Copyright © 2015 Bruce W. Hauptli
You are to critically respond to one of the following topics. Such a critical examination should: (1) indicate the nature of the position being examined; (2) clarify the argument for and/or against the position; (3) examine the strength of the argument by considering possible responses, counter-arguments, or counter-examples; and (4) offer your own critical assessment of where the arguments for and against the position being considered leave us—should we accept, reject, or remain neutral regarding this orientation, view, or position?
As the first paper assignment indicated, one of my purposes in requiring you to write these papers is to offer you the opportunity to perfect your ability to describe carefully a complex position and argument to others. Another of my purposes is to provide you with the opportunity to push beyond the level of reading and mastering the required material for the course. Here my goal is to provide you with an opportunity to engage in critical reflection upon the readings (or upon related readings and issues), and to provide you with feedback on your critical scrutinies.
One of my vehicles for accomplishing these goals is to require that you write more than one paper. While your second paper will be on a different topic, many of the comments I made on your first one should be helpful to you in perfecting your expository and critical abilities. These comments will only be useful, however, if you give them some serious scrutiny. I strongly encourage you to look over both the typed comments and the marginal comments throughout your first paper. Few students have such an exceptional ability that they can not benefit from such an examination, and to encourage you to take the comments seriously, I want you to know that I will be reviewing the file I maintain of my comments on your previous paper(s) before I read your new paper . I will expect that your editing of your drafts of your next paper will be done in light of these comments. You should seriously endeavor to avoid any of the sorts of compositional errors I have identified, and to the extent that it is called for, I also encourage you to work to make your next exposition and critique yet clearer and more forceful.
In preparing to write your paper please review my Guide to Writing Philosophy Papers. Your papers should be approximately 2000 words long (eight double-spaced typewritten pages of 250 words per page). This indication of length is meant as a guide to the student—papers much shorter than the indicated length are unlikely to have adequately addressed one of the assigned topics. Papers may, of course, be longer than the indicated length.
Your paper should
address an assigned topic in a
manner that clearly displays its purpose, thesis, or controlling idea,
clarify the relevant elements of the philosopher’s theory so that they can be
understood by other students taking such philosophy courses,
support the thesis with adequate reasons and evidence,
show sustained analysis and critical thought,
be organized clearly and logically, and
show knowledge of conventions of standard written English.
I will be happy to read rough drafts and to discuss your ideas for your papers with you provided you give them to me prior to 3:30 on Friday, April 10. The papers should be typed and are due in my office by 4:15 P.M. on Monday, April 13 . I am giving you the paper topics now so that you have at several weekends to work on the paper. If you plan to wait till the last moment to write your paper, I recommend you review the Course Syllabus regarding penalties for late papers. Please review my policy on extensions, late papers, and plagiarism (contained in the course syllabus).
Paper Topics:
1. Clarify and critically evaluate Berkeley’s arguments against physical substance. In writing a paper on this topic you should carefully clarify what it is which Berkeley is rejecting, explain his arguments against physical substance, and critically examine these arguments (what are their strengths and weaknesses). You may find Garrett Thomson’s discussion in Chapter 16 [“Berkeley: The Denial of Matter”] of his Bacon to Kant: An Introduction to Modern Philosophy helpful as you work on this topic (my copy of this work is available from the Reserve Desk in the Library). Note that your paper should not merely relate or describe Berkeley’s arguments. Note, essays which simply delineate Berkeley’s arguments on a topic are actually expository, rather than a critical ones, and the assignment isn’t effectively fulfilled be providing an exposition (that is what is appropriate in an exam context). Essays which limit themselves to such an exposition can not earn an A, and generally receive no better than a B- grade.
2. Using Jonathan Bennett’s “Berkeley and God” as a critical foil, critically consider Berkeley’s arguments for a deity. Bennett’s essay is on reserve in the Library in Locke and Berkeley, eds. Martin and Armstrong (Notre Dame: Univ of Notre Dame, 1968), pp. 380-399 (available from the Reserve Desk in the Library). In writing your paper, indicate what Bennett has to say about Berkeley’s arguments for God. In addition to discussing Bennett, of course, you will have to clarify Berkeley’s views. Critically evaluate the views you discuss. Note: you may find E.J. Furlong’s “Berkeley and the Tree in the Quad” which is in the same volume to be helpful.
3. Critically consider Lady Mary Shepherd’s criticisms of Berkeley—they can be found in the selections from her Essays On the Perception of the External Universe which are contained in Women Philosophers of the Early Modern Period, ed. Margaret Atherton (Indianapolis: Hackett, 1994), pp. 149-159.
4. Using F.W. McConnell’s “Berkeley and Skepticism” as a critical foil, critically consider how Berkeley responds to skepticism. McConnell’s essay is on reserve in the Library in New Studies in Berkeley’s Philosophy, ed. Warren Steinkraus (N.Y.: Holt Rinehart, 1966), pp. 43-58 (available from the Reserve Desk in the Library). In writing you paper, indicate how McConnell believes Berkeley handles skepticism. Do you agree or disagree with his conclusion (why/why not)? Indicate what sort of problem skepticism is for Berkeley as you address this topic.
5. Using Harry Bracken’s “Substance in Berkeley” as a critical foil, discuss Berkeley’s view of substance. Bracken’s essay is on reserve in the Library in New Studies in Berkeley’s Philosophy, ed. Warren Steinkraus (N.Y.: Holt Rinehart, 1966), pp. 85-97 (available from the Reserve Desk in the Library). In writing your paper discuss the sort of view of substance Bracken indicates Berkeley advances, contrast it with the views of other theorists we have studied, and indicate what strengths and weaknesses you feel this view has.
6. Using Richard Popkin’s “David Hume: His Pyrrhonism and His Critique of Pyrrhonism” as a critical foil, critically consider the question “Is Hume a skeptic?” Popkin’s essay is in The Philosophical Quarterly v. 1 (1951), pp. 385-407. Students may access this through JSTOR the FIU library at the link below (I believe this will work only if you are connected directly to the FIU intranet however):
7. In Book I, Part
IV, Section VI [p. 252], Hume contends that “...when I enter most intimately
into what I call myself, I always
stumble on some particular perception or other....I never can catch
myself at any time without a
perception, and never can observe any thing but the perception.”
Roderick Chisholm denies the above claim in his “On the Observability of
the Self” [Philosophy and Phenomenological
Research v. 30 (1969), pp. 2-21].
Of course, Locke also denies Hume’s claim, effectively claiming, in Book
IV, Chapter IX [p. 274] that “as for our
own existence, we perceive it so plainly, and so certainly that it neither
needs, or is capable of proof. For
nothing can be more evident to us, than our own existence.
I think, I reason, I feel pleasure and pain; can any of these be
more evident to me, than my own existence?”
8. Using any/or all of the following essays, critically consider Hume’s position on the “Is/Ought question:”
A.C. MacIntyre’s “Hume On ‘Is’ and ‘Ought’,” in The Philosophical Review,
v. 68 (1959), pp. 451-468. Students may access this through JSTOR
the FIU library at the link below (I believe this will work only if you are
connected directly to the FIU intranet however):
http://www.jstor.org/view/00318108/di981217/98p0787s/0?frame=noframe&userID=835e60d2@fiu.edu/01cc99333c1db641077ad41851&dpi=3&config=jstor
R.F. Atkinson’s “Hume On ‘Is’ and
‘Ought’: A Reply to Mr. MacIntyre,” in The Philosophical Review, v. 70
(1961), pp. 231-238. Students may access this through JSTOR the FIU
library at the link below (I believe this will work only if you are connected
directly to the FIU intranet however):
http://www.jstor.org/view/00318108/di981223/98p0099e/0?frame=noframe&userID=835e60d2@fiu.edu/01cc99333c1db641077ad41851&dpi=3&config=jstor
W.D. Hudson’s “Hume On Is and
Ought,” in The Philosophical Quarterly, v. 14 (1964), pp. 246-252.
Students may access this through JSTOR the FIU library at the link below
(I believe this will work only if you are connected directly to the FIU intranet
however):
http://www.jstor.org/view/00318094/di982973/98p0556y/0?frame=noframe&userID=835e60d2@fiu.edu/01cc99333c1db641077ad41851&dpi=3&config=jstor
9. Using Terence Penelhum’s
“Hume On Personal Identity” as a critical foil, critically consider Hume’s views
regarding personal identity.
One way to approach this topic is to note that
Penelhum maintains Hume’s account is “an excellent example of how complex and
far-ranging the consequence of a mistake in linguistics or conceptual
investigation can be.” In your paper try
to carefully characterize what he takes Hume’s mistake(s) to be, and critically
consider his critique.
The essay was published in The Philosophical
Review, v. 64 (1955), pp. 571-589, and students may access this through
JSTOR the FIU library at the link below (I believe this will work only if
you are connected directly to the FIU intranet however):
http://www.jstor.org/view/00318108/di981201/98p0435u/0?frame=noframe&userID=835e60d2@fiu.edu/01cc99333c1db641077ad41851&dpi=3&config=jstor
10. Using Peter Strawson’s “The Justification of Induction” as a critical foil, critically consider Hume’s skepticism of inductive inference. Strawson’s essay is available on reserve in the Library in Human Understanding: Studies in the Philosophy of David Hume, ed. Alexander Sesonske (Belmont: Wadsworth, 1965), pp. 75-85).
11. You may also choose to write on any of the Locke topics from the first paper assignment which you did not address in your first paper. First Paper Topics
File revised on 03/30/2015.