honors thesis: “plato’s third man argument” dissertation

August, 2020

Noa Shein

CURRICULUM VITAE

• Personal Details

Name: Noa Shein

Date and place of birth: March 26, 1975, Jerusalem

Work address and telephone number

Department of Philosophy

Ben-Gurion University of the Negev

Beer Sheva 84105

Israel

Tel. 972-8-6477249

Email: [email protected]

Home address and telephone number:

HaRav Brodi 3, Apt.4

Jerusalem, Israel

Tel. 054-7858110

ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0337-7842

• Education

B.A. (with honors) - 1995-1999, University of California, Berkeley, Philosophy

Honors Thesis Adviser: Alan Code

Honors Thesis: “Plato’s Third Man Argument”

M.A. - 1999-2001 University of California, Irvine, Philosophy

Ph.D. - 2001-2006 University of California, Irvine, Philosophy

Committee: Alan Nelson (Chair), Nicholas Jolley and Paul Hoffman

Dissertation: “The Structure of Spinoza’s Metaphysics: Attributes, Finite

Minds and the Infinite Intellect”

• Employment History

2019-present Senior Lecturer (tenure-track), Department of Philosophy, Ben-Gurion

University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva, Israel.

2012-2019 Lecturer (tenure-track), Department of Philosophy, Ben-Gurion

University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva, Israel.

2009-2010 Post-Doctoral Fellow, The Edelstein Center for the History and

Philosophy of Science, Technology, and Medicine, Hebrew University of

Jerusalem

2008-2012 Teaching Fellow, Ben-Gurion University

2008-2011 Teaching Fellow, Department of Philosophy and Department of Jewish

Philosophy, Bar Ilan University

2006-2008 Post-Doctoral Fellow, Department of Philosophy, University of Haifa

• Professional Activities

(a) Positions in academic administration (department, faculty and university)

2012 – present Undergraduate adviser, Philosophy Department, BGU

(b) Professional functions outside universities/institutions (national, international)

2018-2021 Ideas in the World: The Humanities and Active Citizenship (Van Leer

Institute, 3 workshops over 3 years)

2011-present Founder and organizer of the Israel Early Modern Philosophy Reading

Circle

2000-2004 Founder and organizer of the UC Irvine Graduate Student Colloquia

Series

Noa Shein

2

(c) Ad-hoc reviewer of journals

British Journal for the History of Philosophy

Mind

Synthese

Archiv fur Geschischte der Philosophie

Daat

Philosophia

Journal of Philosophical Research

Iyyun

Philosopher’s Imprint

Philosophical Review

Studies in History and Philosophy of Science

Canadian Journal of Philosophy

(d) Membership in professional/scientific societies

2007-present The New Israeli Philosophy Association

2005-presernt American Philosophical Association

• Educational activities

(a) Courses taught

a. Undergraduate level

Leibniz

Philosophy and Music

History of Modern Philosophy

History of Ancient Philosophy

Descartes: Objections and Replies

Descartes, Newton and Leibniz on Space

Descartes: Metaphysics and Epistemology

Spinoza’s Metaphysics and Epistemology

Hobbes’ Leviathan

Descartes and Newton on Space

Mind, Body and Everything in Between

Thinking God: A Medieval Conversation between Jews, Christians and

Muslims

Introduction to Philosophy: Metaphysics and Epistemology

Critical Thinking

b. Graduate level

Spinoza’s Ethics - Graduate seminar

Descartes - Graduate seminar

Descartes and Henry More

Philosophical Perspectives on Space

(b) Research students

Maya Koren, M.A., 2014

Assaf Rotbard, M.A., 2017

Julia Klinkevitch, M.A, 2018

Yagel Harush, M.A., expected completion 2019

Yarden Danin, M.A., expected completion 2019

Yvgenia Ibko, M.A., expected completion 2021

Julia Rose (formerly Klinkevitch), Ph.D, expected completion 2023

Yogev Zusman, Postdoctoral Fellow, 2018-2020

Noa Shein

3

Noa Shein

4

• Awards, Citations, Honors, Fellowships

(a) Honors, Citation, Awards

2003 U.C. Irvine Matchette Prize for Excellence in Teaching

2003 University of California Regents’ Dissertation Fellowship

2003 UC Irvine Humanities Graduate Essay Award

2002 UC Irvine Humanities Center Summer Stipend

2000 UC Irvine Humanities Graduate Essay Award

1999 Phi Beta Kappa, Berkeley Chapter

(b) Fellowships

2015 (Aug.-Oct.) Visiting scholar, Department of Philosophy, Harvard University

2010 National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) Summer Seminar for

Faculty, Princeton University ($3,000)

2009- 2011 Postdoctoral Fellowship, Edelstein Center for the History and Philosophy

of Science, Medicine and Technology, Hebrew University ($27,000)

2006-2008 Postdoctoral Fellowship, University of Haifa ($15,000 /year)

2003 University of California Regents’ Dissertation Fellowship (Tuition +

$10,000)

2003 UC Irvine Dissertation Fellowship in Humanities ($5,000)

1999 University of California Regents’ Fellowship in Humanities (Tuition +

$10,000)

• Scientific Publications:

Citations and H-Index taken from Google Scholar (GS) unless indicated as cited in a

forthcoming publication or manuscript form of article was cited, Quartile taken from

Scimago. Note that the very best journals in the history of philosophy are ranked no higher

than Q2, apparently because of the smaller number of researchers and papers and

consequently citations in these fields.

a) H-Index 4 (GS)

b) Total number of citations: 57

c) Total number of citations without self-citations: 48

c) Refereed chapters in collective volumes, conference proceedings, Festschrifts, etc.

1. Shein, Noa, “Spinoza's Theory of Attributes”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of

Philosophy, Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL= https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spinoza-

attributes/ (first published in 2009(

* 1. a Shein, Noa, “Spinoza's Theory of Attributes”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of

Philosophy, Edward N. Zalta (ed.). (Substantial revision, 2013)

* 1.b Shein, Noa, “Spinoza's Theory of Attributes”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of

Philosophy, Edward N. Zalta (ed.). (Substantial revision, 2018)

(GS—Cited by 18)

* 2. Shein, Noa. “Geometric Exposition,” in The Cambridge Descartes Lexicon, edited by

Larry Nolan, Cambridge University Press (2016), 319-321.

Noa Shein

5

* 3. Shein, Noac and Nelson, Alan Jean. “The Rationalist Reception of Descartes” in

Descartes’ Conception of Mind, Jorge Secada and Cecilia Lim (eds.), Routledge

(accepted).

* 4. Shein, Noa, “The Road to Finite Modes in Spinoza” in Infinity in Early Modern

Philosophy, Ohad Nachtomy and Reed Winegar (eds.), Springer (2018) 97-114.

* 5. Shein, Noa, “Spinoza on Determinism” in The Blackwell Companion to Spinoza:

Yitzhak Melamed (ed.), Wiley-Blackwell (accepted).

* 6. Shein, Noa, “Anti-Cartesianism in Newton’s General Scholium to the Principia” in

Newton’s General Scholium, Stephen Snobelen, Steffen Ducheyne, and Scott

Mandelbrote, eds. (accepted) (2 citations forthcoming. Heil, John, Philosophy of

Mind: A Contemporary Introduction 4th ed. London: Routledge (forthcoming) and

Schliesser, Eric, “Newton’s Polemics against Spinozism in The General Scholium” in

Newton’s General Scholium.(forthcoming)).

* 7. Shein, Noa. “Newton and Spinoza” in Springer Encyclopedia of Early Modern

Philosophy and the Sciences, Dana Jalobeanu and Charles Wolfe (eds.), Springer.

(published online first, in-print November 2021).

d) Refereed articles and refereed letters in scientific journals, running numbers.

1. Shein, Noa. “The False Dichotomy between Objective and Subjective Interpretations

of Spinoza’s Theory of Attributes”. British Journal for the History of Philosophy 17,

no. 3 (2009): 505-532. (GS—22 citations, 163/360; Q2).

2. Shein, Noa “Newton’s Anti-Cartesian Considerations Regarding Space,” History of

Philosophy Quarterly, 29, no. 1 (2012). (220/478; Q2)

* 3. Noa Shein. “Causation and Determinate Existence of Finite Modes in Spinoza”,

Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie, 97 no.3 (2015): 334-357. (GS—7 citations, 1

citation of manuscript form of article), 209/527; Q2).

* 4. Noa Shein. “Not Wholly Finite: The Dual Aspect of Finite Modes in Spinoza”

Philosophia, 46, no.2. (2018): 433-451. (cited by 6, 75/568; Q1).

* 5. Shein, Noac and Sánchez de Leon, José María. “The Coincidence of the Finite and

the Infinite in Spinoza and Hegel” Idealistic Studies, (published online August 2019,

in-print 2020 vol. 49 no.1). (Information not available for 2019 yet).

*6. Shein, Noa. "Spinning strands into aspects: Realism, idealism, and finite modes in

Spinoza." European Journal of Philosophy 28, no. 2 (2020): 323-336.

f) Un-refereed professional articles and publications

1. Nelson, Alan Jean, and Shein, Noas. “Meaning in Spinoza’s Method (review)”.

Journal of the History of Philosophy 43, no. 1 (2005): 118-119. ( IF 0.5; 121/287;

Q2)

2. Shein, Noa. “The Explainability of Experience (review)”. The Philosophical Review

(forthcoming).

• Lectures and Presentations at Meetings and Invited Seminars

(a) Invited plenary lectures at conferences/meetings

2011 Van Leer Institute, “Spinoza and his Readers”

2013 Eastern APA, Invited Symposium: “Spinoza on Individuation, Determination, and

Negation”

Noa Shein

6

2016 Martin Buber Society of Fellows, “Spinoza Stories: Pantheists, Spinozists, Jews

and the Formation of German Idealism”

(b) Presentation of papers at conferences/meetings

2002 Southern California Philosophy Conference

2002 Southwestern Early Modern Philosophy Conference

2002 Midwest Early Modern Philosophy Conference in collaboration with the

Centro Interdipartimentali Di Studi Su Descartes

2007 The New Israeli Association of Philosophy Conference

2007 The Israeli Colloquium for Early Modern Philosophy

2008 Leiden-Duke Early Modern Workshop on Funky Causation

2010 Scottish Seminar in Early Modern Philosophy

2010 Princeton University, NEH Seminar Workshop

2011 The New Israeli Association of Philosophy Conference

*2012 Dundee University, UK, “Spinoza, the Infinite and the Eternal”

*2012 The Leibniz Prize Group, “Spinoza's Metaphysics”

*2013 The New Israeli Association of Philosophy Conference

*2016 KU Leuven (Belgium), “The Body in Spinoza’s Philosophy”

*2016 Jerusalem, The NYC Workshop in Early Modern Philosophy “Infinity in

Early Modern Philosophy”

*2016 Hebrew University of Jerusalem, “Metaphysics: Historical and

Contemporary Issues”

*2018 The New Israeli Association of Philosophy Conference

*2018 University of Toronto, “Spinoza: New Directions in Research II”

(c) Seminar presentations at universities and institutions

2002 UC Irvine, Graduate Colloquium Series

2003 California College of the Arts

2004 University of Portland

2004 Yale University


2005 University of Massachusetts, Boston

2005 UC Irvine, Cartesian Circle



2006 University of Haifa Philosophy Department Conference

2006 University of Haifa, Colloquia Series

2006 Ben-Gurion University, Colloquia Series

2006 The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Colloquia Series

2007 University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

2007 University of Haifa, Colloquia Series


2008 Tel Aviv University, Colloquia Series

2009 University of Turku (Finland), Colloquia Series

Noa Shein

7

2009 San Francisco State, Colloquia Series

2009 Bar-Ilan University, Colloquia Series

2009 Hebrew University, Colloquia Series


2011 Hebrew University, Colloquia Series


*2013 Ben-Gurion University, Colloquia Series

*2014 Uppsala University, Colloquia Series

*2014 Hebrew University, Colloquia Series

*2015 Harvard University, Early Modern Circle

*2015 University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

*2015 Brandeis University

*2016 University of California, Berkeley

*2019 Stockholm University, Department of Philosophy, Colloquia Series

*2019 Harvard University, The Harvard Early Modern Workshop

• Research Grants

* 2013-2016 Noa SheinPI. Israel Science Foundation Individual Research Grant,

Spinoza: Finding Finitude in an Infinite Universe: Spinoza on Minds and

Bodies, $25,000 per year, $75,000 total.

* 2017-2019 Noa SheinPI. Israel Science Foundation Individual Research Grant, Up

and Down Spinoza's Ladder: The Priority of the Human Mind, $33,540

per year, $67,080 total.

• Present Academic Activities—Submitted and Work In-Progress

Articles

1. “Descartes and the Conspicuously Missing Distinction”

2. “Clarke contra Spinoza: Why the Panic?”

3. “Rationalism, Cognitive Routes and the Importance of the First-Person Perspective”

Book

1. Finding Finitude in an Infinite Universe: Spinoza on Minds and Bodies (provisional title)

Noa Shein

8

Synopsis of research:

My principal area of research is the history of early modern philosophy and science, with a

focus on the interconnection between physics, metaphysics and epistemology as it plays

out in the works of philosophers such as Descartes, Hobbes, Leibniz, Newton, and

Spinoza. The bulk of my research is devoted to investigating Spinoza’s work through this

methodological framework while situating his views within the larger context of the

philosophical debates of the 17th century.

Spinoza is known, inter alia, for having identified God with Nature, being labeled an

atheist, and having been excommunicated from the Jewish community of Amsterdam. Like

many other thinkers in the 17th century, he also sought to present a systematic view of the

world, one that would articulate its fundamental ontology and provide a corresponding

epistemology while taking into account advances in the sciences. Among his more radical

philosophical ideas is the view that, strictly speaking, there exists only one thing—the

infinite substance. In spite of this, Spinoza also claims that the infinite substance has

infinite attributes, such as thought and the essence of matter (extension). The tension that

arises from the apparent contradiction inherent in maintaining that something is both one

and many is perhaps the biggest challenge that Spinoza’s metaphysics poses for its readers.

This interpretative challenge of accounting for the diversity of attributes in the face of

Spinoza’s proclaimed monism is the topic of my first article, “The False Dichotomy

between Objective and Subjective Interpretations of Spinoza’s Theory of Attributes,”

which was published in the British Journal of the History of Philosophy. Spinoza

scholarship has traditionally been divided into two opposing camps—the objectivist and

the subjectivist—with respect to this issue. My article makes two significant contributions

to this debate. First, I show that the objectivist response, which is currently favored, is not

only problematic but that it suffers from the same flaw that caused the subjectivist

response to be abandoned in the first place. Ultimately, the problem with both responses is

that they imply that the true nature of the substance is unknowable—a result that would be

anathema to Spinoza. Second, having shown the dichotomy to be false, my article

establishes some requirements for a more successful interpretation and outlines one

possible solution to this tension. On the basis of this article, I was invited to contribute the

entry on Spinoza’s theory of attributes to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, a peer-

reviewed online encyclopedia, which has become a central resource in the field. In

addition, the publication of this article has also led to several requests by leading journals

to review submissions on this and related topics.

At present, I am working on a book project, provisionally entitled, “Finding Finitude in an

Infinite Universe: Spinoza on Minds and Bodies.” The book’s aim is to provide a

systematic interpretation of Spinoza’s metaphysics and epistemology via his account of

physical bodies. This analysis will lead to a re-evaluation of Spinoza’s place in the

transition from Aristotelian science to Newtonian physics. Most studies of Spinoza begin

with his metaphysics, epistemology, or politics, but I suggest that an alternative path would

be to begin with his physics. Providing an account of physical bodies will enable

commentators to make sense of the long-standing problem in Spinoza scholarship of

explaining how there can be a plurality of things—like chairs, tables and human bodies—

while maintaining at the same time that there is only one infinite thing, the infinite

substance. Philosophers, including Leibniz and Hegel, have taken this problem to be

insurmountable for Spinoza. Present-day commentators have by and large followed suit

and often begin their analyses by granting that there are individuated finite things, while

admitting that Spinoza’s position in this regard is problematic.

Noa Shein

9

One reason scholars have thought that Spinoza is unable to account for finite things is that

they have taken minds to be the paradigm of individual finite things, and, therefore, have

not been able to find—and rightfully so—sources within Spinoza’s system to account for

their individuation. What has not been considered thus far—and this is the new approach I

am suggesting—is to take bodies, rather than minds, as holding the key to this problem.

This approach has not been previously explored because commentators have often been

dismissive of Spinoza’s account of physical bodies. Such dismissals are often based on the

assumption that Spinoza inherited a highly problematic Cartesian conception of body

which becomes even less viable by the restrictions of Spinoza’s own metaphysics. One of

my main research goals is to articulate Spinoza’s account of bodies by noting not only the

Cartesian influence, but the Hobbesian one as well. In 2013, I received a three-year grant

from the Israel Science Foundation (ISF) to support and this project.

In Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie, the article “Causation and Determination of

Finite Modes in Spinoza,” serves as the basis for one of the early chapters in this book. In

this article, I claim that for Spinoza, bodies co-determine each other and this co-

determination is constitutive of the causal relations among them. This interpretation goes

against the accepted view which holds that Spinoza simply stipulates individuated bodies

and provides no analysis of what constitutes their individuation, and therefore

misconstrues the nature of the causal relations that hold among them. I argue this point by

first explaining both what Spinoza inherits from Descartes and how this inheritance is

made to fit with the monism. Second, I offer a new reading of one of the most crucial

propositions of the Ethics (Proposition 28 of Part One), which is key to establishing the

strict determinism that pervades Spinoza’s universe.

This article on Proposition 28 of Part One of the Ethics is complemented by another article

entitled: “Not Wholly Finite: The Dual Aspect of Finite Modes in Spinoza” which was

published in Philosophia in 2018. In this article I articulate the necessary internal nature of

bodies that accounts for their existence, and will serve as the basis of another chapter. One

important result of this inquiry is the recognition that Cartesian physics (even when made

to fit within Spinoza’s framework) cannot, on its own, account for individuated bodies.

While most scholars think that a Cartesian-type account is the most Spinoza can offer, I

suggest that he addresses the difficulties raised for the Cartesian account by supplementing

it with insights borrowed from elsewhere—namely, from Hobbes. Although Hobbes’

influence on Spinoza’s construal of his political and psychological theories is largely

acknowledged, I argue that Hobbes’ impact on Spinoza is even more deeply-seated and

can be traced back to Spinoza’s account of bodies. Tracing this influence back to Spinoza’s

construal of the nature of physical bodies is of paramount importance, since both Spinoza’s

and Hobbes’ theories of knowledge and psychology stem from their physical theories.

Together, these two articles form the basis for the first chapters of my book which is

designed to show the delicate balance that Spinoza strikes between his own commitment to

monism and the opposing Cartesian and Hobbesian positions. In addition to these chapters,

I intend to dedicate another one to showing that shortly after his death, Spinoza’s

foundations for a physical theory were considered to be a viable alternative to Newton’s

view, and that they therefore merit serious scholarly consideration. On this matter, it is

critical to revisit anew the attack on Spinoza by the English philosopher Samuel Clarke

(Newton’s close friend and student). Indeed, Clarke’s objections help demonstrate that

Spinoza’s foundations for physics were deemed a potential alternative to Newton’s

theories. As part of this direction of inquiry, I presented a preliminary paper on Spinoza

and Clarke at an international conference, “Spinoza and his Readers,” at the Van Leer

Institute in 2011. In addition, I have also written an article entitled “Newton’s Anti-

Noa Shein

10

Cartesian Considerations Regarding Space,” published in the History of Philosophy

Quarterly, in which I articulate Newton’s metaphysical and epistemological reasons for

how he construes space. Forthcoming in a volume on Newton’s general scholium to the

Principia I show how, although not mentioned by name, key passages of the Principia

have Descartes’ metaphysics as their target. Furthermore, I explain that the ground for the

disagreement between them is metaphysical and has to do with their divergent conceptions

of the relation between substance and its attributes, as well as Newton’s theory of action.

Neither of these papers addresses Spinoza directly, but they elucidate Newton’s

metaphysical and epistemological problems with Descartes’ physics and his own reasons

for holding an alternative position. This elucidation is crucial in order to understand why

Spinoza’s view posed a particular problem for Newton and why Clarke felt compelled to

address it.

The second part of the book is dedicated to spelling out the implications of the opening

chapters and articulating their consequences for Spinoza’s epistemology as well as for the

notoriously difficult concluding part of his magnum opus, The Ethics. I received in 2017 a

second two-year ISF grant entitled “Up and Down Spinoza's Ladder: The Priority of the

Human Mind” in support of this project. I will begin this section of the book by examining

how the co-determinacy of bodies affects the co-determinacy of ideas. One important

implication of this interpretation will be the conclusion that the confusion that besets the

human mind in Spinoza’s metaphysics runs much deeper than has been previously

recognized. I hope to show that since human minds can never fully cease sensing their

bodies, they will always be, at least to some degree, confused. Given that Spinoza ties the

eternity of the human mind with its ability to have adequate, or clear and distinct,

knowledge, the recognition that we can never fully cease to be confused directly influences

the kind of eternity to which Spinoza believes the mind can aspire.

The final part of this study will tackle the problematic Part Five of the Ethics, a section that

has baffled Spinoza scholars for centuries. One reason is because Spinoza seems to

explicitly contradict himself at the most crucial juncture of the entire work. In Part Two, he

claims that the mind and the body are, strictly speaking, one and the same, only conceived

under different attributes. However, in Part Five he claims that something of the mind is

not destroyed along with the body and is therefore eternal. My strategy for addressing this

enigma will be to maintain that what is being discussed in Part Five is the human mind,

which, we must recall, is a finite mode for Spinoza. I expect that my research leading up to

this point will demonstrate the double nature of a finite mode as being both determined and

determining and will thus shed new light on this issue and hopefully dispel the apparent

contradiction. This, in turn, will also help explain not only the sense in which it is possible

for the mind not to be destroyed, but also the nature of the blessedness that Spinoza claims

the human mind enjoys in the final propositions of his Ethics.

Noa Shein

11

Teaching Statement

My main teaching goal is for students to be able to think clearly and critically about

philosophical questions and be able to articulate them in writing.

Methodology—I teach several level courses each of which relies on different teaching

methodologies. In the Introduction to Early Modern Philosophy—where my main purpose

is to trace the argument or main commitments of different philosophers—I lecture.

However, I encourage and allow a fair amount of questions and discussion from students. I

make an effort to make it clear to all other students whether the question asked was more

clarificatory in nature, or more of a philosophical objection. In the latter case I often restate

the question in a more robust way pointing to what is at stake. This helps both the student

who asked the question to see how their objection can be formulated in a stronger fashion,

as well as make the philosophical point more accessible to the rest of the class. The

evaluation for this course is based on two papers and a quiz. For the papers, students are

asked to both explain a view and consider it critically. In the quiz students are asked to

explain key terms we discussed as well as explain several pieces of text.

Elective courses (typically 2 units) for BA students— The class size for these courses is

usually 15-20 students. I typically choose a set of primary texts to look at closely. My goal

in these courses is for the students to come to appreciate how interpretative work is done

on primary texts. The class usually begins by me raising questions about very specific

passages in the text, and then showing the students what the different interpretative

avenues that seem to be available, and then a discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of

each. As the course progresses the students themselves begin to ask questions—and one of

my main goals is to help them learn to articulate their questions in the clearest and

strongest way possible. Towards the end of the course I help students articulate their paper

topic. I often do it in class and have the entire class see and participate in formulating the

different paper topics. My guiding thought here, is again, that students see by an interactive

example how to do this. Students are evaluated based on a final paper for this course,

which includes their discussion of the primary text along with their critical and

interpretative stance.

Elective Course—Group Based Teaching. My “Philosophy and Music” course has three

phases. In the first I present questions and topics in the philosophy of music. In the second,

the students work in groups in class. In the final stage students present their topics to the

class. During the second phase I have the students work in their groups in class and send

me a report of what they did in class along with a plan for the following week. They begin

by finding an article or chapter that is broadly related to their topic and discussing its main

thesis. They are also expected soon after to formulate a clear research question. Next, they

need to find other material that is relevant to their topic—this can be either further reading,

or other musical examples, or any other material that can be made relevant. At this stage

they are required to begin an articulation of their thesis. Finally, they are asked to integrate

all the material they worked on into a presentation. At this stage they are also required to

come up with a detailed outline for their paper. The final phase is dedicated to

presentations by the different groups along with a class discussion. The evaluation of the

course is based on their reports, class presentation and final paper.

Noa Shein

12

Advanced Seminars (BA and Graduate)—These seminars are similar to the elective

courses that are based on primary texts. The main difference is that in these seminars we

also treat secondary literature. Furthermore, I rely more on students’ participation and

presentations. Students are not required to present summaries of secondary literature, but

rather are required to lead discussion and present a critical stance. In addition, towards the

end of the course I spend more time with students on formulating their thesis for their

paper, as well as have them work in pairs on detailed outlines of their seminar papers, and

ideally on full drafts. The evaluation for this course is based on a seminar paper that

includes a treatment of both primary and secondary literature.

I regard the writing and subject matter instruction as inextricably linked, which is why I

devote part of each of the smaller courses to getting comments either from myself or from

peers on the formulation of the thesis of the final paper as well as its organization.

What I find to be one of the biggest challenges in teaching is the inherent passivity of the

students when I lecture (regardless of how engaging the lecture is) on the one hand, and the

desire to impart knowledge on the other. The more active students are the more engaged

they are. However, the less involved I am, predictably, the sophistication and depth of

ideas the students are exposed to is significantly reduced.

honors thesis: “plato’s third man argument” dissertation

Documents