Questions regarding Philosophical Anthropology - 1st semester
Code
722031032
Academic unit
Faculdade de Ciências Sociais e Humanas
Department
Filosofia
Credits
10
Teacher in charge
Mário Jorge Carvalho
Weekly hours
3 letivas + 1 tutorial
Teaching language
Portuguese
Objectives
Class A
a) Acquire a high level of knowledge in the field of Philosophical Anthropology and in particular a detailed knowledge of the fundamental concepts and of the history of Philosophical Anthropology, of its methodological and doctrinal controversies and of its interlinking with other branches of philosophy and science.
b) Acquire detailed knowledge of the fundamental texts in the field of Philosophical Anthropology, with a mastering of past interpretations and of the current state of research.
c) Acquire a high ability to analyse, compare, criticise and use anthropological concepts, and also to independently discuss problems and doctrinal views in the field of Philosophical Anthropology.
d) Acquire the ability to carry out research work under supervision in this field that meets high scientific quality standards.
e) Acquire the ability to carry out independent research in this area.
Prerequisites
Not applicable
Subject matter
Class A
Human life and knowledge – Plato’s Theaetetus
What is the role played by knowledge viz. knowledge claims in human life? To what extent is human life intrinsically knowledge-related (or at any rate knowledge-claims-related)? And what is knowledge (the knowledge – viz. the knowledge claims – human life is intrinsically related to) all about?
These questions resemble a very complex jigsaw puzzle philosophical anthropology cannot ignore.
Plato’s Theaetetus, too, strongly resembles a puzzle – and reading it (trying to make sense of its many components) is like having to piece together a very complex jigsaw.
At first glance it would appear that we are speaking of two different puzzles. But, on closer inspection it emerges that Plato’s Theaetetus is all about the above-mentioned questions, so that trying to piece together one of these puzzles amounts to trying to piece together the other.
Our task is to deal with this twofold puzzle.
Class B
The micro-polis and the mega-psyche – Plato’s two-way comparison and the resulting anthropology.
Plato’s well-known parallel between the individual and the polis proves to be enlightening both a) because the polis-comparison helps to better understand the individual psyche and b) because the comparison with an individual psyche helps to better understand the polis. Our task is to identify the main features of Plato’s polis-psyche-anthropology (or rather of his polis-psyche-soma-anthropology), its basis and its implications.
The main focus will lie 1) on showing that this particular kind of anthropology turns out to be very different from what it seems, 2) on the two-way connection between the micro-polis and the mega-psyche (viz. the mega soma-psyche), 3) on Plato’s account of the basic invariable components viz. of what it takes to make a human being (and a polis) as such, and 4) on the kaleidoscopic variety of utterly different forms human beings and poleis can take.
Bibliography
Turma A/Class A
Burnet, I. (Ed.) (1905). Platonis Opera, Tomus I. Oxonii.
Duke, E. A./Hicken, W. F. et al. (Ed.) (1995). Platonis Opera, Tomus I,. Oxonii.
Campbell, L. (Ed.) (1883). The Theaetetusof Plato. Oxford.
Diès, A. (Ed.) (1923). Platon Théétète. Paris.
Cornford, F. M. D. (1935). Plato’s Theory of Knowledge. The ‘Theaetetus’ and the ‘Sophist’ of Plato. London.
Fowler, H. N. (Ed.) (1967). Theaetetus and Sophist (Loeb Classical Library). London/Cambridge (Mass.).
Macdowell, J. H. (Ed.) (1973). Plato Theaetetus. Oxford.
Narcy, M. (Ed.) 1994. Platon Théétète, traduction inédite, introduction et notes. Paris.
Valgimigli, M. (Ed.) (1999). Platone Teeteto. Roma-Bari: Laterza.
Levett, M. J./Burnyeat, M. (Ed.) (1990). The Theaetetus of Plato. Indianapolis/Cambridge.
Rowe, C. (Ed.) (2015). Plato Theaetetus and Sophist. Cambridge.
Ferrari, F. (Ed.) (2011). Platone Teeteto. Milano.
Ambuel, D. (Ed.) (2015). Turtles all the Way Down: On Plato’s Theaetetus. A Commentary and Translation. Sankt Augustin.
Teaching method
Class A
This curricular unit has a theoretical-practical character.
Seminar-oriented classes.
Reading and interpretation of and commentary on Plato’s Theaetetus. Analysis and discussion both of interpretive (including syntactic and semantic) issues and related philosophical questions and concepts.
The teaching methodology combines: a) a thorough interpretation of Plato’s Theaetetus (of its different components, of their connection both with each other and with the rest of the corpus platonicum) b) a theoretical analysis of philosophical problems, and c) a discussion of alternative views, objections, counter-examples, etc.
Evaluation method
Class A
Appraisal: Individual appraisal. Each student will have to present a research paper (of about 20 pages) on a topic individually agreed upon with the Lecturer and then discuss this paper with the latter. This counts for 3/4 of final marks. Class participation (participation in the discussion) counts for 1/4 of final marks.
Class B
Appraisal: Individual appraisal. Each student will have to present a research paper (of about 20 pages) on a topic individually agreed upon with the Lecturer and then discuss this paper with the latter. This counts for 3/4 of final marks. Class participation (participation in the discussion) counts for 1/4 of final marks.