** Note: This Syllabus is still under construction.**

Philosophy 204: Mexican Philosophy

Professor Patrick Frierson

Class Meets: Tuesdays and Thursdays, 11:30am-12:50pm

Office Hours (Olin 193):

In this course, you’ll get a basic introduction to some key philosophers and philosophical themes in the history of philosophy in the area currently called Mexico, during a time period that ranges from pre-Columbian philosophy through the twentieth century (and maybe even dipping into the twenty-first century). In addition to developing some knowledge about philosophy and philosophers of this time and place, this course will help you develop skills of close reading and analysis, written and oral expression, and the ability to trace philosophical ideas and themes through a series of texts that make up a philosophical tradition.

Philosophy is not easy, and engaging with texts and ideas from different times and places is also not easy. If you find the readings or assignments in this course very challenging, that’s normal. Come ask me for help. Talk to your classmates. Bang your head against a wall and struggle your way through it. Don’t think you should understand everything on the first read. Likewise, writing philosophically is difficult. You do not need to do anything perfectly in this class. The point of this class is to learn.

Please come talk to me! My office hours this semester are Mondays from 9-11am and Thursdays from 9-10am in my office in Olin East (193). I’m also available by appointment, so if those times don't work for you, please reach out. You don’t have to have pressing business in order to meet with me, especially during regular office hours. You can come to talk about anything class or Whitman related. (I’m an academic advisor and prelaw advisor, so I also like just talking about future plans and students’ lives.) If it’s more convenient to meet over zoom, we can meet at https://whitman.zoom.us/j/92189368747

Technology in and out of the classroom. One of the goals for this course is for you to learn to read, write, and orally discuss philosophy. Technology can be a valuable aid, but it can also get in the way of doing your own philosophical reading and writing, and can get in the way of learning to think through things for yourself. In the classroom, I encourage you to avoid the use of computers (or other electronics). There is good evidence that taking notes by hand enhances learning, and that screens distract both their users and others in the classroom. If you must use a computer, you are free to do so, unless or until you use that computer for activities not directly related to class (checking email, etc.). Outside of the classroom…it will often be tempting to use the internet or AI to shortcut your reading of difficult texts or even your own writing. I very strongly encourage you to avoid that temptation. Even if you end up with a view that is “wrong,” I prefer you to come to class with your own view about the text or issue we are discussing, rather than to look up what other people have said. For any work that you submit, if you consult any resources other than our textbooks, you must disclose those resources. You will not be penalized for having Gemini or ChatGPT or another AI write a paper for you, if you tell me what it did for you. If you don’t tell me, you’ll fail the paper (and maybe the class, and maybe get suspended from the College). So just be open and honest and disclose all your sources and collaborators, including AI collaborators.

Required texts. There are two required texts for this course, and two recommended texts. I have ordered these books for the bookstore, but you can also get them cheaper on Amazon or other retailers. (I’ve provided Amazon links for each text.) Please bring physical copies of the books to class with you. If you do not purchase the recommended texts, please bring physical print-outs of the pdfs that are links on the Canvas site.

Required: Sanchez and Sanchez, Mexican Philosophy in the 20^th Century.

Required: Gloria Anzaldua, Borderlands.

Requirements and Attendance: This course involves lots of reading and active in-class discussion, so you are expected to come to class every day having read and reread the reading, tried to make the most sense of it that you can (for yourself!), and thought about the philosophical issues raised. Almost every day of the semester, there will be a short quiz at the start of class.[1] In addition, we will have a mid-term exam and a final exam, and you will write three philosophical papers. Note on attendance: I will modify your final grade based on attendance and participation, and regardless of your score on Canvas, if you miss more than 20% of classes over the course of the semester (except for legally-protected absences), you will not pass the class. Note on late work: Daily quizzes cannot be completed late. For all other assignments, I expect your work to be turned in on time. If you turn in work late, you may get comments on it very late (since I grade after I receive work at the designated due date), and you will suffer a penalty of one full grade point. You may take one 48-hour extension on one of your papers, without any penalty. Use this with care. Any work received after our scheduled final will not receive any credit.

Grade Breakdown. Your overall grade will be based on how many points you accrue over the course of the semester. You will get points based on both completion and the quality of your work. (An A- quality paper worth 20 points will be awarded 18 points.) You can accrue up to the following for the required work of the semester. (Click on the assignment for more information about it.)

Quizzes and short Canvas Assignments 3 points each, 20 assignments total = 60 points.
Pen Pals! On the first day of class, you will be assigned a Pen Pal. Each week, you should write a letter to your Pen Pal in which you discuss the reading and talk about its application to your life, and in which you respond to the letter you received from your Pen Pal on the previous class. (So one of you should give the other a letter on Tuesday, the next respond on Thursday, etc.) Letters should be handwritten, and they can be illustrated. (If your Pen Pal cannot read your writing, you can send them a recording of yourself reading your handwritten letter.) You can get 1 point for each letter you write, up to 20 points total. (To get a full 20 points, you’d need to exchange letters more often than once/week, but see below.)
Position paper on De las Casas vs. Sepulveda = 10 points
Short paper on Colonial Period Philosophy = 15 points
Class presentation on a Mexican philosopher = 20 points
Mid-Term Exam (take-home, closed book) = 25 points
Final paper (involving at least some focus on Anzaldua) = 30 points
Final Exam (in class, closed book with one page of notes) = 40 points (Thanks to class discussions during the first year I taught this class, you have the option of taking an oral exam in lieu of the written final exam, and you have the option to take this oral exam in pairs if you choose.)

Total = 220 points, but your grade will be based on a percentage of 200 points, so 186 points or above is an A, 180-185 points is an A-, etc. (That means that 20 points of the above can be considered extra credit. Note that I do not give A+’s, so any score of over 200 will just be an A.)

[1] You cannot make up these classes if you are late or absent, unless you are absent for an athletic event, religious holiday, or specific incident of a legally protected disability for which you have received an accommodation. For any of those excused absences, you must inform me at least 48 hours in advance of your absence.

Spring 2027 T/Th dates

Jan 19	Week One	Carlos Sanchez, “The Conjuring of Ridiculous Things: Why I value Mexican Philosophy.” José Gaos, "My Two Cents," in Mexican Philosophy in the 20th Century (edited by Carlos Sanchez and Robert Sanchez, hereafter abbreviated as S&S) (to access the online version, you need to be logged into Whitman’s library) Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz, “Let us pretend that I am happy…” Nezahualcóyotl, “Strike it up in pleasure…” Cantares Mexicanas, opening song. xxxTBD	Write a short statement about "Why I value Mexican Philosophy" that expresses why you are interested in philosophy in general, Mexican philosophy in particular, and/or what you hope to get out of this course.
Jan 21		Nahuatl Philosophy: Selections from the Florentine Codex (focus on chapter 18) Legend of the Suns (from Codex Chimalpopoca) Canto of the Women of Chalco Cantos from the Cantares Mexicanos (selections by Sofia Ortiz-Hinojosa) Selection from the Dialogues on Christian Doctrine. If you are interested, here is a Nahuatl-English version of the whole Dialogues (thanks to J. Jorge Klor de Alva) or a version with just the English translation (thanks to Darianna Reyes Márquez and Sofia Ortiz-Hinojosa).	There’s a lot of challenging reading for today, so I want you mostly to focus on doing readings carefully, and rereading them. After you've read through this material, take some time to write your impressions, including what you think the most important philosophical claims are and at least two questions you have about things that puzzle you in the readings. You don't need to turn this in, since there will be a quiz in class, but writing this stuff will help you prepare for the quiz in class.
Jan 26	Week 2	Scholars of Nahuatl Philosophy 1. James Maffie, “Philosophy Without Europe” 2. James Maffie, “Pre-Columbian Philosophies” 3. Miguel León-Portilla, “Pre-Hispanic Thought” (This is a shortened version of his Aztec Thought and Culture.) Optional: There has been some debate about whether Aztecs actually did philosophy, for which see these essays by Alejandro Santana and by Susana Nuccetelli	For today, I want you to identify at least one significant disagreement between either Maffie and León-Portilla or between your own interpretation of Aztec philosophy and that of Maffie and León-Portilla. Offer a close reading of one of the primary sources we read for the previous class and use that close reading to argue against one of the interpretive claims of either Maffie or León-Portilla.
Jan 28		Early Debates on Colonization 1. Aristotle, Politics, Book 1. (1252ª, 1253^b, 1254ª-1254^b, 1260ª-1260^b. (You can find these page references in the tab on the left…please make sure to read all 6 pages of Aristotle, which I've put in a .docx file here so you can print it more easily.) 2. Pope Paul III, Sublimus Deus 3. Sepulveda, “Democritus Alter: On the Just Causes for War Against the Indians.” 4. De Las Casas, “In Defense of the Indians.” 5. Alonso Gutierrez de Vera Cruz, selections (be sure to read all of Question 5, & Question 10 §§650-661) (see too this fun tiktok by filosofojose!) Optional: Check out this movie about the Vallolid Debate: La Controverse de Valladolid a French movie about the De Las Casas vs. Sepulveda debate. (Note that even just based on the readings for today, you should be able to identify a few inaccuracies in the movie…)	Identify at least two central arguments that Sepulveda makes in defense of his thesis, and at least two counter-arguments that de las Casas makes. Be ready for an in class quiz today! (Note: While I really hope you’ll start on the reading by Alonso de Vera Cruz, that won’t be on the quiz.)
Feb 2	Week 3	Reread all material from previous class. Read all of Alonso de Vera Cruz, selections (be sure to read closely all of Question 5, & Question 10 §§650-661) De Las Casas, Regia Potestate [Royal Power], selections TBD. [Optional: Clavijero, selections TBD.]
Feb 4		Mexican Scholasticism Antonio Rubio, Logica Mexicana, Selections TBD Antonio Rubio, Treatise on Intellectual Virtues, selections TBD Alonso de Vera Cruz, Recognito Summularum, selections. TBD
Feb 9	Week 4	Early Modernity in Mexico Juan Benito Díaz de Gamarra y Dávalos, selections Juan Benito Díaz de Gamarra y Dávalos, Errors of the Human Understanding. You should choose one of the Errors Regarding Health (whichever you find most interesting), and you should read the Second Error (“Believing one knows what one ignores”) of the Errors Regarding Wisdom, and you should read the First, Fourth, Fifth, Seventh, and Eighth Errors Regarding Morality. For a .pdf with just the required readings, click here.
Feb 11		Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz: Loa to Divine Narcissus. (Here's another translation, if you'd like to compare.)	Today in class, we will discuss Sor Juana's attitude towards colonialism. In preparation for class, write up (for yourself) a response to this prompt: "Specifically considering her views about European colonialism, and with reference to specific passages in the Loa to Divine Narcissus, should Sor Juana be praised as the 'Tenth Muse'?" That will be the quiz question, and it will be open note and open "book." Be sure to bring your copy of the Loa to class.
Feb 16	Week 5	Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz: Primero Sueño, translation by John Campion here and by Sofia Ortiz-Hinojosa here.	DO NOT LOOK TO THE INTERNET FOR HELP UNDERSTANDING THIS POEM. Of everything we've read this semester, this is probably the hardest to understand. Struggle with it. Get it "wrong." Talk to friends about it. But don't look up what other people have said the poem is about. I don't care if you don't understand it, as long as you struggle with it authentically for yourself. Come to class with at least one line in the poem that you think you might understand, and at least one that you think is really important but that you are confused about, and also come with at least some theory (even if totally wrong) about what the poem as a whole is about.
Feb 18 (P&P)		Power and Privilege Symposium
Feb 23	Week 6	Mexican Liberalism 1.José María Luis Mora, “Discourse on the Independence of the Mexican Empire” 2.José María Luis Mora, “Discourse on the Limits of Civil Authority Deduced from Their Source” (both from Liberty in Mexico, ed. Rivera)
Feb 25		1.Philosophical Poems of the War of Independence 2. Maria Leona Vicario vs. Lucas Alaman, exchanges in the press (for the Alaman, focus especially on the short selection in bold) 3.Optional: A little more Alaman: “Impartial Examination of the Administration of General Vice President Don Anastasio Bustamante,” (from Liberty in Mexico, ed. Rivera)
Mar 2	Week 7	Positivism Gabino Barreda, “Civic Oration”, version TBD Gabino Barreda, “On Moral Education,” version TBD.
Mar 4		Horacio Barreda, “xxx” Leopoldo Zea, “Positivism and Liberalism,” translation TBD.
Mar 9	Week 8	Mid-Term Exam
Mar 11		Miguel Macedo, “Essay on the Reciprocal Duties of Superiors and Inferiors”
Mar 30	Week 9	Logic Textbook Controversy. Rafael Ángel de la Peña and José María Vigil, speeches at the faculty meetings of the National Preparatory School (note that this edition is still being actively revised, particularly with it’s editorial apparatus; eventual version TBD) Porfirio Parra and José María Vigil, exchanges in El Universal. Justo Sierra and José María Vigil, selections from Liberalism in Mexico, TBD.
Apr 1		Emilia Rimbió, TBD xxx discuss whether she’s positivist or not… Laura Mendez de Cuenca, TBD xxx	Choose either Rimbió or Mendez de Cuenca and prepare a short argument defending the claim that your chosen philosopher either is or is not a “positivist,” drawing from specific passages in the texts we have read (from both Rimbió/Mendez and from the positivism debates)
Apr 6	Week 10	Vasconcelos, “The New Law of Three Stages” Vasconcelos “The Esthetic Development of Creation” Optional: Ureña, “TBD” Optional: Vasconcelos, “Gabino Barreda and Contemporary Ideas,” in S&S, Chap. 1, pp. 1-16
Apr 8		Vasconcelos, “The Cosmic Race”
Apr 13	Week 11	Undergraduate Conference
Apr 15		Emilio Uranga, “Essay on an Ontology of the Mexican,” in S&S, Chapter 13, pp. 165-77.
Apr 20	Week 12	Student Choice: Portilla, Castellanos, Reveultas, Ramos, Dussell, Hurtado, other….
Apr 22		Student Choice: Portilla, Castellanos, Reveultas, Ramos, Dussell, Hurtado, other….
Apr 27	Week 13	Alzandua, Borderlands, Chapters 1-3, and poems on pp. 124-129, 134-135, 148-152, and 173
Apr 29		Alzandua, Borderlands, Chapters 4-5.
May 4	Week 14	Alzandua, Borderlands. Finish the book, focusing on sections most relevant to your final paper.
May 6		Final Class…Review the semester in the light of Anzaldua.
	Final Exam Week

Mexican Philosophy—ROUGH NOTES

Pre/at Contact:

· Popul Vuh

· Legend of Suns

· Florentine Codex

· Art of Gratitude

· Debates with the 12 Friars

· Canto of the women of Chalco

+ Secondary source debates

· Maffie

· Leon-Portilla

· Essay on influence of Proverbs on Sahagun?

De Las Casas

· DLC vs. Sepulveda debate

· DLC’s political theory (as example of scholasticism and also etc.) [LATIN]

· Fray Alonso de Vera Cruz (first philosopher in Mexico!!) See Jose here: https://www.tiktok.com/@elfilosofojose/video/7572015607546236167?_r=1&_t=ZS-8xVgfXaxDst

· José de Acosta, Natural and moral history of the indies

Scholasticism

· Logica Mexicana [LATIN]

· Fray Alonso de Vera Cruz (first philosopher in Mexico!!) See Jose here: https://www.tiktok.com/@elfilosofojose/video/7572015607546236167?_r=1&_t=ZS-8xVgfXaxDst

Modernity

· Gamarra

o Selections from José Manuel Cuellar

o Errors of the Understanding

· Sor Juana

o Loa to Narcissus

o Hombres Necios/Respuesta

o Primero Sueño

· Carlos Sigüenza y Góngora

o Physics?

o Early stuff on Aztecs?

Liberalism and Positivism

· Mora and Women’s poetry of independence.

· Vicario vs. Alaman[i] (dia del chisme)

· Barreda

o Oracion civica

o On moral education

· Vigil

o Vs. Sierra (from Liberalism book) – set up the whole debate back and forth

o Vs. Cientificos etc (translation of speeches re: the new logic textbook)

o Ideally try to get the other side of the debate re: the new logic textbook

· Cientificos

o Macedo, “Essay on the Reciprocal Duties of Inferiors and Superiors” [This is a great essay for laying out the cientificos views of natural order, with interesting historical references to the 1875 student strike, a clear articulation of positivist sexism, a subtle reinforcement of the capitalist social order while backhandedly endorsing union strikes (but ultimately not endorsing them except when they are suitably orderly), etc.]

o Emilia Rimbió, “Liberty,” “Authority,” optional: “Family” à Discuss…is she more liberal (a la Vigil) or positivist (a la Macedo and xxx) or something else?

· Laura Méndez de Cuenca (Mirror or short story or …?)

o From what I can tell, she’s basically a positivist feminist critic of (bad) positivism, but she also captures not only liberal but also proto-existentialist critiques of positivism

· (von Kleinhaus should really go here, but leave her out because of XX’s precedence)

Post-Revolution/Atheneo de Juventud

· Ureña, Vasconcelos, and Caso

o Vasconcelos: https://www.tiktok.com/@elfilosofojose/video/7543820748033412359?_r=1&_t=ZS-8xVgfXaxDst

· Ramos, Uranga, Portilla, Revueltas, etc….

Next wave:

· Castellanos

· Dussel Philosophy of Liberation selection

· Portilla re: relajo

· Hurtado . . . something

Maybe post-Spring break focus on two whole books:

· Ramos’s New Humanism or Portilla’s Relajo book, Uranga’s Ontology of Mexican, Dussel’s Philosophy of Liberation

· Alzandua’s New Mestiza.