phil453_2016f
The Extended Mind, the Expanded
Self, and Group Agency
(PHIL 453)
Course Description | Course Schedule
Study Helps & Philosophy Links
Fall 2016
Monday-Wednesday 3:00-4:30
John R. Howard Hall 255
Email: fritzman@lclark.edu
Class Email: 16fa-phil-453-01@lclark.edu
Phone: 503-768-7477
Office: John R. Howard Hall 223
Office Hours:
Mondays and Wednesdays 9:00-12:00
Fridays 9:00-12:30 & 2:00-3:00
and by appointment
COURSE DESCRIPTION
Freeman Dyson: "Most of the crackpot papers which are submitted to The Physical Review are rejected, not because it is impossible to understand them, but because it is possible. Those which are impossible to understand are usually published. When the great innovation appears, it will almost certainly be in a muddled, incomplete and confusing form. To the discoverer himself [sic] it will be only half-understood; to everybody else it will be a mystery. For any speculation which does not at first glance look crazy, there is no hope."
This course will engage recent work on the extended mind, the expanded self, and group agency. There are four required texts:
Richard Menary, editor, The Extended Mind, (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2012).
The Extended Mind is available through the College Bookstore, Amazon.com, and Barnes & Noble.
Frederick F. Schmitt, editor, Socializing Metaphysics: The Nature of Social Reality, (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2003).
Socializing Metaphysics is available through the College Bookstore, Amazon.com, and Barnes & Noble.
Evan Thompson, Waking, Dreaming, Being: Self and Consciousness in Neuroscience, Meditation, and Philosophy, (New York: Columbia University Press, 2014).
Waking, Dreaming, Being is available through the College Bookstore, Amazon.com, and Barnes & Noble.
Deborah Perron Tollefsen, Groups as Agents, (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2015).
Groups as Agents is available through the College Bookstore, Amazon.com, and Barnes & Noble.
There are two primary goals of this course. We will comprehend recent discussions about the extended mind, the expanded self, and group agency. Then, we will contribute to (intervene in) those discussions.
Here are the learning outcomes for students who graduate with a major in Philosophy.
In preparation for each class meeting, you should have read the assigned material. You should arrive in class with questions or comments about the assigned reading. Each student write an assessment and an argumentative paper (which includes a prospectus, a synopsis, a draft, and a mandatory rewrite). Finally, you will give a class presentation of your paper.
Here is how your final course grade will be determined. The assessment will count for 25%. The prospectus will count for 10%, the draft will count for 20%, and the argumentative paper will count for 40%. The presentation will count for 5%.
Participation and attendance are mandatory.
The grading scale is:
A = 93%-100%
A- = 90%-92%
B+ = 86%-89%
B = 83% 85%
B- = 80%-82%
C+ = 76%-79%
C = 73%-75%
C- = 70%-72%
D+ = 66%-69%
D = 60%-65%
F = 0%-59%.
An assessment should be approximately 2000 words, typed, double-spaced, with 1 inch margins on the right & left sides and the top & bottom. Use a 12-point Times or Times Roman font You will sign up for a dates on which you will present your assessments. On the day you present, you will distribute copies to all of the persons in this class. This will require, of course, that you have enough copies made so that each member of the class has one. You first will read your assessment, and then you and I will serve as the main resource persons for fielding questions concerning the material. Since the class discussion will be centered around the assessment, it is crucial that you distribute the assessment the class session when you present it, and that you actually be in class to read your assessment.
The primary purpose of the assessment is to summarize, consolidate, and explicate the central issues, main points, and key motifs of the assigned reading in the Phenomenology of Spirit in order to facilitate class discussion of that material. It is important that the assessment contextualize the reading by describing briefly both how the reading is a continuation and development of material which has come before, and how it contributes to the overall trajectory of the thinker's thought.
It is crucial that you critically engage the reading. You might argue that a claim that the author makes is incorrect, for example, or that a criticism in the secondary literature is incorrect. Alternatively, you might argue that an interpretation advanced in the secondary literature is incorrect. The assessment should reflect an acquaintance with the requisite secondary literature. This means that you must incorporate at least six secondary sources you consulted while writing your assessment.
The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, and Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy will be useful.
The Philosopher's Index will be vital for the Assessment and Argumentative Research Paper.
The Chicago Manual of Style's Citation Quick Guide is online.
There will be an argumentative research paper, 3000 words, typed, double-spaced. It will be on the same topic as your assessment.
Several weeks before the draft is due, you will submit a prospectus of this paper in which you: (1) indicate the topic and thesis of your paper, (2) fully describe the problem or issue to be treated, (3) outline your anticipated procedure and probable conclusion, and (4) include an annotated bibliography of works to be consulted (a minimum of 6 books or articles, with at least a paragraph discussing the relevance of each work to your project).
You're welcome to consult the Writing Center, located on the main floor of Watzek Library.
Also useful is the Online Writing Lab (OWL) at Purdue University.
If you would find it useful to create concept maps, to help write your assessment or argumentative research papers, you can download the software to create them from IHMC Cmap Tools.
All work must be submitted when it is due. Late work -- assessments, papers -- will not be accepted and will receive no credit.
This class will be successful only if there is a high degree of participation and attendance, and so I want you in class participating. The final grade for the course will be lowered by a full-letter grade if you miss four class sessions, the final grade will be lowered by two full-letter grades if you miss five class sessions, and you will be withdrawn from the course if you miss six or more class sessions. I will not accept make-up work unless you can document the reason for your absence. Documenting the reason for your absence means providing a note from, for example, your doctor explaining why you were absent. Serious illnesses and emergencies will be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.
Throughout the course you are expected to read carefully the assigned material. It is impossible to do well in this course without reading and studying the books. You should spend a minimum of three hours preparing for each class session. Read the assigned material at least twice and take notes on what you read. You are expected to attend all class sessions, come to class having read thoroughly the assigned material, and to contribute to the discussions.
Gorgias of Leontini maintained that "those who neglect philosophy and spend their time on ordinary studies are like the suitors who desired Penelope but slept with her maids." In philosophy, unlike ordinary studies, there are few right and wrong answers. There are better and worse arguments and ideas, however, usually in direct proportion to thoughtfulness and care. What is important is that you think for yourself, and that you develop and defend your own ideas. It would be an excellent idea to write drafts or synopsiss of your papers, and to have a comrade read them to check on spelling, grammar, development of arguments, and so forth.
You are strongly encouraged to discuss the class material, your ideas, your puzzles and difficulties with each other. A word to the wise: Find a study partner to discuss things with outside of class. (To see why this is effective for creativity and learning, read Malcolm Gladwell's article, Group Think: What Does "Saturday Night Live" Have in Common with German Philosophy?, The New Yorker, 2 December 2002, pages 102-107).
There's a Bollwood tune for every occasion. Click here.
When it comes to finally writing your assessment and paper, though, do your own writing. That is the only way you will get the full benefit of your own efforts. I will be happy to discuss ideas with you, read synopsiss and rough drafts, and so forth. That is partly why I keep office hours.
A final word to the wise. It is not difficult to do well in this class, but it also is easy to do badly. Let me talk about the bad stuff first. You will receive a major grade reduction -- or fail this course -- if you do not read the material, seldom participate in class discussions, do not write your assessment, or argumentative research paper, plagiarize, cheat, and so forth.
About plagiarizing and cheating. All students are expected to follow Lewis & Clark College's Academic Integrity Policy. Plagiarizers and cheaters will be given an "F" for the entire course (they will not be allowed to drop or withdraw from the course). I also will turn their cases over to the Honor Board; I will recommend that disciplinary penalties be assessed. It is never in your interest to plagiarize or cheat!
Now for the good stuff. With a concerted effort, you will do well in this class. To do well, you must participate in class discussions, read and study the assigned material, write the assessment, argumentative research paper, be in class (almost) all of the time, etc. I do not grade on a curve, and so there is no good reason why you should not get an "A" for the course!
Course policy on disability accommodation. If you have a disability or learning difference that may impact your academic performance, you may request accommodations by submitting documentation to Student Support Services, located in Albany 206 (access@lclark.edu, 503-768-7156). They will notify me of the accommodations for which you are eligible.
COURSE SCHEDULE
Niels Bohr: "We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question that divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct."
Week 1
Monday, 8/26:
Introduction to the course.
Read:
Jim Pryor's Guidelines on Reading Philosophy,
Malcolm Gladwell's Group Think in the New Yorker.
Wednesday, 8/28:
Ethan Watters, "We Aren't the World", Pacific Standard.
Joseph Henrich, Steven J. Heine, and Ara Norenzayan, "The Weirdest People in the World?", Behavioral and Brain Sciences, Volume 33:2-3, June 2010, pages 61-83.
Discussion of research.
Week 2
Monday, 9/5:
Labor Day
Wednesday, 9/7:
Tollefsen, Groups as Agents, pages vi-vii & 1-49.
Discussion of (annotated) bibliography, footnotes, reasons for citations, proper quoting (block or in-line).
Sign-up for Assessments.
Exercise for Monday: Find one book and one article that will be relevant to your Assessment. Provide one block quote from the book and one in-line quote from the article. List the book and the article in proper formats for footnote and bibliography.
Saturday, 9/10, 7:00 PM:
A gluten-free, vegan, vedic dinner to celebrate Ganesh Chaturthi, a festival that honors Ganesha.
Week 3
Monday, 9/12:
Tollefsen, Groups as Agents, pages 50-96.
Discussion of search procedures for articles and books.
Wednesday, 9/14:
Tollefsen, Groups as Agents, pages 97-138.
Discussion of search procedures for articles and books.
Exercise for Monday: in proper bibliographical format, list three articles and two books that are relevant to your Assessment.
Week 4
Monday, 9/19:
Frederick F. Schmitt, "Socializing Metaphysics: An Introduction," in Schmitt, Socializing Metaphysics, pages 1-37.
Margaret Gilbert, "The Structure of the Social Atom: Joint Commitment as the Foundation of Human Social Behavior," in Schmitt, Socializing Metaphysics, pages 39-64.
Discussion on using the Arts & Humanities Citation Index and the Philosopher's Index.
Wednesday, 9/21:
Abraham Sesshu Roth, "Practical Intersubjectivity," in
Schmitt, Socializing Metaphysics, pages 65-91.
"The We-Mode and the I-Mode," in Schmitt, Socializing Metaphysics, pages 93-127.
Discussion on using the Arts & Humanities Citation Index and the Philosopher's Index
Exercise for Monday: In proper bibliographical format, list three additional articles that you found through the Arts & Humanities Citation Index or the Philosopher's Index that are relevant to your Assessment.
Week 5
Monday, 9/26:
Frederick F. Schmitt, "Joint Action: From Individualism to Supraindividualism," in Schmitt, Socializing Metaphysics, pages 129-165.
Philip Pettit, "Group with Minds of their Own," in Schmitt, Socializing Metaphysics, pages 167-193.
Discussion of annotated bibliography and reliability of sources.
Wednesday, 9/28:
John R. Searle, "Social Ontology and Political Power," in Schmitt, Socializing Metaphysics, pages 195-210.
Edward Witherspoon, "Conventions and Form of Life," in Schmitt, Socializing Metaphysics, pages 211-245.
Discussion of annotated bibliography and reliability of sources.
Exercise for Wednesday: Submit a 3-5 page prospectus of your argumentative research paper in which you:
(1) indicate your topic and thesis.
(2) describe the problem or issue to be treated.
(3) outline your anticipated procedure and probable conclusion.
(4) include an annotated bibliography of works to be consulted (a minimum of six books or articles, with at least a paragraph discussing the relevance of each work to your project).
Week 6
Monday, 10/3:
Gary Ebbs, "Denotation and Discovery," in Schmitt, Socializing Metaphysics, pages 247-268.
Seumas Miller, "Individual Autonomy and Sociality," in Schmitt, Socializing Metaphysics, pages 269-299.
Wednesday, 10/5:
Due: Prospectus of Argumentative Research Paper
Week 7
Monday, 10/10:
Nicholas D. Smith, "The New Collective Social Epistemology and the Old Fallacy of Functional Equivalence," International Journal of Assessment and Evaluation 23:1, March 2016, pages 1-9.
Sally Haslanger, "Social Construction: The 'Debunking' Project," in Schmitt, Socializing Metaphysics, pages 301-325.
Ron Mallon, "Social Construction, Social Roles, and Stability," in Schmitt, Socializing Metaphysics, pages 327-353.
Discussion of note taking and perusing for content.
Wednesday, 10/12:
J. M. Fritzman and Kristin Parvizian, "The Extended Mind Rehabilitates the Metaphysical Hegel," Metaphilosophy 43:5, October 2012, pages 636-658.
Richard Menary, "Introduction: The Extended Mind in Focus," in Menary, The Extended Mind, pages 1-25.
Discussion of note taking and perusing for content.
Week 8
Monday, 10/17:
Andy Clark and David J. Chalmers, "The Extended Mind," in Menary, The Extended Mind, pages 27-42.
Assessment: Willa Sacharow.
Andy Clark, "Memento's Revenge: The Extended Mind, Extended," in Menary, The Extended Mind, pages 43-66.
Discussion of formulating a thesis: outlines, drafts, revisions.
Wednesday, 10/19:
Fred Adams and Ken Aizawa, "Defending the Bounds of Cognition," in Menary, The Extended Mind, pages 67-80.
Assessment: Creagan Lydon.
Andy Clark, "Coupling, Constitution and the Cognitive Kind: A Reply to Adams and Aizawa," in Menary, The Extended Mind, pages 81-99.
Discussion of formulating a thesis: outlines, drafts, revisions.
Week 9
Monday, 10/24:
William A. Rottschaefer, "How Otto Did Not Extend his Mind, but Might Have: Dynamic Systems Theory and Social-Cultural Group Selection," manuscript.
Susan Hurley, "The Varieties of Externalism," in Menary, The Extended Mind, pages 101-153.
Don Ross and James Ladyman, "The Alleged Coupling-Constitution Fallacy and the Mature Sciences," in Menary, The Extended Mind, pages 155-166.
Assessment: Makayla Keydel.
Discussion of articulating a thesis: arguments, objections, replies.
Wednesday, 10/26:
Robert A. Wilson, "Meaning Making and the Mind of the Externalist," in Menary, The Extended Mind, pages 167-188.
John Sutton, "Exograms and Interdisciplinarity: History, the Extended Mind, and the Civilizing Process," in Menary, The Extended Mind, pages 189-225.
Assessment: Robert Reimanis.
Discussion of articulating a thesis: arguments, objections, replies.
Week 10
Monday, 10/31:
Richard Menary, "Cognitive Integration and the Extended Mind," in Menary, The Extended Mind, pages 227-243.
Michael Wheeler, "In Defence of Extended Functionalism," in Menary, The Extended Mind, pages 245-270.
Wednesday, 11/2:
Due: Synopsis of Argumentative Research Paper
Week 11
Monday, 11/7:
Mark Rowlands, "Consciousness, Broadly Construed," in Menary, The Extended Mind, pages 271-294.
David Spurrett and Stephen Cowley, "The Extended Infant: Utterance-Activity and Distributed Cognition," in Menary, The Extended Mind, pages 295-323.
Wednesday, 11/9:
Robert D. Rupert, "Representation in Extended Cognitive Systems: Does the Scaffolding of Language Extend the Mind?," in Menary, The Extended Mind, pages 325-353.
John Preston, "The Extended Mind, the Concept of Belief, and Epistemic Credit," in Menary, The Extended Mind, pages 355-369.
Week 12
Monday, 11/14:
Guest lecturers: Rebecca Copenhaver <rebeccac@lclark.edu> and Jay Odenbaugh <jay@lclark.edu>.
J. M. Fritzman and Kristin Thornburg, "'I Is Someone Else': Constituting the Extended Mind’s Fourth Wave, with Hegel," Essays In Philosophy 17:2, July 2017, pages 156-190; http://dx.doi.org/10.7710/1526-0569.1560.
Jay Odenbaugh, "Review of Jennifer Greenwood's Becoming Human: The Ontogenesis, Metaphysics, and Expression of Human Emotionality."
If you can make time, also read
Thompson, Waking, Dreaming, Being, pages xi-xl.
Wednesday, 11/16:
Thompson, Waking, Dreaming, Being, pages xi-xl (if you haven't already read these) and 1-65.
Exercise for Wednesday: Submit a draft of your argumentative research paper.
Week 13
Monday, 11/21:
Thompson, Waking, Dreaming, Being, pages 67-138.
Wednesday, 11/23:
Due: Draft of Argumentative Research Paper
Submit copy to Fritzman and to a Peer Evaluator
Week 14
Monday, 11/28:
Thompson, Waking, Dreaming, Being, pages 139-202.
Wednesday, 11/30:
Thompson, Waking, Dreaming, Being, pages 203-271.
Week 15
Monday, 12/5:
Thompson, Waking, Dreaming, Being, pages 273-366.
Wednesday, 12/7:
In-class consultation about Argumentative Research Papers.
Week 16
Wednesday, 12/14:
Argumentative Research Paper due at 1:00 PM.
Submit four items:
(1) the final rewrite.
(2) the draft on which I wrote comments.
(3) the draft on which your peer evaluator wrote comments.
(4) the peer evaluation form.
Presentation of Argumentative Research Papers.
Home
J. M. Fritzman
0615 SW Palatine Hill Road
Portland, OR 97219-7899
USA
503-768-7477
Updated on 14 November 2016