Philosophy 206 - First Paper Topics

These are the topics that I will make available to you for the final paper, due February 12th BY MIDNIGHT. Note that ALL PAPERS MUST BE SUBMITTED ELECTRONICALLY.  You may also submit a hard copy if you prefer, and we can arrange to have your comments returned in hard copy form as well, but everyone must submit an electronic copy by the due date.

There will be a deduction from your grade for any unexcused lateness. That penalty will be one step on the grade scale (e.g. from a B+ down to a B, etc.) for every day it is late and I am not contacted with a good reason for its being late.

Now that all the fire and brimstone has been dispensed, try to enjoy working on this paper. As I said in class, you can choose another topic of your own design, so long as you sit down and discuss it with me and then let me write the question you are to answer. You have plenty of time to write the paper, so you would be well advised to write a draft well in advance, let it sit for a while, talk to me, talk to your classmates, rewrite the parts you don't like, etc. The idea is to figure out the important stuff and polish your presentation of it a bit. You have around 4000 words, or around 8-10 pages. Don't go too far over the word count, because in doing so, you are violating the spirit of the assignment in a way that will lead me to grade with much higher expectations. Just think about the topic, read your notes, read some of the books on reserve, and make the point as clear as possible for your idealized audience (who just happen to have red pens in their hands).

1. Consider the Hobbes and Arnauld objections to Descartes's work from the text.  (You should go on and look at the additional objections and replies, beyond the ones discussed in class.)  What are the most important objections, and what are Descartes's replies?  Is Descartes's approach undermined by these objections?

2. Describe Descartes's methodology for the sciences.  How does it differ from Bacon and the empiricists?  Does Descartes's view stand up to the criticisms?

3. Locke thought of general terms ("table" "dog" "classroom" - terms that stand for kinds of things, rather than individual things) as a certain sort of name. What did he think they were naming? Why would he think that? What sorts of criticisms might be offered of such a view?

4. Locke sees philosophy and science as standing on the verge of a great leap forward in his time. He thinks this is in part due to finally drawing a distinction between primary and secondary qualities. How does he construe the distinction and the relation between them to be, and how do they play into his views on "real essences" and the role of science?

5. Discuss Descartes's role for God in his epistemology.  Leibniz suggests it fails because God may be all-good and yet deceive us in some cases.  How do Descartes and Leibniz differ on their conception of God, and how does that affect the philosophy they go on to do?

6. Discuss Hume's critique of traditional accounts of causation.  How does this critique relate to Locke's theory of perception, and what effect might this have for knowledge of the mind-independent world?
 
 

Philosophy 206 - Second Paper Topics

These are the topics that I will make available to you for the final paper, due March 17th. There will be a deduction from your grade for any unexcused lateness. That penalty will be one step on the grade scale (e.g. from a B+ down to a B, etc.) for every day it is late and I am not contacted with a good reason for its being late.

1. Spinoza's most famous work, Ethics, seems curiously titled. It is not a treatise that addresses specific problems in moral theory, at least not in a conventional format. Spinoza instead had a vision of the sort of intellectual life we should all be leading. Describe his conception of that life carefully and explain how it arises from his conception of philosophical method and the rationalist project.
(If you take up this question, you would be well advised to read the additional selections from On the Improvement of the Understanding and Spinoza's correspondence.)

2. In the Monadology, Leibniz argues that the mind could not be a physical thing. (See §17, the "mill" argument.) Descartes also offers a number of arguments against the identity of mind and body in Meditations 2 and 6.  What do these arguments share and where do Leibniz and Descartes differ on the nature of the mind?  How sound are these forms of dualism?

3. Some commentators have suggested that Leibniz's theory of monads is actually a kind of response to Spinoza's idea of a single, all-encompassing substance. It is Leibniz's hope, they suggest, that by adding monads to his metaphysics, he can preserve both a philosophy of physics and a philosophy of mind that are more amenable to prior common sense conceptions. Explain how the theory would do this.
(If you take up this question, a relatively short description of Spinoza's position will suffice. The focus of the question is on Leibniz, so just summarize the most important points of Spinoza's argument.)

4. Berkeley's immaterialism was a direct response to Locke's empiricism and the rising tide of religious skepticism in his time.  Oddly enough, the philosopher from this period who most closely resembles Berkeley according to many interpretations is Hume, the arch skeptic and agnostic.  Others have said Hume was not an immaterialist, but held a more subtle view.  How close are Berkeley and Hume to one another on the question of mind-independent substances?

5. Explain relational and absolute conceptions of space as presented by Leibniz and Newton/Clarke, respectively.  What drives the development of each of these accounts?  Why does Leibniz object to absolute space, as well as atoms and the very idea of a vacuum?  Who presents the more plausible argument for their view in this exchange?