Second Paper Topic
Please answer ONLY ONE of
the following questions,
following directions carefully. Papers should be about 5-7 pages,
double spaced, normal font, normal margins, etc. I am flexible about
paper topics only
if you discuss it with me first. Rough drafts are strongly encouraged. I will
be accepting drafts in person only, so please email me to schedule an
appointment. I will be accepting rough drafts no later than MONDAY, APRIL
21, so please organize your time and your meeting
with me accordingly. Papers are due by 5pm on Thursday APRIL 24.
No late papers will be accepted. Electronic submissions required;
additional hard copies optional. No electronic excuses will be
tolerated--please cc yourself when you email me your paper to verify
that your attachments are actually attached. Go here
and here
for some advice on
writing a philosophy paper. Also, sample papers are up on previous
course webpages of mine here
and here.
1. Pick one of the three characters in Perry's Dialogue--Weirob,
Miller, or Cohen--and defend his or her view against some of the
objections that were brought up in the dialogues, and in class. Or, if
you like, create a fourth character with a distinct view about personal
identity and use some of the arguments in the dialogues to flesh out
the details of your view. You may write this paper in dialogue form, or
as a traditional paper. Just make sure that you (i) make clear which
view of personal identity you are defending, (ii) give at least one argument in support
of this view (as discussed in the dialogues or in class), (iii) address
at least one of the arguments
against this view (as discussed in the dialogues or in class), and (iv)
show some original contribution to the debate.
2. Lay out and explain the theoretical principles related to the
Mind/Body Problem, which we discussed in class. Explain how these
principles give rise to problems in the philosophy of mind. We
discussed two main views of mind in class--Material Monism (in
particular, the Identity Theory) and Mind/Body Dualism. Pick one of
these positions and (i) present at least one argument in support of
this position (as discussed in class), (ii) present at least one
argument against this position (as discussed in class), and (iii) show
some original contribution to the debate--e.g., by defending the view
against objections, by supporting the view with some original
arguments, by modifying the view to make way for an original position,
etc.
3. Pick one of the views of persons (as discussed in Perry's Dialogues
and in class) or philosophy of mind (Material Monism or Mind/Body
Dualism, as discussed in class). Carefully explain this view, and show
how this view of persons helps to solve at least one of the Puzzles of
Objects that we discussed in the first third of the class. Or, defend
how a particular solution to one of the Puzzles of Objects can apply
equally well to persons, even given that we are more than just mere
objects (i.e., assuming that there is something that sets
us--persons--apart from rocks and trees and tables and ships, etc.). Be
sure to demonstrate a solid grasp of the material covered in class,
both in the first and second sections (i.e., Puzzles of Objects and
Puzzles of Persons), as well as some originality.
4. Is death evil (for the person who dies)? Yes or no? Pick one of the
three views of evil and death that we've discussed in class and in the
readings--the Epicurean View, the Deprivational View, or the Makropolus
Position. What are some of the arguments for this position? What are
some of the arguments against? Be sure to demonstrate a solid grasp of
the material covered in both the readings and in class, as well as
provide some original contribution to the debate.
Page Last Updated:
Apr. 15, 2008