-
.___
To
?
SENA
SiMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
?
S. * 7Y- 1q3
MEMORANDUM
From SENATECOMMITTEEONUNDERGRADUATESTUDIES
Subject
FACULTY OF ARTS - PROPOSAL FOR
?
November 12, 1974
PHIL 300-3 INTRODUCTION TOPHILOSOPY
REGULAR
STATUS
?
Date_______________________________________
MOTION :
?
That Senate approve - and recommend approval to the
Board - the course proposal, as set forth in S.74-143
for PHIL 300-3 Introduction to Philosophy and
that it be given regular status.
is
* ?
SiMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
X 7f
f
"/5
MEMORANDUM
SENATE
?
.
.
From..
Senate Committee on ... Undergraduate ... Studies
Subject
.................. ............................... ... .... ..... ......... ...... .................................
Date
....
November., 12.,.. 1974.....................................
At its meeting of 29th October, the Senate Committee on
Undergraduate Studies considered the attached proposal for Philosophy
300-3: Introduction to Philosophy.
It should be noted that this course has been discussed by
both the Senate Committee on Undergraduate Studies and by Senate on
previous occasions but that it has hitherto been included in the
Philosophy Department's program on an experimental basis only. On
this occasion, however, the Department of Philosophy and the Faculty
of Arts were recommending that the course be finally approved, with-
out further review by Senate.
The propriety of offering an introductory course at the
300. level was once again questioned; but the Committee was assured
by the representatives of the Philosophy Department that the
original objective of the course to offer a general introduction to
Philosophy for advanced students who did not intend to major in the
.
subject had proved to be a reasonable
?
and useful one and that
the Department therefore wished to continue it.
?
The Committee is
now forwarding this course to Senate for its consideration, with its
recommendation that it be given regular status.
1.
ams ?
Mugridge
.
SiMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
SCUS 7413
MEMORANDUM
0
.......... . ..
Dr.R..Brown,Acting
..
.
?
From .......
....
L.A.
Bola.d, ..ch.a.rm.n,
?
Chairman,SCUS
?
Arts Currj]um Committee
?
Subject......
.....
PHIL9SO..HY300
?
Date
?
OctoberTb, 1974
The Faculty of Arts Curriculum Committee has instructed me
to re-submit Philosophy 300-3 to be reviewed by the Senate
Undergraduate Studies Committee in accordance with the directive
from Senate in December 1972 that the course be reviewed in
the spring of 1973, before it is offered again. This review
is long overdue.
The Faculty of Arts Curriculum Committee recommends that the
Senate Committee on Undergraduate Studies approve Philosophy
300-3 and give it regular status.
o
?
L.A. Boland
LAB:vp
Attachments
cc: Mr. H.M. Evans, Registrar
Dr. Norman Swartz, Philosophy Department
e
SENATE
COMMITTEE
ON UNDERGRADUATE STUDIES
NEW COURSE
PROPOSAL FORM
Calendar Information
?
Department:
PHTT.nsppny
0
Abbreviation Code: PHIL Course Number: 300
?
Credit Hours: 3 Vector:21-0
JacLe
or Course:
INTRODUCTION TO PHILOSOPHY
Calendar Description of Course:
An introductory course specifically intended for upper level students in other
departments. This course is more advanced than 100 and 200 division courses and
is of interest to students not only in the humanities, but in the natural and
social sciences as well.
Nature of Course LEcruRE/TTJoRIAL
?
(1) At least 60 semester
Prerequisites (or special instructions):
?
hours credit. ?
(2) Normally
students who have taken Phil 100
may
not take this course for
further credit;
(3) This course does not count towards the upper leve1requfrements in
philosophy
for a minor, major, or honors degree in Philosophy.
What
approved:
course (courses), if
any,
is being dropped from the calendar if this course is
NONE
2. Schedul
in
How frequently will
the
course be offered? Once a year.
Semester in which the course will first be offered?
?
75-3 or 76-1
•
possible?Which
of your present faculty would be available to
make
the proposed offering
Every member of the Department
.
Objectiveaof the Course
The course is intended to
allow
upper level students
who
missed philosophy
'the first time through' (i.e. in their lover levels) to sample
and
savour
the field of philosophy in their pursuit of a liberal education. The course is
not equivalent to any of our introductory courses since it is designed to sample
issues from several of them.
4.
Budgetary
and
SpaceRequirements (for information only)
What
additional resources will be required in the following areas:
Faculty
Staff
I-
Library
Audio Visual
Space
Equipment
5. .
Ap
proval
Date: ?
ft)
C)
__7Lf
Ll
Department
Chairman
ro
?
P,
^W
a..
Chairman, SCUS
Attach
SCUS
73-34b:-
course outline).
(When completing this form, for instructions see Memorandum
scus
73-34a.
Oct. 173
SiMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
MEMORANDUM
DL...L....BOLAND., ... CHAIR)J.,...FACC .......................... ..... .
?
From ..... N..... SWARTZ.,.. CHAIRMAN...USc
DEPARTMENT OF.. PHILOSOPHY.......................................
Subject .....
.
.
RE
V
IEW
OF
P1iILQS.OF1Y ... 300
.
...........
................... .... ..... .
Date...
OCTOBER
10,. .19.74 ...... ........... ... .......
..... .... .... .... .... ..............
The Department of Philosophy would like to see Philosophy 300
become a permanent offering of the Department. So far, it had been offered
four times on a 'trial' or experimental basis.
As you know, the principle of having an introductory course
in the upper division which has no specific-course prerequisites, only that
the student should have upper level standing, has been queried and challenged
within the University. I would like to defend the principle on two grounds,
one on its intrinsic academic merit, and two, on its demonstrated success
in practice.
The University is engaged in trying to satisfy two (among more)
different desiderata. It tries to provide specialist knowledge in various
fields and it also tries to provide a broad overview of the world of learning
and research. There is room in our curriculum for courses which are designed
for the non-specialist. Indeed, the number of such courses probably ought
' ?
to be increased. The question arises as to what division such courses ought
to be assigned. The 100 - division has a prima facia claim, because 100 - div-
ision courses normally have no prerequisites - but this is only a prima fade
claim.
Upon examination, the rationale for assigning all introductory
courses to the 100 - division appears dubious. If a course is designed for
the non-specialist in a field, then it can be adjusted to his general level
of intellectual sophistication and maturity. And if there is no difference
between the general level of intellectual sophistication and maturity of a
first-year student and a third or fourth, then this University is failing
miserably in its attempt to educate its students. In short, if students are
being successfully educated here, then there is no reason whatever why an
introductory course could not be designed for any one of its four divisions
we recognize. As students achieve greater intellectual sophistication they
deserve and are capable of handling introductory material in
'
s
more sophisti-
cated way.
Practice has shown that upper level students can master more
sophisticated material than newcomers to the University scene. This is
attested to by students' comments, which are attached, and by the comments
of faculty members who have taught the course.
I regret not having more students' comments. But perhaps
you know, last year I wrote a questionnaire specifically for students in
Philosophy 300, which I then turned over to the FACC for distribution under
its aegis. In the ensuing controversy In SCUS, the existence of that question-
naire seems to have been overlooked. In any case, I expect that with the
.../2
WM
a
?
-2-
addition of these new materials, the former unanimous endorsement of the
course by the FACC will now be even more enthusiastic.)
o
a
I'
?
1LILOSOPHY 300
INTRODUCTION TO PHILOSOPHY
FALL SEMESTER 1973
?
D. D. TODD
(EVENINGS)
REQUIRED TEXTS:
PLATO (ed. Cornford)
?
Republic
flUME, D.
?
?
Dialogues concerning Natural
Religion
RUSSELL, B.
?
The Problems of Philosophy
COURSE DESCRIPTION:
An introductory Course specifically intended for
upper level students in other departments. This
course is more advanced than 100 and 200 division
courses and is of interest to students not only
in. the humanities, but in the natural and social
sciences as well.
N.B.
There are no prerequisites for Philosophy 300.
Students who have taken Philosophy 300 may not
take this course for further credit.
0
PHILOSOPHY 300
INTRODUCTION TO PHILOSOPHY
SPRING SEMESTER 1973
?
D. FINN
REQUIRED
TEXTS:
CORNMIN
& LENRER
?
Philosophical Problems and
Arguments
HAMLYN, D.W.
?
The Theory of Knowledge
RUSSELL, B.
?
Problems of Philosophy
COURSE DESCRIPTION
Some basic problems in epistemology treated
basically. Diverse and contrasting theories of mind, and
theories of knowledge, will be considered.
[I
o
?
PHILOSOPHY 300
Introduction to Philosophy
Fall Semester 1972
?
D. Finn
REQUIRED TEXT:
CORNMAN ?
LEHRER
?
P
hilosophical Problems and
Arguments
COURSE DESCRIPTION
Some basic problems in epistemology treated basically.
Diverse and Contrasting theories of mind, and theories
of knowledge, will be considered.
I.
H
a
PHILOSOPHY 300
?
INTRODUCTION TO PHILOSOPHY
SPRING SEMESTER 1974
?
D. FINN
REQUIRED TE.XI:
SPRAGUE TAYLOR, eds.
?
Knowledge and Value
• ?
COURSE DESCRIPTIOII:
An examination of central problems in theories of knowledge
and metaphysics. Historical and contemporary philosophical
selections will be discussed. Some of the topics covered
will be the role of sensation, observation and perception
in knowledge; the mind, body, self and immortality; faith,
reason and falsification; the problem of miracles.
COURSE REQUIREMENTS:
Three short papers, one of which will be written in class.
SiMON FRASER UNIVERSITY ?
MEMORANDUM
I have, taught Philosophy 300 on three occasions. The course
was conceived to allow senior students who might otherwise not have been
exposed to philosophy to gain some appreciation of the discipline.
In my experience the course has almost invariably attracted
appropriate students. They are, by and large, senior students whose
motivation for taking the course seems to be intellectual curiosity.
In that respect they differ happily from many students known to attend
lectures at Simon Fraser. That quality of intellectual curiosity together
with their wider experience conspired to produce lectures and discussions
of somewhat higher tone than might ordinarily be expected with novice
philosophers. Characteristically the students were both mature and de-
manding (in an honorific sense).
If mature and intellectually curious students deserve to have
. satisfied their academic interest in philosophy, I believe this course
deserves perpetration.
mn
December 19, 1973
a
?
EVALUATION OF PHILOSOPHY 300
This course was an introduction to Philosophy designed for students
at the 300 level and was taken by regular university students and several
off-campus students not working for a degree. The texts used were the
same as those used in Philosophy 100, but the lectures were pitched at a
higher and more difficult level, and more stringent criteria were used in
grading course work.
There was a high drop rate. Most of those who dropped the course were
off-campus students. Apparently they found the course too demanding. There
was a much lower drop rate among regular university students. The students
who remained were, on the whole, a lively bunch. Classroom discussion was
generally more
interesting
and more sophisticated than usual in an
introductory course, and this made the course a pleasure to teach.
Perhaps considering merely enrollment figures and service to the off-
campus community, this course was not terribly successful, but I believe that
it was useful for the regularly enrolled university students who took the
course, and
pedagogically
quite successful.
o
D. D. TODD
o
PHILOSOPHY 300**
'S
This course is advantageous for upper level students in
that it gives
them an introduction to philosophy at a level
better suited to them.
The class is small and therefore each student is given an
opportunity to contribute to the lectures.
I think it
would improve the course if it was com1etely a
seminar course.
• The textbook is
difficult to understand. I often have to
read sections over several times
and they are still not always
clear.
The lectures stimulate
the students into thinking.
* * *
Pro:
-
Good instructor
- Allows upper level students a look into philosophy
and I feel this is valuable
- Topics are highly interesting but there must be a
better book
- Good course!
Con;
- Format could be changed to seminar course - take it
out of room 5030 and put it in seminar room
-
The book is unintelligible!
* * *
**Student reaction
elicited
in
Nov.
72.
0
2.
I think the idea of the course is basicall
y
sound. It
enables students to meet spccific upur-levc1 rcquiremen
in a course that requires no pre-requisites. The
' subject matter
Is p
erhaps slightly over-ambitious for a one serest-or course -
especially a survey course. The textboo:-: leaves much to be
desired; it seems both too elementary and too com
plex at the
same time. Perhaps a better idea would be to explore the sane
subject matter as it is presented by the people who did some
of the
original work in
the various fields, i.e., look at some
primary sources.
It is worth
exploring the idea of a seminar rather than
two lectures and a tutorial although the present method is
adequate.
***
I think
the idea behind Philosophy 300 is
.
a good one. I
feel that the course would be most effectively conducted as a
seminar - more or less the same way that it is conducted
presenbay.
I have a low opinion
of the course text - it is very poorly
written and dull.
It is too bad that a grading system requiring essays, etc.
has to be used. I feel I have derived a lot of benefit from
discussions in
the course, but little, from doing essays - little
exercises in
mental gymnastics.
I feel the professor has been excellent and wouldn't
hesitate to tecommend courses given by him. I don't think
Philosophy 300 would have been so successful as it was (for me)
with a
different professor (from my association with out-of-
philosophy department professor anyway).
* * *
•
I think
that the basic idea of Philosophy 300 is worthwhile.
I've found this
the most enjoyable course I've ever taken, both
in form and content. I think the emphasis on thinking :ocess,
?
-
as opposed to context, is very valuable and. is all too seldom
seen at the university level. I think that a lot of this is de
to the instructor. The format could be changed from a lecture/
tutorial to.
a seminar, alth3U(j the course was conducted praczic.v
in a
seminar fashion this semester anyway. As a basic text,
book is a little
vague, but it's all riht as a background if
t' supplemented and explained in the lectures. In general,
think it's
an excellent course.
* * *
Since I began this course with less than a knowledce of
philosophy having been misled by the likes of ToflLr, I an
satisfied with having
my total incomprehension of philosophy
exposed.
As
I would
prefer to under-go a purge of mind among more
understanding persons than generally attend 100-level courses,
Philosophy 300 has also satisfied
that preference.
I have very
much enjoyed the course primaril
y
because
of
the instructor
and the informal nature of the structure. I
find the book without
illumination, uninter-oreteci by the
instructor, but not
completely
useless.
I haven't
the faintest
idea if I
have learned anything.
Everytiine I
think
or
assume I have moved forward, I seem to
have
gone
backwards.
The fault lies with me, however, not
,
th the
class.
I would like to see
the course based upon more extensive
background
text-book.
material
that could fill in substantial gaps in
the
The instructor, not being omni
p
otent, can't always carry
the weight of explaining
everything in a manner that can be
readily understood by all.
Necessarily,
this is based on personal reaction, and so,
as
a
"last-semester" DML student, this course is adequate
(perhaps even
more than that) to my needs. It's an u
p
per level
course worth three units (outside my major!); it has touched,
though slightly, on
a few points covered in semantics in
linguistic courses;.
but, best of all, to one who has had only
Philosophy 102 (in
the way of philosophy courses), this course,
(300) has introduced me to a
range of
philosophical problems
I had previously only
imagined might exist(?), - actualiy, had
only passed over briefly in
past reading and study.. Being no
;;• •.•# ?
4.
deep thinker (intellectual type) , I have nevertheless gotten
. quite a bit out of the course
I believe. If this
weren't
my
r
last semeste, I'd give serious thought to taking another
philosophy course, just for "the joy of it all".
The only problem with the course is
the
text, - better
to have several
authors, with selected readings from each,
or a collection
of essays, etc.
• As to the Lecturer/T.A., no problem. Having hmi a sum
total of two philosophy courses, two philosophy lecturers,
one philosophy T.A.,
(and exposure
to
a substitute philosophy
lecturer!), I come to
the astounding conclusion that these
guys are "okay"
guys (except for that one substitute lecturer)!!
In all seriousness -
(Is this a
perfect hallucination?)
Basically,
the idea of giving an introduction to
philosophy at
the 300-level is a good one. However, the
•
course miht be made more
enjoyable if the
book were changed
in favour perhaps, of a set of notes mimeographed by the
lecturer. Though some grasp of technical terminology is
essential to a study of any field, the course as
it
stands,
is too
cluttered up with it. Since only a clerical distinc-
tion exists at
present between tutorials and lectures in
this course,
there is
no need to perpetuate the "two-lectures,
one-tutorial" concept. Instead, three seminars a week would
be more suited to
the spirit in which the course has been and
should
be
given.
S
4 ?
1
AM—
FACULTY OF ARTS
Novcr, 1',j
NEW COURSE I'ROPOSM.
• Cd1)A( INFORMATION
Pip,rtmcnt: Philosophy
?
Course
Number: ?
300-3 Tizl; itodui.
Sub-title
r Dcscription: An introductory course to Phiio c y
specifically intended for upper level students in other darent.
This course is more advanced than the 100 and 200 level corsts
is o interest not only to students in the Humanities, but Natural
and Social Sciences as well.
Credit
lour: ?
3 ?
Vector Description: 2-1-0
Pro-recuisjte(s) :p
?
couas& Wt
IT
to.iV
100 A
?
TilE C
APteM
MqUic'S
f 4
,
%. A 1
4A96k as * Ho,
J
oS 14
?
piiioPts'.
Students
who
have taken Philosophy 100 may not normally register
in this course.
2. ENROLMENT AND SCHEDULING
Estimated
Enrolment:
?
20 - 30.
Semester Offered (e.g. yearly, every Spring;
and Spring):
Once Yearly (Fall or Spring)
When will course
first be offered?
Spring 1973
3. JUSTIFICATION
twice yearly, Fall
A. What
is the detailed description of the course
including
differentiation from lower level
courses, from similar courses
in the same
department,
and
from courses in other departments
in the University?
The course is specifically i.ntendd for
upper
level students in
other departments who need u
p
per level
electives
and would
like to
take some philosophy. The course
Wi1
cover major
philosophic
concepts at a more advanced level than :-.e
introductory courses at the 100 level. Moreover, the corse
tau
0.
g ht
in
such a way that it will be of interest to the dvance
general student. Thus, our
Philosophy 201
is primarilyintendc.
for prospective majors and
honors students, and 300 is nor.
B.
Wh.t
in the range of
topics
that may be
dealt with in vhe
course? ?
The topics
considered will be broader than 11. 20.
in addition to introducing problems in epistemology znd )netaphs,
Philosophy 300 will introduce basic problems in the phi2.osphy
c!
t•
natural and social
sciences.
?
It is possible
that
ccrtin :opic, in
morality ray be discussed as well. There are, in particuL.r,
• ?
contcnnorary questions about the uses to
which
technology ?
y
put and their effects upon man. These questions have psoph:z
aspects and would be of interest
in such a
course.
I- ?
thiS
course fit the 900.1s
.
of the
?
cprtr:r.t?
)
?
?
1'i.1oOpY 300 is a service course filling a gap we
?
ce ?
:Sting
:t 3
1 '.
y
ii our upper level offeriflS, but in the univCrsity cur-
riculu in goncral.
?
Such a course has been taught succeSSf
1
.iY . at ?
•
D.
flow does this course affect degree requirernefl.tS?
No effect.
E.
What are the
calendar
changes necessary to reflect the
addition of this 'course?
See calendar submission.
F.
What course, if any, is being dropped from the calendar
if
this course is approved?
None.
G.
What
is the nature of student
demand for this course?
There has been student interest in such a course.
H.
Other reasons for introducing the course.
None.
Cl
J,-•
4
3.
AND
s'jci;
FACTORS
A.
Whtc ?
fiuity will
be availahic, to tcach this course?
All staff.
B.
What are
the special space and/or
equipment requirements
for this course?
None.
V.
Any other budgetary implications of
mounting this course:
None.
4
Approval:
Curriculum Committee:
Dean of Faculty:
Senate:
'S
?
I..
C'
