phil 339 (x50) - St. Joseph's College - University of Alberta
phil 339 (x50) - St. Joseph's College - University of Alberta phil 339 (x50) - St. Joseph's College - University of Alberta
JA Buijs Phil 339, 2013 – 4 Naturalism: science and the world What is fundamental to a naturalistic worldview? What are its ontological, epistemological, and ethical views? How can we adequately explain the moral dimension of human beings? Their mental capacities and experience of consciousness? What are the legitimate scope and limits of science? Must naturalism be necessarily materialistic? Must naturalism be non-theistic? What is philosophically plausible in naturalism? What, if anything, is problematic? “. . . one theme that underlies nearly all philosophical discussion is the perpetual conflict between naturalistic and nonnaturalistic world views.” William H. Halverson, A Concise th Introduction to Philosophy (4 ed., 1981:): 9 Postmodernism: meaning and interpretation “Postmodernism swims, even wallows, in the fragmentary and the chaotic currents of change as if that is all there is.” David Harvey, The Condition of Postmodernity (1989): 44 What are the origins of postmodernism? What are the fundamental contentions of postmodernism? How does postmodernism understand meaning, truth, reality? Is reality merely a human construct? Is truth made rather than discovered? Is morality conventional rather than universal? What is philosophically plausible in postmodernism? What, if anything, is problematic? Is a christian postmodernism or a buddhist postmodernism possible? Atheism (agnosticism) On what basis is atheism or non-theism opposed to theism? Are there significant varieties of non-theism or atheism? What justification can be given for a non-theistic worldview? How does this worldview address the issue of meaning or purpose in life? What is philosophically plausible in atheism or non-theism? What, if anything, is problematic? Is any fruitful dialogue possible between theists and nontheists? “. . . for somebody living in the twentieth century with a good philosophical and a good scientific education, who thinks carefully about the matter, for such a person it is irrational to believe in God.” Kai Nielsen, Does God Exist, The Great Debate (1990): 48 “People who share one of these [four distinguishable worldviews of Western societies] communicate fairly well with one another, not so well with people of a different worldview.” Walter T. Anderson, “Four Ways to be Absolutely Right,” The Truth about the Truth (1995): 110 Competing worldviews: conflict or convergence? How can we address the issue of pluralism among worldviews? Is conflict inevitable? Is convergence possible? What are some of the parameters for constructive dialogue among conflicting worldviews? Can faith commitments be integrated into intellectual pursuits?
JA Buijs Phil 339, 2013 – 5 CONTACTING THE INSTRUCTOR The easiest way to contact me with course concerns is by email (place Phil 339 in the subject heading). However, arrangements can be made to meet at any other convenient time as needed. Usually, I can also stop to address concerns or questions immediately after class. USE OF COURSE CONTENT Printed course material and additional on-line resources are under copyright protection. They are made available for personal use only. “Audio or video recording of lectures, labs, seminars or any other teaching environment by students is allowed only with the prior written consent of the instructor or as a part of an approved accommodation plan. Recorded material is to be used solely for personal study, and is not to be used or distributed for any other purpose without prior written consent from the instructor.” (University Calendar, Addendum Page, June 13, 2012: 23.4 (2)(e)) TAKE-HOME TESTS DUE January 23, 2013 March 6, 2013 March 20, 2013 (optional) VALUE OBJECTIVE LENGTH CONTENT APPROACH 30% of the term mark (15% each) To show a critical understanding of a worldview and implied philosophical issues. No more than 3 pages (computer print-out, double-spaced, 12-point font). Each test will consist of answering an assigned question in relation to issues and worldviews discussed up to that point. No further research or reading should be required, other than the resources of the course, i.e., class discussion, notes, and assigned selections from the Coursepack.
- Page 1 and 2: THE UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA ST. JOSEP
- Page 3: JA Buijs Phil 339, 2013 - 3 PROGRAM
- Page 7: JA Buijs Phil 339, 2013 - 7 FINAL E
JA Buijs Phil <strong>339</strong>, 2013 – 4<br />
Naturalism: science and the world<br />
What is fundamental to a naturalistic worldview?<br />
What are its ontological, epistemological, and ethical<br />
views? How can we adequately explain the moral<br />
dimension <strong>of</strong> human beings? Their mental capacities and<br />
experience <strong>of</strong> consciousness? What are the legitimate<br />
scope and limits <strong>of</strong> science? Must naturalism be<br />
necessarily materialistic? Must naturalism be non-theistic?<br />
What is <strong>phil</strong>osophically plausible in naturalism? What, if<br />
anything, is problematic?<br />
“. . . one theme that underlies nearly all<br />
<strong>phil</strong>osophical discussion is the perpetual conflict<br />
between naturalistic and nonnaturalistic world<br />
views.”<br />
William H. Halverson, A Concise<br />
th<br />
Introduction to Philosophy (4 ed.,<br />
1981:): 9<br />
Postmodernism: meaning and interpretation<br />
“Postmodernism swims, even wallows,<br />
in the fragmentary and the chaotic<br />
currents <strong>of</strong> change as if that is all there<br />
is.”<br />
David Harvey, The Condition<br />
<strong>of</strong> Postmodernity (1989): 44<br />
What are the origins <strong>of</strong> postmodernism? What are the<br />
fundamental contentions <strong>of</strong> postmodernism? How does<br />
postmodernism understand meaning, truth, reality? Is reality<br />
merely a human construct? Is truth made rather than discovered? Is<br />
morality conventional rather than universal? What is<br />
<strong>phil</strong>osophically plausible in postmodernism? What, if anything, is<br />
problematic? Is a christian postmodernism or a buddhist<br />
postmodernism possible?<br />
Atheism (agnosticism)<br />
On what basis is atheism or non-theism<br />
opposed to theism? Are there significant varieties <strong>of</strong><br />
non-theism or atheism? What justification can be<br />
given for a non-theistic worldview? How does this<br />
worldview address the issue <strong>of</strong> meaning or purpose in<br />
life? What is <strong>phil</strong>osophically plausible in atheism or<br />
non-theism? What, if anything, is problematic? Is any<br />
fruitful dialogue possible between theists and nontheists?<br />
“. . . for somebody living in the twentieth century<br />
with a good <strong>phil</strong>osophical and a good scientific<br />
education, who thinks carefully about the matter,<br />
for such a person it is irrational to believe in God.”<br />
Kai Nielsen, Does God Exist, The Great<br />
Debate (1990): 48<br />
“People who share one <strong>of</strong> these [four<br />
distinguishable worldviews <strong>of</strong> Western societies]<br />
communicate fairly well with one another, not so<br />
well with people <strong>of</strong> a different worldview.”<br />
Walter T. Anderson, “Four Ways to be<br />
Absolutely Right,” The Truth about the<br />
Truth (1995): 110<br />
Competing worldviews: conflict or<br />
convergence?<br />
How can we address the issue <strong>of</strong> pluralism<br />
among worldviews? Is conflict inevitable? Is<br />
convergence possible? What are some <strong>of</strong> the parameters<br />
for constructive dialogue among conflicting worldviews?<br />
Can faith commitments be integrated into intellectual<br />
pursuits?
Change language