Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
This is blog for students of History 102g - Medieval Civilization
Discussion Section Syllabus
History 102g, Medieval Civilization Discussion Section Syllabus
Fridays 9am, 12pm
TAs: Stacey Lutkoski & Ericka Swensson
Email: staceybl@usc.edu, emswensson@yahoo.com
Office: Shrine Offices
Welcome to the discussion section for History 102g. Discussion sections will examine and elaborate on the material presented through the lectures and readings. These classes will help us work through difficult concepts and problematize historical issues. As stated in the course syllabus, the discussion sections are worth 20% of your total course grade. Half of your discussion section grade will be determined by performance in the section itself. In order to receive full credit you need to be present at every class with the readings in hand, be an active participant, and demonstrate a familiarity with the sources.
Cell phone calls, tardiness, inappropriate use of laptops, and other disruptive behavior will not be tolerated and will adversely affect your grade.
Attendance is mandatory. Consult the course syllabus for more information on the attendance policy and penalties.
The second half of your discussion section grade will depend upon your performance in our class blog. Please email Ericka if you have not yet been added to the blog. This is your responsibility, and we will not be held responsible for your negligence. Each week we will post an assignment by Monday evening. You must post a thoughtful paragraph response on the blog by Thursday at 8pm. Late postings will not be accepted. We encourage you to use the blog not only as a place to express your ideas but also as a discussion forum by responding to your classmates’ postings. Your post should neither be a “fact” oriented question/ comment nor a question concerning the content of the works themselves, i.e.: a question that requires outside sources to answer. Rather, your response statement should deal exclusively with the contents of the texts themselves. Also, make sure that you cite the page(s) used for your question or comment.
This syllabus is subject to change. We will communicate with you outside of class primarily through email, and it is your responsibility to check your account regularly for pertinent information. If you have any questions or concerns, feel free to contact either one of us.
Any student requiring academic accommodations based on a disability is required to register with Disability Services and Programs (DSP) each semester. A letter of verification for approved accommodations can be obtained by DSP. Please be sure the letter is delivered to us as early in the semester as possible. DSP is located in STU 301 and is open 8:30am-5:00pm Monday through Friday. The phone number for DSP is (213) 740-0776.
3 comments:
I wanted to take this opportunity to rant a little bit more on what we talked about on Monday with trying to prove that God exists. First I wanted to say that the logic proof process we wrote out on the board with the dreaded mathematical symbols and everything was really confusing to me and completely just fried my brain. I still really don't understand the proof but it basically is saying that God exists because you can't prove that he doesn't right? Why did the text have to be so complicated with understanding what is thought to not exist but to think that what cannot be thought exists only in thought but then can be understood and such. It was really hard to follow. I can understand why such a text may be controversial during the time because it basically proved God existed through logical understanding in reality, which contrasts with what is usually taught to believe in God through faith. My main problem is why would all of a sudden someone decide that this was necessary to have this kind of proof? Why would someone need to try and prove God's existence if everything is based on faith? I also don't think that this can tell us a whole lot about the people of the time. Perhaps it suggests that during Anselm's time, the majority of the people were still on understanding through faith and not logic, which may explain why his texts got "misplaced."
I just wanted to comment on how interesting I think it is the way that philosophic pondering and debating was approached in the medieval works we have studied thus far. By debating, I don't mean a dialog, I mean mostly debating with one's self (such as we see much in the Confessions). To me it seems that when I debate a problem in my mind, I state the problem and look at the evidence then come to one conclusion in a linear fashion. It seems in these works each topic is so extremely carefully examined, like Anselm's proof. First they state the question, then restate it in a different way, and restate it again, then state the opposing side in several different ways, then refute those opposing arguments, etc. I having trouble determining whether they spent more time and placed more value on intellectual truth and people today are just lazy in their discourse (whether that be interpersonal or mental) or whether the style itself of inquiry has merely changed.
Post a Comment