PHIL343A - Introduction to Philosophy

Academic Year: 2025/26

Author

What are our own encounters with works of art and creativity? What counts as representational art? What about video games? Are they art? Is Beyonce a country artist? If something is currated by an algorithm, does it too count as art? As we explore these questions, we will also discuss personalized artistic experiences made possible through complex algorithms, individual vs. communal experiences, and whether these change the nature of art and other emerging phenomena related to the art world.

📢 Important

(01/16/2026)

🗓️ Week 02 lecture material is now available!

🧑🏻‍🏫 Syllabus

Photo of Dr. Reynolds Reynolds
Dr. Monty Reynolds
Stetson University
📧

Office Hours:

When: TTH 1:00-4:00pm or by appointment
Where: Elizabeth Hall 104
How to book: Drop in, email, or book via Microsoft Bookings

NA
Student Peer Instructor
📧

~~TA_NAME~~
~~PhD Candidate at PLACE~~
📧

Required Texts:

Cahn, S. M., Shapshay, S., & Ross, S. (Eds.). (2020). Aesthetics: A Comprehensive Anthology (2nd ed.). Wiley.
Tavinor, Grant. (2009). The Art of Videogames. Wiley-Blackwell.

Expectations:

Come prepared to engage with assigned readings in class, referencing specific passages as prompted by the instructor.

Bring physical or digital copies of readings to class for annotation and short reflections.

Submit all assignments via Canvas by the due date.

Active participation and regular attendance are essential for success.

Late Assignment Policy

Penalty: 10% deduction per day late.

Makeup Process: Email the instructor within 48 hours to arrange an extension. No credit if not submitted by agreed date.

Additional Notes

Canvas: Submit assignments and check grades regularly.

Excel Setup: Rubric scores use IFS formulas (e.g., for Reflective Analysis: =IFS(rating=“Excellent”, 40, rating=“Good”, 30, rating=“Needs Improvement”, 20, rating=“Unacceptable”, 10)).

Instructor Support: Email or schedule a meeting for clarification.

Success: Active participation, timely submissions, and attendance are key.

Students will be evaluated based on a total of 640 points, with the final grade determined by the percentage of points earned. The components are as follows:

Weekly Reflections (5% of final grade, 32 points total):

Eight short reflections submitted via Canvas, due on the following dates: September 22, September 29, October 13, October 20, October 27, November 3, November 10, and November 17, 2025.
Format: Summarize an argument from the week’s reading (3 short sentences) and provide a reflection (2 sentences).
Grading: Each reflection is scored holistically out of 4 points based on the rubric criteria (considering thesis, premises, support, and student response). Excellent (4 points), Good (3 points), Needs Improvement (2 points), Unacceptable (1 point).
The total for all reflections is 32 points.

Quiz 1 (25% of final grade, 160 points):

A ~1,200-word comprehensive essay covering all course material, due Oct 8, 2025.
Grading: Evaluated using the rubric with 4 categories, each scored 5–20 points (max 80). See rubric below.

Critical Reflection 1 (12.5% of final grade, 80 points):

A ~1,500-word essay covering material up to this point, due November 8, 2025.
Grading: Evaluated using the rubric with 4 categories, each scored 5–20 points (max 80). See rubric below.
Excel Formula: =SUM(category scores); scaled to 12.5% of final grade.

Presentation (15% of final grade, 96 points):

A ~5-minute elevator pitch on what you will argue in your 2nd Reflective Analysis, presented on November 19 or 24, 2025.
Requirements: Summarize an argument (3 sentences) and reflect (2 sentences) on a work of art from the readings.
Scheduling: Signup sheet provided in class; sessions on November 19 and 24.
Grading: Evaluated using the rubric with 4 categories, each scored 6–24 points (max 96). See rubric below.

Critical Reflection 2 (25% of final grade, 160 points):

A ~1,200-word essay analyzing Grant Tavinor’s The Art of Videogames, due December 3, 2025.
Grading: Evaluated using the rubric with 4 categories, each scored 10–40 points (max 160). See rubric below.

Quiz 2 (12.5% of final grade, 80 points):

A ~1,500-word comprehensive essay covering all course material, due December 9, 2025.
Grading: Evaluated using the rubric with 4 categories, each scored 5–20 points (max 80). See rubric below.

Attendance (5% of final grade, 32 points):

Based on unexcused absences throughout the semester.

Grading Scale (equal increments of 8 points):

0–1	unexcused absences:	32 points
2	unexcused absences:	24 points
3–4	unexcused absences:	16 points
5–6	unexcused absences:	8 points
6	unexcused absences:	0 points

Weekly Reflections Rubric: (Per Reflection, Total 32 Points for 8 Reflections). The rubric is applied holistically to each reflection, with scores contributing to the 32-point total (e.g., per reflection max 4 points, scaled from category scores).

Grading: Sum of category scores per reflection (max 32 per reflection), but scaled/averaged across 8 reflections to total 32 points for the category. Excel shows example scores of 8 per category per date.

Reflective Analysis 1 & 2: (40, 30, 20, 10 per Category, Total 160 Points)

Grading: Sum of 4 categories (max 160 points). Excel formula: =SUM(category scores); percentage = (total/160)*100.

Essay 1 & 2: (20, 15, 10, 5 per Category, Total 80 Points)

Grading: Sum of 4 categories (max 80 points). Excel formula: =SUM(category scores); percentage = (total/80)*100.

Presentation: (24, 18, 12, 6 per Category, Total 96 Points)

Grading: Sum of 4 categories (max 96 points). Excel formula: =SUM(category scores); percentage = (total/96)*100.

Category	Excellent	Good	Needs Improvement	Unacceptable
Thesis	A clear statement of the main conclusion of the paper.	The thesis is obvious, but there is no single clear statement of it.	The thesis is present, but must be uncovered or reconstructed from the text of the paper.	There is no thesis.
Premises	Each reason for believing the thesis is made clear, and as much as possible, presented in single statements. It is also clear which premises are to be taken as given, and which will be supported by sub-arguments. The paper provides sub-arguments for controversial premises. If there are sub-arguments, the premises for these are clear, and made in single statements. The premises which are taken as given are at least plausibly true.	The premises are all clear, although each may not be presented in a single statement. It is also pretty clear which premises are to be taken as given, and which will be supported by sub-arguments. The paper provides sub-arguments for controversial premises. If there are sub-arguments, the premises for these are clear. The premises which are taken as given are at least plausibly true.	The premises must be reconstructed from the text of the paper. It is not made clear which premises are to be taken as given, and which will be supported by sub-arguments. There are no sub-arguments, or, if there are sub-arguments, the premises for these are not made clear. The paper does not provide sub-arguments for controversial premises. The plausibility of the premises which are taken as given is questionable.	There are no premises—the paper merely restates the thesis. Or, if there are premises, they are much more likely to be false than true.
Support	The premises clearly support the thesis, and the author is aware of exactly the kind of support they provide. The argument is either valid as it stands, or, if invalid, the thesis, based on the premises, is likely to be or plausibly true.	The premises support the thesis, and the author is aware of the general kind of support they provide. The argument is either valid as it stands, or, if invalid, the thesis, based on the premises, is likely to be or plausibly true.	The premises somewhat support the thesis, but the author is not aware of the kind of support they provide. The argument is invalid, and the thesis, based on the premises, is not likely to be or plausibly true.	The premises do not support the thesis.
Student Response	The paper considers both obvious and unobvious counter-examples, counter-arguments, and/or opposing positions, and provides original and/or thoughtful responses.	The paper considers obvious counter-examples, counter-arguments, and/or opposing positions, and provides responses.	The paper may consider some obvious counter-examples, counter-arguments, and/or opposing positions, but some obvious ones are missed. Responses are non-existent or mere claims of refutation.	No counter-examples, counter-arguments, or opposing positions are considered.

Total Points: 640 points, distributed as above.

Formula: Raw scores summed across sheets; final percentage = SUM(all assignment points)/640 * 100.

Letter Grade:

Final grade uses the following scale (no rounding):

Letter Grade	Percentage
A+	97–100%
A	93–96%
A-	90–92%
B+	87–89%
B	83–86%
B-	80–82%
C+	77–79%
C	73–76%
C-	70–72%
D+	67–69%
D	63–66%
D-	60–62%
F	<60%

Example: Perfect scores = 32 + 160 + 160 + 80 + 80 + 96 + 32 = 640 points (100%, A+).

📍 Lecture

See Class Times Below

💻 Class Groups

📆 Mondays and Wednesdays
⌚ 10:30am - 11:45am