and distinctly is true (since God wouldn’t deceive me).
Page 34 of Blackburn’s Think: “Looking into his own ‘self’, which is all that he has at this point, Descartes discovers
that he has an idea of perfection. He then argues that such an idea implies a cause. However, the thing that caused it must
have as much ‘reality’, and that includes perfection, as the idea itself. This implies that only a perfect cause, that is, God,
will do. Hence God exists, and has left the idea of perfection as an innate sign of his workmanship in our minds, like a
craftsman leaving a trademark stamped in his work. Once Descartes has discovered God, the seas of doubt subside in a
rush. For since God is perfect, he is no deceiver: deceiving is clearly falling short of goodness, let alone perfections.
Hence, if we do our stuff properly, we can be sure that we will not be the victims of illusion. The world will be as we
understand it to be. Doing our stuff properly mainly means trusting only clear and distinct ideas.” Let’s look at this
argument more closely:
Trademark Argument
1) Through the clear light of reason, I find within myself an idea of a perfect being. [HIDDEN APPEAL TO
TRUST OF CLEAR AND DISTINCT REASONING]
2) This idea must have a cause.
3) A cause must be at least as perfect as its effect.
4) So, something at least as perfect as my idea caused it.
5) A perfect being (God) exists.
6) A perfect being would not deceive me.
7) So, I can trust those things that I perceive clearly and distinctly. [JUSTIFICATION FOR TRUST OF
CLEAR AND DISTINCT REASONING]
Cartesian Circle
Circular Reasoning: an argument in which one or more of the steps assumes the truth of the conclusion that it is setting
out to prove.
Descartes’ argument runs into difficulty because it appears that he has engaged in circular reasoning: to prove that he can
trust his clear and distinct perceptions, he needs God in the picture; but to prove that God exists, he needs to be able to
trust in the idea of perfection that he perceived “by the clear light of reason” (which is another way of saying “clearly and
distinctly”).
53
PHIL 153: Week 3
The moral of the story? Step (1) seems to assume the truth of step (7), but at step (1), Descartes has no right to trust in the
“clear light of reason” yet, because he hasn’t yet proven that God exists.
IV. Ethics Case Study Preview: Introducing Peter Singer’s “Famine, Affluence, and Morality”
Reminder: Philosophy is not all or nothing. It’s about learning to see complexities. Even if you disagree with some (or
even most) of what Singer has to say, that need not prevent you from being challenged and edified by some of what he
has to say. Think of him as a kind of “ethics consultant” who can help you to see some things about your view that might
need tweaking, even if you’re unsympathetic to his view.
Remember the context: In the analysis unit, we’re keen to see how these cases studies of different philosophical problems
exemplify conceptual engineering at work. How does Singer’s discussion of the moral point of view illustrate the
conceptual engineering approach to philosophy?
Singer’s big question: Do our current concepts of moral duty and charitable giving—the one’s we’ve inherited from our
culture and use without ever really reflecting on them—stand up to philosophical scrutiny from the moral point of view?
Or do folks from affluent countries have some work to do in this regard? Stay tuned!
A. Singer’s argumentative strategy: Go for the biggest possible audience!

1. Starts with premises that even his opponents can accept.
2. Demonstrates that those premises lead to a surprising but plausible conclusion.
3. Anticipates possible objections in order to come alongside his audience and address their concerns.
Even before we’ve looked at the substantive content of Singer’s argument, we can take inspiration from his approach to
engaging his audience. More next week on the substance of the argument!
1. Does the trademark argument seem like a promising approach to proving the existence of God to you?
2. Are there any premises in the trademark argument that look suspect to you? Which ones? Why?
3. Are there links between the issues raised in Peter Singer’s “Famine, Affluence, and Morality” and broader
concerns about sustainability? If so, what are they?
54
PHIL 153: Week 4

Week 4: Analysis—Ethics (Singer) and Philosophy of Religion (Mackie) Case Studies
Week 4 Objectives
I. Finish our Ethics case study on Singer’s “Famine, Affluence, and Morality”
II. Introduce our Philosophy of Religion Case Study: J.L. Mackie’s “Evil and Omnipotence” by stating and explaining
the problem of evil as Mackie understands it, and discussing his ideas of “weak” and “strong” solutions to the problem.
III. Work through the four “fallacious solutions” to the problem of evil.
V. Consider two aspects of Mackie’s argument that are vulnerable to criticism: his definition of “wholly good” and his
understanding of freedom.
I. Peter Singer’s “Famine, Affluence, and Morality”
[Review from last week]

Reminder: Philosophy is not all or nothing. It’s about learning to see complexities. Even if you disagree with some (or
even most) of what Singer has to say, that need not prevent you from being challenged and edified by some of what he
has to say. Think of him as a kind of “ethics consultant” who can help you to see some things about your view that might
need tweaking, even if you won’t ever adopt his view.
Remember the context: In the analysis unit, we’re keen to see how these cases studies of different philosophical problems
exemplify conceptual engineering at work. How does Singer’s discussion of the moral point of view illustrate the
conceptual engineering approach to philosophy?
Singer’s big question: Do our current concepts of moral duty and charitable giving—the one’s we’ve inherited from our
culture and use without ever really reflecting on them—stand up to philosophical scrutiny from the moral point of view?
A. Singer’s argumentative strategy: Go for the biggest possible audience!

1. Starts with premises that even his opponents can accept.
2. Demonstrates that those premises lead to a surprising but plausible conclusion.
3. Anticipates possible objections to come alongside his audience and address their concerns.
[New material]
B. Singer’s two main assumptions:
1. “Suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care are bad.”
2. “If it is in our power to prevent something very bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything
(equally) morally significant, we ought, morally, to do it.”
The first assumption is very straightforward and almost everyone agrees.
Things get a bit more interesting with the second assumption, that has two main parts:
The power condition (part one): “If it is in my power to prevent something very bad from happening…”. The power
condition is an application of the basic moral principle that “ought implies can”—in order to be morally obligated to do
something, in other words, it has to be the case that I can do it, that it is in my power to do it. Examples?
If you fail the power condition, then obviously you aren’t obligated to do anything—if you can’t prevent something bad,
in other words, you’re not obligated to prevent it. If you pass the power condition—if it is possible to prevent something
very bad from happening with some action—then you move onto the second test:
The sacrifice condition (part two): “without compromising something [equally] morally significant.” Just because I
have the power to prevent something bad, after all, doesn’t mean I should—it has to be the case that I can prevent
something bad without causing something worse or sacrificing something equally morally important.
Singer observes that the sacrifice condition can come in two strengths.
55
PHIL 153: Week 4
The strong version: “without compromising something equally morally significant” sets the bar really high,
since almost nothing is equally morally significant to the suffering and/or death of another human being, and
certain sacrificing luxury items like clothing and other possessions we don’t need hardly rise the challenge.
The moderate version: “without compromising something morally significant” sets the bar considerably lower,
since there are lots of things that are absolutely morally significant—they are morally important in some way or
other—but not as morally significant as the suffering of another human being.
On Singer’s view, if we accept these two assumptions and pass both the power and sacrifice conditions of the second
assumption, then we are morally obligated to prevent the very bad thing from happening. Whether we adopt the strong or
moderate version of the sacrifice principal, Singer says that our world would be fundamentally changed if we acted on
this principle.
Applying the principle in practice: The child drowning in the pond. Am I obligated to help?
But if we accept the second principle, even with the moderate version of the sacrifice condition, it looks like
every time we fail to prevent something very bad from happening that we could prevent without sacrificing
something morally significant, we do wrong. Think about all the examples: Rowster, clothing, shoes, video
games, etc.
C. Two potentially controversial implications of Singer’s second assumption:

1. The “distance doesn’t matter” implication: It makes no moral difference whether the person I can help is a
neighbor’s child ten yards from me or a Bengali whose name I shall never know, then thousand miles away.
Why think this is true? The global village argument—quick transportation and easy communication
have rendered the fact of our distance from suffering morally irrelevant.
2. The “no safety in numbers” implication: the principle makes no distinction between cases in which I am
the only person who could possibly do anything and cases in which I am just one among millions in the same
position.
Why think this is true? The bystanders at the pond argument—suppose 1,000 people are standing
around watching the child drowning and doing nothing. Someone asks, “Why aren’t you saving the
child?!” and you reply, “Hey, look, man…do you see anyone else doing anything. NMP, bro!”. Singer
says, “no dice.”—the question here is not whether someone else has the power to prevent bad without
compromising something morally significant, but whether YOU do, and you don’t get off the hook by
pointing to someone else’s bad behavior.
D. The outcome of Singer’s Argument:

The distinction we traditionally draw between duty and charity is disrupted: we tend to think that giving money to prevent
unnecessary suffering is an act of charity—something that is good to do, but not bad NOT to do. But if Singer is correct,
then our basic moral assumptions actually commit us to the view that giving is a duty—something that we ought to do.
How do we usually characterize the act of giving to prevent unnecessary suffering and death? First, let’s get clearer about
what the options are by carefully defining our key terms:
Duty: Something that one is obliged to do—i.e., if you fail to do it you are blameworthy and may be subjected to social,
moral, or legal sanctions.
Charity: something that is good to do, but not bad not to do. You do not get the “stinkeye” if you do not give to charity.
Now, let’s apply these terms to the traditional Western outlook on giving to prevent on unnecessary suffering and what
Singer’s argument entails:
DUTY CHARITY
Traditional view X
Singer’s argument X
56
PHIL 153: Week 4
Traditionally, people in affluent societies have viewed giving as an act of charity and acted accordingly; but on the two
main assumptions, giving is in fact a moral duty. If you can prevent something very bad from happening without
sacrificing anything morally significant, and you do not do so, you have done wrong—you have failed to do your moral
duty.
E. The Bottom Line

From a more disinterested moral point of view, it appears that our current cultural perception of what is our duty and what
is charity (where giving to prevent unnecessary suffering is concerned) does not stand up to philosophical scrutiny. How
can we change that? What should we do?
Remember that philosophy isn’t all or nothing! What steps can we take to push our culture in the direction of seeing
giving to prevent suffering and death as a duty rather than an optional act of charity?
II. Mackie’s Version of the Logical Problem of Evil Explained, “Weak” and “Strong” Solutions Defined
The logical problem of evil, as Mackie understands it, is made up of three propositions:
1. God is omnipotent
2. God is wholly good.
3. Evil exists.
Mackie’s claim is that these three propositions are not logically compatible—that is, a contradiction arises when you try
to hold the three together. To theists, this news comes as a big surprise, given that most of them claim to believe all
three of these things at once and are often blissfully unaware of any such problem. The problem certainly won’t seem
immediately obvious to most traditional theists, so we need to make the problem clearer. What is Mackie’s worry here?
Let’s break the problem down a bit on the blackboard.
57
PHIL 153: Week 4
Mackie recognizes that what we’re calling “weak” solutions (from the standpoint of traditional classical theism) are in
fact adequate to solve the problem of evil as he understands it. If the job is to reconcile a logical contradiction, it is
indeed an adequate solution simply to drop one of the propositions that generates the problem.
III. Mackie’s “Four Fallacious Solutions” to the Problem of Evil

Mackie recognizes that most theists will not be satisfied with an adequate solution, however, as few people want to just
throw out important parts of their conceptual scaffolding. So his next move is to consider four allegedly “strong”
theistic strategies (as we’re calling them) that attempt “to remove the contradiction without abandoning any of its
constituent propositions.” (article pagination 27; CP, 19). He claims that all four of these strategies fail—they are
“fallacious”—in that they “explicitly maintain all the constituent propositions, but implicitly reject at least one of them
in the course of the argument that explains away the problem of evil.” (27; 19).
Let’s follow along with Mackie’s concerns about each of these four fallacious solutions. We’ll move quickly through
the first two, which are fairly straightforward, and spend the majority of our time on the third and fourth, where things
get a bit more interesting.
1. “Good cannot exist without Evil” or “Evil is a necessary counterpart to Good”: The idea here is that good and
evil are a package deal—relative terms, opposed counterparts—like, say, tall/short, dark/light, etc. To say that
something is tall is to say that it is not short—to understand what “tall” means, one must already at least implicitly
understand “short” and the relative relation between the two.
But this one’s a non-starter:
It compromises God’s omnipotence: Here’s something God can’t do—God can’t create good without
simultaneously creating evil.
It compromises God’s wholly goodness: God can’t be opposed to evil in the defined sense—that is, wanting to
eradicate the evil to best of God’s ability—if God is willing to allow evil as a counterpart to good. Also, if
good and evil were counterparts and God eradicated evil…well, God would eradicate good too.
2. “Evil is necessary as a means to good.” The idea here is that God uses evil as a means to getting a greater good. It
initially looks more promising that the first proposed solution, given that evil could be used as a means and then
eradicated (unlike on the counterpart scenario where as long as there’s good, there’s evil).
Example: Flour is a means to making cake, but there’s no trace of that white pasty stuff when the cake comes
out of the oven.
But when we look closer, this one’s plagued by the same two problems:
It compromises God’s omnipotence: Here’s something God can’t do—God can’t create good without using
evil as a means. AND…
It compromises God’s wholly goodness: God can’t be opposed to evil in the defined sense, because if God
wanted to eradicate evil to the best of God’s ability, God certainly wouldn’t be down with sprinkling evil into
creation as a part of a recipe for greater good.
3. “The universe is better with some evil in it than it could be if there were no evil.” This explanation initially
seems extremely counter-intuitive.
Example: Late night show host asks which world you prefer: no evil vs. some evil—which do ya want?! DUH!
Who deliberates and says, “Uh, gee, let’s go with some evil over no evil! Who needs a perfect world!”
But a little thought experiment might help us get into the spirit of this proposed solution…Let’s take a quick trip
to paradise island. [LISTEN TO THE THOUGHT EXPERIMENT]
58
PHIL 153: Week 4
Why do so many people typically NOT want to swap their this-worldly lives—often full of struggles with
evil—with life on paradise island? The answer is developed in a couple of ways, Mackie explains: there’s an
aesthetic analogy (“contrasts heighten beauty; discord adds beauty to the work as a whole”) and there’s the idea
that the “best possible organization of the universe will not be static but progressive: that the gradual overcoming
of evil by good is really a finer thing than would be the eternal, unchallenged supremacy of good.” (31; CP 21)
What is going on here, theists say, is that objectors to the problem of evil equate good and evil with pleasure and
pain, and have no appreciation for the higher goods that can develop through the struggle with evil.
Consider this hierarchy of goods and evils, and notice that paradise island is a place that—because there is no
1st-order evil to struggle with and triumph over—is without the goods that human beings typically consider to
be the most-worthy goods of all.
1st-order goods = physical and psychological pleasure

1st-order evils = physical and psychological pain and suffering
2nd-order goods = courage, compassion, loyalty, unconditional love (goods won through struggle with evil)
Unfortunately, Mackie points out, 1st-order evils also open the door to…
2nd-order evils = cowardice, indifference, cruelty, disloyalty, hatred (evils that arise from being degraded by
physical and psychological pain and suffering.
4. The free will defense: There is a 3rd-order good so great, both for God and for humankind, that God’s allowing the risk
that human beings will freely choose to do evil is worth the risk of opening the possibility for them to have so great and
glorious a gift as freedom—creation in the image of God’s power to create and affect the world through acts of will.
Why think that this 3rd-order good is so great? Two stories to help us get this intuition in view:
The faux-Phillies field of dreams, in which my young father created a stadium of sticks and stones
behind the chicken houses of their farm to reenact the games of his favorite baseball team.
The train enthusiast super-conductor, in which my uncle’s ever-burgeoning collection of trains gets
ever more sophisticated.
Optional video: The famous Calvin and Notre Dame philosopher Alvin Plantinga has published a book and a famous
article on the Free Will Defense that are often considered to be successful refutations of Mackie’s “Evil and
Omnipotence”. Here’s a video that breaks down the big ideas from those writings into a more digestible format:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0tLRO8_qRI
Mackie’s worry:
This strategy compromises God’s omnipotence, because God could have created human beings so that they always freely
choose the good!?
V. Two vulnerable places in Mackie’s argument:
1. Mackie’s definition of “wholly good” is strange—Why should a wholly good God be an evil-minimizer and
not rather a good-maximizer, especially if maximizing the good means offering human beings the great 3rd-order
good of freedom at the risk that free human decisions will bring evil into the world?
2. Mackie’s definition of “freedom” is strange—If, as Mackie argues, God were to create a world in which
human beings always freely choose the good, it’s hard to see how human beings would really be free in any
significant sense that we ordinarily use the word. To say that someone always freely chooses the good is to
remove the possibility that they will do otherwise, but if they can’t do otherwise in a specific situation, then they
are not free in any robust sense.
*Note the importance of definitions—When we look at these two pressure points in Mackie’s argument, we see that
definitions carry a LOT of philosophical weight in our conceptual engineering projects. Often, a great deal depends on
59
PHIL 153: Week 4
how we are defining terms, and what follows logically from the definitions we start from in thinking things through.
Whereas an atheist like Mackie is inclined to frame God’s goodness in terms of minimizing evil, theists are perhaps
inclined to define God’s goodness in terms of maximizing good.
What accounts for these different inclinations to define key philosophical concepts differently, in spite of our best efforts
to think from a more disinterested standpoint? Clearly, no matter how hard we try to be disinterested, we’ll never entirely
escape the pull of our particular situations and the way they’ve conditioned us to think.
And that’s the perfect segue into the big idea that will help us transition from our first unit—analysis/conceptual
engineering—to our second unit, hermeneutics! Here’s a little preview of that transition, and we’ll get to the heart of it in
Week 5!
Lots of great opportunities to dig into the discussion this week! Here are a couple of possibilities…
1. What do you think of Norcross’ argument? How do you feel about it? Is there a discrepancy, at all, between
what you think and what you feel? If so, why? If not, why not?
2. What are your impressions of the free will defense against the problem of evil. Does it work? If so, why do
you find it persuasive? If not, what’s the problem?
60
PHIL 153: Week 5

Week 5: Introduction to Hermeneutics—Gadamer’s “Man and Language”
Week 5 Objectives
I. Review the transition from the Analysis Unit to the Hermeneutics Unit, focusing on the influence of the hermeneutic
situation on our ability to understand the world (and thus to do conceptual engineering at all).
II. Work through the big ideas of Gadamer’s “Man and Language” as our introduction to hermeneutics, highlighting
especially the “three essential features of language”: self-forgetfulness, I-lessness, and universality.
III. Introduce the concepts of “the other” and “the problem of self-forgetfulness” that will figure heavily into next
week’s case studies on structural sexism (Beauvoir’s “Introduction to The Second Sex”) and racism (Fanon’s Black
Skin, White Masks).
I. Review: From Analysis to Hermeneutics
II. Big Ideas in Gadamer’s “Man and Language”
The Main Goal: To discern how human understanding in general (and philosophical inquiry in particular) are affected
by the influence of the hermeneutic situation and its reliance on the medium of language.
A Secondary Goal: To reflect on the question of how these general features of human understanding bear on the challenge
of living more sustainably in a world where consumerism and convenience are the dominant norms.
The Roadmap:
I. What is language like?
II. How does language work?
III. If this is how language works, how do we understand ourselves, others, and the world around us?
61
PHIL 153: Week 5
I. What is language like?

A. The Enigma of language: on page 62, Gadamer says:
“The appearance of the concept “language” presupposes consciousness of language. But that is only a
reflective movement in which the one thinking has reflected out of the unconscious operation of
speaking and stands at a distance from himself. The real enigma of language, however, is that we can
never really do this completely. Rather, all thinking about language is already once again drawn back
into language. We can only think in a language, and just this residing of our thinking in a language is
the profound enigma that language presents to thought.”
B. Language is not a tool: Language is not something that we can just pick up and put down at will, using it when
we want to use it and ignoring it when we do not.
What might give one the impression that language is a tool? Examples?
Once we are up and running in a language, we can of course use verbal and written communication in
a tool-like way. But by the time we are able to use language this way, we are always already operating,
at a deeper level, within a language that makes the world meaningfully available to us in our daily
experience.
C. Language is a mode of being: It’s this deeper idea of “language as a mode of human being” that Gadamer really
has in mind when he says “language” (more than “verbal” or “written” communication, which are of course
linguistic in character, but presuppose that we are already understanding the world within language in this deeper
sense).
Key idea: Language is the “operating system” of human understanding.
Any computer scientists out there? What is the difference between an effective operating system and an
ineffective operating system?
II. How does language work?

Gadamer brings the workings of language into focus by concentrating on three essential features of language:
*Self-forgetfulness: When language is a living operation, it is almost entirely invisible to us.
Some examples of self-forgetful experiences: wearing glasses; breathing.
Language as self-forgetful: Losing yourself in describing the perfect date to your friends.
Language as self-conscious: Called on in class when you didn’t do your homework.
The upshot: As self-forgetful, language is both pervasively influential (it shapes everything we
understand) and largely invisible (we rarely realize it is happening at all). Can you see any risks
associated with this feature of language? Under what conditions might this self-forgetfulness cause us
some trouble?
The self-forgetfulness of language a double-edged sword:
Relief: Without it, life would be practically unlivable—we’d be a deer in the headlights
virtually all the time, always scrambling for words we can’t find!
62
PHIL 153: Week 5
Risk: But that relief and comfort that comes with automatic understanding of things—
understanding that requires no real effort—can put us to sleep and lure us into thinking that
our way of seeing the world is the only way to see it. And that, as we’ll soon see, can lead to
really serious social and cultural problems.*
*This is an IMPORTANT opportunity to reflect on our underlying course theme of sustainability.

How might the problem of self-forgetfulness play into the entrenchment of unsustainable life habits?
What specific examples can you think of where self-forgetfulness might hamper our efforts to live
more sustainably?
*I-lessness: Language is always already a communal endeavor that takes place in the “sphere of the we”. Even
when we are “thinking to ourselves,” we are doing so after having learned and used language in a community
that understands the world as we understand it.
Metaphors for understanding the I-lessness of language:
Language is I-less like a really good game.
Language is I-less like a really good conversation/dialogue.
The upshot: In the I-lessness of language, the will of the individual is subordinate to the play of the
game/conversation in which players are taken up into the spirit of the game and transported by it,
often to places and insights that they couldn’t have foreseen.
*Universality: The meaning of what is said is always already shaped in advance by the entire unsaid
background context in which the said is offered. Each meaningful statement brings the entire background
context along with it.
Example:
What does this statement mean?: “I just love DCM—it is so relevant to my everyday life!”
Scenario #1: The bright-eyed, bushy-tailed roommate.
Scenario #2: The dour, existentialist roommate.
Application:
The profound implications of the universality of language for understanding the Bible.
III. If this is what language is like, then how do we understand the world around us? (3 steps)
1. Inheritance: One begins with the assumptions that one has inherited from the hermeneutic situation,
approaching experience in light of these assumptions.
Examples: experiencing a new tech gadget, learning a new language
63
PHIL 153: Week 5
2. Mediation: One mediates these assumptions with ongoing experience, confirming, revising, or even rejecting
past assumptions in keeping with the discoveries of new experience.
Example: Overcoming biases by testing them against ongoing experiences.
3. Expansion: In the process of mediating past assumptions with ongoing experience, one encounters others
whose different perspectives and narratives can expand and even transform one’s hermeneutic situation.
When we are enveloped in self-forgetfulness, it is hard to become aware of our blind-spots even
through reflection—when you lack certain experiences, or certain problems are invisible to you, you
can reflect all day long and not see anything differently. To really come to terms with self-
forgetfulness, we must encounter the world through the experience of people whose hermeneutic
situations are significantly different. Only through that kind of encounter is it really possible to
expand one’s hermeneutic horizons where our deepest, darkest blind-spots are concerned.
III. “The Other” and the Problem of Self-forgetfulness

In our case studies for next week, the concepts of “the other” and “the problem of self-forgetfulness” will play heavily
into what we learn. So let’s quickly introduce those ideas so we are ready to hit the ground running next week:
The One—The individual or group in power whose norms/values/laws govern the social context in a given
situation.
The Other—The individual or group seen as different or divergent from the One and its governing
norms/values/laws (and often disempowered, excluded, marginalized, or oppressed in some way by the
dominant norms/values/laws and the people who uphold them).
*NOTE: These terms are context relative. A person or group who is “the one” in a particular context might be
“the other” in a different context. Can you think of any examples?
The Problem of Self-Forgetfulness and the Importance of the Other—Because certain hidden biases, prejudices, and
forms of domination and oppression are built into our hermeneutic situations, and because the self-forgetfulness of
language makes it very hard for us to see these problems on our own, it is important to be attentive to the voices of
“others”—especially if they are marginalized or oppressed by the dominant culture—if we wish to discover the ways in
which our hermeneutic situations may need to evolve for the world to become a more just and compassionate place.
The Two Risks of Self-forgetfulness (failing to engage the other):
1. Self-deception—When we view our own hermeneutic situation as absolute, we miss the opportunity to
engage the perspective of others and to learn potentially important information about the problems and blind-
spots in our own ways of understanding ourselves and the world, as well as about the other’s identity and
perspective on the world. As a result, we may end up deceived about who we really are, as well as about
who others really are.
2. Alienating others from themselves—When we fail to engage others in order to help us discover the hidden
forms of oppression built into our ways of thinking, we are in many cases alienating others from themselves:
we have set up the world in such a way that others cannot be fully who they are or realize their best
possibilities. By denying others the basic dignity of self-determination, we both wrong others and increase
the likelihood of social injustice, personal and civil strife, despair, hatred, etc.
Sexism/Racism/x-ism*—The conscious or unconscious participation in the discrimination, marginalization, or

oppression of a person or group of people on the basis of sex or gender expression, race, or some other quality x usually
involving an imbalance of power or authority that offers unearned advantages to members of the privileged gender and/or
race and unfair disadvantages to others.
64
PHIL 153: Week 5
*NOTE: These are merely “working definitions.” These “-isms” are far too complicated to sum up neatly in a single
sentence and the discussions of best practices for terminology are always evolving, but we have to start somewhere
(examples: some theorists prefer “anti-blackness” to “racism”, “anti-black supremacy” to “white supremacy.”)
Overt Sexism/Racism/x-ism—Sexism/racism/x-ism that consciously or unconsciously manifests itself at a

personal or interpersonal level in beliefs or actions that, in an open and readily discernable way, discriminate
against, marginalize, or oppress women, people of color, or members of some group x (we could also talk about
able-ism, ageism, speciesism, etc.).
Institutional/Structural Sexism/Racism/x-ism—Sexism/racism/x-ism that is built into our hermeneutic

situations and institutions of our society (religion, education, law enforcement, justice, commerce systems) such
that even people who are completely opposed to overt sexism/racism may end up complicit with hidden forms
of domination and oppression of the other. Examples?
REMEMBER: The point of these hermeneutics case studies is not to motivate guilt or assign blame, but to open the
possibility for a deeper understanding of ourselves, others, and the world by raising consciousness of potential areas of
self-forgetfulness.
1. Have you ever experienced the double-edge of the self-forgetfulness of language? Can you think of a time
in which this self-forgetfulness was a source of huge relief to you? Can you think of a time when it posed
a risk to you or covered up something important you would have been better off seeing more clearly?
2. What interesting examples have you experienced of the universality of language? Have you ever been in a
situation where people from two very different hermeneutic situations experienced the same “said” in
radically different ways on the basis of the different “unsaid background contexts” of their experience?
3. The universality of language is a fascinating idea to contemplate in the context of contemporary culture
wars. How might the universality of language play into the responses of different interpretive communities
when it comes to the topic of sustainability?
65
PHIL 153: Week 6

Week 6: Hermeneutics Case Studies on The Other and Sexism (Beauvoir) and Racism (Fanon)
Week 6 Objectives
I. Review key terms from the end of Week 5 (“the other,” “institutional sexism/racism”).
II. Trace these ideas through Beauvoir’s account of the unique history of women’s “otherness” and the
institutional domination that caused it.
III. Connect the ideas of institutional domination and the problem of self-forgetfulness.
IV. Identify the ideas of institutional domination and the problem of self-forgetfulness in the oppression of people
in colonized cultures as explored in Franz Fanon’s Black Skin, White Masks.
V. Spotlight Gail Heffner’s account of how institutional racism results in environmental racism that makes
sustainable living harder for members of marginalized communities.
VI. Get some practice using the abstract ideas of institutional domination and the two risks of self-forgetfulness to
illuminate passages in assigned readings and contemporary experience. This skill will come in handy on the
take-home midterm exam coming up in Weeks 7-8.
I. Review key terms from the end of Week 5

The One—The individual or group in power whose norms/values/laws govern the social context in a given situation.
The Other—The individual or group seen as different or divergent from the One and its governing norms/values/laws
(and often disempowered, excluded, marginalized, or oppressed in some way by the dominant norms/values/laws and the
people who uphold them).
*NOTE: These terms are context relative. A person or group who is “the one” in a particular context might be
“the other” in a different context. Can you think of any examples?
Sexism/Racism/x-ism*—The conscious or unconscious participation in the discrimination, marginalization, or

oppression of a person or group of people on the basis of sex or gender expression, race, or some other quality x usually
involving an imbalance of power or authority that offers unearned advantages to members of the privileged gender and/or
race and unfair disadvantages to others.
*NOTE: These are merely “working definitions.” These “-isms” are far too complicated to sum up neatly in a single
sentence and the discussions of best practices for terminology are always evolving, but we have to start somewhere
(examples: some theorists prefer “anti-blackness” to “racism”, “anti-black supremacy” to “white supremacy.”)
Overt Sexism/Racism/x-ism—Sexism/racism/x-ism that consciously or unconsciously manifests itself at a

personal or interpersonal level in beliefs or actions that, in an open and readily discernable way, discriminate
against, marginalize, or oppress women, people of color, or members of some group x (we could also talk about
able-ism, ageism, speciesism, etc.).
Institutional/Structural Sexism/Racism/x-ism—Sexism/racism/x-ism that is built into our hermeneutic

situations and institutions of our society (religion, education, law enforcement, justice, commerce systems) such
that even people who are completely opposed to overt sexism/racism may end up complicit with hidden forms
of domination and oppression of the other. Examples?
A REMINDER: The point of these hermeneutics case studies is not to motivate guilt or assign blame, but to open the
possibility for a deeper understanding of ourselves, others, and the world by raising consciousness of potential areas
of self-forgetfulness.
II. Beauvoir’s “Introduction to The Second Sex”: On the Uniqueness of Women’s Otherness and Oppression
In “Introduction to The Second Sex” (1949), Beauvoir develops her groundbreaking feminist account of women’s
oppression as rooted in the systemic “othering” of women by a male-dominated society. Rather than seeking to blame
men as a group or even as individuals, Beauvoir offers a nuanced account in which both men and women are beholden to
systems of patriarchal norms. These norms, Beauvoir argues, make it difficult for women to escape the position of
“other”—or as she famously puts it, the second sex—and difficult for men to see, much less fully understand, how the
system gives them unearned advantages at the expense of women’s freedom and self-realization in ways that are ultimately
a drag on everyone.
66
PHIL 153: Week 6
Since the book was published in 1949, the world has changed significantly and feminist philosophy has come a long way.
And though The Second Sex is widely regarded as a pivotal and illuminating classic of the genre, the views developed
therein have been criticized from all sides—some seeing them as too radical, others seeing them as not nearly radical
enough. Beauvoir’s feminism is especially vulnerable to criticism from Black feminist and womanist perspectives, and is
sometimes viewed as a classic example of “white feminism” that fails adequately to account for crucial differences in the
experience of Black and Brown women whose oppression happens at the “intersection” of sexism and racism. (This article
on the work of Kimberlé Crenshaw—the scholar who coined the term “intersectionality” 30 years ago—sheds some light
on that idea in the context of contemporary culture wars: https://www.vox.com/the-
highlight/2019/5/20/18542843/intersectionality-conservatism-law-race-gender-discrimination.)
For our purposes here, Beauvoir provides a useful point of entry for clarifying two important ideas that are relevant to our
hermeneutic interests: (1) the uniqueness of women’s oppression; (2) institutional domination. Let’s go to our virtual
blackboard to shed some light on these:
III. Institutional Domination and the Problem of Self-Forgetfulness

In II above, we distilled an account of “institutional domination” from Simone de Beauvoir’s “Introduction to The Second
Sex,” defining the term as follows
“Institutional domination is the systematic exclusion of some group of people (or beings) from full and equal
participation in the institutions that provide access to the power and privilege that make self-realization possible.”
The big idea here is that no one finds themselves with the ability to self-realize—that is, to choose who they want to be
and how they want to accomplish that aspiration in life—without participating in many institutions that give them the
power and privileges they need to realize their aspirations. For instance, it’s pretty hard to get into, say, med school or
grad school without the support of a wide variety of institutions helping you along the way: a supportive family, an
education at a respected institution, political and legal and financial standing that enable you to participate at that
educational institution, etc. In short, without full and equal access to this kind of institutional standing and support, it’s
very difficult to develop one’s talents and gifts and to discern and live out one’s aspirations.
67
PHIL 153: Week 6
Exercise: Take a few minutes to think through and make some notes on the ways that participation in institutions
help us to aspire to and achieve our life goals. How have the ways that women have traditionally participated in
or been excluded from the following institutions contributed to their being “othered”: (1) family; (2) religion;
(3) education; (4) commerce/business; (5) politics; (6) law; (7) the military; (8) sports (9) other institutions? (You
don’t need to think through all of these: maybe just choose 2-3 and think a little deeper on those.)
In what specific ways do we continue to see the effects of women’s traditional lack of participation in and
exclusion from these institutions?
The Problem of Self-Forgetfulness

When institutional domination is happening and those who have been “othered” by it are marginalized and excluded
accordingly, sometimes these forms of domination are very overt and intentional—for instance, as historian Richard
Rothstein shows in The Color of Law: The Forgotten History of How Our Government Segregated America
(https://www.epi.org/publication/the-color-of-law-a-forgotten-history-of-how-our-government-segregated-america/),
the ways that Black and Brown Americans have been discriminated against via redlining and loan discrimination is clearly
enshrined in the history of American law, politics, and commerce.
However overt and intentional these exclusions may be from the standpoint of the people who run the institutions, it can
be difficult to see for rank and file members of the dominant culture who enjoy the power and privileges associated with
inclusion and don’t have a lot of experience with the lives of people who have been othered by these systems. Therein
lies the problem of self-forgetfulness…
The Problem of Self-Forgetfulness and the Importance of the Other—Because certain hidden biases, prejudices, and
forms of domination and oppression are built into our hermeneutic situations, and because the self-forgetfulness of
language makes it very hard for us to see these problems on our own, it is important to be attentive to the voices of
“others”—especially if they are marginalized or oppressed by the dominant culture—if we wish to discover the ways in
which our hermeneutic situations may need to evolve for the world to become a more just and compassionate place.
The Two Risks of Self-forgetfulness (failing to engage the other):
Self-deception—When we view our own hermeneutic situation as absolute, we miss the opportunity to
engage the perspective of others and to learn potentially important information about the problems and blind-
spots in our own ways of understanding ourselves and the world, as well as about the other’s identity and
perspective on the world. As a result, we may end up deceived about who we really are, as well as about
who others really are.
Alienating others from themselves—When we fail to engage others in order to help us discover the hidden
forms of oppression built into our ways of thinking, we are in many cases alienating others from themselves:
we have set up the world in such a way that others cannot be fully who they are or realize their best
possibilities. By denying others the basic dignity of self-determination, we both wrong others and increase
the likelihood of social injustice, personal and civil strife, despair, hatred, etc.
Example: Prof. Halteman’s teaching (it’s always good to start by looking at the plank in one’s own eye instead of the
specks in the eyes of others. J ): when I first started teaching classes at Calvin 19 years ago, even though I thought of
myself as a feminist and anti-racist, my syllabi and lectures did not include input from women philosophers or
philosophers of color, reflecting the fact that my training in philosophy was delivered almost entirely by white men who
themselves were schooled mostly in a Western philosophical tradition that is overwhelmingly white and male. How might
this fact (which was largely self-forgetful and that I’m still struggling to improve upon all these years later) have led to
the problems of self-deception and alienation of others from themselves in my courses?
Exercise: Take a few minutes to think through and make some notes on where you’ve seen the two risks of
self-forgetfulness—self-deception and alienating others from themselves—illustrated in the Beauvoir and
Fanon readings. Where have you observed the fallout of these risks in your own life and the lives of others?
For a deeper dive and some contemporary examples that could come in handy for the midterm exam:
Consult the the bonus case study on ‘Racism and the Other: Anti-Blackness and Institutional Oppression in the
68
PHIL 153: Week 6
United States’ included below and consider watching the documentary film “The 13th” on Netflix or another
platform (watch the trailer here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6IXQbXPO3I)
IV. Institutional Domination and the Risks of Self-forgetfulness in Black Skin, White Masks
At this point, we should have a basic feel for what institutional domination is, how it excludes and oppresses people who
are “othered”, and how self-forgetfulness can result in members of the dominant culture remaining oblivious to these facts
even when they would want to help change things if they were better aware. Now let’s get some practice at identifying
these themes in an assigned text and using the text to develop specific examples of the key concepts.
NOTE: This critical skill of being able to find specific textual evidence in our assigned readings that illuminates the
key concepts we are talking about in class is a very important skill for maximizing your results on the midterm.
Generally speaking, the people who set the standard on the exam are the ones who do the best job of demonstrating that
they know how to trace the big ideas we discuss in class through the assigned texts that we do NOT always get around to
discussing in class.
Here’s an exercise that will provide you with a very specific example of the kind of textual work I’m talking about here:
Exercise: Read pages 23 (from “The black man who arrives in France…”) to 29 (to “Sartre begins…) in Franz
Fanon’s Black Skin White Masks (pp. 47-50 in your coursepack) in which Fanon considers the effects of
institutional domination on Black folks from the Antilles as they consider their relationship to France, the
colonizing country. Consider these two questions:
1. What examples can you find in these pages of institutional domination? How does the indigenous person
from the Antilles whose experience Fanon is describing experience the institutions of “mother France”?
2. In what ways does the institutional domination that Fanon describes end up resulting in people from the
Antilles feeling and being alienated? From themselves? From members of their families? From France and
French institutions?
To help you get started on question 1, here is a photograph of page 23 (see next page) of Fanon’s text (47 of
the coursepack) where I have written in some sample analysis of the passage that might help you to see what I’m
looking for here.
69
PHIL 153: Week 6
V. Heffner on “Making Visible the Invisible: Environmental Racism”
In a course that aims to show the value of philosophical training for living a more just and sustainable life, it is crucial
to highlight the ways in which institutional domination and the systemic racism it supports makes sustainable living
easier for some than for others.
70
PHIL 153: Week 6
Let’s have a look at Heffner’s description of “Environmental Racism and Injustice” on pages 150-151 of Beyond
Stewardship:
Heffner goes on to discuss why environmental racism is so hard to root out, dealing with the familiar problems of
human finitude and fallenness: we are beholden both to our limited human understanding (we don’t think about how
rainwater runoff affects others because we know nothing about it); and even when we learn of it, we are often too
indifferent or hard-hearted to make moral choices and change our actions.
To pursue environmental justice in the face of these problems as Christians, Heffner recommends, we can adopt a
framework of Recognition—Empathy—Lament—Restoration. Describe each of these four steps. Though Beauvoir
and Fanon are not operating within Christian frameworks, do you see parallels between their approaches to confronting
and addressing these problems and Heffner’s?
Note: In putting this framework to use, it seems that we are making good on the “personal depth,” “better
servant,” and “increased freedom” arguments for the value of philosophy that we discussed in Week 1. How,
specifically, is that so?
Environmental racism of the sort Heffner describes affects many marginalized people groups in the United States. Here
is a recent article, for example, on how Native American communities are disproportionately experiencing the effects of
climate change: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/28/climate/native-americans-climate-change-effects.html
VI. Practice finding examples of these themes in other readings and in your own life.
What other examples can you find of either institutional domination or the risks of self-forgetfulness (especially of others
being alienated from themselves by the expectations of dominant culture) on pages 24-29 of the Fanon reading? What
examples can you find of these themes in the Beauvoir reading? How about the readings on “Are Animals Others?”? How
about your own experiences or those of people you know?
71
PHIL 153: Week 6
Because we are living in a historic moment here in the United States for coming to terms with our 400-year history of
institutionally-entrenched racism and anti-blackness, I am including some additional optional resources here to help you
work through these matters in depth in your own personal study (not necessarily now, but as your journey with issues
evolves).
Racism and the Other: Anti-Blackness and Institutional Oppression in the United States
A Case Study on Enslavement, Segregation, and Mass Incarceration
The Problem of Self-Forgetfulness and Institutional Exclusion

We know there is some bad stuff in our national history, but a lot of us who have the privilege not to deal with the legacies
of institutional oppression on a daily basis are often self-forgetful of the ways in which these legacies continue to haunt
the present, shaping the way that we view ourselves and others, and alienating others from equal access to the institutions
that dole out the power and privilege on which the possibility of self-realization depends.
Key Dates in the Institutional Inheritance of Racism (sources: nps.gov, books below)
1619—The first African-American indentured servants arrive in American Colonies. Within a decade, the first slaves
arrive in New Amsterdam (later New York City).
1690—Every American colony has African-American slaves. African-American slaves are legally considered the
property of their masters/owners.
1857—After decades of anti-slavery ferment, the Dred Scot v. Sanford case rules that congress does not have the right
to ban slavery in the states and slaves are not considered citizens.
1861—Civil War begins.
1863—Lincoln signs Emancipation Proclamation, freeing slaves and ushering in the era of sharecropping.
1865—13th Amendment abolishes slavery and involuntary servitude, except as punishment for a crime.
1866—Civil Rights Act declares African Americans citizens of the United States
1870—15th Amendment ratified, giving African Americans the right to vote.
1896—Plessy v. Ferguson case: Supreme Court rules racial segregation constitutional, ushering in the era of Jim Crow
(“separate but equal”) laws, barring African Americans from equal access to public facilities.
1954—Brown vs. Board of Education case: strikes down segregation as unconstitutional. Civil rights movement gains
momentum behind Rosa Parks (1955) and Martin Luther King, Jr.’s Southern Christian Leadership Conference (1957).
1964—The Civil Rights act is signed, prohibiting discrimination of all kinds.
1968—Martin Luther King assassinated.
1970’s—The era of “Law and Order” politics and the “War on Crime” begins; redlining, ghettoization, and loan
discrimination leads to de facto segregation.
1980’s—The “War on Drugs” and the beginnings of mass incarceration behind unfair drug laws.
1990’s—The era of mass incarceration balloons, pushing U.S. incarceration numbers to skyrocket.
20xx’s—Black Lives Matter movement calls attention to unjust policing practices and police brutality against black
communities and individuals.
Resources for further study

ü The 13th (Documentary Film free on Netflix)
ü Michelle Alexander, The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness, 2010.
ü Ta-Nehisi Coates, Between the World and Me, NY: Spiegel and Grau, 2015
ü Bryan Stevenson, Just Mercy: A Story of Justice and Redemption, NY: Spiegel and Grau, 2015.
ü Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor, From #BLACKLIVESMATTER to Black Liberation, Chicago: Haymarket Books,
2016.
ü Richard Rothstein, The Color of Law: The Forgotten History of How Our Government Segregated America,
New York: Liveright, 2018.
ü Layla F. Saad, Me and White Supremacy, Sourcebooks, 2020.
The Exercises in Parts III and IV above provide some good input for those looking to keep ruminating this week. Please
make compassion and sensitivity the hallmarks of your engagement with this material!
72
PHIL 153: Week 7

Week 7: The Other, Ableism, Speciesism, and Intermeshed Oppressions
Weeks 7 Objectives
I. Clarify the ideas of “ableism” and “intermeshed oppressions” guided by Sunaura Taylor’s article on
“Interdependent Animals: A Feminist Disability Ethic-of-Care.”
II. Discuss the question “Are Animals Others?” via a slideshow by yours truly and discussions of Halteman and
Zwart’s “Reimagining Our Kinship With Animals” and Joy’s video on “Carnism”.
III. Consider the ways in which our attitudes and actions toward animals create intermeshed oppressions for us
and other human beings with some help from the assigned article on “Meat and Evil.”
I. Ableism and Intermeshed Oppressions
This case study is an opportunity to continue our hermeneutic work of exposing and exploring self-forgetfulness where
the experience of othered groups is concerned, and also moving toward deeper understanding and fellowship across our
differences. As ever, our goal is not to motivate guilt or assign blame, but rather to make the invisible visible: to come to
terms with injustices that are often hidden from our view due to our different hermeneutic situations.
Defining “Ableism”
We are lucky here in the Calvin philosophy department to have a resident expert in disability scholarship, Professor Kevin
Timpe. In preparing this lecture, in order to be as cutting-edge and student-friendly as possible, I reached out to Prof.
Timpe to ask for a classroom-vetted definition of ableism that his students have found helpful.
He steered me to three valuable resources—one very straightforward definition from a book by Fiona Kumari Campbell,
one definition that goes into a bit more depth by Talia “TL” Lewis, and a poem by Maria R. Palacios that offers a more
experiential take on what ableism means and how it works. Let’s look at each of those now:
Kumari Campbell: “Ableism is a set of assumptions (conscious or unconscious) and practices that promote
the differential or unequal treatment of people because of actual or presumed disabilities (Kumari Campbell,
Fiona. Contours of Ableism: The Production of Disability and Abledness. Palgrave Macmillan, 2009: 4).
Talia “TL” Lewis offers a more comprehensive definition that is, as Prof Timpe points out, “developed in
conversation with Disabled Black and other negatively racialized folk, especially Dustin Gibson”—a feature that
enables it to highlight intermeshed oppressions in the idea of ableism that aren’t visible to us in Campbell’s
simpler definition:
“Ableism is a system that places value on people’s bodies and minds based on societally constructed
ideas of normalcy, intelligence, excellence and productivity. These constructed ideas are deeply rooted
in anti-Blackness, eugenics, colonialism and capitalism. This form of systemic oppression leads to
people and society determining who is valuable and worthy based on a person’s appearance and/or their
ability to satisfactorily [re]produce, excel and “behave.” You do not have to be disabled to experience
ableism (https://www.talilalewis.com/blog/ableism-2020-an-updated-definition).
Maria R. Palacios captures all of these big ideas and many more fine-grained experiences of ableism too in
their poem, “Naming Ableism,” https://cripstory.wordpress.com/2017/04/01/naming-ableism/, which I
encourage you to read at your leisure.
Sunaura Taylor’s “Interdependent Animals: A Feminist Disability Ethic of Care”
Our guide for thinking about ableism is the philosopher Sunaura “Sunny” Taylor. As a bonus, Taylor’s work gives us
important insight into the way that the systems of oppression we’re studying—sexism, racism, and (this week) ableism
and speciesism, too—can intermesh and overlap, entrenching and sustaining injustice across multiple communities.
Taylor’s essay, “Interdependent Animals: A Feminist Disability Ethic-of-Care” considers the ways that sexism, ableism,
and speciesism intermingle when we think about the dependence of disabled human beings on able-bodied people and the
dependence of animals on human beings.
73
PHIL 153: Week 7
NOTE: In reading Taylor, it is very important to understand that her intention is not to compare the experiences
of people with disabilities to the experiences of nonhuman animals, and certainly not to say that these experiences
are “the same” or “equally important” or “equally unjust”. Her interest is to illuminate parallel forces at work in
the logic of oppression—the ways that our culture thinks about, talks about, and treats members of groups who
are different from the dominant group, especially when they are dependent (and/or perceived to be dependent)
in particular ways on the dominant group.
Questions for Reflection:

1. On page 110, Taylor discusses the “oppressive histories, of being both cared for and a carer”. This phrasing
might initially strike one as counterintuitive, given that we usually tend to think of caring as a good thing. What
is potentially oppressive about caring, on Taylor’s view, and how does this problem shine a light on our intuition
that dependence is largely “bad” or “negative”?
2. Under the heading of “Disabled, domesticated, and dependent” on pages 111-120, Taylor uses the concept of
dependence to spotlight the ways in which the oppression of people with disabilities and the oppression of
nonhuman animals are intermeshed. How does the idea of “dependence” illuminate these enmeshments, on her
view? Do you agree with Taylor that this juxtaposition is illuminating? If so, why? If not, why not?
3. Taylor notes that ableist cultures often presume, self-forgetfully, that human beings and animals who are
dependent in various ways are less capable or even incapable of valuing and enjoying their lives. Can you think
of any examples of this prejudice in contemporary culture or in your own attitudes and actions toward yourself
or others you perceive as dependent?
III. Are Animals Others? Some Challenging Questions

Because the lecture for this material is covered in the slideshow “Are Animals Others?,” I am simply including this
information here as a textual supplement to some of the questions and issues addressed in the slideshow. If you have
questions or concerns about this material, please ask! J
Can animals be harmed?

Do animals have capabilities?
• Are animals intelligent relative to the needs associated with their survival?
• Do they solve elementary problems related to their own experience?
• Do they remember things or anticipate things?
• Do they relate socially to other animals and human beings?
Do animals have preferences?
• Do they generally seek out things they like and avoid things they don’t like?
Do animals feel pain?
• Do they experience physical pain or suffering when their bodies are injured?
• Do they experience psychological discomfort or frustration when exposed to conditions that are not
ideally suited to their biological dispositions?
Sources: common sense, personal experience, scientific evidence, sacred texts
Varieties of harm
(1) cruelty (abuse/neglect)
(2) procedural harms (painful/taxing things we do to animals in order to use them)
(3) institutional harms (natural goods to animals that our uses deny to them even when they aren’t in physical
pain or under psychological stress)
Which animals count? (Who can be harmed and whose suffering matters morally?)
We don’t need to hammer out a comprehensive answer to this question in order to agree that most of the
species we use for companions, food, clothing, entertainment, and scientific research count. Apes, elephants,
dogs, cats, horses, cockatiels, whales and dolphins certainly count, as do pigs, cows, goats, chickens, and
turkeys. The fact that there are borderline cases such as insects, mollusks, and some fish does not complicate
the obvious truth that virtually all land and aquatic mammals, birds, and many other species we use definitely
count.
Is there a limit to what it is morally permissible to do to animals?

Is it permissible to kill or harm animals for fun? (e.g., euthanize healthy dogs for fun?)
74
PHIL 153: Week 7
Is it permissible to kill or harm animals for food/clothing that human beings do not need?
• If we do not need to kill or harm an animal, but simply want to do so for some other reason (e.g., we
like the taste, we enjoy the experience, it’s a family tradition, etc.), is that permissible?
• What is the difference between euthanizing a healthy dog for fun and killing a healthy pig for culinary
pleasure?
Is it permissible to kill them for food/clothing that human beings need?
• What constitutes legitimate human need?
• Is “need” consistent with the existence of viable alternatives?
o If one can meet dietary needs without eating animals, does one legitimately need to eat
animals?
o If one can meet clothing needs without using animals’ bodies, does one legitimately need to
use animals for clothing?
o Is it true that most 21st century citizens of the United States have a legitimate need to use
animals in these ways?
o If there are people living in other places who do need to use animals in these ways, would
that fact get those who do not need to use them off the hook for doing so?
Do we have to believe that animals and human are “equal” in order to take animal suffering seriously?
These challenging questions lead us back to a more foundational question:
Why is it so difficult for human beings to imagine that smart, emotional, social creatures like chickens, turkeys, pigs,
and cows have lives worth living that they themselves value and that we should value, too? For insight into that
question, let’s turn to Halteman and Zwart’s “Reimagining Our Kinship with Animals” and Melanie Joy’s notion of
“Carnism”.
IV. Intermeshed Oppressions Highlighted in “Meat and Evil”

My very brief article “Meat and Evil” gives us occasion to take what we’ve learned about our attitudes and actions toward
animals and illuminate how that outlook gears into other forms of oppression that most of us are keen to prevent. Here’s
the passage that expresses the big idea, drawing on former President of Calvin Seminary Cornelius Plantinga’s account
of institutional sin:
75
PHIL 153: Week 9

Week 9: The Hermeneutics of Christian Belief and Discipleship
Week 9 Objectives
I. Clarify the value of engaging Wolterstorff at this point in the hermeneutics unit.
II. Explain the relationship between Reason within the Bounds of Religion and our adventures in conceptual
engineering and hermeneutics so far.
III. Familiarize ourselves with some key terms that will help us understand Wolterstorff’s outlook on Christian
commitment and what engaged discipleship within that commitment looks like.
IV. Consider the power of our eating practices for living out Wolterstorff’s understanding of engaged Christian
discipleship (being a witness, agent, and evidence of God’s reconciling work in the world) with the help of a
case study on “Eating Toward Shalom: Why Food Ethics Matters for the 21st-century Church”.
I. Why consider the hermeneutics of Christian belief and practice now?

Up until the present moment in the hermeneutics unit, our case studies have been all about becoming aware of our self-
forgetfulness—bringing out into the light some of the hidden injustices that are built into dominant culture, often without
our even really being aware of that fact because of our lack of experience with the relevant problems.
Now, because religious identities tend to be really formative for religious people, and because it is easy where matters
religious are concerned to just sort of accept without thinking about it what our religious leaders say, there is a tendency
in many religious communities to be self-forgetful about the fact that we are all thinking from within a hermeneutic
situation—shaped in advance by experiences that are both limited and prone to error—even and especially where our
most cherished beliefs and practices are concerned. For many of us, our religious beliefs and practices are the most
important features of our identity, and for that reason, they seem to us to be the most obvious, the most unquestionable,
the least open to evolution and change.
But the hermeneutics unit has repeatedly confronted us with a need to evolve and change when it comes to becoming
aware of our self-forgetfulness and filling in the experiential gaps that make it difficult to see how self-deception and
alienating others from themselves in unjust ways have gotten entrenched in our dominant cultures and institutions—in
the male domination of structural sexism which has excluded women from full and equal participation in our institutions,
the white supremacy of structural racism that has affected systems of slavery, apartheid, loan and housing discrimination,
and mass incarceration, and—depending on your views about the question of whether animals are others—we’ve also
exploited human power and privilege to build a food system that wantonly degrades the lives of our fellow non-human
creatures.
And our religious identities are traditionally tied up in all of those things, often in ways that call for acknowledging our
self-forgetfulness and repenting of our past ignorance, which is sometimes innocent, sometimes blameworthy, but that
always stands in the way of cultivating deeper understanding and seeking truth.
To be able to respond to some of these challenges to the dominant ways we’ve previously understood our faith
traditions, we need a model of Christian belief and practice that allows room for evolution, growth, and development and
that isn’t just a one-size-fits-all approach that can’t accommodate our need to always keep working to bring self-
forgetfulness and the oppression and exploitation it shelters out into the light.
II. What’s in a title? Reason within the Bounds of Religion

For the purposes of this reading, you should understand Wolterstorff’s use of the words “reason,” “theory,” and
“theorizing” as meaning more or less the same thing as what we have been calling “conceptual engineering” or “analysis”.
Also, you should understand “religion” as a broad term for “Christian commitment,” which is functioning here as meaning
“Christian hermeneutic situation”, and you should understand “control beliefs” as those background assumptions, values,
and principles, etc., that are always already operating in one’s hermeneutic situation.
76
PHIL 153: Week 9
V. Key Terms in Wolterstorff’s Reason within the Bounds of Religion
The bottom line: “To be a Christian is to be fundamentally committed to being a Christ-follower.”
The Christian hermeneutic situation: Each Christ-follower’s understanding of what it means to follow Christ is shaped
in advance by elements of her hermeneutic situation: her church community, the broader Christian tradition in which that
community stands, the disposition toward scripture that comes down to her through her participation in tradition and
community, etc.
77
PHIL 153: Week 9
Some key terms:
Fundamental Christian Commitment = Complex of Belief AND Action: Everyone who is so committed [to Christ-
following] will do and believe certain things. One cannot have that fundamental commitment without its being realized
in some specific and definite complex of belief and action.
ACTUAL CHRISTIAN COMMITMENT = The complex of belief and action that is

realized in my Christian commitment as it “is” right now.
AUTHENTIC COMMITMENT = The complex of belief and action that the realization of my Christian
commitment ought in fact to assume, for any given person, is what I shall call “authentic” Christian Commitment.
At any given time, each Christ-follower’s fundamental Christian commitment to Christ-following encompasses both an
actual and an authentic Christian commitment: her actual Christian commitment is the complex of belief and action that
describes who she is as a Christ-follower at the moment; and her authentic Christian commitment is the complex of belief
and action that describes who she ought to be or who she is called to be at the moment.
Transformation/Sanctification
Over time, at least when all is going well, a Christ-follower’s efforts to live toward her authentic Christian commitment,
God helping her, can have a deepening, transformative effect on her actual life. As St. Augustine notes in our brief reading
from De Trinitate, as the Christ-follower seeks deeper understanding of God through following and imitating Jesus, she
finds herself with an ever deeper sense both of who she is and of who she ought to be—of that toward which God is
calling her in view of her expanded discernment and realization of her gifts and talents through following Jesus.
Time a: Actual C.C. à Authentic C.C.

Time b: Actual C.C. à Authentic C.C.
Time c: Actual C.C. à Authentic C.C.
Time d: Actual C.C. à Authentic C.C.
Time e: Actual C.C. à Authentic C.C.
Time f: Actual C.C. à Authentic C.C.
Time g: Actual C.C. à Authentic C.C.
NOTE: This diagram is idealized, and in real life, most of us won’t have such a straightforward progression toward the
transformation of our actual selves over time. Our trajectories in the real world will be full of fits and starts, progress and
backsliding, great strides and serious lapses.
Maybe it would look something like this:
78
PHIL 153: Week 9
A Closer Look at Fundamental Christian Commitment (FCC)
Ø FCC is lived out as Christ-following, and to follow Jesus is to strive to be a witness, agent, and evidence of God’s
unconditionally loving work to reconcile the world through Christ, who is the definitive witness, agent, and
evidence of God’s work to renew the world.
Witness: To proclaim that God is working to renew the world and to invite others to
join in this work. (Talk)
Agent: To do what one can, given one’s unique talents and gifts, to bring this work of renewal about
in the here and now. (Walk)
Evidence: To give an indication through one’s this-worldly life of what the coming
kingdom will be like.
Ø FCC is not just about subscription to dogmas (belief in church doctrine).
Ø FCC is not just about the supernatural.
Ø FCC is relative to different PERSONS and TIMES (both in an individual person’s life, and in the life of the
church).
IV. Eating as an Act of Discipleship: How to Be Agents of Renewal at the Dinner Table
As edifying as it can be to study Christian commitment in the abstract, the real challenge—at least for those of us who
aspire to be Christ-followers—is to apply what we’ve learned in the concrete circumstances of everyday life. The first
step for meeting this challenge is to identify those unique opportunities specific to our talents, place, and time that enable
us go beyond learned doctrine into lived experiential fulfillment of our calling to be agents of renewal in THIS world.
When it comes to rising to the unique sustainability challenges that 21st-century human beings now face, few daily
practices pack a more potent punch than our eating habits. From the sustainability of personal health, to public healthcare
systems, biodiversity, natural resources, topsoil fertility, water availability, antibiotic use, climate stability, and moral
integrity, the food choices we make have a massive impact on our ability to sustain flourishing life on planet Earth.
In “Eating Toward Shalom: Why Food Ethics Matters for the 21st-century Church,” I explore the question of why food
choices matter to the Christian calling to be witnesses, agents, and evidences of God’s work to renew creation.
Questions for Reflection after reading this article:

1. What resonances do you see between Wolterstorff’s account of Fundamental Christian Commitment (above)
and the idea of understanding eating as a discipleship practice?
2. What are the rewards of viewing eating as an act of Christian witness, agency, and evidence of God’s work of
renewal in the world, according to this article?
3. What reservations do you have, if any, about the idea of thinking of eating as an act of Christian discipleship?
79
PHIL 153: Week 10

Week 10: From Hermeneutics to Spiritual Discipline + Hadot’s Architecture of Transformation
Week 10 Objectives
I. Work through the transition from Hermeneutics to Spiritual Discipline.
A. Clarify how the hermeneutics unit has prepared us to understand the spiritual discipline approach.
B. Explain what a spiritual discipline is.
C. Explain what Hadot and philosophers in this tradition mean by “spiritual”.
D. Explain what Hadot and philosophers in this tradition mean by “philosophy”.
E. Consider some concrete, everyday examples of spiritual disciplines.
II. Introduce Pierre Hadot’s Architecture of Transformation
III. Explain the Goals of the Spiritually Disciplined Life
I. From Hermeneutics to Spiritual Discipline
A. Where We Left Off: The hermeneutics unit taught us how finite human understanding works: we must always
begin with the assumptions that come down to us from the hermeneutic situation, but the hermeneutic situation
is dynamic, because we can mediate our initial assumptions with ongoing experience and expand the horizons
of our hermeneutic situation. In looking at Nicholas Wolterstorff, we described this progression in terms of an
ongoing movement from our actual selves to our more authentic selves.
A New Question: But if the hermeneutics unit helped us to get a clearer sense of how this progression works
in the abstract, there is now a new question before us: What concrete practices (or exercises, or disciplines)
does philosophy have to offer that can aid us in making day-to-day progress in moving toward our more
authentic selves? In a nutshell, how can philosophy help us to move from our actual selves to our more
authentic selves?
B. Spiritual Discipline (or Exercise): A repetitive daily practice that, when undertaken in the right spirit and for
the right reasons, can help us to narrow the gap between who we are at the moment (our actual selves) and who
we are called to be (our authentic selves). The practice of a spiritual discipline accomplishes two tasks
simultaneously (the two moments of spiritual discipline):
1. Critical Moment (Repentance): Reminds us of our finitude (shows us our faults and areas for
improvement);
2. Constructive Moment (Redemption): Propels us toward a more authentic realization of our potential.
C. What do Hadot and Philosophers in this Tradition Mean by “Spiritual”?
Spiritual: a word that describes the whole you in your intellectual, emotional, moral, physical, and social facets.
Spiritual disciplines are thus aimed at transforming the whole person—it’s not just about intellect, it’s not just
about ethical practice, it is about moving toward holistic flourishing in all of your various facets.
Exercise: What reasons do we have to think that our holistic flourishing—our doing well, as a whole—
requires us to be working at the integration of our intellectual, emotional, physical, moral, and social
facets?
Can you think of any examples in which our intellectual and moral flourishing are intertwined?
How about our emotional and physical flourishing?
80
PHIL 153: Week 10
How about our physical and intellectual flourishing?
How about our emotional and moral flourishing?
D. What do Hadot and Philosophers in this tradition mean by “Philosophy”?
Philosophy vs. Philosophical Discourse
Philosophical Discourse: reading, writing, discussing, and thinking about philosophical questions
and problems. (Academic Philosophy)
Philosophy: the lived pursuit of wisdom in one’s daily affairs in which one seeks transformation
through the practice of spiritual exercises. (Philosophy as a Way of Life)
***For the philosophers working in this tradition, philosophical discourse was a MEANS to the END of living
a transformed life (philosophy), but NOT an end in itself.
The big idea: Philosophical discourse is a double-edged sword:
Philosophical discourse CAN BE an incredibly effective means to the end of living a transformed life—
when a person practices philosophical discourse in the right spirit and for the right reasons as an exercise
that reminds her of her finitude and propels her toward a more authentic realization of herself, then
philosophical discourse acts as a springboard to living a philosophical life, the lived pursuit of wisdom
in her daily affairs.
BUT…
If one views philosophical discourse as an end in itself, and forgets that the point of philosophical
discourse is to aid one in living the good life on the ground, then philosophical discourse can actually
work against one’s ability to live a philosophical life by making one arrogant, by tempting one to think
she’s got everything figured about, or that she’s better or smarter or wiser than others.
In summary, when all goes well, philosophical discourse can be one of the most powerful spiritual disciplines
we have for helping us to live a philosophical life: reading, writing, discussion, and thinking about
philosophical questions and problems is a repetitive daily practice that reminds us of our finitude and challenges
us, through the repetitions, to move toward a more authentic realization of who we are called to be.
And now we’re ready for an exciting discovery: The whole point of this class so far, in learning about the
analysis and hermeneutics approaches to philosophical discourse, was to introduce you to a set of repetitive daily
practices—reading, writing, discussing, and thinking about philosophical questions and problems—that can now
become springboards for the lived pursuit of wisdom in our everyday affairs!
E. Some examples of spiritual disciplines:
Prayer: Is prayer always a spiritual exercise? What are some examples of prayer that do not succeed in
reminding us of our finitude or propelling us toward a more authentic realization of ourselves?
81
PHIL 153: Week 10
Body language: How does the very body language of prayer indicate that it is supposed to be a reminder
of finitude and a springboard to our better selves?
Content of prayer: How can each of these common types of prayer remind us of our finitude and propel
us toward a more authentic realization of ourselves?
Adoration
Confession
Thanksgiving
Supplication
Working Out: Is working out always a spiritual discipline? What are some examples of working out that do not
succeed in reminding us of our finitude or propelling us toward a more authentic realization of ourselves?
In what ways might working out serve to remind us of our finitude and propel us toward a more
authentic realization of ourselves?
College Education: Is college education always a spiritual discipline? What are some examples of college
education that do not succeed in reminding us of our finitude or propelling us toward a more authentic realization
of ourselves?
In what ways might approaching our college education as a spiritual discipline serve to remind us of
our finitude and propel us toward a more authentic realization of ourselves?
*NOTE: Many of our most routine daily activities can be employed as spiritual disciplines if we approach their practice
intentionally and seek out their potential for reminding us of our finitude and propelling us, though the practice, toward a
more authentic realization of our calling.
II. Pierre Hadot’s Architecture of Transformation—an overarching explanation of the goals, tasks, and practical effects
of pursuing philosophical transformation through the practice of spiritual disciplines.
I. Discuss Hadot’s account of the goals of a spiritually disciplined life: (A) peace of mind, (B) inner freedom and
(C) independence, and cosmic consciousness.
II. Analyze the relationships between and among the three goals: how does making headway toward one of the
goals improve one’s progress toward the others?
II. Introducing Pierre Hadot’s Architecture of Transformation
What is philosophical transformation? Let’s think of it as a process of incremental elevation and invigoration of one’s
being that occurs as one strives toward an increasingly authentic realization of herself through the practice of spiritual
disciplines which expand and harmonize her intellectual, emotional, moral, physical, and social selves.
82
PHIL 153: Week 10
To help us get our heads around just exactly what is on offer in this so-called “philosophical transformation,” we’ve
enlisted the help of the late, great French historian of philosophy, Pierre Hadot. (Note the French pronunciation of the
surname is ‘ah-dough’ not ‘Haa-dit”—so if you’re wondering, where’s this Haa-dit guy we read about and why is
Halteman always droning on about this ‘ah-dough’ guy instead, well…there’s your answer! J)
In the articles “Philosophy as a Way of Life” and “Spiritual Exercises” (which ya’ll read for last week’s sessions), Hadot
paints a compelling picture of the philosophical life as philosophers in this tradition understand it, and I have distilled his
account of philosophical transformation, for our referential convenience, into the following “architecture” of the goals,
tasks, and practical effects of pursuing this transformation.
The gift that keeps on giving: For the next three weeks, we’ll be using this matrix of goals, tasks, and practical effects
as our baseline for understanding and appropriating our case studies on the lives and teachings of Plato’s Socrates (the
ancient Greek philosopher), Seneca (the Roman stoic philosopher), Henry David Thoreau (the 19th-century American
philosopher), Gandhi (the 20th-century Indian philosopher), and Jesus Christ (with some help from Frederica Mathewes-
Green and Jarislav Pelikan). Keep the architecture of transformation close at hand! J
83
PHIL 153: Week 11

Week 11: Hadot’s Architecture of Transformation—The Goals of Philosophical Transformation
Week 11 Objectives
I. Explain the goals of philosophical transformation.
II. Consider the relationships among the goals of philosophical transformation—how do they work together?
III. Writing workshop: Assign the short paper and offer tips and a strategy for writing good expository papers.
I. The Goals of Philosophical Transformation
A. Peace of Mind
“The capacity to enjoy and find deep meaning in a life unmolested by anxiety over trivia or the unchangeable.”
In our ordinary lives, our daily experience can feel like a seesaw between regret about the past and anxiety about the
future—back and forth we go, teetering from feeling insecure about past failures and disappointments to dreading
what the future might hold, and then tottering back into regret when the future becomes the past in a never-ending
cycle.
Notes on Peace of Mind:
Discussion questions on the goal of Peace of Mind:

1. Do you ever get caught on the see-saw of anxiety and regret? When does that happen and why?
2. How does Socrates embody peace of mind? What passages from Plato’s “Apology” showcase his peace of mind
best?
B. Inner Freedom and Independence

“The capacity properly to order one’s desires and convictions so that one does not become enslaved to untutored
appetites or passions.”
To get at what Hadot has in mind by the goal of inner freedom and independence, we’ll have a look at Plato’s famous
“charioteer metaphor” for the three parts of the human soul. And to make sure you get your money’s worth, and aren’t
deprived of one of the aesthetic highlights of the semester in PHIL 153, I’ve produced this drawing to illuminate things
for you (please turn to the next page):
84
PHIL 153: Week 11
Notes on Inner Freedom and Independence:
Discussion questions on the goal of Inner Freedom and Independence:

1. What are your steeds like? Which one is the more powerful? Which one could use a little prodding?
2. What does this have to do with freedom, though? How is a charioteer who enjoys an intimate understanding of the
abilities and limits of her steeds and has good strategies for keeping them in line “more free and independent” than
someone who has not cultivated these abilities?
C. Cosmic Consciousness
“The capacity to (i) live in acknowledgment that one is but a small part of a much grander whole, without (ii) losing
sight of the fact that one’s attitudes and actions still have important implications for the flourishing/languishing of the
whole.”
85
PHIL 153: Week 11
Notice the two moments of cosmic consciousness here:

(i) The humility moment—I’m small and the world doesn’t revolve around me!
(ii) The agency moment—But my attitudes and actions are still highly influential in my own small
circle, and those influences ripple across the world.
Notes on Cosmic Consciousness
Discussion questions on the goal of Cosmic Consciousness:

1. Think back to the hermeneutics unit. Are there any areas of your life, given what you learned about your hermeneutic
situation, in which you think that increased cosmic consciousness would lead to living more authentically day to day?
2. Socrates says “Know thyself!”. Think through which moment of cosmic consciousness would be easier/harder for
you.
II. The Relationships Among the Three Goals of the Spiritually Disciplined Life
One of the most compelling features of the spiritual discipline approach to philosophy is its holistic character—the
way that all the different ideas and exercises work together toward the transformation of the whole person (intellectual,
emotional, moral, social, and physical) so that transformed living can bless the wider community and world as well.
In this spirit, think about how the goals of philosophical transformation complement each other—how, in other words,
when you're working toward one of them, you're working toward ALL of them. Explain that idea:
Why think that someone who is making progress toward peace of mind is also making progress toward
cosmic consciousness? Specific examples?
Why think that someone who is making progress toward inner freedom is also on the way to greater cosmic
consciousness? Specific examples?
Why think that someone who is making progress on peace of mind is also becoming more inwardly free?
Specific examples?
Discussion questions on how the goals fit together:

1. What kinds of things happen to you when you lose sight of the big picture? How do the various aspects of your
spiritual life get out of whack (intellectual, emotional, moral, physical, social)? Which do you struggle with the most?
2. Where do you see evidence in our course texts of philosophers striving to reach the goals of the spiritually
disciplined life?
What specific evidence do you see in the life of Socrates of peace of mind, inner freedom and independence,
and cosmic consciousness? Can you find specific passages in Plato’s “Apology” in which Socrates
exemplifies each goal? Where do you see progress toward one of the goals leading to or providing
simultaneous evidence of progress toward the others?
What specific evidence do you see in the life of Seneca of peace of mind, inner freedom and independence,
and cosmic consciousness? Can you find specific passages in Seneca’s Letters from a Stoic in which Seneca
exemplifies each goal? Where do you see progress toward one of the goals leading to or providing
simultaneous evidence of progress toward the others?
86
PHIL 153: Week 11

Short Paper Assignment: Expositing Philosophical Discourse
The short paper will be assigned on Fri, 3/23
This assignment has a rolling deadline* but the final deadline is Fri, 4/14 by 11:59 pm ET
*What is a rolling deadline?! If you want comments (in addition to your grade) before the end of the semester, your
paper is due by Mon, 4/3 by 11:59 pm ET. If you just wish to know your paper grade before the final exam, your paper
is due Wed, 4/12 by 11:59 pm ET. Except in cases of documented family or medical emergency, no papers will be
accepted after the final deadline of Fri, 4/14 by 11:59 pm, so please manage your time wisely.
Choose ONE of the following topics and write a 5-page paper in response to it.
1. In an interview some years ago, Gadamer was asked: “What is Philosophy?”. He replied: “Philosophy is the
way not to forget that man is never God.”** Apart from being a fascinating statement of the hermeneutic
understanding of philosophy, Gadamer’s answer is relevant in a number of interesting ways to Simone de
Beauvoir’s argument in “Introduction to The Second Sex.” In the first four pages, give a careful exposition
of Beauvoir’s “Introduction to The Second Sex”, taking care to highlight the major steps in her argument. In
the last page, explain how her approach exemplifies Gadamer’s statement.
2. In “Spiritual Exercises”, Pierre Hadot discusses the philosophical life in terms of four themes: “learning how
to live”, “learning how to dialogue”, “learning how to die”, and “learning how to read”. Discuss each of these
themes in detail by reference to concrete passages from Hadot’s essay, taking care to provide supporting
illustrations of these themes from the lives of Socrates, Seneca, Thoreau and Gandhi. (Note: You do not need
to come up with an example of each theme for all four thinkers, but your paper should reflect your familiarity
with the different sources in which we’ve seen these four themes come to life!)
**This passage is not in the reading assigned in class.
Things to keep in mind:
ü Clear, careful, systematic exposition (i.e., explaining what the text says) of a philosophical text is the main
point of this exercise. Make sure that you support your exposition by citing key passages from the relevant
texts. Papers that do not stay close enough to the text or that rely significantly on lecture summary (rather
than the primary text itself) will be graded down.
ü Any consistent, complete form of citation is acceptable (parenthetical, footnotes, endnotes, etc.), so long as
all quoted passages are appropriated cited. Failing properly to document ALL quotations from the text is
not acceptable in a college paper and will be graded down.
ü No title, separate title page, or separate works cited page is necessary for this short paper. Just list any works
cited immediately following the concluding paragraph of the paper.
ü The 5-page requirement (double-spaced with 10- or 12-point type) is a minimum, not a hard limit. If you
find that you have more than 5 pages of material after you have rigorously edited your final draft for clarity
and streamlined out any unnecessary repetition, that’s just fine. Fewer than 5 pages will not be enough to do
an adequately rigorous job on this prompt, however, so please plan to meet or exceed the minimum.
87
PHIL 153: Week 11
Fundamental Questions in Philosophy

Tips and Tricks for Writing Your Short Philosophy Paper
The following points of strategy may help you to write a more effective short paper. Please don’t hesitate to let me
know if you need some extra help along the way.
(1) Avoid wordy introductions and redundant “rehash” conclusions—Philosophers aim to write clear, concise
papers; please refrain from starting your paper with the ol’ “Since the dawn of time…” routine, or ending it with a
rehash of what you just finished saying a page or two ago. In a short paper, your introduction should be simple and to
the point (see below) and you can simply wrap up the paper when you’ve said everything you have to say. Everyone’s
paper should begin with roughly the same two sentences:
CONTEXT SENTENCE: “In [insert article name here], [insert philosopher’s name here] argues/explains that
[insert your brief description of the central thrust of the argument here].*
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE: “In this paper, I will exposit [philosopher’s] argument/view and then [insert
your explanation of how you plan to engage the argument/view]. Specifically, I will show that…”*
*Obviously, you don’t have to follow this EXACT format in terms of the words you use; those will differ based on
which topic you choose. But you do want to make sure that your paper begins with a context sentence that gives your
reader a sense of the big picture, and a statement of purpose that explains to the reader what you will do in your paper.
(2) Use the first person—In writing academic prose, it is perfectly okay (and, in fact, preferable) to use the first
person: “I will argue that,” “on my view”, etc.
(3) Excellent transitional sentences make all the difference—At the beginning of each new paragraph, write a
transitional sentence that connects what you wrote about in the last paragraph to the topic you will be writing about in
the current paragraph. For instance, let’s suppose you just finished discussing Peter Singer’s two main assumptions.
Start your next paragraph as follows: “With his two main assumptions in view, Singer goes on to explain two
controversial implications of his second assumption, namely that…” This strategy will ensure that your reader always
knows exactly where your paper is headed, which will make it much easier to follow along.
(4) Don’t just sit down and start writing! STRATEGIZE FIRST! The following five-step method can help you to
avoid that sinking feeling of sitting in front of a blank computer screen without knowing what to do next!
--Do a careful reading taking notes in the margins.

--Do a second reading selecting key quotations that you want to highlight in your
exposition.
--Outline the flow of your argument paragraph by paragraph.
--Draft your transitional sentences for the entire paper
--Cut and paste the quotations you’ve chosen to use in order to support your
interpretation of the key moments in the argument.
Now you’ve got the majority of the work done before you’ve even started writing! Congratulations!
Frequently Asked Questions

Q: Should I interject my own opinion along the way, as I’m expositing the main argument?
A: No, this strategy is generally not a good one for a paper like this one. The better strategy is to keep the expository
voice and the evaluative voice separate.
Q: May I send you a draft of my paper for feedback?

A: No, I do not read full drafts for two reasons: (1) I want students to become good critics of their own writing, and
sending full drafts without specific, targeted critical questions risks making students too passive and dependent on
professorial input (“here’s what you did wrong, now fix it!”); (2) I cannot read full drafts for everyone, and so I do
not read full drafts for anyone. What I will do is to provide as much feedback as you want if you initiate an email
88
PHIL 153: Week 11
correspondence and send me targeted, self-critical questions with representative passages to help me see the problem
you’re concerned about; that way, we can enter into a dialogue about how to fix the problem.
Q: Do I need to do outside research for this paper?

A: No. No outside research is required or recommended. It is A-OK, indeed, it is preferred, simply to use the assigned
texts that we have worked with together in class. If you do decide to conduct outside research and you end up using
that research to frame your paper in any way, whether in terms of organization or content, you must cite that work so
that I can check the source if I need to do so.
Q: If I turn in the paper for the earliest deadline to get feedback, do I get a chance to revise the paper and turn it in for
a higher grade?
A: No, the benefit of the early submission opportunity is the rigorous feedback for those seeking to really dial in their
academic writing; because it takes a long time to produce that kind of feedback, I ask people to get the paper in early
if they want it.
What other questions do you have? Please feel free to ask me anything! J
REMEMBER: I am your ally here! I want you to do well and achieve your goals, so please let me know how I can
help!
89
PHIL 153: Week 12

Week 12: Hadot’s Architecture of Transformation—Tasks and Practical Effects of a Spiritually Disciplined Life
Week 12 Objectives
I. Explain the tasks of a spiritually disciplined life that can help us strive toward the goals of philosophical
transformation we discussed last week.
II. Identify some specific spiritual disciplines from the Socrates, Seneca, Thoreau, and Gandhi case studies that
one can use to practice the tasks.
III. Discuss the ways that practicing these tasks through the daily use of spiritual disciplines can help one to make
headway toward the goals, using some concrete examples from Thoreau and Gandhi.
IV. Explain the practical effects of philosophical transformation that can take root in our lives when we practice
the tasks in striving toward the goals.
V. Identify some questions that can help us to discern these practical effects in our own lives and judge whether
our efforts to practice the tasks are moving us in the direction of the goals.
I. The Tasks of Philosophical Transformation
II. Finding Disciplines: Recommended Spiritual Exercises for Philosophical Transformation

In a modest effort to distill some action-guiding advice from the paths we’ve traveled in this unit so far, let’s attend
with more specificity to some of the spiritual exercises recommended to us by our fellow travelers, Socrates, Seneca,
Thoreau, and (for next week!) Gandhi (organized here under the rubric of Hadot’s “three tasks” in the architecture of
transformation).
Exercise: As we work through this list of possible spiritual exercises inspired by the course readings you’ve been
doing, can you match up the philosopher or philosophers with the disciplines I mention? Can you find a specific
example of that philosopher or philosophers actually practicing that spiritual exercise?
For instance, the discipline of “spending intentionally” in order to stay vigilant over where your money goes (and thus,
where your appetitive steed wants to go!), could apply to both Thoreau or Gandhi (both of whom were masters of
living simply in order to stay focused on keeping the appetites in check and not letting desire for inessential things
bog them down).
90
PHIL 153: Week 12
Vigilance Over Thoughts and Actions (general category for specific spiritual disciplines that practice vigilance)
Therapy/counseling/philosophical discourse: discern loves, gifts, blind-spots, and struggles.
Eat compassionately (learn to cook!).
Spend intentionally (budgeting, estate-planning).
Cultivate honest friendships.
Seek challenging partners, mentors, and communal involvements (take on responsibilities).
Engage difference through curated experience and reading.
Court criticism of your loves and involvements.
Consent to the Events Imposed by Destiny (general category for specific spiritual disciplines that practice consent)
Live simply.
Experiment with poverty.
Cultivate humor.
Relish adventure and the absurd.
Cultivate receptivity (practice listening, meditation, prayer, gratitude, forgiveness).
Normalize contemplation and discussion of death.
Abide in mystery.
Always Act in Service of the Community (general category for specific spiritual disciplines that practice service)
Practice self-care to conserve spiritual energy (relax/enjoy to parry exhaustion and resentment).
Work to improve difficult relationships (parents, siblings, teachers, church).
Resist institutional oppression of others wherever you have reach (work, school, church, state).
Speak truth to power wherever your voice is heard.
Make charitable giving to well-researched organizations a priority across a variety of sectors.
Give sacrificially of your time and resources in areas of special resonance or expertise (find your work!).
Seek the good in ideological opponents and enemies.
Discussion questions for the tasks of the spiritually disciplined life

What specific textual evidence can you find in the readings on the lives of Socrates, Seneca, Thoreau, and Gandhi
of vigilance over thoughts and actions, consent to the events imposed by destiny, and always acting in service of the
community? What passages would you cite in your short paper or on the final exam from Plato’s “Apology,” Letters
from a Stoic, Walden, and The Story of My Experiments with Truth to demonstrate your understanding of how these
big ideas play out concretely in assigned readings?
III. In reviewing these tasks, let’s think too about their relationship to each other and to the goals: Think about
how the tasks of philosophical transformation complement each other and push us toward the goals we’re striving
for—how, in other words, when you're practicing vigilance, consent, and service, are you both strengthening
your capacity to practice each of the tasks as well as making headway toward the goals? How, more concretely,
does practicing the tasks of vigilance, consent, and service help us to make headway toward becoming more
peaceful of mind, more inwardly free and independent, and more cosmically conscious?
Some concrete examples:
THOREAU: The spiritual discipline of simple living in Thoreau’s Walden:

“Most of the luxuries, and many of the so-called comforts of life, are not only not indispensable, but positive
hindrances to the elevation of mankind. With respect to luxuries and comforts, the wisest have ever lived a
more simple and meagre life than the poor. The ancient philosophers, Chinese, Hindoo, Persian, and Greek,
were a class than which none has been poorer in outward riches, none so rich in inward. We know not much
about them. It is remarkable that we know so much of them as we do. The same is true of the more modern
reformers and benefactors of their race. None can be an impartial or wise observer of human life but from
the vantage ground of what we should call voluntary poverty. Of a life of luxury the fruit is luxury, whether
in agriculture, or commerce, or literature, or art. There are nowadays professors of philosophy, but not
philosophers. Yet it is admirable to profess because it was once admirable to live. To be a philosopher is not
merely to have subtle thoughts, nor even to found a school, but so to love wisdom as to live according to its
91
PHIL 153: Week 12
dictates, a life of simplicity, independence, magnanimity, and trust. It is to solve some of the problems of
life, not only theoretically, but practically.”
Thoreau, Walden, “Economy”
How does simple living help Thoreau to practice vigilance over his attitudes and actions? Consent
to the events imposed by destiny? Always acting in service of the community?
How does his practicing this spiritual discipline increase his peace of mind, bolster his freedom and
independence, and expand his cosmic consciousness?
GANDHI: The spiritual disciplines of dietetics, brahmacharya (the limiting of desire, including sexual
desire), and satyagraha (non-violent acts of civil disobedience) in Gandhi’s The Story of My
Experiments with Truth: While the example of Gandhi is fresh in your mind, think about the guiding
question of where we see vigilance over his attitudes and actions, consent to the events imposed by destiny,
and always acting in the service of his community in his efforts to live out the principle of ahimsa—non-
violence, yes, but beyond just that, the commitment to living so that compassion is the wellspring of all one’s
attitudes and actions and every creature one encounter is blessed by one’s presence.
How do Gandhi’s dietetic experiments—the effort to eat more compassionately through a vegan
diet—help him to stay vigilant over his attitudes and actions? Consent to the events imposed by
destiny? Act in service of the community?
How does his practicing this spiritual discipline increase his peace of mind, bolster his freedom and
independence, and expand his cosmic consciousness?
One might argue that a life devoted to ahimsa would naturally lead one to live a more sustainable
life. How would that argument go? Do you agree or disagree?
Can you find a good example from each thinker of a concrete spiritual discipline or two that is used to strive
toward the goals, and think through how practicing that particular task pushes the practitioner toward the
goals they are pursuing?
Discussion questions on applying these disciplines in your own journey

1. Are there any spiritual disciplines on display in these texts that you are inspired to try for yourself? Which ones and
what do you find intriguing or promising about them?
2. Are there any spiritual disciplines that seem unhelpful, unwise, or just unlikely to work for you? Which ones and
why do they seem like a bad fit?
3. What is your impression of the general strategy of using spiritual disciplines to strive for authenticity? Does it seem
promising? Why? Are you skeptical? Why? If you had to do a cost/benefit analysis of this approach to philosophy,
what would you list as the “pros” and what would you list as the “cons”?
92
PHIL 153: Week 12
IV. The Practical Effects of the Spiritually Disciplined Life
V. Measuring Progress*: Querying the Practical Effects of Philosophical Transformation

*REMEMBER: Spiritual/moral perfectionism is the enemy of spiritual/moral progress. Striving, not arriving!
In a modest effort to provide some standards for assessing the success of the above tasks at moving us toward our set
goals, let’s take a closer look at Hadot’s “four practical effects” from the architecture of transformation.
Am I learning how to live more intentionally?

Am I increasingly mindful of what I love and why I love those things?
Am I increasingly less the slave of expedience and more heedful of my principles and conscience?
Are my consumption and spending patterns getting more informed and more compassionate?
Are my relationships and friendships getting deeper and more challenging?
Are my daily attitudes and actions less legalistic and more contextually sensitive and wise?
Am I learning how to dialogue?

Am I getting better at being honest with myself and others?
Am I increasingly comfortable facing self-criticism and criticism from others?
Am I becoming more charitable and less combative in engaging myself and others?
Is it increasingly possible for me to change my mind, admit wrongs, and make amends?
Am I increasingly welcoming of difference (even and especially when I disagree)?
93
PHIL 153: Week 12
Am I learning how to die?

Am I increasingly less motivated and limited by fear?
Am I incrementally more content with my gifts and limitations?
Am I threatened less and less by difference and otherness?
Am I getting more courageous in facing risks associated with my deepest commitments?
Is my inevitable death becoming something I can think about and discuss?
Am I learning how to read?

Am I getting better at finding productive challenges in the texts I engage?
Are my studies moving me in the direction of the lived pursuit of wisdom?
Is my take on the world becoming more sophisticated and my horizons more open?
Are my resources growing for coping with and even flourishing through setbacks and failures?
Am I increasingly able to take joy in the interpretation of texts and life?
Discussion questions:
1. Have you had a chance to experiment with any of the spiritual disciplines we’ve been learning about? If so, have
you seen any evidence of the practical effects taking root in your own experience? What are you noticing?
2. If you haven’t had a chance to experiment with spiritual disciplines, are you interested in doing so? Reluctant for
some reason? Generally skeptical of the value of this approach? Why?
94
PHIL 153: Week 13

Week 13: Christian Philosophical Transformation
Week 13 Objectives
I. Introduce the idea of Christian Philosophical Transformation.
II. Draw on Frederica Mathewes-Green’s account of ancient Christian spirituality as a journey into transformation
to level constructive criticism at some contemporary Christian outlooks on sin and grace.
III. Connect Mathewes-Green’s idea of Christian transformation to some key insights from Jarislav Pelikan’s portrait
of Jesus Christ as Rabbi and Prophet to the earliest Christ-followers.
IV. Compose a list of Christian spiritual disciplines taught by Jesus and/or adopted by the church.
I. Introduction to Christian Philosophical Transformation: Why Jesus Followers Ought to Follow Jesus
One of the most impressive features of the spiritual discipline approach to philosophy is its enduring character across
the ages. While elements of the conceptual engineering and hermeneutics approaches to philosophy have certainly popped
up across the history of philosophy, those approaches have really came into their own as widely-practiced academic
philosophical discourses in modern and contemporary Western universities.
The spiritual discipline approach and the basic understanding of philosophical transformation that it promotes, on the
other hand, have been consistently practiced throughout history in every time and place—from Socrates in ancient Greece
in 400 BC to Seneca in ancient Rome in the first century AD all the way to 19th-century America with Henry David
Thoreau, and 20th-century India with Gandhi.
And those are just the examples we’ve been able to cover in our short time together! At the 200-level, I teach an entire
course on Philosophical Transformation in which we look at ancient Jain philosophy in India, and ancient Daoist and
Confucian philosophy in China, and many other cultures and contexts. All these places and times view philosophical
transformation in somewhat different terms, but they all emphasize the idea of philosophy as the love of wisdom in which
this love is lived out in the day to day through the transformative practice of spiritual disciplines that expand the mind
and heart in ways similar to those described in Hadot’s “Architecture of Transformation,” as we’ve been calling it.
Though we have certainly learned from each of the figures we’ve looked at in this unit, it’s fair to say that—for those
of us who self-describe as Christ-followers, anyway (I know that not all of us do!)—these examples are not authoritative:
we can look to these great philosophical teachers for inspiration and help, and we can even aspire to practice some—even
many—of the excellent disciplines that they exemplify in their own lives. But because they are just fellow human beings
like you and me, we know that they no more have a corner on the truth market than we do.
But then there’s Jesus, who Christ-followers affirm as the way, the truth, and the life. For Christ-followers, Jesus is
not just another great moral teacher whose spiritual disciplines we can take or leave, using them in a kind of trial and error
practice to see what works and what doesn’t. For Christ-followers, Jesus is the “new Adam”—the authoritative model for
what it means to flourish as a human being, and the practices and spiritual disciplines that Jesus models for us and teaches
us to live by are indispensable for flourishing human living. If one wants to be a Christian philosopher—a Christ-
follower committed to the lived pursuit of wisdom every day—then one must pursue the truth—i.e., follow Jesus Christ—
doing our best to follow in the footsteps of the living truth, to use his flourishing as a model for our own.
Here in Week 13, we’ll look to Frederica Mathewes-Green’s The Illumined Heart and Jarislav Pelikan’s “The Rabbi”
to cast some light on how transformation through the practice of spiritual disciplines works for followers of Jesus.
Discussion questions:
1. In the traditions of Christ-following that you’ve observed in your experience, how important does the practice of
Christian spiritual disciplines seem to be to Christian identity?
2. What problems in contemporary Christianity might be made better by the incorporation of a spiritual discipline-based
understanding of Christ-following? What challenges might a spiritual discipline-based approach to Christ-following raise
for contemporary Christianity?
II. Frederica Mathewes-Green’s The Illumined Heart: The Ancient Christian Path of Transformation*
Sadly, this transformational way of thinking about what it means to follow Jesus has fallen out of fashion a bit in many
contemporary Christian communities. For many Christians these days, Christ-following is not so much a lived pursuit of
truth modeled on the life and teachings of Jesus as it is a religious and political ideology—a worldview focused primarily
on the claimed acceptance of abstract beliefs or feelings that often have little to do with following Jesus at all. I say
claimed acceptance here, because there is often very little ability on the part of Christians to show evidence of genuine
acceptance. One often hears a Christian say, for example, “Jesus is the center of my life!” or “Jesus is my personal savior!”,
but when you ask that same Christian for an explanation of exactly what that is supposed to mean or how it plays out in
95
PHIL 153: Week 13
their day-to-day existence, they have little to nothing to say beyond pointing to church attendance or feelings they may
have when they sing certain songs or pray certain prayers.
Of course, there have always been and always will be “lip service Christians” or “Christians in name only” who don’t
really care about following Jesus but just want their politico-religious in-group to win at all costs, no matter how far those
wins may take them from the life and teachings of Jesus. But in their most honest, darkest moments even those Christians
who desperately want to have more to say when someone asks, “What do you mean that Jesus is the center of your life?”,
“What do you mean that Jesus is your Lord?”, often find—when the chips are down!—that they don’t really know what
to say about this either. It all can feel so abstract and confusing.
To aid us in building a more concrete platform for thinking of Christ-following as a transformative daily pursuit that is
carried out through the repetitive practice of spiritual disciplines modeled by Jesus, then, we’ll turn to Frederica
Mathewes-Green’s helpful book, The Illumined Heart. Using the case of a hypothetical ancient Christian woman, Anna,
and her family, Mathewes-Green contrasts some of the risks associated with certain currents in modern and contemporary
Christianity with some of the rewards associated with the ancient vision of Christianity as a life lived in pursuit of
transformation through imitating Jesus. Anna’s story unfolds in Chapter 2 of The Illumined Heart, where Mathewes-
Green shares the story of a frustrated contemporary Mom with a defeatist attitude toward sin who has just resigned herself
to complete powerlessness over sin and an endless cycle of failure followed by the guilt-tinged consolation of God’s
grace. Anna, our hypothetical ancient Christian, has a different outlook on what God is calling her to through Jesus Christ.
Mathewes-Green on Sin and Grace: Let’s listen in starting on page 7…
SIN GRACE
What’s the worst thing about sin? What does grace achieve?
“Threat of Punishment” Model: “Consolation Prize” Model:

Modern The worst thing about sin is the dread of Grace is the end of a tragic story in which
Christianity* condemnation! Eternal damnation! God leaves us mired in sad, sinful lives with
Sin results in my receiving punishment. no recourse for battling day to day sin,
before swooping in at the last minute, taking
pity, and saving us anyway. (Debt paid!)
Justification/salvation is a consolation prize
redeemed in the next world.
Main motive for being a Christ-follower:

Selfish fear (How can I escape punishment
and obtain a reward?) GETTING OFF THE HOOK AND GETTING A PRIZE
___________________________________________________________________________________
“Broken relationships” Model: “Invitation to Transformation” Model:

Ancient The worst thing about sin is that it estranges Grace is the beginning of a transformational
Christianity* us from intimacy with God and others! story in which God invites us to pursue holiness
(Anna) Sin results in broken relationships with God by battling sin daily through the practice of
and others. spiritual disciplines modeled by Jesus Christ.
Justification/salvation both saves in the next
world and empowers sanctification in this world
as an invitation to live a transformed life.
Main motive for being a Christ-follower:
Loving hope (How can I cultivate intimacy
with God and loving relationships with self,
community, and others.)
ALIGNING ONE’S LOVES WITH GOD’S FOR A SPIRIT-FILLED LIFE
*These are generalizations used for the purposes of teaching and do not apply across the board to all contemporary or
ancient followers of Jesus—obviously, there are significant variations in the way that Christians think about these things
in all times and places, but Mathewes-Green wants to zero in on some general trends that she thinks can be helpful to
contemporary Christians like us who suffer from some of the problems she addresses.
96
PHIL 153: Week 13
“Consolation Prize” Model of Grace, to sum up, threatens us with the risk of what Apostle Paul called “receiving God’s
grace in vain,” and what we might think of today as using God as a “get out of hell free” card without ever really attempting
to cultivate intimacy with God, to love what God loves, and to strive to be who God is calling us to be.
The Invitation to Transformation Model of Grace, as Anna sees it, offers her transformative power to change in the
here and now. Anna doesn’t want to settle for being mired in sin, and then consoled that God won’t punish her for it; she
wants to tap into the transformative power of God’s grace on a daily basis, striving to love what God loves everyday
through the imitation of Jesus Christ—the practice of spiritual disciplines that slowly but surely uproot destructive and
sinful attitudes and actions out of her life and replace them with better habits that help her to cultivate the mind, hands,
and feet of Jesus Christ. The goal is that of living a transformed life RIGHT NOW in which sin is being conquered
every day, God helping us!
Mathewes-Green on Theosis vs. Theology
Theosis—The process through which one’s essential being is permeated and filled by the presence of God via
the transformative practice, with the Spirit’s help, of spiritual disciplines modeled by Jesus Christ.
Theosis is the ultimate end of human existence: to align human loves with divine loves and to live
the life God wants for us and to which God lovingly calls us.
Theology—reading, writing, thinking about, and discussing the nature of God and God’s will for creation.
Theology, at its best, is a means to the end of becoming more like God. But when we confuse
theology for an end in itself, we risk falling into the worship our own “right thinking”—which is
idolatry. This is a prime risk of “worldview Christianity”—the idea that being a Christ-follower is
first and foremost about “having the right belief system.”
Does this distinction between Theosis and Theology sound familiar? Have we seen something like this before?
Philosophy : : Philosophical Discourse
Way of life Potential Spiritual Discipline

(end: transformed living) (means: potential sp. discipline that can* lead to
transformed living)
Theosis : : Theology
*not always a spiritual discipline if you

you confuse it for an end in itself.
To sum up, for Anna (and for Mathewes-Green), theology has the practical aim of assisting the believer toward
theosis—increasing the health of the Christian soul, rather than conquering some theological Mt. Everest. On
this picture, God is not just a big old insurance policy in the sky for eternal life in the next world, but someone
who deeply desires to see us transformed in this world, so that we can aid God in the redemption God’s
creation right here and now! Like Anna, we must take seriously Jesus’s charge to “be perfect”, and daily ask for
grace to perceive our sins and fight against them. In this way, “we are like athletes in training, striving for the
prize,” striving to live out the model of Christ’s teachings as closely as we can.
III. Jarislav Pelikan’s “The Rabbi”: Three Key Ideas for Understanding Christ-following as Discipleship
Green admits that this way of looking at things might seem strange to contemporary Christians, and our reading leaves
off just at the point where she is about to discuss the cultural differences between the way we modern and contemporary
Christians understand who Jesus is, and the way that earlier Christians would have understood him. And that’s where the
celebrated historian of the church, Jarislav Pelikan, can help us to learn more about how Jesus’ first disciples understood
his ministry and their calling in respect to it.
1. Christian discipleship came before Christian Scripture: “Everyone must acknowledge that Christian
tradition had precedence, chronologically and even logically, over Christian Scripture; for there was a
97
PHIL 153: Week 13
tradition of the church before there was ever a New Testament, or any individual book of the new
testament.” (Pelikan, “The Rabbi”)
2. The Jewish character of Jesus’ life and teaching: Jesus was a Jewish spiritual teacher and his
disciples saw him first and foremost in that mode. Says Pelikan, “Jesus was Jewish and therefore any
attempt to understand his place in the history of human culture must begin within the context of
Judaism.” What does Jesus say in this context? His advice about how to live in this world is very
concrete: “Follow me!”, “Love God with all your heart, soul, and mind, and love your neighbor as
yourself!”, “If you love me, obey my commands.”
A Jewish blessing for context: “May the dust of the rabbi’s sandals always be upon you.”
3. The four titles for Jesus that can help us to understand the Jewish context within which the early
followers of Christ would have understood him: Teacher, Prophet, Christ, Lord.
a. Rabbi: He came to teach us how to live, showing us what God’s word means for the way we
conduct ourselves on a daily basis.
b. Prophet: He wasn’t just a wise teacher, but was invested with a special authority: when he
interpreted the scriptures, he did so definitively. As prophet, Jesus is authorized to speak for
God: he reminds us in God’s voice of our finitude and calls us to strive for a higher standard
of discipleship.
c. Christ: The Messiah, the anointed one, the savior sent to reconcile all creation to God.
d. Lord: The second person of the holy trinity, the Word from the beginning, the one in whom,
and through whom, and for whom all things were made.
Different Communities Understood Christ in Different Ways: “To the Christian Disciples of the first century, the
conception of Jesus as a rabbi was self-evident; to the Christian disciples of the second century, it was an
embarrassment, to the Christian disciples of the third century and beyond, it was obscure.” (Pelikan, “The Rabbi”)
Our Contemporary Predicament: Which aspects of Jesus Christ do we know best? And do those aspects resonate
with the idea of cultivating everyday intimacy with Jesus by loving what Jesus loves and obeying Jesus’ commands?
We typically know Jesus the Messiah, the son of God; and we know the Lord Jesus Christ, the second person of
the trinity.
But have we experienced Jesus in an intimate day-to-day relationship as Rabbi-Jeshua bar-Joseph: the suffering
servant who came to teach us how to live, and to be transformed in so living, by conforming our loves to his
loves through the practice of the disciplines that characterized his life and teachings?
IV. Finding Christian Spiritual Disciplines

We’ve spent a significant amount of time in this third unit thinking about how to put the assignments we’ve been doing
in class into practice in our everyday lives—in other words, how to learn to read not just for information, but for
transformation. Our final task of the unit is to compile a list of Christian spiritual exercises the practice of which will
succeed in reminding us of our finitude (on the one hand) and propelling us toward the realization of our more authentic
selves (on the other).
On your own time, compile a list of at least four (4) Christian spiritual disciplines the practice of which you might find
personally edifying in your own spiritual journey (where “spiritual” is understood in the broader sense we have been
discussing as a unity of your intellectual, emotional, moral and physical selves). If you do not identify as a Christian,
please feel free to choose spiritual disciplines that are pertinent to your own spiritual outlook (religious or otherwise).
For each of the four disciplines you choose, please name the discipline and then go on to describe in detail how its
repetitive practice serves to remind us of our finitude and propel us toward more authentic realizations of ourselves. It is
perfectly okay to include clear-cut examples like worship or scripture memorization, but for at least two of the four, try
to think beyond the most obvious examples to disciplines that would creatively engage your unique talents or blind-
spots. As for sources of inspiration, feel free to draw on personal experience as well as any of the texts we’ve read for
class (the Mathewes Green and Pelikan readings may be especially helpful). Think carefully, too, about disciplines that
are especially valuable for advancing our course themes of creation care and sustainability.
98
PHIL 153: Week 13
Examples
The following two examples will give you a sense of what I have in mind for the write-up. Please choose disciplines
other than prayer and marriage for your own personal reflection. J
Prayer—In all of its forms (whether adoration, confession, thanksgiving, or supplication), prayer serves to
remind us of our dependence on God for life, forgiveness, and gifts ranging in size from grace to daily bread. At
the same time, in acknowledging this dependence and realizing that our lives and concerns are just one small
part of a much grander plan, we are freed through prayer to relinquish burdens we were never meant to shoulder
alone and to be open to the ways in which God is calling us to participation in the grand plan. In the case of
prayers of adoration […]
Marriage—Striving each day to live up to one’s marriage vows in a partnership with another finite, fallen human
being is a worthy spiritual struggle. It reminds us of our finitude in many ways, including becoming vulnerable
to another person, having to acknowledge and repent of selfish thoughts and actions on a daily basis, and giving
us ample opportunities to discover shortcomings and blindspots as we negotiate the particulars and complexities
of everyday life with a person who will “tell it like it is” for the sake of our best interest. But it also propels us
toward our better selves, insofar as we discover […]
Here are some additional options to get your creative juices flowing:
Hospitality (welcoming the stranger)
Cultivating Christian community
Loving our neighbor as ourselves
Loving our enemies
Centering the marginalized
Communion (the eucharistic meal)
Baptism
Tithing
Sacrificial giving
Worship
Caring for creation
Compassionate eating
What others can you think of and how do they exemplify the mechanics of spiritual disciplines?
99
PHIL 153: Week 14

Week 14-15: Philosophy as Pragmatism + Rorty’s Challenge to Western Philosophy
Week 14 and 15 Objectives

I. Transition from the first 3 units to the 4th mini-unit on pragmatism: from transcendent à instrumental truth.
II. Explain the connection between the pragmatic approach to philosophy and American democracy.
III. Describe Rorty’s philosophy of public education: the two tasks of education for good democratic citizenship.
IV. Sketch Rorty’s outlook on how pragmatism should approach topics like politics and religion.
V. Briefly consider two concerns about the pragmatic approach to philosophy.
I. Pragmatic Philosophy as a Social Coping Mechanism: The Turn to Instrumental Truth
Though the first three units have their differences, they are in general agreement on the answer to the question “What
is the GOAL of philosophy?”. In all three approaches, the goal is to put human beings in touch with deep truths about
ourselves, others, and the world. We’re searching for…
Transcendent truth (TT, a.k.a. “Capital T Truth”)—Truth is something OUT THERE in the world that
human beings may discover or gain insight into through various modes of inquiry. What these modes of inquiry
share in common is that they move from an understanding of the particulars of everyday experience to a “deeper”
or more “authentic” understanding of the universal, which “lies beyond” or “transcends” the world of particulars.
Analysis—Philosophy is a means of achieving correspondence between our conceptual scaffolding and

the way the world really is.
Hermeneutics—Philosophy is a means of achieving a deeper, more authentic understanding of
ourselves, others, and the world.
Spiritual Discipline—Philosophy is a means of transformation into our authentic selves.
Philosophy as a truth-tracking mechanism—For the analysis, hermeneutics, and spiritual discipline

approaches to philosophy, in summary, philosophy is understood primarily a truth-tracking mechanism that helps
us to discover a deeper, more truthful, more authentic understanding of the world and our place within it.
The pragmatist approach to philosophy, however, answers the question “What is the goal of philosophy?” in a very
different way. From a pragmatist perspective, the search for truth and authenticity in philosophy hasn’t gone so well and
its time to try something new. What’s gone wrong?
1. No convergence on what is ultimately true about the world or on what an authentic life should look like
even after searching for millennia.
2. Lack of convergence is problematic, leading to perpetual disagreement, conflict, and even violence among
people who disagree about what is really true, good, authentic, etc.
3. Even if convergence were possible, finite creatures like us don’t have the resources to know for sure if
we’ve converged on what is true; often, there’s convergence on things that are ultimately very impractical
and misleading.
In the face of these challenges, the pragmatist says, let’s scrap the search for deep truths about the way the world
really is and settle for cobbling together small “t” truths that help us to work out compromises to solve shared
this-worldly problems:
Instrumental truth (IT, a.k.a. “small t truth”) —“Truth” is a word that human beings use to describe beliefs,
principles, social arrangements (and the like) that are particularly effective in helping them to achieve some
concrete purpose. Truth is not “discovered” by human beings so much as “truth” is “made” when human beings
come together and agree upon the usefulness of certain beliefs, actions and social arrangements for achieving
certain desired ends.
Philosophy as a social coping mechanism—For pragmatism, philosophy is not about tracking transcendent
truths that help us to discover what is ultimately real, but rather about deploying instrumental truths for the
purpose of creating social coping mechanisms.
100
PHIL 153: Week 14
THE BIG IDEA: Philosophy should shift its goal from tracking transcendent truth to using instrumental truth for social
coping.
Discussion question: How does this goal resonate with living more sustainably? How might this shift in
philosophical emphasis lead to advantages in our collective efforts to make environmental policy and transform
our food system?
*Pragmatism still has some shared values with analysis, hermeneutics and spiritual discipline, but the radically
different goal of pragmatism to create social coping tools rather than discover deep truths affects its motivation for
holding these values.
Analysis and pragmatism both value the scientific method:

Analytic motivation: science gets at the way the world really is
Pragmatic motivation: science is good at predicting and controlling the world and thus it is good at
helping us adapt to it and solve practical problems.
Hermeneutics and pragmatism both value dialogue with the other:

Hermeneutic motivation: dialogue contributes to deeper, more authentic understanding of self, other,
and world
Pragmatic motivation: dialogue promotes practical compromise and keeps people from getting into
conflicts and killing each other
Spiritual discipline and pragmatism both value action and application over theory:
Spiritual disciplinary motivation: action and application are necessary in order to turn abstract
knowledge of the world into authentic living in the world
Pragmatic motivation: action and application are necessary to get beyond talking about this-worldly
problems to finding novel solutions through trial and error
II. Pragmatism and Democracy: The Need for Free Citizens Respecting Others’ Freedoms
A Democratic framework: “American pragmatism”—As the pragmatist sees things, getting along, working together,
and arriving at compromises to solve shared this-worldly problems is much easier when citizens are able to pursue life,
liberty, and happiness as they see fit.
Negative freedom: My freedom stops before it impinges on yours—One of the basic, practical assumptions of
pragmatism, then, is that citizens who want to work together to build a better world must be prepared to leave their
personal beliefs about transcendent truth to one side when working with those who disagree; the point is both to minimize
conflict and to prevent the tyranny of any one vision of the world over any other (as the pragmatist sees it, tyranny is
ultimately bad for long-term problem-solving: it may momentarily preserve peace, but will always give way to social
chaos eventually).
Citizens in a democratic republic can achieve this balance of living and letting other lives by observing a practical
distinction between two spheres of life:
Public sphere—The set of beliefs, values, preferences, and actions that all interested parties can agree upon (or
at least agree to disagree upon) for the practical purpose of getting along with one another, *regardless of what
they happen to believe about transcendent truth. (Life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, safety, open access
to education and medical care, etc.)
Private sphere—The set of beliefs, values, preferences, and actions that will be difficult to achieve agreement
upon among all interested parties, *at least in the short term. (Religious identity, “worldview” concerns,
vocational preference, favorite activities, etc.)
***OVER TIME, radical ideas that were once a part of the private sphere can slowly evolve toward public
acceptability as prophetic educators, activists, pastors, and cultural agitators make arguments that are eventually
accepted (or at least tolerated) by all (abolition, civil rights, women’s suffrage, LGBTQ rights; animal rights?)
101
PHIL 153: Week 14
III. Rorty’s “Education as Socialization and Individualization”
Socialization prepares one for life in the public sphere

Education as socialization (K-12): the process through which children and young adults learn what the status
quo expects of them and how to conduct themselves in the public sphere (literate, law-abiding, respectful of
others, etc.).
Individualization prepares one for life in the private sphere

Education as Individualization (College): the process through which young adults differentiate themselves
from the status quo by learning to set their own intellectual and practical agendas—a process that enables them
to detect potential problems with the ways they have been socialized, and to posit creative solutions to those
problems (which might one day change the way future generations are socialized).
The Lesson: Both educational outcomes are necessary. WHY?

Socialization: to function in a society, you have to know what its expectations are
Individualization: to improve and transform a society, you have to be able to see where it is going wrong and
to innovate novel solutions to pressing new problems.
IV. Rorty’s “Failed Prophecies, Glorious Hopes”
Failed Prophecies Glorious Hopes

(Dubious transcendent truth claims) (Inspiring instrumental truth claims)
New Testament Christ hasn’t returned Neighbor/enemy love
Transformed Christian lives rare Respect for all people
Justice for the poor & weak
Communist Manifesto No worldwide revolution Raising labor consciousness

Specific revolutions = failure Ideal of a classless society
The Lesson: Forget about the claims these texts make concerning transcendent truth, Rorty says, and focus instead on
the instrumental truths that these texts offer for getting along better together here and now.
V. Some Concerns about Pragmatism
1. Too shallow. Doesn’t give a satisfying enough account of who we are, why we’re here, and what our purpose should
be while we’re here. Cf. Wolterstorff’s thick, rich conception of “Living toward shalom” vs. Rorty’s comparatively thin
conception of social hope for a society that is “unspecifiably freer” than it has been in the past.
2. What does “better” mean? Is it really possible to weigh the notion of a “better” world without an ideal vision of what
we are working toward? Common sense itself is a function of the hermeneutic situation.
Discussion questions: What questions and concerns do you have about the pragmatic approach to philosophy? On your
view, how does pragmatism stack up to the other approaches we’ve discussed? What do you think of the pragmatic critique
of the search for transcendent truth? Comment on Rorty’s critique of contemporary Christianity. In what ways, if any, is
it successful or challenging? In what ways does it seem to miss the mark?
102
PHIL 153: Week 15

Week 15: Course Retrospective
Week 15 Objectives
I. Briefly review the four commitments of philosophy and the four arguments for caring about it.
II. Discuss two ways to think about integrating the different approaches to philosophy we’ve considered.
III. Distill each of the four ways of approaching philosophy into a single compelling human challenge that you can
remember long after you’ve forgotten the details of each approach.
IV. Briefly comment on how I put these four approaches together in my own strivings to live a philosophical life,
and challenge you to think about how each approach can provide a unique contribution to your efforts.
I. The Four Commitments of Philosophy and Four Arguments for Caring About Philosophy
Way back in Week 1, we addressed the question “What is philosophy?” in view of four basic commitments that
analysis, hermeneutics, spiritual discipline, and pragmatism share in common, notwithstanding their differences. We
went on, then, to argue that we all have both self-interested and altruistic reasons to take philosophy seriously even if
it’s not our favorite thing.
The four commitments: intellectual caretaking, intellectual flexibility, tools of the trade, integrating thought
and practice
Why should we care?: practical advantage, personal depth, better servant, increased autonomy (freedom)
II. Two Ways to Fit Together the Four Approaches to Philosophy

In thinking about how these four different approaches to philosophy fit together, I’ll emphasize two main strategies: first,
we’ll consider how they complement one another despite their differences; second, we’ll consider how they provided
needed checks and balances on one another.
Complementary: these four models can supplement one another’s strengths

ü We don’t have to view these possibilities as mutually exclusive, nor do we have to commit ourselves to every
aspect of one approach in order to enjoy its benefits. A few examples:
ü Any pragmatist knows, for example, that orchestrating an agreement in the public sphere with folks who have
completely different views in the private sphere requires one to be adept at hermeneutics: listening to and
interpreting the interests and desires of the other, and reconciling those with one’s own.
ü Also, as we’ve seen, rigorous analysis of the concepts of “language”, “dialogue”, and the “Other,” is central to
getting hermeneutics off the ground.
ü Similarly, analysis can play an important role in spiritual discipline as a form of intellectual exercise that keeps
the mind sharp and focused within the broader, holistic context of spiritual transformation.
Checks and Balances: these models can also help to expose the weaknesses of the other approaches, and thereby
strengthen them.
ü Analysis strives for disinterested, objective results, but hermeneutics reminds us that the impulse to objectify
things and people can be as reductive and as dangerous as it is useful if caution isn’t exercised.
ü Pragmatism focuses on results and wish-fulfillment here-and-now, but spiritual discipline reminds us that human
existence is also characterized by a spiritual-depth that can’t easily be reduced to the here-and-now.
In your own experience of studying philosophy, have you observed any ways that the different approaches complement
one another’s strengths or shed critical light on one another’s weaknesses?
III. Four Important Human Challenges

All of the above is interesting, you say, but what should those of us who aren’t going to be philosophy majors, much less
graduate students in philosophy, take from this class? Why is this relevant? How do we put this thinking into practice?
Each model presents an important human challenge.
ü Analysis: Be rigorous in your ability to articulate and defend what you love and what you believe. Know what
actions are demanded by your loves and what follows logically from your beliefs and be prepared to test and
defend them!
103
PHIL 153: Week 15
ü Hermeneutics: Realize that an authentic understanding of yourself and your community requires learning to see
yourself through the eyes of the Other, and be open to revising and even changing as the claims of Others require.
ü Spiritual Discipline: Challenge yourself to live the best life you can! Know how to distinguish what is important
in life from what isn’t! Do not be a slave to ideas and things that are not good and that do not last!
ü Pragmatism: Don’t let your personal disagreements with others about the meaning of life and other really deep
stuff keep you from respecting, listening, and working together with them to make the world a better place for
everyone!
IV. My Cards on the Table

I’m inclined to think that spiritual discipline should be the guiding model, and that the others play important supporting
roles in the grand drama of striving to live a philosophical life:
To live the best life I can (spiritual discipline), I must know who I am, where I come from, and what my blind
spots are (hermeneutics). To know who I am, where I come from, and what my blind spots are, however, I must
both regularly engage others’ perspectives (hermeneutics) and be prepared to engage in rigorous analysis
(conceptual engineering) of myself and my motives. Rigorous analysis of myself and my motives leads me to
the conclusion that I must be willing to work together with people who have very different life projects than
mine to find compromises that help to make the world a better place for everyone (pragmatism).
Learning these four approaches to philosophy and figuring out how to hold them in productive tension has provided me
with decades of sustaining wisdom to help me flourish as an individual, work for justice in my communities of influence,
and take up life practices that embody my hope for a thriving creation. May the practice of philosophy benefit you likewise
in your endeavors!
104

Phil 153 Student Handbook Spring 2023

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Phil 153 Student Handbook Spring 2023

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PHIL 153

Fundamental Questions in Philosophy (Sustainability)

PHIL 153: Fundamental Questions in Philosophy

This handbook includes the following documents:

How to use the syllabus:

How to use the assignment log:

How to use the weekly course materials:

PHIL 153: Fundamental Questions in Philosophy (Sustainability)

II. Course Description

III. Student Learning Objectives (SLOs)

IV. Requirements and Grade Assessment

Participation (Reading Question Write-ups, Attendance, Class Discussion)—20%

Assignments will be graded on the following scale:

From the Calvin University English Department Statement on Plagiarism

Context for the policy

g. The sequence of ideas, arrangement of material, pattern of thought, or visual representation of

2. Students are accomplices to plagiarism if they do any of the following:

b. They do not report a fellow student who plagiarizes.

VII. Course Calendar

Week 1 Preliminaries and Course Overview

W. Jan 11 Understanding our task, continued

F. Jan 13 Baseline: Introduction to Analysis

Week 2 Unit One: Analysis—Sustaining Our Conceptual Scaffoldings

W. Jan 18 Metaphysics, continued

F. Jan 20 Case study: Epistemology

W. Jan. 25 Case study: Ethics

F. Jan. 27 Ethics, continued

W. Feb. 1 Philosophy of Religion, continued

F. Feb. 3 Catch-up day

Week 5 Unit Two: Hermeneutics—Sustaining and Evolving Communal Understanding

W. Feb. 8 Introduction to Hermeneutics, continued

F. Feb. 10 Case study: The Other and Sexism

W. Feb. 15 Case study: The Other and Racism*

F. Feb. 17 The Other and Racism, continued

F. Feb 24 Are Animals Others, continued.

W. Mar. 8 The Hermeneutics of Christian Belief and Discipleship, continued

F. Mar. 10 Case study: Eating as an Act of Christian Discipleship, continued

Week 10 Unit Three: Spiritual Discipline—Sustaining Holistic Flourishing

W. Mar. 15 Baseline: Introduction to Spiritual Discipline

F. Mar. 17 Hadot’s Architecture of Transformation, continued.

W. Mar. 22 NO CLASS MEETING—ADVISING DAY

F. Mar. 24 Architecture of Transformation + Socrates + Case study: The Example of Seneca

W. Mar. 29 Socrates, Seneca, Thoreau + Case Study: The Example of Gandhi

F. Mar. 31 Socrates, Seneca, Thoreau, and Gandhi, continued

W. Apr. 5 The Example of Jesus, continued

F. Apr. 7 NO CLASS MEETING—EASTER BREAK

Week 14 Unit Four: Pragmatism—Sustaining Common Goods in a World of Compromises

W. April 12 Spiritual Discipline Wrap-Up and Transition to Pragmatism

F. April 14 Introduction to Pragmatism

W. April 19 Pragmatism and Education + Case study: Pragmatism and Religion

Th. April 20* Pragmatism, continued

*Thursday, April 20 is a Friday schedule.

PHIL 153: Fundamental Questions in Philosophy (Sustainability)

Table of Contents Page #

Unit One: Analysis (Conceptual Engineering)

Unit Two: Hermeneutics

Unit Three: Spiritual Discipline

Unit Four: Pragmatism

PHIL 153: Fundamental Questions in Philosophy

Some specific questions for reflection

PHIL 153: Fundamental Questions in Philosophy

PHIL 153: Fundamental Questions in Philosophy

PHIL 153: Fundamental Questions in Philosophy