Professor Shelly Kagan:
All right, so this is Philosophy
176.
The class is on death.
My name is Shelly Kagan.
The very first thing I want to
do is to invite you to call me
Shelly.
That is, if we meet on the
street, you come talk to me
during office hours,
you ask some question;
Shelly's the name that I
respond to.
I will, eventually,
respond to Professor Kagan,
but the synapses take a bit
longer for that.
It's not the name I immediately
recognize.
I have found that over the
years, fewer and fewer students
feel comfortable calling me
Shelly.
When I was young,
it seemed to work.
Now I'm gray and august.
But if you're comfortable with
it, it's the name that I prefer
to be called by.
Now, as I say,
this is a class on death.
But it's a philosophy class,
and what that means is that the
set of topics that we're going
to be talking about in this
class are not identical to the
topics that other classes on
death might try to cover.
So the first thing I want to do
is say something about the
things we won't be talking about
that you might reasonably expect
or hope that a class on death
would talk about,
so that if this is not the
class you were looking for,
you still have time to go check
out some other class.
So here are some things that a
class on death could cover that
we won't talk about.
What I primarily have in mind
are sort of psychological and
sociological questions about the
nature of death,
or the phenomenon of death.
So, a class on death might well
have a discussion of the process
of dying and coming to reconcile
yourself with the fact that
you're going to die.
Some of you may know about
Elisabeth Kübler-Ross'
discussion of the so-called five
stages of dying.
There's denial,
and then there's anger,
and then there's bargaining.
I actually don't remember the
five stages.
We're not going to talk about
that.
Similarly, we're not going to
talk about the funeral industry
in America and how it rips off
people,
which it does,
in their moments of grief and
weakness and overcharges them
for the various things that it
offers.
We're not going to talk about
that.
We're not going to talk about
the process of grieving or
bereavement.
We're not going to talk about
sociological attitudes that we
have towards the dying in our
culture and how we tend to try
to keep the dying hidden from
the rest of us.
These are all perfectly
important topics,
but they're not,
as I say, topics that we're
going to be talking about in
this class.
So what will we talk about?
Well, the things we'll talk
about are philosophical
questions that arise as we begin
to think about the nature of
death.
Like this.
In broad scope,
the first half of the class is
going to be metaphysics,
for those of you who are
familiar with the philosophical
piece of jargon.
And roughly,
the second half of the class is
going to be value theory.
So, the first half of the class
is going to be concerned with
questions about the nature of
death.
What happens when we die?
Indeed, to get at that
question, the first thing we're
going to have to think about is
what are we?
What kind of an entity is a
person?
In particular,
do we have souls,
and for this class when I talk
about a soul,
what I'm going to mean is sort
of a bit of philosophical
jargon.
I'm going to mean something
immaterial, something distinct
from our bodies.
Do we have immaterial souls,
something that might survive
the death of our body?
And if not, what does that
imply about the nature of death?
What kind of an event is death?
What is it for me to survive?
What would it mean for me to
survive my death?
What does it mean for me to
survive tonight?
That is, you know,
somebody's going to be here
lecturing to the class on
Thursday, presumably that will
be me.
What is it for that person
who's there on Thursday to be
the same person as the person
who's sitting here lecturing to
you today?
These are questions about the
nature of personal identity.
Pretty clearly,
to think about death and
continued existence and
survival, we have to get clear
about the nature of personal
identity.
These sorts of questions will
occupy us for roughly the first
half of the semester.
And then we'll turn to value
questions.
If death is the end,
is death bad?
Now, of course,
most of us are immediately and
strongly inclined to think that
death is bad.
But there are a set of
philosophical puzzles about how
death could be bad.
To sort of give you a quick
taste, if after my death I won't
exist, how could anything be bad
for me?
How could anything be bad for
something that doesn't exist?
So how could death be bad?
So it's not that the result is
going to be that I'm going to
try to convince you that death
isn't bad,
but it takes actually a little
bit of work to pin down
precisely what is it about death
that's bad and how can it be
death?
Is there more than one thing
about death that makes it bad?
We'll turn to questions like
that.
If death is bad,
then one might wonder would
immortality be a good thing?
That's a question that we'll
think about.
Or, more generally,
we'll worry about how should
the fact that I'm going to die
affect the way I live?
What should my attitude be
towards my mortality?
Should I be afraid of death,
for example?
Should I despair at the fact
that I'm going to die?
Finally, we'll turn to
questions about suicide.
Many of us think that given the
valuable and precious thing that
life is, suicide makes no sense.
You're throwing away the only
life you're ever going to have.
And so we'll end the semester
by thinking about questions
along the lines of the
rationality and morality of
suicide.
So roughly speaking,
that's where we're going.
First half of the class,
metaphysics;
second half of the class,
value theory.
Next thing I need to explain is
this.
There's, roughly speaking,
two ways to do a class,
especially an introductory
class like this.
In approach number one,
you simply lay out the various
positions, pro and con,
and the professor strives to
remain neutral;
sort of not tip his hand about
what he holds.
That's approach number one.
And sometimes in my intro
classes that's the approach that
I take.
But the other approach,
and the one that I should warn
you I'm going to take this
semester, in this class,
is rather different.
There's a line that I'm going
to be developing,
pushing, if you will,
or defending in this class.
That is to say,
there's a certain set of views
I hold about the issues that
we'll be discussing.
And what I'm going to try to do
in this class is argue for those
views.
Try to convince you that those
views are correct.
To help you know sort of ahead
of time quickly what those views
are, I want to start by
describing a set of views that
many of you probably believe.
So I'm going to give you a
cluster of views.
Logically speaking,
you could believe some of these
things and not all of them.
But here's a set of views that
many of you probably believe,
and I imagine most of you
believe at least some of these
things.
So here's the set of common
views.
First of all,
that we have a soul.
That is to say we are not just
bodies.
We're not just lumps of bone
and flesh.
But there's a part of us,
perhaps the essential part of
us, that is something more than
the physical,
the spiritual,
immaterial part of us,
which as I say in this class
we'll call a soul.
Most of us, most of you,
probably believe in souls.
Certainly most people in
America believe in some sort of
immaterial soul.
And given this existence of
this immaterial soul,
it's a possibility,
indeed a fair likelihood,
that we will survive our
deaths.
The death will be the
destruction of my body,
but my soul is immaterial and
so my soul can continue to exist
after my death.
And whether or not you actually
believe in a soul,
you hope that there's a soul so
that there'll be this serious
possibility of surviving your
death because death is not only
bad,
but so horrible that what we
would like to have happen is,
we would like to live forever.
And so, armed with a soul,
as it were, there's at least
the possibility of immortality.
Immortality would be wonderful.
That's what we hope is the
case, whether or not we know
that it's the case.
Immortality would be wonderful.
That's why death's so bad.
It robs us of immortality.
And if there is no soul,
if death is the end,
if there is no immortality,
this is such an overwhelmingly
bad thing that the only,
the obvious reaction,
the natural reaction,
the universal reaction,
is to face the prospect of
death with fear and despair.
And as I mentioned earlier
then, death is so horrible and
life is so wonderful that it
could never make sense to throw
it away.
So suicide is both immoral on
the one hand and never makes
sense.
It's always irrational as well,
in addition.
That, as I say,
is I think a common set of
views about the nature of death.
And what I'm going to be doing,
what I'm going to be arguing in
this class, is that that set of
views is pretty much mistaken
from beginning to end.
And so I'm going to try to
convince you that there is no
soul.
Immortality would not be a good
thing.
Fear of death isn't actually an
appropriate response to death.
Suicide, under certain
circumstances,
might be rationally and morally
justified.
As I say, the common picture is
pretty much mistaken from start
to end.
That's at least my goal.
That's my aim.
That's what I'm going to be
doing.
Now, since of course,
I believe the views I
believe--and I hope at the end
of the semester you'll agree
with me,
because I think they're true
and I hope you'll end up
believing the truth [laughter].
But I should say that the
crucial point isn't for you to
agree with me.
The crucial point is for you to
think for yourself.
And so what I'm really doing is
inviting you to take a good,
cold, hard look at death,
and to face it and think about
it in a way that most of us
don't do.
If you, at the end of the
semester, haven't agreed with me
about this particular claim or
that particular claim,
so be it.
I'll be content--I won't be
completely content--but I'll be
at least largely content as long
as you've really thought through
the arguments on each side of
these various issues.
Karen, maybe this would be a
good time for you to pass around
the syllabus.
Next introductory remark:
A lot of today's talk is going
to be devoted to business.
I'll get to,
if time permits,
some philosophy at the end.
I want to make one more remark
about what I'll be doing in
terms of this class.
This class, as I say,
is a philosophy class.
We'll basically be sitting here
thinking about what we can know
or make sense of with regard to
death using our reasoning
capacity.
We'll be trying to think about
death from a rational
standpoint.
One kind of evidence or one
kind of argument that we won't
be making use of here is appeal
to religious authority.
So some of you may believe in,
for example,
the existence of an afterlife.
You may believe you're going to
survive your death.
You may believe in immortality
because that's what your church
teaches you.
And that's fine.
It's not my purpose or
intention here to try to argue
you out of your religious
beliefs or to argue against your
religious beliefs.
All I'm going to ask is that we
not appeal to such religious
arguments, appeal to revelation
or the authority of the Bible,
or what have you,
in the course of this argument.
In the course of this class.
If you want to,
you could think of this class
as one big hypothetical.
What conclusions would we come
to about the nature of death if
we had to think about it from a
secular perspective?
Making use of only our own
reasoning, as opposed to
whatever answers we might be
given by divine revealed
authority.
Those of you who believe in
divine revealed authority,
that's a debate for another
day.
It's not a debate that we're
going to be engaged in here in
this semester.
Similarly, although I'm not
going to ask you in your
discussion sections to hide your
religious views,
you'll be asked in the course
of defending them,
to give reasons that would make
sense to all of us.
That's by way of sort of where
the class is going.
Let me now turn to some
discussion about the
requirements of the class,
grades and so forth and so on.
The syllabus is going around
the class.
Almost all of you have it at
this point.
The syllabus doesn't really say
a whole lot.
I've already given you an
overview of what topics we'll be
going to.
The crucial point about the
syllabus is that it indicates
what reading you need to have
done for any given week.
Now, I've done my best to peg
the readings to where I will be
on that week's lecture,
but I don't lecture with
lecture notes,
for the most part.
Sometimes I take a little bit
longer than I anticipated.
Actually, I often take a little
bit longer than I anticipated.
No doubt at some point I'll
fall behind.
At some point I may rush to
catch up ahead.
It won't always be the case
that the readings will exactly
coincide with where the lectures
are at.
Nonetheless,
in any given week,
for the start of that week,
you should have done the
readings that are listed for
that week.
The readings on the syllabus
simply say the author,
and there are a couple of books
that are available at the
bookstore.
There are a larger packet of
readings that's available as a
course pack at Tyco's .
And so for any given week you
can find the reading.
One or two cases,
maybe just one actually,
where I've got more than one
article by the given author,
I've given the title of the
article as well.
It shouldn't be difficult to
locate the reading for any given
week.
The format of the class,
of course, is a familiar and
straightforward one.
I'll be sitting here lecturing
twice a week,
this time, 10:30 to 11:20.
Once a week you will break up
into discussion sections.
The discussion sections will
meet for 50 minutes.
Each one of you will have a
single time.
But it'll be different times
the discussion sections meet.
For the first time,
the philosophy department has
just switched over to the online
discussion section registration
system.
I'm not 100% certain how that
works.
I've not used it before.
I take it the idea is something
like this.
Right now, if you were to shop
the class, you could find the
tentative list of discussion
section days and times.
So be sure to find some time
that works for you.
You can't actually register for
any of those discussion section
times yet.
But as of, I think,
next week when you're able to
begin your online registration,
you will be able to register
for any discussion section that
still has a slot,
still has a space open in it.
In fact, you won't be able to
finalize your registration for
your courses until you've
actually signed up for an
available slot.
Once you have registered,
if some other slots become
available that weren't
previously available,
I gather you'll be sent some
sort of email by the system,
in case some other time would
be better for you.
You can put yourself on waiting
lists and so forth.
It sounds pretty good on paper.
Maybe it'll all work smoothly.
I've never been through it
before.
I hope we won't have any
problems.
Right now what you want to make
sure is that there is a time
that's available--right now all
the times are available--but
that there is a time that works
for you.
Because if you can't find a
discussion section that works
for you, you won't be able to
take this course.
Any questions about that?
I should actually ask,
any questions about anything
that I've asked or said so far,
up to this point?
Let me make a remark about
questions, which is--today's
mostly business.
Hopefully, it'll be fairly
straightforward.
But both today and throughout
the entire semester,
as I'm lecturing I want to
invite you to jump in with
questions.
Well, jump in is a bit of an
exaggeration.
I don't want you to just start
talking, but raise your hand.
If I'm saying something that
you don't understand,
the chances are pretty good
that there's 25 or 50 other
students in the class who don't
understand it either.
I'm just not being clear.
So I want to welcome you,
I really want to invite you,
whenever you've got some
reactions to the things that I'm
saying,
raise your hand,
I'll call on you.
Say, "Shelly,
I didn't really understand what
you were saying about the soul.
Could you please explain that
again?"
Or, for that matter,
if you've got some quick
reactions or thoughts or
responses to the arguments that
I'm laying out and you want to
share them with the class as a
whole,
then very much I want to invite
you to do this.
Now this class is too big for
us to have some close,
intimate conversation between
the 150-180, however many
students there are here.
That's not going to happen.
But the chance for detailed
discussion in the discussion
section, that's where that
should happen.
But still, there is the chance
for brief reactions and
definitely a chance for
questions.
I very much want to invite you
to do that.
So, if at any point you've got
something you want to ask about
or some two bits you want to
add,
raise your hand,
wiggle it around,
make sure I see you.
I may want to finish the
particular point that I'm
making, but I'll try to come
back to you and I'll then raise
your question.
And if I remember at least,
I will repeat the question out
loud so that everybody can hear
it.
I also want to say that I will
try to have the practice of,
after class ends,
if you want to continue the
discussion, you have some
questions that occurred to you
towards the end,
we didn't have a chance to
share them with the class as a
whole, I will,
on a normal day,
meet outside and continue to
talk with however many of you
want to do that until you're
done.
I just love talking about this
stuff and I welcome you to come
to my office hours.
I invite you to ask questions
in class or, if you prefer,
after class as well.
Again, any questions about any
of that?
Yeah.
Student: [inaudible]
Professor Shelly Kagan:
When are my office hours?
That's a great question and I
don't know the answer to it.
I haven't planned them yet.
On Thursday,
start the class by asking me
that and I'll give you an
answer.
All right.
Other bits of business.
I should say something about
grades.
Now many of you may have heard,
many of you may know,
and if you don't already know
this,
I should warn you,
that I have a reputation around
Yale as being a harsh grader.
I know this is true,
that is, I know I have the
reputation, both because I
periodically in my student
evaluations get told I'm one of
Yale's harsher graders,
and because every now and then
the Yale Daily News will have an
article about grade inflation
and they'll always ask me,
"Well Professor Kagan is
somebody..."
Once there was a story on grade
inflation that the Yale Daily
News began by saying,
"As Shelly Kagan (known at Yale
as one of the hardest graders)."
So I know I've got at least the
reputation of being a hard
grader.
I don't actually know whether
it's deserved or not,
because Yale does not publish
information about what the
grading averages are.
At other schools I've taught at
there's been information along
the lines of well the typical
grade in an introductory course
in the humanities is such and
such.
Shortly after I came here to
Yale, and I started realizing
that people thought I was a
harder grader than most other
Yale professors,
I called the administration and
asked, "Do you have this sort of
information?"
The answer is "Yes."
"Will you give it to me?"
The answer was "No."
They don't share this
information with the Yale
faculty.
Seems odd.
The explanation,
of course, actually isn't that
hard to come by.
The worry is that those of us
who are harder graders than
average, if the information were
published,
would feel guilty and sort of
ease up on our grading.
But those who are easier
graders than average will never
feel guilty and toughen up.
So the result would be a
constant push up with the
grades.
At any rate,
I don't know for certainty that
I'm a harder grader,
but I believe that it's the
case based on reactions I get
when I give the speech that I'm
about to give.
Okay, so [laughter].
When I open the blue book,
the Yale guideline,
the Yale catalog,
it's got a page,
as you all know,
where it says what letter
grades mean at Yale.
I didn't actually bring it this
year.
Sometimes I do,
but I've got it pretty much
memorized.
It says, for example,
next to each letter grade what
it means.
B, for example, means good.
A means excellent,
C means satisfactory,
D is passing,
F is failing.
B, let's start with B.
B means good.
Now the crucial question then
is what does good mean?
I take good to mean good.
Consequently,
[laughter]
if you were to write a good
paper for me,
that would get a B.
And when you get a B from
me--now, I say me,
this is the royal me.
Because I won't actually be
grading your papers.
Your papers will be graded by a
small army of TAs.
But they will grade under my
supervision, and in keeping with
the standards that I ask them to
grade with.
So when you're pissed off about
your grade, the person to take
it up with--well,
take it up with them.
But eventually you'll want to
take it up with me.
So when you get a B from us,
B doesn't mean what a piece of
crap.
B means good job!
And so you should be pleased to
get a B, because it meant you
were doing good work and it's
not easy to do good work in
philosophy.
A means excellent.
Now excellent does not mean
publishable.
Excellent does not mean you are
God's gift to philosophy
[laughter].
So it's crucial to understand
it doesn't mean that the only
way you're going to get an A is
to be God's gift to philosophy.
A means excellent work for a
first class in philosophy.
This is an introductory class.
It does not presuppose any
background in philosophy.
Still, to get an A,
you've got to show some flair
for the subject.
You've got to show not only
have you understood the ideas
that have been put forward in
the readings and in the lectures
and so forth,
but you see how to sort of put
them together in the paper in a
way that shows you've got some
aptitude here.
You did it in a way that made
us take note.
That's what we try to reserve
As for.
Some of you will end up getting
As, if not at the beginning,
by the end of the semester.
Many of you will end up getting
Bs, if not at the beginning,
by the end of the semester.
Many of you will not start out
doing good work.
Many of you will start out
doing satisfactory work or,
truth be told,
less than satisfactory work.
Now look, I was an
undergraduate once.
And I know what it is to write
a typical undergraduate paper.
You sit down the night before
and you had a couple of ideas.
You thought about it maybe for
a half an hour.
And you meant to get to it
sooner, but you had a lot of
other things to do.
And you throw it off in a
couple of hours and maybe stay
up late.
You know it's not the worst
thing you ever wrote,
and it's not the best thing you
ever wrote,
and it has a couple of nice
ideas, but maybe it could be
better.
It's sort of a satisfactory job.
Yale says satisfactory means C.
So many of you will start off
the semester writing that kind
of paper.
And the fact of the matter is,
some of you will start off
writing worse papers than that.
Because writing a philosophy
paper is a difficult thing to
learn how to do.
It's exercising a set of
muscles that a lot of you have
not spent a lot of time
exercising.
Now it's not as though you
haven't spent any time doing it.
You've had bull sessions,
right, with your high school
friends or in your college dorm
or what have you.
But you haven't done it with
the kind of discipline and rigor
that we're looking for here.
So, like anything else,
it's a skill that gets better
with practice.
And what that means,
of course, is you won't do as
well at the beginning as you're
likely to be doing toward the
end.
Some of you,
unfortunately,
won't do very good jobs at the
beginning--and my TAs,
I'll encourage them to be
prepared to give Ds.
If the vices of the paper
significantly outweigh the
virtues, that's a D.
If the vices very significantly
outweigh whatever virtues there
are, that's some kind of an F.
So the fact of the matter is
many of you in your initial
papers will get lower grades
than you've probably ever gotten
before in your life.
I wanted to warn you about that.
Now I say this not so much to
depress the hell out of you,
but (a) partly to warn you,
and (b) to make it clear that I
believe that it's a skill.
Writing a good philosophy paper
is a skill and you can get
better at it.
Consequently,
most of you will get better at
it.
So let me make the following
remark.
Officially, each paper--you
have three five-page papers.
Each paper is worth 25% of your
grade, officially.
But--the remaining 25% is
discussion section;
I'll get to that in a
minute--officially,
25% of your grade is for each
of the three papers.
But if, over the course of the
semester, you get better,
then we will give,
at the end of the semester,
when we're figuring out your
semester grade,
we'll give the later,
stronger papers more than their
official weight.
For many of you,
the first paper will be clearly
the worst paper you write.
And then we'll just throw that
grade away;
give greater weight to the
second and third papers.
If the third paper is the
strongest, we will give even
more weight to the third paper.
There's no formula here,
a great deal depends on the
overall pattern,
what your TA tells me about how
you've done over the course of
the semester.
But this policy of giving
greater weight,
if you show improvement,
is something that most of you
will benefit from.
So if you end up not doing
well, the moral of the story is
not to go running off and
dropping the class,
but to figure out what you did
right, what you didn't do right,
how to make the second paper
better and the third paper
stronger, again.
And if you do show improvement,
that will very significantly
influence and emerge in terms of
the impact it has on your
overall semester grade.
Because of this policy,
I don't actually know when all
is said and done whether at the
end of the semester I'm any
harder,
whether I depart from the
average or not.
Let me quickly mention there's
a fairly typical grade
distribution for the overall
grades of this,
at the end of the semester.
Roughly 25% of you are likely
to end up with some kind of an A
at the end of the semester.
Fifty, 55% of you or so are
likely to end up with some kind
of a B.
Twenty, 25% percent of you
might end up with some sort of a
C.
Sometimes there's a couple of
percent that end up worse than
that.
Unsurprisingly,
you've got the ability to do
decent work in this class and
most of you have the ability to
do good work,
and some of you have,
a fair chunk of you have,
the ability to do excellent
work,
though it may take some work on
your part to get to that point.
The last thing I should say
about the grades is why do I do
this?
It's really I try to do it as a
sign of respect for you.
I know that may seem like a
surprising thing to say when
I've just sort of gone on my
little gleeful amount about how
I'm going to fail all of you
[laughter],
but it's worth my saying you
guys are so smart.
You're so talented.
You've gotten so far on your
ability that many of you have
learned to coast.
It's not doing you any kind of
service to let you continue
coasting.
My goal here is to be honest
with you, right?
Look, you're smart enough
probably most of you to pull off
some sort of B without breaking
into a sweat,
or at least not a significant
sweat.
So be it.
But it's just lying to you to
pretend that that's excellence
in philosophy.
So what I want to do in this
class is be honest with you and
tell you, "You've really done
work here to be extraordinarily
proud of yourself" versus "Yeah,
you've done something okay" or
"You've done good work.
Admittedly, it's not great,
but you've done good work."
All right, that's 75% of your
grade is the papers.
The remaining 25% of your grade
is based on discussion section.
Now that's a lot of your grade
to turn on discussion section.
So the first thing I need to
tell you is I really mean it.
If you blow off discussion
section, you're grade will
suffer.
So it's worth knowing in a
general way what you need to do
to earn a good grade in
discussion section and here the
answer is,
perhaps the obvious one,
you need to participate.
You need to come to discussion
sections having thought about
the lectures,
having done the readings,
having thought about the
questions that they raise,
and you need to come to
discussion section then prepared
to discuss this week's set of
issues.
You need to listen to what your
classmates are saying and say
why you disagree with them.
And not just that you disagree
with them, but to raise an
objection.
Or why you agree with them.
And when somebody else then
attacks them,
say, "Look, I think that what
John was saying was a good point
and here's how I think he should
have defended his position,"
or what have you.
You need to engage in
philosophical discussion.
If you're not participating in
discussion section,
you're not doing what the
section is there for.
Philosophers love to talk and
we love to argue.
The way to get better at
thinking about philosophy is by
talking about philosophy.
So I'm putting my money where
my mouth is.
I'm saying, "Look,
yeah, that's an important part
of the class.
So important that it's going to
be worth 25% of your grade."
Again, it doesn't mean--this is
slightly different from the
papers--that you've got to be
brilliant philosophically to get
an A.
Rather, you've got to be a
wonderful class citizen to get
an A for discussion section.
So, as I put it,
in fact I think I put it this
way on the syllabus,
participation--and here I mean
respectful participation,
not hogging the
limelight--participation can
improve your grade,
but it won't lower your grade.
Nonparticipation,
or not being there,
that will lower your
participation grade.
Any question about any of that?
All right.
So I'm sorry to have sort of
the long gloom and doom,
but it seems that it's only
fair to let you know what you're
getting into.
One other remark about the
discussion sections.
The way I think of it is like
the conversation hour for your
foreign language class.
How many of you have had a
philosophy class before?
Thanks.
Maybe 15% of you.
Maybe 20% of you.
Most of you have not.
That's pretty normal.
Don't go into discussion
section thinking,
"Oh, I can't talk.
I don't have any background in
philosophy.
I've never done this sort of
thing before."
That's true for most of you.
The way you get better is by
talking philosophy.
All right.
Next remark.
I guess this is sort of just
one last connection with regard
to grades.
This is an intro philosophy
class.
The crucial point about intro
is it means first class in
philosophy.
It doesn't presuppose any
background in philosophy.
It doesn't necessarily mean
easy.
Some of this material for some
of you is going to be very,
very difficult.
And although the number of
pages that you'll have to read
are not--there's not a lot.
Probably in a typical week,
50 pages, maybe less.
For many of you,
you're going to find it dense
material.
And although I don't really
have the fantasy that many of
you will read this stuff twice,
if you had the time to do it,
that would be a wonderful thing
to do.
Philosophy is hard stuff to
read.
Other remark about this being
an intro class is that it's
introductory in that the issues
that we're talking about are
kind of first run through.
Every single thing that we
discuss here could be pursued at
greater depth.
So, for example,
we'll spend whatever it is,
maybe a week and a half talking
about the nature of personal
identity, two weeks.
But one could easily spend an
entire semester thinking about
that question alone.
So don't come away thinking
that whatever it is that we've
talked about here in lecture is
the last word on the subject.
Rather, it's something more
like first words.
Actually, one other word about
the readings and the lectures.
With one exception,
I won't be spending very much
time talking about the readings.
The exception is Plato,
where I'll lecture,
maybe two lectures,
trying to reconstruct Plato's
central arguments,
at least the arguments relevant
to our class.
We'll be reading one of Plato's
dialogues.
But for the most part,
although I'll occasionally,
periodically refer to the
readings,
I won't spend a lot of time
talking about the views in the
readings.
The readings you should think
of as complementary to my
lectures.
The idea is that there's more
to say than what I've said.
And you'll find some more of
what there is to say in the
readings.
Or there may be positions that
I mention, but I don't develop,
because I'm not perhaps
sympathetic to them,
and you might find somebody who
is sympathetic to them,
developing them in the
readings.
The readings are a crucial
component of the class.
You won't get everything you
need simply by coming to the
lectures.
But equally the case,
that the views that I'll be
developing in the lectures are,
although not necessarily unique
to me, aren't all laid out in
the readings.
You won't get everything I'm
talking about in the lectures,
if all you do is the readings.
They're both parts of the class.
All right.
I want to end by--I'm not close
to ending, but the last thing
I'm going to do is read aloud
some student evaluations.
I have found over the years
that some students like me;
some students don't like me.
I don't know how to make this
point any clearer than to share
with you a sampling of the
student evaluations.
These are not actually from
last spring, but they're typical
enough that I was too lazy to
make some new quotes.
Quote one.
These are actual quotes from
former actual students.
(1) "The lectures were clear
and followed a very logical
order."
(2) "I thought the class was
not always organized."
(3) "I thought it was a very
well organized class."
(4) "Overall,
I was unsatisfied with this
course.
Few substantive conclusions
were reached."
(5) Along the same vein,
"I think he should avoid saying
at the end of each segment of
the class,
‘Ultimately,
you'll have to decide what to
think for yourself.'"
[laughter]
I should end the class by
saying, "You will believe."
Actually, I started the class
by saying that.
You will believe what I believe.
(6) "It might be improved by
presenting other views better
and more objectively,
since Kagan always ended a
particular line of reasoning by
defeating the argument if he
didn't agree with it.
He could be a bit more unbiased
and tolerant of other
perspectives."
(7) "Lectures were sometimes
repetitive or obvious,
but occasionally,
they provided new insights."
(8) "I know that some felt the
pace of the arguments was a
little slow, but I felt that
this was generally necessary,
not only for the
unphilosophy-savvy population,
but also to cover all points."
(9) "Extremely thorough and
thoughtful.
Receptive to questions.
Brilliant."
I like that one [laughter].
"Often long-winded." Hmmm.
(10) "He does go around and
around the same idea a number of
times, which does cut down on
the notes for the class,
but it can get a little
boring."
(11) "Though I've heard
students say he often repeats
himself, I think this is a merit
in a philosophy course in which
arguments and thoughts can
quickly become confusing."
(12) "Shelly Kagan is a
fabulous, resourceful,
utterly convincing lecturer."
(13) "He would work through
arguments right in front of--" I
like this one,
because this is what I at least
aim to be inside my head.
Here's what I'm doing.
Thirteen: "He would work
through arguments right in front
of us, which then helped me work
through them on my own."
(14) "Shelly is an incredibly
dynamic lecturer."
(15) "He's just in his own
world babbling on and on
[laughter].
I'd zone out with regularity."
(16) "I have to say that Shelly
Kagan is probably the best
lecturer I had in my four years
at Yale."
(17) "He's the type of teacher
you either love or hate."
Now that's pretty clearly true.
I wish there were some easy
litmus test that I could just
give you so you'd know which of
you would be making a mistake
taking this class.
I don't know how to give it to
you.
Next topic, grades.
(1) "He tried to intimidate us
too much with his promise of
impossible grading so that
everyone took the class
credit/D/fail,
when we all probably ended up
with As or Bs.
His grading was not hard."
(2) "I recommend it,
but only credit/D/fail.
Professor Kagan is harsh with
grading."
(3) "When Shelly says he's the
harshest grader on campus,
he isn't lying.
I was consistently surprised by
how poorly I did on papers
[laughter].
The standards in this class are
just different from all other
classes."
(4) "Kagan's reputation as a
harsh grader is unfounded.
If you put in the effort,
the grade will reflect that."
So that settles the question am
I a harsh grader or not.
The last question for the
evaluation is should you take
the class or not?
Would you recommend it to
somebody else?
(1) "I believe this class is
one of the most mind-opening
experiences of my life."
(2) "No.
It's a waste of a course."
[laughter]
(3) "It gets kind of depressing
at times, but I suppose that's
due to the nature of the subject
[laughter]."
(4) "This course stands out as
one of the more unique and
stimulating courses I've taken
at Yale."
(5) "Excellent class.
It made me think about life and
death in a new way.
What more can you ask for from
a class?"
(6) "I would not recommend it.
The class just seemed to be a
platform for Kagan to throw out
random ideas and the students
were never required to engage in
any thought."
Well, that clears that up.
Let me end with a couple of
other quick remarks.
One--these are some of my
all-time favorites from previous
years.
(1) "Not doing the reading
didn't hurt me at all."
Now, these are anonymous
comments.
I don't know who wrote this
comment.
But I do know this.
Whoever wrote this remark is an
idiot [laughter].
Whoever wrote this remark seems
to be under the impression that
the point of being at Yale is to
spend $40,000 a year of your
parents' money and get away with
learning as little as possible.
Well, for those of you who want
to try it, you probably could
pass this class and maybe even
get an okay grade without doing
the readings.
There's no final exam.
But still, it's crucial to
understand, doing the readings
is an important part of learning
what this course has to offer.
Different quote.
"Kagan is a self-righteous
little man" [laughter]" Now I've
got to tell you,
that bit about being little,
that really hurts.
Another one.
"Great course.
Wonderful professor.
Fascinating subjects.
The deepest thinking I've done
in my life."
Final quote.
"This class taught me how to
think more than any other at
Yale."
I don't know whether I pull it
off.
Pretty obviously,
for a number of students,
I don't manage to pull it off,
but that's at least what my aim
is.
I'm trying to help you think.
I welcome you and I hope you'll
be back on Thursday.
 
