Assignment:
Please choose ONE of the following paper topics. Papers should be 4-6
pages in length, due
Friday,
December 18 at 11am (the scheduled final exam period is 12/18,
9-11am).
I am flexible about
paper topics and length only
if you discuss it with me first. Rough
drafts are
strongly encouraged, but not mandatory. I will be accepting rough
drafts no later than
Wednesday, December 16. Drafts
will only be accepted in person, so please make an appointment
to see me. No
late papers will be accepted. Electronic submissions required;
additional hard copies optional. Go here for
some advice on
writing a philosophy paper. Please email me
or talk to me if you
have
any questions.
1. Choose ONE of the views of personal identity discussed in
Perry's Dialogues (Dualism, Person Stages, the Memory View, or
the Body Identity view).
Thoroughly explain
the view, and present at least one argument in its favor (that was
discussed either in the Dialogues or in class). Is this an adequate
view of personal identity? Why or why not? Address at least one
objection against this view. Discuss.
2. Discuss the Eliminativist view of Personal Identity (i.e., either
Hume or Unger). Lay out the relevant argument for the Eliminativist
view--i.e., Hume has an argument from the non-continuity of
first-person facts, Unger has the Sorites argument to the conclusion
the
he doesn't exist. Are either of these arguments convincing? What are
some objections? Discuss.
3. Lay out and explain Hinchliff's solution to the Puzzle of Change.
Make sure that in so doing, you explain Perdurantism, Endurnatism,
Eternalism
, and Presentism. Do
you think that Hinchliff's criticism of Perdurantism and Endurantism as
solutions to the puzzle is adequate? Why or why not? Do you think that
Hinchliff's solution is as effective as he believes? Why or why not?
Explain and discuss.
4. Discuss the puzzle of the Tree and the Cellulose. What is Wiggins'
solution to this puzzle? Do you think that this solution is adequate?
What are some objections? Discuss.
5. Lay out and explain the Body/Body-minus puzzle. Explain van
Inwagen's argument using this puzzle to the conclusion that the DAUP
thesis is false. Is this a good argument? Why or why not? Carefully
discuss any objections.