PHILOSOPHY OF THE HUMAN PERSON

Fall 2000:  INSTRUCTIONS FOR FINAL EXAM MEETINGS

PROFESSOR YOKO ARISAKA

Office:  CA D8D    Phone:  422-6424    email:  arisaka@usfca.edu

• The final meeting will be about  20 min. per person.  It will be held during Friday December 1--Thursday December 14.  If you are particularly interested in the Part IV (Toward the Future) of the course, try to schedule your meeting after December 5.
• Please sign up on the sign-up sheet (which will be distributed in class after Nov 21); don’t forget to put your phone number.
• If you have to cancel your meeting, you have to let me know and re-schedule.
• You can use the meeting to produce your final paper (5 points, 4-5 pages), or you can bring your final paper at the time of the meeting if you write it beforehand; the paper will be due at 5 pm, December 14.  (You may turn your paper in earlier.)
• The 15 points maximum will go toward the oral meeting.

Question

In my view, the two articles/authors from the list of readings we have done in this class which best characterize my conception of the “human person” are [list two of the authors/articles you liked the best].  In article 1, the most significant idea is [the idea #1].  In article 2, the most significant idea is [the idea #2].  I consider these the most interesting/helpful in my own reflections about the human personhood, because [give reasons for each—2 points each, 4 points total].  If I had to synthesize my own statement about what I consider to be a good definition of what it means to be a human person, I would say the following: [state your own definition--this need not be absolutely original, but it could be a combination of the material we’ve studied—3 points].  However, there are others who would disagree with me.  My “opponents” would be [two of the authors/articles you least agree with, #3 and #4].  They would say that my view is wrong, because they believe that [state the criticisms from #3 and #4 against your view—2points each for #3 and #4; 4 points total].  But I would say that they are still wrong; my reply or defense to them would be [articulate your defense against the criticisms—4 points].

15 points total.

Suggestions

• The meeting should be understood as a “philosophical conversation.”  So you need not be intimidated or feel defensive.
• However, I will play a devil’s advocate and ask you to clarify your claims (this is how philosophers converse), and proceed to demolish your argument; that is, I will try to present a counter-argument for you to defend.
• I will ask you to “explain more,” “clarify what you mean,” “turn your (or author’s) views/opinions/ideas into an argument,” and “defend your position against my criticism.”
• This means that you should do the following:
• Know thoroughly the four articles you have chosen.  Ask me to clarify any material that you are unclear about beforehand.  When you come to the meeting, I will assume that you know the material well.
• Think through, and be clear about the view you want to defend.
• Try to imagine counter-arguments yourself.  Who would disagree, in what way?  Think about how you would go about challenging your opponent.
• I will help you with the articles beforehand; however, I will not rehearse the meeting with you prior to the appointment.
• If everything goes really well, you will get the full 15 points.  If you cannot quite clarify, explain, articulate, or put together a specific argument when I ask you for one, you will lose points.  If you mischaracterize the authors’ views, you will lose points.  You will not loose too many points if you cannot successfully defend a counter-argument, so long as some good attempts are made.
• You can bring any notes or material you want.  However, if it takes you too long to answer a clarification question because you have to flip through your notes, I will probably think that you don’t have a good grasp of the material.  “Getting a good grasp of the material” means that you have the fundamental concepts and the position down, so that you don’t need to “remember” any detail.
• Tips for preparing:  Here’s how you imagine possible counter-arguments:  For any position A, there are criticisms or “other ways of looking at the issue.”  Try to come up with them yourself and try to meet the challenges yourself.  This will help you clarify your own ideas, interpretations, and arguments, and possibly predict what I may say.

Philosophy of the Human Person
FALL 2000: Arisaka

FILL IN AND BRING THIS SHEET TO THE FINAL MEETING

NAME:

THE ARTICLES I HAVE SELECTED ARE:

1.
2.
3.
4.

MY MAIN POINTS (jot down key ideas you are going to talk about, in the order you will discuss):