First Paper Topics for Professor Hauptli’s PHH 3700 American Philosophy Fall 2014
Copyright © 2014 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?
One of my purposes in having you write these papers is to offer you the opportunity to perfect your ability to describe carefully a complex position and argument to others. Toward that end, I require that you consider your intended audience for these papers to be other philosophy students who have not read exactly the material you have read or heard exactly the lectures which you have heard. They can not be expected to immediately know the intricacies of the positions you are discussing, and must first have the central aspects of the position which are relevant to your paper clarified to them. They must also be presented with carefully elaborated arguments for and against the position if they are to be able to follow your critical assessment of it.
Another of my purposes here is to provide you with the opportunity to engage in critical reflection upon the readings (or upon related readings and issues), and to provide you with feed-back on your critical scrutinies. This goal can not be met if you confine yourself to a neutral exposition of the views under consideration. In my supplement “Writing Philosophy Papers” (available on the course web-site), I describe a number of different sorts of papers which might be submitted to fulfill this requirement (as well as a number of other points regarding composition and grader’s marks. The detailed characterization of such papers in that supplement should help you understand my expectations (those desiring high grades will endeavor to approach the highest ideal, while those who are not so motivated may choose to set their sights somewhat lower).
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. The papers 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.
The papers should be “typed” and are due by 4:15 on Monday, October 13 (they may be turned in to my office [DM 341 D], the Philosophy Department Secretary [DM 347], or my mail-box [DM 340A (room open 9:00-5:00)]). I am giving you the paper topics now so that you have at least two 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).
I will be happy to read rough drafts and to discuss your ideas for your papers with you (I will not read drafts after 4:00 on Friday, October 10 however).
Topics:
1. Critically analyze the argument which William James offers in his “The Will to Believe.” You will probably find the following interpretations and criticisms helpful here: “Pragmatism” by Bertrand Russell (in his Philosophical Essays on Reserve [B 1649 R 93 P 5 1967]); and “William James” by Bertrand Russell (in his History of Western Philosophy on Reserve [B 72 R 8]—also available from the Library as an ebook).
2. Critically analyze either (or both) Charles S. Peirce’s or William James’ pragmatic theory of truth. You will probably find the following interpretations and criticisms helpful here: “Pragmatism” and “James’s Conception of Truth” by Bertrand Russell (in his Philosophical Essays on Reserve in the Green Library [B 1649 R 93 P 5 1967]); A.J. Ayer’s Origins of Pragmatism pp. 7-29 (on Reserve in the Green Library [B 945 P 44 A 9]); and G.E. Moore’s “William James’ Pragmatism” in his Philosophical Studies (on Reserve in the Green Library [B 1647 M 73 P 4 1968]). You may also find D.C. Phillips’ “Was William James Telling the Truth After All?” useful—especially in regard to Moore’s criticism (it is on reserve in the in the Green Library in Doris (ed.) (B 945 J 23 P 7339 1992)]. You may also find John Smith’s “The Pragmatic Theory of Truth: The Typical Objections” in his America’s Philosophical Vision (pp. 37-52 of our Smith text) helpful.
3. Critically analyze either (or both) Charles S. Peirce’s or William James’ pragmatic theory of meaning. You will probably find the following interpretations and criticisms helpful here: “Pragmatism” by Bertrand Russell (in his Philosophical Essays on Reserve [B 1649 R 93 P 5 1967]); and A.J. Ayer’s Origins of Pragmatism pp. 29-51 and/or 186-198 (on Reserve [B 945 P 44 A 9]).
4. Critically consider whether there is an essential link between pragmatism and either realism or idealism. You will probably find the following interpretations and criticisms helpful here: “Pragmatism vs. the Pragmatist” by A.O. Lovejoy (in his Thirteen Pragmatisms and Other Essays on Reserve [B 832 L 6]) and A.J. Ayer’s Origins of Pragmatism pp. 181-186 (on Reserve [B 945 P 44 A 9]).
5. Critically consider Charles S. Peirce’s claim that the “method of science” is the best method of “fixing belief.” You may find Nicholas Rescher’s “Peirce on the Validation of Science” and Cornelius Delany’s “Peirce On the Reliability of Science: A Rely to Rescher” useful here (they are on reserve in the library in Kenneth Kettner’s Peirce and Contemporary Thought [B 945 P 44 1995]).
6. Using John Smith’s “Two Defenses of Freedom: Peirce and James” (pp. 51-64 of our Smith text), compare and critically consider their views of freedom.
7. Critically consider the problem(s) John Smith’s finds with William James’ “radical empiricism” in his “Radical Empiricism” (pp. 71-84 of our Smith Text).
If you would like to write on another topic, you must clear such a choice with me first.
File revised on 10/02/2014