Philosophy 459W: Philosophy of Western Mysticism
The purpose of this course is to outline the history of western mysticism from before the Patristic era to about 1750. We will focus mainly on the Christian tradition, although Jewish mysticism will be considered as well. We will focus on the primary texts themselves, and beginning there we may take any number of different directions, into (for instance) the history of philosophy, women's history, psychology of religion, politics and spirituality, and the history of theology. While doing this, we will also raise questions about the nature of mysticism itself.
Required Texts: 1. Karen Campbell, ed. German Mystical Writings. New York: Continuum Press, 1991; 2. Julian of Norwich, Showings. New York: Paulist Press, 1978. 3. Web-based Readings (see http://www.augustana.ab.ca/~janzb/phi459res.htm)
Requirements: There will be one annotated bibliography (25%), one character study (study: 20%; critique: 10%) and a major (10-15 page) paper (Prospectus: 5%; Work in progress presentation: 10%; paper: 30%).
Annotated Bibliography\Literature Review: (25%, due Tuesday, Feb. 6) Each person will prepare an annotated bibliography of at least 20 items (more is fine, too). The bibliography should have a focus on a person, movement, concept, or issue within the history or philosophy of mysticism. By "annotated", I mean that you should provide a short (2-3 sentence) description of what the work is about, and how it is relevant to the theme of the bibliography. These bibliographies will be compiled and distributed to the class (or put on a website), and the collective work of the class will be used in future classes as a guide to the literature in the area. You will need to run the focus of the bibliography by me.
Intellectual Biography
PART ONE (20%, due Tuesday, March 6): Each person should choose one important figure in the history of mysticism (a figure can only be chosen once in this class), and write a brief (7 page) intellectual biography on him or her. By an "intellectual biography", I mean that you should outline the important features of an individual's thought or writings and link it to the person's life, society, theological vocation, intellectual influences, race, ethnicity, gender, or some other biographical feature. I am not looking for reductionism here ("this person's thought is caused by the society, gender, or whatever"), but I am looking to see if you have a clear sense of what was important to the writer in question, and can put it in context. I will talk about this more in class. Please hand in two copies of this paper.
PART TWO (10%, due Tuesday, March 13): Part Two of this assignment will be to critique someone else's intellectual biography. That means that you will have to read up on someone who you may not have studied yourself, in an effort to understand whether the critique is fair.
On Critiquing: For the biography, you are asked to critique another student's work. This does not necessarily mean that you are expected to find fault with it. A critique is a reflection on the scope and the limits of the person's reading or argument. You are testing or evaluating the other person's work, and you may decide that the person has done a good job. Or, you may decide that the person has missed something. Either way, you are expected to assess the person's work and give reasons for your assessment. It means that for all assignments, you will get two responses -- another student's, and mine. The aim is to train you in careful thinking. As to length, I do not have any strong guidelines. You are judged on the strength of the critique, not on word count. Important: on any assignment in which other students are handling your work, it is important to make a back-up copy of your paper. Also important: for part one of the biography, there can be no extensions -- the exercise doesn't work if there are extensions.
By the way, I am not immune from being critiqued. I expect that you will use the same standards of assessment on my lectures that you do for these papers.
Major Paper: (5% prospectus [due Tuesday, January 30] + 10% work-in-progress [due in last week of class] + 30% paper [due on the final exam date]) I would like to see a critical analysis of some issue in the philosophy of mysticism. You can focus on an issue in a particular thinker's work (e.g., the notion of non-being in Eckhart), or you can consider the issue in itself (e.g., to what extent is Katz's contextualism an adequate way of understanding mystical experience?). You may also consider a thinker not addressed in this course, as long as that thinker has something interesting to say about a relevant issue. I can suggest possible topics, for those that need some ideas. NOTE: I am looking for more than just an account of a theory. I would like to see that you've thought it through, and can interact with the thinker or the position. This paper will be due on the final exam date as established by the registrar's office.
To help you prepare these papers, there are two formal chances to try out ideas (and lots of informal ones, hopefully). First, there is a prospectus. This should include an idea of the issue you want to work on, plus an initial bibliography. The point is to get you reading early. The second chance will be the "work-in-progress" presentation, which will happen in the last week or so of class.
IMPORTANT: FOR ALL PAPERS, SEE "THE FINE PRINT" AT THE END OF THIS SYLLABUS
The "grad school" option: Some students plan to go on to grad school or professional school, and would profit from a more challenging course. You may want to improve your writing or research skills to prepare for later academic work. I am willing to mark any particular paper or the whole course as if it was a first-year graduate school course, if you want to find out what it would take to succeed at that level. IMPORTANT: The actual grade assigned to you will be at the level of an undergraduate course. I will not submit the grade given at the graduate level as if it was given at the undergrad level. However, I will write comments and critique your research as if it was at a grad level. If you think you might find this useful, either for one paper or for more than that, talk to me about it.
Schedule: PHI 459W
Reading Abbreviations
GMW: Karen Campbell, ed. German Mystical Writings. New York: Continuum Press, 1991
NET: Available on the course web page, at http://www.augustana.ab.ca/~janzb/phi459res.htm
Julian: Julian of Norwich, Showings. NY: Paulist Press, 1978.
|
Week of January 9: Introduction; Theories and History of Mysticism Experience. READING: NET: Parmenides, Plato
Week of January 16: Early Mysticism; Greece and Jerusalem; Plotinus; Augustine. READING: NET: Plotinus, Enneads, Augustine, Confessions
Week of January 23: Early Christian Theology: The Roots of Catholic and Orthodox Mysticism. Cappadocians, Pseudo-Dionysius, John Scotus Eriugena. READING: NET: Dionysus, The Mystical Theology, Eriugena, Periphyseon
Week of January 30: Mediaeval Mysticism: Monasticism, Hildegard of Bingen. READING: GMW 4-31
Week of February 6: Love Mysticism: Bernard of Clairvaux, Mechthild of Magdeburg. READING: GMW pp. 33-69; NET Bernard of Clairvaux
Week of February 13: The Roots of Esoteric Traditions: Jewish Mysticism, Gnosticism. READING: NET: Jewish Mysticism, Gnosticism
Week of February 20: Reading Week. No Classes
Week of February 27: Mediaeval English Mysticism: Julian of Norwich. READING: Julian 173-247
Week of March 6: Mediaeval English Mysticism II: Julian of Norwich. READING: Julian 248-343
Week of March 13: Speculative Mysticism: Meister Eckhart READING: GMW 71-141.
Week of March 20: The Roots of Protestant Mysticism: Seuse, Tauler, Theologica Germanica, Martin Luther. READING: GMW 142-220
Week of March 27: The Beginnings of Protestant Mysticism: Jacob Boehme, Silesius. READING: GMW 221-267; NET: Boehme
Week of April 3: Spanish Mysticism: Theresa of Avila, John of the Cross. READING: NET: John of the Cross
Week of April 10: Epilogue: Why Studying Mysticism is a Really Bad Idea. WORK IN PROGRESS PRESENTATIONS
The Fine Print
STANDARDS FOR PAPERS: Papers must conform to the standards given in Zachary Seech's book Writing Philosophy Papers 3nd Edition (Belmont, California: Wadsworth, Inc, 1998). This book is a valuable resource, and covers the construction of thesis defence papers, the standards of language expected in a paper, the proper manner of referencing works, and many helpful tips on impressing the professor with your erudition and profundity. It is a useful book to own, and is available in the bookstore. It will also be on reserve in the library.
ATTENDANCE AND LATE PAPERS: I expect regular attendance from members of the class. If you cannot be at a class, let me know before-hand. I reserve the right to not accept assignments from students either if attendance has been a problem, or if a paper is seriously late without a legitimate (in my opinion) reason. This includes any paper or graded activity in the course, including the final paper and the final exam. I will only inflict this measure after having given a warning; however, if you simply never come to class, do not expect to get much sympathy at the end of the term when you want to hand in assignments.
On late papers in general: The due dates are firm. I will take 1% off (out of the possible 10%) per day that a paper is late. If there is a legitimate reason for a paper being late, I am willing to consider it. Illegitimate reasons include "I had too much work" (you could have started earlier); "My computer deleted my file" (make back-ups); "I'm on a team and we were away" (work that out with your coach, not me); "I couldn't think of a topic" (come & see me early). This, of course, does not exhaust the list of reasons that will not succeed.
NOTE ON PLAGIARISM: U. of A. calender says it well: "No student shall submit the words, ideas, images or data of another person as the student's own in any academic writing, essay, thesis, research, project or assignment in a course or program of study." That means that you have to cite all your sources. If you don't, you get 0 on the assignment (and maybe the course, depending how serious it is), and a letter from the Associate Dean's office. The first letter is a warning; the second, and you're expelled. So take it seriously. If you're having a problem with an assignment, come see me instead, and I'll help you to do it properly.