As we go - CHECK THIS
Link to the Exploring Antinatalism Podcast that you should listen to and report on:
And the instructions for the assignment:
After you have listened the podcast, preferably sometime this week and the next, I would like each and every one of you to report back to me by email. This is very much live research activity for me right now, and I would love to have your feedback, positive, negative, or whatever. If you want to be informal, that is OK, but you can also use this format for your feedback (which is your home assignment for this session):
1. I had/had not heard of antinatalism before.
2. It is/is not clear to me now what it is.
3. In the podcast, Amanda and/or you is/are right in saying that
a. [Paraphrase what we were, in your view, saying – “being right about” – in other words, describe and interpret.]
b. [State briefly why, in your view, we were right – give reasons – in other words, evaluate/assess constructively.]
4. I have my doubts, however, about [a paragraph or more telling how we were somehow off or wrong or horrible and why].
5. Do you agree and if so, what could be done about this?
Here is an illustration from another context of how I mean this to work:
1. I had heard of Jesus before.
2. The teaching credited to him is relatively clear to me.
3. I think Jesus was right, at least initially, in saying that
a. we should turn the other cheek, not to respond to violence with violence,
b. because when we let violence beget violence, this can become an endless and harmful circle.
4. I have my doubts, however, that
a. we can turn the other cheek forever.
b. There must be a point at which we say, “Enough is enough”, and take punitive or precautionary action. Otherwise, society would collapse.
5. Do you agree with this and if you do, how do you propose to address the issue?Get the idea? I hope you do. As said, send your comments or questions to me by email and I will try to respond the best I can.
Reading for the second guest lecture on 12 October
Just a reminder that the items numbered 2-and-something here
are meant to be read before the second guest lecture.Reading for the first guest lecture on 5 October
Just a reminder that the first three items here
are meant to be read before the first guest lecture.
Preliminary Exam Results, Student Groups, and Facilitation and Presentation Times [edited]
I am happy to announce that all 13 participants passed the preliminary literature exam with flying colours. Congratulations! We are off to a good start!
We'll return to Mill, positivism, and the nature of the social sciences both in the lectures and in the first student-facilitated discussion. Talking of which, your tentative groups for the facilitation are:
Positivism, 28 September, Student group 1: Sakke, Jukka, Hanh, Udyant
Interpretivism, 5 October, Student group 2: Thu, Perttu, Katri
Ethnography, 12 October, Student group 3: Anoop, Miriam, Misa
Positionality, 26 October, Student group 4: Yeon, Lauri, PatricijaIf I am using the wrong name to address you, please correct me. AND if the date is unsuitable, contact me and we'll sort it out.
Later on, you will all make two presentations, a shorter one and a longer one.
Your tentative presentation dates for the shorter ones are:
2 November: Miriam, Hanh, Udyant, Thu, Perttu, Katri
9 November: Anoop, Jukka, Sakke, Misa, Yeon, Lauri, Patricija
Your tentative presentation dates for the longer ones are:
16 November: Miriam, Hanh, Udyant, Thu
23 November: Perttu, Katri, Anoop, Sakke
30 November: Misa, Jukka, Yeon, Lauri, PatriciaAgain, let me know if you absolutely cannot make the scheduled date.
The Logic of Moral Sciences – PRELIMINARY EXAM QUESTIONS
Answer TWO of these questions and send your answers
in WORD format to firstname.lastname@example.org by 17:00.
Work independently. The use of any sources is allowed.
• What did Mill think about the possibility of a science of human nature? Describe and interpret. (Ch. 3.)
• What did Mill think about social phenomena as a subject of science and what kind of science did he think that social science would be? Describe and interpret. (Ch. 6.)• What did Mill mean by the historical method and what did he think of its use in social science? Describe and interpret. (Ch. 8.) [NB! This should be Ch. 10. My mistake, apologies.]
As we go - CHECK THIS
Thank you for thinking about this course. I hope that you will participate.
The details of the course are explained under the TABS on the left. If you do not see them, click the three vertical lines in the upper left corner of the page. The lines will become horizontal and the tabs will appear.
To get started, here are
THREE IMPORTANT THINGS TO NOTE.
1) The course will be taught ENTIRELY ONLINE - scroll down this page for our permanent Zoom link. So online lecturing, among other things, but there will be no contact teaching at the campus. If you want to do your group works in person, that is, of course, possible, all consenting.
2) Our FIRST SESSION is on Wednesday 14 September. (You can see my "trailer" presentation during the Doctoral Programme Orientation Event - which is on the 7th.)
3) During the first session, you will all complete, working by yourselves, a PRELIMINARY LITERATURE EXAM. You can start preparing for it already. Details below.
Preliminary literature exam on Wednesday 14 September at 14:30-17:00.
Assessment: Pass / Fail. This exam cannot be compensated by other assignments.
Literature: John Stuart Mill, On The Logic of the Moral Sciences (also known as A System of Logic, Book VI; the eight edition of 1872 is preferable). You can access the book here: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/27942/27942-h/27942-h.html#toc127
Questions: Questions will test your understanding of the main points of each chapter. You will answer two of three stated questions.
Aids: Literature, notes, and internet searches are allowed during the exam.
Turning in your results: Once completed, send your answers by email to: email@example.com
Enjoy your preparations! Hoping to “see” you on the course.
Onward and upward!