In the first year of my program, I enrolled in a class titled Philosophy of Mind. By this time in my studies I had yet to encounter a deep dive into the literature surrounding the philosophy of mind. The professor who taught the course also served as my school’s graduate program director. As such, the summer preceding my first semester in grad school I spent corresponding with Joe. I eventually asked about his course and what was the run-down on it. I drew attention to the fact that I had been fairly detached from the topic. Joe explained that the course would serve as an overview of the topic, but this was only one of the pedagogical goals intended for the course. Joe designed the course to have each student spend the semester sketching out the premises and conclusions of arguments we would encounter in the course. The text we used would provide overviews of different mind-body theories in philosophy; i.e., substance dualism, panpsychism, and eliminative physicalism. Each section would then include arguments on why the argument is true or objections on how it is false. Depending on the assignment, we would then also be expected to defend the argument or an objection against a particular theory in the philosophy of mind. This practice of argumentation and systems of logic is what left the most lasting impact on me and my future studies of philosophy.
Before taking this course, I had taken a course on logic. From it, I understood fundamental concepts within logic such as modus ponens and what a disjunctive syllogism is. However, the structure of that course was simple and universal conditionals. The course in philosophy of mind had us engaging with actual arguments and objections within the topic. Take Frank Jackson’s knowledge argument against physicalism. What would be expected of students is to write out the premises and the conclusion of the argument, which is that physicalism is false. Then, we had to write out the reasoning for each of the premises and how this led to the conclusion. We weren’t reiterating the reasons provided by the original arguments. Rather we had to argue in our own words why their arguments worked to ensure we understood the argument and its defense. The practice of determining and articulating the justifications for an argument changed how I view philosophy, and especially discourse on philosophy.
What stood out about this course and the practice of argumentation, is that Joe allowed for infinite resubmissions of the arguments. He would grade them and offer feedback on what our arguments worked and what ran into problems. So, as we engaged with the course materials we were allowed the chance to continue to improve upon our argumentation. This process of practicing and refining my argumentation has been what has stuck with me the most since taking the course. Both when I am responding to philosophers’ arguments and in the construction and articulation of my arguments. More than that, taking this course established my interest in the field of analytic philosophy.
My interest in analytic philosophy started before my graduate program. However, taking this course on the philosophy of mind deepened my interest in analytic philosophy. The course’s emphasis on argumentation and systems of logic also prepared me for how instrumental they are in philosophy. As I move to the end of my program, I know that what I learned and completed in the philosophy of mind will stay with me.
Dan Blough
Dan Blough is a second-year graduate student in the Philosophy Department at Loyola University Chicago. His areas of specialization include analytic philosophy, philosophy of language and international ethics.
