Alan Reynolds
Alan Reynolds
Department of Philosophy, University of Oregon
alanr@uoregon.edu
Teaching Dossier
Please find attached the following materials demonstrating my teaching abilities:
• Statement of Teaching Philosophy
• Description of Courses Taught
• Sample Syllabi (both for courses already taught and courses under development)
• Student Evaluations Synopsis
Please also find letters of reference from:
• Colin Koopman (Chair, Assistant Professor, Department of Philosophy, University of Oregon)
• Mark Johnson (Philip H. Knight Professor of Liberal Arts and Sciences, Department of Philosophy, University of Oregon)
• Rocío Zambrana (Assistant Professor, Department of Philosophy, University of Oregon)
• Cheyney Ryan (Emeritus Professor, Conflict and Dispute Resolution Program, University of Oregon School of Law)
Alan Reynolds
Department of Philosophy, University of Oregon
alanr@uoregon.edu
Statement of Teaching Philosophy
I believe that philosophy has the capacity to be self-transformative. My first encounter with philosophy was reading the work of Friedrich Nietzsche as a young, devout, but skeptical religious believer. My reading of Nietzsche was directly relevant to my situation and my identity, and because of this, I took the texts seriously and opened myself up to the possibility that they might transform my very identity in unexpected ways. And they did. And they continue to do so.
My belief in the transformative power of philosophy deeply informs the way that I teach philosophy. My first experience solo teaching was teaching a class on Existentialism to thirty undergraduate students, mostly non-philosophy majors. The course was framed around Nietzsche’s idea of the “death of God,” and the ways in which we struggle to give meaning to our lives. My goal, in this course and every course that I teach, is to show the students how the texts we read are capable of speaking to their particular situations. So I suggested that the existentialists could be helpful for the undergraduate student who is away from home for the first time, and is experiencing the need to genuinely create her own identity and meaning. That is, the “death of God” is not merely a world-historical event, but also a personal experience for many people when they lose their faith, or leave home, or begin resisting parental authority. By framing the class in this way, the texts were able to speak to the situations of different students. This reflects my conviction that philosophy is for everybody.
This conviction leads me to spend a great deal of time developing lectures and discussion questions that reveal the relevant and exciting elements of the texts. Additionally, I try to be responsive to as many different learning styles as I can. In my Existentialism class, we not only read philosophy texts, but we also read novels, plays, and interviews, and watched relevant clips from films together. On the day that we read “The Look” from Jean Paul Sartre’s Being and Nothingness, I had the students do an exercise where they stared at a partner in silence for five minutes, so as to dramatize Sartre’s point that the “gaze of the Other” can be a disturbing experience. In all of my classes I draw on a range of pedagogical tools: I use PowerPoint, I draw diagrams on the blackboard, I make handouts, I ask tough questions, I foster discussion, and I offer brief lectures. As my students and I progress through a course, I periodically ask them to reflect on how the texts and themes of the course have addressed or challenged their own ideas, behaviors, and choices. It is important to me that class discussions do not drift away from the text to detached reflections on one’s subjective experiences, but it is equally important to me that the text speaks to students in transformative ways. As a result, a number of students in my classes have confessed to being challenged and moved in significant ways by certain texts and discussions.
In my experience both solo teaching and assistant teaching, many of my classes have been filled with a majority of non-philosophy majors. For many of these students, my class is their only exposure to philosophy in their entire educational experience. I have to ask myself: how can I benefit a student who will never take philosophy again, and who will forget many of the figures and details of this course shortly after it ends? Since I believe that, again, philosophy is for everybody, non-majors included, it is important to me that I teach for them as well. When I teach, I aim to relate philosophical debates and ideas to problems and concerns that we all face outside the classroom. For example, when assistant teaching a course on 19th Century Philosophy, we read some of the early sections of Critique of Pure Reason by Immanuel Kant, which many students found quite difficult. On our first day of discussing the Kant readings, I started by focusing on one of the motivations behind Kant’s work: the concern that the Newtonian natural sciences (which presuppose determinism) would crowd out morality and personal responsibility (which presuppose freedom). This concern is one we can all relate to, and we all recognize the urgency and importance of responding to it. This exemplifies the way in which I always try to connect up the ideas in philosophical texts with problems and concerns that we all encounter. One of my students wrote in his or her evaluation, “Without Alan as a GTF [graduate teaching fellow] to explain the material in ‘non-philosophical’ terms, we non-philosophy majors would have had a difficult time,” while another wrote, “he has a knack to break down difficult texts in ways that are comprehensible.”
Finally, because philosophy has been a vehicle for my own self-transformation, I convey to my students my passion for reading and discussing philosophy. I often relate to my students the ways in which the texts affect me personally, and I invite them to do the same. One of my students wrote in his or her student evaluation, “He has a true passion for the subject of philosophy,” and another wrote, “Alan knew the material very well and was great at teaching with passion.” When I explain philosophical questions in lecture, I try to show that our answers to these questions will have consequences for how we live, if we take them seriously. I do not always succeed in this, but I am committed to a pedagogical practice of always improving my attempts.
My teaching experience has only confirmed for me my early intuition that philosophy is for everybody, and that it is capable of catalyzing self-transformation, if taught correctly. In my experience teaching, I have received positive feedback both from philosophy majors who care about the tradition, as well as from non-philosophy majors who are not predisposed to care about the texts. I would like to think that I have achieved this by teaching with both clarity and passion.
Alan Reynolds
Department of Philosophy, University of Oregon
alanr@uoregon.edu
Descriptions of Courses Taught
Existentialism (Solo taught; Fall 2011)
This course presented the existentialists as responding to Nietzsche’s contention that “God is dead.” We looked at personal, social, and political responses to this loss of transcendent meaning. The course included philosophical texts, novels, plays, and films. Enrolled were thirty undergraduate students. (See syllabus below)
Ethics (Solo taught; Spring 2012)
This course surveyed the four major moral theories in western philosophy: virtue ethics, deontology, utilitarianism, and care ethics. The course was divided into three units: (1) Governance theories of morality: discovering moral first principles; (2) Morality as world-navigation: creating an ethical character; and (3) Moral pluralism and the tragic: reconciling ourselves to moral disorder. Enrolled were thirty undergraduate students. (See syllabus below)
I have assistant taught the following courses in the Philosophy department:
• Philosophy and Cultural Diversity
• Human Nature
• Philosophy of Love and Sex
• Introduction to Philosophy
• Existentialism
• History of Philosophy: Modern
• Social and Political Philosophy
• Internet, Society, and Philosophy
• History of Philosophy: 19th Century
I have assistant taught the follow course in the Religious Studies department:
• World Religions: Asian Traditions.
In addition to the above courses that I have taught, I have prepared syllabi for the following courses:
• Intro to Philosophy (See syllabus below)
• Political Philosophy (See syllabus below)
I am also interested in developing syllabi for the following courses:
• American Pragmatism
• Human Nature
• Modern Philosophy
• 19th Century Philosophy
• Bioethics
• Business Ethics
• Global Justice
• Philosophy of Religion
• History of Liberalism
Alan Reynolds
Department of Philosophy, University of Oregon
alanr@uoregon.edu
Sample Syllabus #1: Ethics
Course Description:
This course is an overview of the history of ethical theory. It is broken up into three main sections: (1) Governance theories of morality, (2) Morality as world-navigation, and (3) Moral pluralism and the tragic. The first unit explores the various attempts in the history of western philosophy to discover some set of moral first principles that will allow us to confront and solve any moral choice that comes our way. This sounds like a great solution, but coming to find these principles and justifying them to each other has proven to be a difficult project. The second unit explores attempts to shift the conversation away from ethics as first principles towards ethics as a particular mode of existence, one capable of navigating through our challenging world. What should this mode of existence look like, and how should we cultivate it? In the last unit, we will confront the possibility that there is no escape from our condition of moral pluralism. Perhaps we need to learn to accept and deal with one another while recognizing that reasonable people will forever disagree about the good life. What would this recognition entail? How could we recognize this without lapsing into quietism or relativism?
Course Requirements and Expectations
Two essays: 15% of final grade each = 30% final grade
Final Paper: 30% of final grade
Reading quizzes: 20% of final grade
Participation: 20% of final grade
Course Reading Schedule
Unit 1: Governance theories of morality: discovering moral first principles
*Key Concepts: moral realism, universalism, objectivity, rationalism, rules
Week 1 (Theme: Moral norms from God Himself)
M: Course introduction
T: Excerpts from Old Testament, New Testament, Qur’an
Old Testament – The Ten Commandments – Exodus 20:1-17
New Testament – The Sermon on the Mount – Matthew 5:1-48
Qur’an – The Five Pillars of Islam
W: Kierkegaard – Fear and Trembling – “Problema I: Is there a teleological suspension of the ethical?” (pp. 83-95)
Genesis 22 – Abraham and Isaac
Th: Plato – Euthyphro
Louise M. Antony – “Good Minus God”
Week 2 (Theme: The authority of pure practical reason)
M: Kant – Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals – Preface and First Section
T: Kant – Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals – Second Section (pp. 19-32)
W: Kant – Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals – Second Section (pp. 32-44)
Th: Rawls – A Theory of Justice – “The Main Idea of the Theory of Justice” (pp. 11-17)
Week 3 (Theme: Wielding the utilitarian calculator)
M: Mill - Utilitarianism – Chapter 2, “What Utilitarianism is”
T: Mill - Utilitarianism – Chapter 3, “Of the Ultimate Sanction of the Principle of Utility”
W: Mill - Utilitarianism – Chapter 5, “Of the Connection between Justice and Utility” (pp. 63-79)
Th: Singer – “Famine, Affluence, and Morality”
Ursula Le Guin – “The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas”
Unit 2: Morality as world-navigation: creating an ethical character
*Key Concepts: self-development, moral character, anti-universalism, relationality, care
Week 4 (Theme: Cultivating a virtuous character)
M: Aristotle – Nicomachean Ethics – Book 1, “Happiness”
*Essay 1 due Monday beginning of class (see below for essay assignment #1)
T: Aristotle – Nicomachean Ethics – Book 2, “Virtue of Character”
W: Aristotle – Nicomachean Ethics – Book 8, “Friendship”
Th: MacIntyre – After Virtue – “Aristotle’s Account of the Virtues”
Week 5 (Theme: Cultivating a flexible, inquisitive character)
M: Dewey – Human Nature and Conduct – “Habits and Will,” “Character and Conduct” (pp. 21-42)
T: Dewey – Human Nature and Conduct – “Custom and Habit,” “Custom and Morality” (pp. 43-59)
W: Dewey – Human Nature and Conduct – “Impulses and Change of Habits,” “Plasticity of Impulse,” “Changing Human Nature” (pp. 65-87)
Th: Foucault – “The ethics of the concern for the self as a practice of freedom”
Week 6 (Theme: Ethics of/as care, capability, dependency)
M: Virginia Held – The Ethics of Care – “The Ethics of Care as Moral Theory”
T: Eva Feder Kittay – Love’s Labor – “Introduction”
W: Martha Nussbaum – “Human Capabilities, Female Human Beings”
Th: Sandra Lee Bartkey – “Feeding Egos and Tending Wounds”
Unit 3: Moral pluralism and the tragic: reconciling ourselves to moral disorder
*Key Concepts: moral agnosticism, anti-realism, anti-rationalism, ambiguity, pluralism, tolerance
Week 7 (Theme: Our condition of tragic pluralism)
M: Isaiah Berlin – “Pursuit of the Ideal”
*Essay 2 due Monday beginning of class
T: James – “The Moral Philosopher and the Moral Life”
W: James – “The Moral Philosopher and the Moral Life”
Th: James – “On a Certain Blindness in Human Beings”
Week 8 (Theme: Morality and ambiguity)
M: Sartre – “Existentialism is a Humanism”
T: Sartre – “Existentialism is a Humanism”
W: Beauvoir – Ethics of Ambiguity – “Ambiguity and Freedom”
Th: Beauvoir – Ethics of Ambiguity – “Ambiguity and Freedom”
Week 9 (Theme: The primacy of power and conflict)
M: NO CLASS
T: Nietzsche – Genealogy of Morals – “‘Good and Evil,’ ‘Good and Bad’” (aphorism 1-12)
W: Nietzsche – Genealogy of Morals – “‘Good and Evil,’ ‘Good and Bad’” (aphorism 12-17)
Th: Nietzsche – Twilight of the Idols – “Morality as Anti-Nature”
Joel Marks – “Confessions of an Ex-Moralist”
Week 10 (Theme: Ethics after philosophy)
M: Stanley Fish – “Does Philosophy Matter?”
T: Bernard Williams – “Pluralism, Community and Left Wittgensteinianism”
W: Richard Rorty – “Ethics without Absolutes”
Th: Course wrap-up discussion
*Final essay due on **
PHIL 102: Ethics
Essay Assignment #1
Due Monday, April 23rd, beginning of class
5-6 pages, Times New Roman, 1 inch margins, double spaced
Topic: We have read about and discussed three different theories of morality in this first unit: divine command theory, deontology (Kantianism), and utilitarianism. This paper is a way to think through two of these theories practically and critically.
First, pick out a moral quandary that you have experienced at some point in your life (or simply make one up if you don’t feel like sharing something personal). Be sure that it is complex enough such that the morally right solution is not immediately evident. Select two of the moral theories that we have discussed so far in this class. Given the moral quandary that you have constructed, discuss what each of the two moral theories would demand of you. Explain why they would make such a demand. Then explain what action you did take (or would take, if you invented your scenario). How does your action match up with the demands of the two moral theories? Explain why you acted as you did, and how that highlights your agreement or disagreement with the moral theories. Which theory proves more adequate in your situation? Which one fails? Why do you think so?
Alan Reynolds
Department of Philosophy, University of Oregon
alanr@uoregon.edu
Sample Syllabus #2: Existentialism
Course Description:
This course will be an introduction to the philosophical tradition of existentialism, starting with Nietzsche and Kierkegaard and coming up through the existentialists of post-WWII France. The existentialist tradition contains some of the most moving and profound texts in all of philosophy. Writers in this tradition deal with issues of personal freedom, responsibility, the end of religious certainty, the ambiguities of political oppression, and more. The readings will include philosophical texts, novels, and plays. The course will be reading intensive and discussion oriented.
Course Requirements and Expectations
Two essays: 15% of final grade each = 30% final grade
Final Paper: 30% of final grade
Reading quizzes: 20% of final grade
Attendance and participation: 20% of final grade
Course Reading Schedule
Unit 1: “God is Dead”
With this famous declaration by Nietzsche, a new era began in the West – an era in which religious authority began its slow crumble. With the end of religious belief, all other forms of authority lost their power to dictate norms and provide meaning to human lives. In the immediate wake of God’s death, life appeared to be robbed of meaning and purpose.
Week 1
M: Introduce the course
T: Historically situate existentialism
Nietzsche – The Gay Science – “The madman” (pp. 181-82)
Nietzsche – The Gay Science – “Believers and their need to believe” (pp. 287-290)
W: Kierkegaard – Fear and Trembling – “Problema I: Is there a teleological suspension of the ethical?” (pp. 83-95)
Recommended background reading: Genesis 22:1-19
Th: Kierkegaard – Fear and Trembling – “Problema II: Is there an absolute duty to God?” (pp. 96-108)
Week 2
M: Dostoyevski – Brothers Karamazov – “Rebellion” (pp. 281-292)
T: Dostoyevski – Brothers Karamazov – “Grand Inquisitor” (pp. 292-314)
W: Beckett – Waiting for Godot – Act I (pp. 1-59)
Th: Beckett – Waiting for Godot – Act II (pp. 61-109)
Week 3
M: Nietzsche – Anti-Christ (forward – aphorism 19)
T: Nietzsche – Anti-Christ (aphorism 20-49)
W: Nietzsche – Anti-Christ (aphorism 50-62)
Th: Nietzsche – Twilight of the Idols
“How the ‘Real World’ at last Became a Myth” (pp. 50-51)
“The Four Great Errors” – Aphorism 8 (p. 65)
“The Problem of Socrates” (pp. 39-44)
“Reason in Philosophy” (pp. 45-49)
SUN: MOVIE! Ingmar Bergman – Seventh Seal
Week 4
M: Sartre – Nausea (pp. 126-135, 156-160)
T: Dostoyevski – Notes from the Underground – Section VII – IX (pp. 20-35)
W: Camus – The Stranger – Part 1 (pp. 3-59)
Th: Camus – The Stranger – Part 2 (pp. 63-123)
*Essay 1 due Thursday beginning of class
Unit 2: Existentialism and Ethics
Once religious authority is undermined, everything that was previously tied up in God is also undermined – such as timeless moral truths, an externally-imposed meaning and purpose to human life, a purpose to human history, etc. In the wake of this collapse, norms must be rebuilt from the ground up – staring with one’s relationship with oneself, and expanding outward to our relationships with others.
Week 5
M: Sartre – Being and Nothingness – “Patterns of Bad Faith” (pp. 96-112)
*Extra credit movie write-up due Monday beginning of class
T: Sartre – Being and Nothingness – “The Look” (pp. 340-365)
W: Sartre – Being and Nothingness – “The Look” (pp. 365-400)
Th: Sartre – No Exit (all)
Week 6
M: Sartre – “Existentialism is a Humanism” (all)
T: Beauvoir – Ethics of Ambiguity – “Ambiguity and Freedom” (pp. 7-34)
W: Nietzsche – Genealogy of Morals – “‘Good and Evil,’ ‘Good and Bad’” (aphorism 1-12)
Th: Nietzsche – Genealogy of Morals – “‘Good and Evil,’ ‘Good and Bad’” (aphorism 12-17)
Twilight of the Idols – “Morality as Anti-Nature” (pp. 52-57)
SUN: MOVIE! Woody Allen – Crimes and Misdemeanors
Unit 3: Existentialism and Politics
Once our political structures are not grounded in any divine or ultimate foundation, then we must reconsider how we understand political freedom, oppression, and resistance.
Week 7
M: Sartre – Search for a Method – “Existentialism and Marxism” (pp. 3-34)
T: Sartre – Search for a Method – “Existentialism and Marxism” (pp. 3-34)
W: Beauvoir – Ethics of Ambiguity “However, politics is right…” (pp. 136-159)
Th: Kafka – The Trial – “Block, The Merchant; Dismissal of the Lawyer” (pp. 166-198)
*Essay 2 due Thursday beginning of class
Week 8
M: Sartre – Anti-Semite and Jew – Section 1 (pp. 7-54)
*Extra credit movie write-up due Monday beginning of class
T: Beauvoir – Second Sex – “Introduction” (pp. 3-17)
W: Ellison – Invisible Man – “Prologue” (pp. 3-14)
Th: Fanon – The Wretched of the Earth – “Concerning Violence” (pp. 35-55)
Recommended background viewing: “The Battle of Algiers”
Unit 4: Life and Death
At the end of the course, we explore a possible response to the death of God, one that Nietzsche himself offered – not despair, but joy. With Nietzsche’s Zarathustra, we are offered a figure that celebrates our finitude, without remorse or nostalgia for our lost deities, lost authorities, lost sources of meaning. Is this new existence one that we can, in fact, affirm and celebrate?
Week 9
M: Camus – Myth of Sisyphus – “An Absurd Reasoning” (selections from anthology)
T: Sartre – Being and Nothingness – “My Death” (pp. 680-707)
W: Heidegger – Being and Time – “Dasein’s Possibility of Being-a-whole, and Being-towards-death”
Th: Heidegger – Being and Time – “Dasein’s Possibility of Being-a-whole, and Being-towards-death”
Week 10
M: Nietzsche – The Gay Science – “The meaning of our cheerfulness” (pp. 279-80)
Nietzsche – The Gay Science – “The greatest weight” (pp. 273-74)
Nietzsche – The Will to Power – “And do you know what ‘the world’ is to me? …”
(aphorism 1067)
T: Nietzsche – Thus Spoke Zarathustra – “Zarathustra’s prologue” (pp. 41-47)
Nietzsche – Thus Spoke Zarathustra – “Of the way of the creator” (pp. 88-91)
Nietzsche – Thus Spoke Zarathustra – “Of the blissful islands” (pp. 109-112)
Nietzsche – Thus Spoke Zarathustra – “Of the tarantula” (pp. 123-126)
W: Nietzsche – Thus Spoke Zarathustra – “Of self-overcoming” (pp. 136-139)
Nietzsche – Thus Spoke Zarathustra – “Of the higher man” (pp. 296-306)
Th: No required readings – wrap up week’s discussion, reflect on course themes
Recommended reading: Rorty – “Pragmatism, Pluralism and Postmodernism” (pp. 262-
277)
*Final essay due on ** (See below for final essay assignment)
PHIL 211: Existentialism
Final Essay Assignment
• Due Friday, December 9th, by 2pm, in Philosophy Department Office PLC 338
• 8-10 pages, Times New Roman, 1 inch margins, double spaced
This final essay is intended to allow you to engage in personal reflection with some of the themes we have read about and discussed together in this course. It is my contention that existentialism cannot properly be understood by studying its figures and traditions from a detached standpoint – serious and sustained self-reflection is required to fully understand this philosophical tradition.
In this course, we have explored Nietzsche’s contention that God is dead, meaning that religion has ceased (1) to give meaning to peoples’ lives on a personal level, (2) provide us with common moral values, and (3) offer foundations for our political structures. In the rest of the course, we explored various possible existentialist responses to these problems.
Another way to organize the course themes is the following:
Problems
• The emptiness of social norms and ethics (Kierkegaard)
• The death of God (Nietzsche)
• The reality of overwhelming suffering (Dostoevsky)
• The meaninglessness of life (Beckett)
• Living inauthentically (Sartre)
• Interpersonal hostility and alienation (Sartre)
• Institutional, bureaucratic alienation (Kafka)
• Social marginalization and oppression (Beauvoir, Ellison, Fanon)
• Life as absurd (Camus)
• Death and mortality (Sartre, Heidegger)
Solutions
• Nietzsche – self-creation
• Kierkegaard – absolute commitment
• Dostoevsky – radical responsibility for all
• Beckett – waiting for salvation
• Sartre – self-creation and/as norm-creation
• Beauvoir – assume ambiguity
• Ellison / Fanon – Violent self-assertion
• Camus – revolt
In this paper, I want you to give a detailed and concrete picture of how you would live, as an existentialist, in your life and world. How would your life change if you were to fully embrace some of the existentialist themes that we’ve discussed? In what ways does your life already operate under existentialist commitments; in what ways does your life violate existentialist commitments? What would your life, personally, look like as an existentialist? Give specific, concrete examples.
More specifically, address what your life would look like on the three registers mentioned above: (1) the personal level, (2) the interpersonal, social level, and (3) the structural-political level. Feel free to address these in any way that seems appropriate. For example: What personal practices would you engage in so as to live a rich and meaningful life? What kinds of activities do you / would you do in order to engage in self-creation? How exactly would you participate in norm-creation, so as to help build a shared moral world? What kinds of norms, structures, institutions, etc, are hindering your projects of self-creation, and how should you respond to them? What will your political action look like, in the US today? Be as concrete and anecdotal as possible: How will you, as an existentialist, think about the upcoming 2012 presidential election? Be as personal or impersonal as you want to be, but use your own voice throughout the essay. Draw on (at least) three philosophers that we have read and discussed together, but do not recite their positions and arguments, but instead incorporate them into your own personal response and explain how you personally want to take them up. Your paper should show a firm understanding of the themes and figures that we have studied, and should show a serious, self-reflective engagement.
Alan Reynolds
Department of Philosophy, University of Oregon
alanr@uoregon.edu
Sample Syllabus #3: Intro to Philosophy
Course Description:
This course is an introduction to the history of Western philosophy. We will encounter this tradition through the question, “What gives life meaning?” There are many answers to this question. For some people, human reason is what sets us free and unlocks human possibility. For many others, faith in some transcendent power gives life its meaning and purpose. Still for others, creativity and choice are the important features of our lives. Finally, we will look at the effects that our identity has on the meaningfulness of life. The class will be reading intensive and involve a great deal of class discussion.
Course Requirements and Expectations
Three short essays: 10% of final grade each = 30% final grade
Final Paper: 30% of final grade
Reading quizzes: 20% of final grade
Participation: 20% of final grade
Course Reading Schedule
Unit 1: Philosophy and the examined life
Week 1
M: Introduction to course
T: Plato, Apology
W: Plato, Apology
Th: Plato, Crito
Week 2
M: Descartes, Meditations
T: Descartes, Meditations
W: Kant, “What is Enlightenment?”
Th: Kant, “What is Enlightenment?”
Unit 2: Religion and meaning
Week 3
M: Schopenhauer, “On the Suffering of the World”
T: Schopenhauer, “On the Suffering of the World”
W: Tolstoy, “My Confession”
Th: Tolstoy, “My Confession”
Week 4
M: Kierkegaard, “Teleological Suspension of the Ethical”
T: Kierkegaard, “Teleological Suspension of the Ethical”
W: Buber, I and Thou
Th: Buber, I and Thou
Week 5
M: James, “The Will to Believe”
T: Dewey, A Common Faith, “Religion vs. The Religious”
W: Nietzsche, Antichrist
Th: Nietzsche, Antichrist
Unit 3: Freedom, choice, and the absurd
Week 6
M: Sartre, “Existentialism is a Humanism”
T: Sartre, “Existentialism is a Humanism”
W: Beauvoir, Ethics of Ambiguity
Th: Beauvoir, Ethics of Ambiguity
Week 7
M: Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil, “The Free Spirit”
T: Camus, The Stranger
W: Camus, The Stranger
Th: Camus, The Stranger
Week 8
M: Beckett, Waiting for Godot
T: Beckett, Waiting for Godot
W: Frankl, Man's Search for Meaning
Th: Frankl, Man's Search for Meaning
Unite 4: Meaning and identity
Week 9
M: Mary Wollstonecraft, A Vindication of the Rights of Women
T: Mary Wollstonecraft, A Vindication of the Rights of Women
W: Beauvoir, Second Sex
Th: Young, “Throwing Life a Girl”
M: Du Bois, The Souls of Black Folk
T: Du Bois, The Souls of Black Folk
W: Du Bois, “The Conservation of Races”
Th: Du Bois, “The Conservation of Races”
Week 10
M: Ellison, Invisible Man
T: Ellison, Invisible Man
W: TBA
Th: TBA
Alan Reynolds
Department of Philosophy, University of Oregon
alanr@uoregon.edu
Sample Syllabus #4: Political Philosophy
Course Description:
This course is an overview of the history of political philosophy, with a focus on the liberal political tradition. We will explore three dominant strands of the liberal tradition: libertarianism, with its focus on the importance of self-ownership; classical liberalism, with its focus on spontaneous order and the limits of knowledge; and modern liberalism, with its focus on the device of the social contract for securing consent about justice. We will then explore the troubled relationship between liberalism and community, as well as the troubled relationship between liberalism and capitalism. This course will help you grasp the normative frameworks that animate much of our political culture and discourse, allowing you to more clearly understand and critically appraise them. The class will be reading intensive and involve a great deal of class discussion.
Course Requirements and Expectations
Three short essays: 10% of final grade each = 30% final grade
Final Paper: 30% of final grade
Reading quizzes: 20% of final grade
Participation: 20% of final grade
Course Reading Schedule
Unit 1: The “Liberty” of Liberalism
Week 1
M: Introduction to the course
T: Constant, “The Liberty of the Ancients Compared with that of the Moderns”
W: Isaiah Berlin, Two Concepts of Liberty, Parts 1-3
Th: Isaiah Berlin, Two Concepts of Liberty, Parts 4-6
Week 2
M: J.S. Mill, On Liberty, Ch. 1-2
T: J.S. Mill, On Liberty, Ch. 4
W: Judith Shklar, “The Liberalism of Fear”
Th: Judith Shklar, “The Liberalism of Fear”
Unit 2: Libertarianism and Self-ownership
Week 3
M: John Locke, Second Treatise of Government, Ch. 2-5
T: John Locke, Second Treatise of Government, Ch. 7-9
W: Mack, “Self-ownership and the Right of Property”
Th: Mack, “The Natural Right of Property”
Week 4
M: Nozick, Anarchy, State, and Utopia
T: Nozick, Anarchy, State, and Utopia
W: Nozick, Anarchy, State, and Utopia
Th: C.B. MacPherson, Possessive Individualism, “The Theory of Property Right”
Unit 3: Classical Liberalism and Spontaneous Order
Week 5
M: Hume, “Of the Original Contract”
T: Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations
W: Hayek, “The Use of Knowledge in Society”
Th: Hayek, The Constitution of Liberty
Week 6
M: Hayek, Law, Legislation, and Liberty vol. 1
T: Hayek, Law, Legislation, and Liberty vol. 1
W: Hayek, “Liberalism”
Th: Hayek, “Liberalism”
Unit 4: Modern Liberalism and Social Contract
Week 7
M: Immanuel Kant, “On the Relationship of Theory to Practice in Political Right”
T: Immanuel Kant, Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, Section II
W: Larmore, “Political Liberalism”
Th: Waldron, “The Theoretical Foundations of Liberalism”
Week 8
M: Rawls, Justice as Fairness, a Restatement, “Part II: Principles of Justice”
T: Rawls, Justice as Fairness, a Restatement, “Part III: The Argument from the Original Position,”
W: Rawls, Justice as Fairness, a Restatement, “Part V: The Question of Stability”
Th: Habermas, The Inclusion of the Other, Ch. 9-10
Unit 5: Liberalism and Community
Week 9
M: Charles Taylor, “Atomism”
T: Michael Sandel, “The Procedural Republic and the Unencumbered Self”
W: Marx, “On the Jewish Question”
Th: Marx, “On the Jewish Question”
Unit 6: Liberalism and Capitalism
Week 10
M: Karl Marx, “Alienated Labor” and “Private Property and Communism” from Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts
T: Samuel Freeman, “Capitalism in the Classical and High Liberal Traditions”
W: Gerald Gaus, “The Property Equilibrium in a Liberal Social Order”
Th: TBA
Alan Reynolds
Department of Philosophy, University of Oregon
alanr@uoregon.edu
Course Evaluations Synopsis
Course evaluations at the University of Oregon include quantitative measures as well as qualitative comments. From the quantitative measures, I present my average scores for two questions (the set of questions is different for solo taught classes and discussion sections). The responses range from 1 (worst) to 5 (best). Below the quantitative data you will find selected qualitative comments from selected courses. Complete PDF copies are available upon request.
Solo taught courses
Question 1: What was the quality of the instructor’s teaching?
Question 2: Student contributions were encouraged and respected (agree=5; disagree=1).
|Course term |Question 1 |Question 2 |
|Fall 2011 |4.71 |4.95 |
|Spring 2012 |4.42 |4.63 |
Assistant taught courses
Question 1: What was the quality of the lab or discussion leader’s teaching?
Question 2: How well did the GTF facilitate discussion?
|Course term |Question 1 |Question 2 |
|Fall 2009 |3.72 |3.41 |
|Winter 2010 |4.14 |3.74 |
|Spring 2010 |3.82 |3.36 |
|Fall 2010 |4.06 |3.64 |
|Winter 2011 |4.09 |3.87 |
|Spring 2011 |4.18 |3.71 |
|Winter 2012 |3.79 |3.64 |
|Fall 2012 |4.40 |4.22 |
|Winter 2013 |4.06 |4.09 |
|Spring 2013 |4.96 |4.81 |
Winter 2010
• “[V]ery passionate about philosophy.”
• “I found Alan Reynolds’ discussion section to be vital to my comprehension of the material presented throughout the course. He asked appropriate questions of us. This gave rise to intellectual discussions in which we dissected the many theories in question. It is clear to me that Alan cared about our comprehension of the material. He intently listened to questions asked of him and answered them in detail. I felt no hesitation to go over the material with him when there was something that I did not understand because he genuinely wanted us to understand the material.”
Winter 2011
• “Alan was the best GTF I have had so far at the university. He has a true passion for the subject of philosophy and was able to create a great learning environment. I don’t think any student felt uncomfortable about talking in Alan's discussion because he was so accommodating. Alan made discussion periods very productive, and was very helpful at reinforcing topics from lecture as well as introducing new ones. For a GTF, I believe Alan is as good as an undergraduate could hope for. I really don’t have much to say about improvement - Alan really did a great job!”
Fall 2011 (solo taught)
• “Maybe the best course I’ve ever taken here at the U of O, because of the way you explained everything. If taught by someone else, this class could very well have been exceedingly tedious. I felt like I got my moneys worth for once. The essays were awesome. Class was run efficiently. You are good at stimulating discussion and helping us relate our ideas.”
• “I really enjoyed this class. Alan gave out the perfect amount of reading and subsequent relevant lectures. The lectures were always very interesting. He also connected with the text on a personal level and was not afraid to share that with us. I felt very comfortable in that class and was always surprised when the time was up. He did a very good job at making seemingly unapproachable philosophical texts understandable.”
• “Upon discovering this course was taught by a Graduate student rather than a Professor I was initially skeptical. HOWEVER, Alan Reynolds impressed me. Especially after the second or third week his confidence changed and he held a strong presence in front of the class just as strong as any professor. Philosophy is a difficult subject to instruct and Alan did an amazing job regardless of the fact that it was his first time instructing a course on his own. Each class was well planned, and structured. He was very open to changing his approach to different aspects of the course when someone voiced confusion.”
• “This class was awesome. Great content organized and presented in a great way. Stimulated great interest in the topic. Never told anyone they were wrong and listened when people raised their hand. As a result, discussion was encouraged and comfortable.”
• “Loved the course. Favorite class I've ever had. Learned way more than I ever expected, and wish to learn more because of it. Wish I could take it again!”
Winter 2012
• “Alan is a great teacher. He is very knowledgeable, which is evident. However, he gives a tremendous amount of respect to students’ views, and constantly challenges us on them. He is one of the best GTFs I have had at the UO.”
Spring 2012 (solo taught)
• “Mr. Reynolds is not only one of the best GTFs I've had, he may be one of the most effective teachers I've had at the university. His teaching was fantastic and well thought out.”
• “He was very receptive to students’ questions and different comprehension levels of the course material. I felt that the way that the material was presented was effective and helped me to understand the concepts… Alan is really enthusiastic about philosophy, and very approachable, which is great for a someone who has never taken philosophy.”
Winter 2013
• “Alan is a great discussion leader and knows how to keep his students focused and on topic, but still lets them have some fun debating topics and ideas when it is appropriate… Overall, Alan is a fantastic discussion leader I thought he was very friendly, helpful, and all around good discussion leader. I could not have asked for a better one.”
Spring 2013 (most recent assistant taught philosophy course)
• “He went above and beyond, in and outside class. The best thing about Alan was not only was he very knowledgeable, he has a knack to break down difficult texts into ways that are comprehensible. Excellent moderator for discussions as well. Great job on communicating concepts and general enthusiasm for the material.”
• “Alan should be a professor. He is extremely concise and clear. I feel like I learned more from his discussion section than the actual class! The few times he taught the class his lectures were great and I was actually able to comprehend his slides.”
• “I believe that running a fairly open discussion section is a massive positive that other discussion sections could take a cue from, by far Alan was the best discussion leader that I have had at UO in 5 terms of attendance.”
• “Alan provided a structured approach to understand the authors’ writings. I am able to better articulate my arguments with the support and feedback Alan provided. Alan was generously available for coaching and discussion… I hope someday to refer to Alan as Professor.”
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.