Module PHL1004 for 2019/0
- Overview
- Aims and Learning Outcomes
- Module Content
- Indicative Reading List
- Assessment
Undergraduate Module Descriptor
PHL1004: Philosophical Problems 1
This module descriptor refers to the 2019/0 academic year.
Module Aims
The aims of this module are both general and specific. The general aims are to introduce you to a way of approaching concrete problems with both clarity of thought and methodological sophistication. However, it will also introduce you to the fundamental nature and underlying motivations behind core areas and debates in philosophy. Too often students are told to read the two sides of a debate in philosophy without being first given an appreciation of why the debates in question are taking place. In stark contrast, this module situates, grounds and motivates key debates in philosophy, so that you will understand why so much ink has been spilled on certain (often seemingly trivial or obscure) issues.
On successfully completing the programme you will be able to: | |
---|---|
Module-Specific Skills | 1. Demonstrate familiarity with some of the canonical problematic examples and dilemmas of philosophy. 2. Demonstrate understanding of what is problematic in these examples, and how a philosopher can respond to them with clarity and sophistication. |
Discipline-Specific Skills | 3. Illustrate a variety of philosophical positions on a specific topic. 4. Critically evaluate, orally and in writing, a variety of philosophical positions |
Personal and Key Skills | 5. Engage in complex arguments verbally and in small groups. 6. Analyse, critically engage with, and report accurately upon, existing written material while articulating it within a structured and cogent argument. |
How this Module is Assessed
In the tables below, you will see reference to 'ILO's. An ILO is an Intended Learning Outcome - see Aims and Learning Outcomes for details of the ILOs for this module.
Formative Assessment
A formative assessment is designed to give you feedback on your understanding of the module content but it will not count towards your mark for the module.
Form of assessment | Size of the assessment (eg length / duration) | ILOs assessed | Feedback method |
---|---|---|---|
Presentation | 10 min | 1-6 | Verbal |
Summative Assessment
A summative assessment counts towards your mark for the module. The table below tells you what percentage of your mark will come from which type of assessment.
Coursework | Written exams | Practical exams |
---|---|---|
0 | 100 | 0 |
...and this table provides further details on the summative assessments for this module.
Form of assessment | % of credit | Size of the assessment (eg length / duration) | ILOs assessed | Feedback method |
---|---|---|---|---|
Examination | 100 | 2 hours | 1-6 | Written |
Re-assessment
Re-assessment takes place when the summative assessment has not been completed by the original deadline, and the student has been allowed to refer or defer it to a later date (this only happens following certain criteria and is always subject to exam board approval). For obvious reasons, re-assessments cannot be the same as the original assessment and so these alternatives are set. In cases where the form of assessment is the same, the content will nevertheless be different.
Original form of assessment | Form of re-assessment | ILOs re-assessed | Timescale for re-assessment |
---|---|---|---|
Examination | Examination (2 hours) | 1-6 | August/September reassessment period |
Indicative Reading List
This reading list is indicative - i.e. it provides an idea of texts that may be useful to you on this module, but it is not considered to be a confirmed or compulsory reading list for this module.
Basic reading:
Russell, B. (1912/1997) The Problems of Philosophy (Oxford University Press revised second edition)
Nagel, Thomas (1987). What does it all mean?: a very short introduction to philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Hurka, T. (2011). The Best Things in Life: A Guide to What Really Matters. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bramble, Ben and Bob Fisher, (2015), The Moral Complexity of Eating Meat, New York: Oxford University Press.