The paper (6–8 pages long) is due, as an attachment, via the “Assignments” tool
on Canvas, by 11:55pm on Wednesday, March 20. However, an introductory
paragraph and brief outline (approximately one sentence per paragraph of the
proposed complete paper) is due (via the same tool on Canvas) at some time on
or before Tuesday, March 13. There will then be special section meetings,
including perhaps extra meetings, at which you can get feedback on these plans
from your TA and fellow students. This preliminary assignment will not be
separately graded, but if you do not hand it in at all or if it is wholly
unsatisfactory, your grade on the final paper will be reduced by one half step
(e.g. A to A-).
Suggested topics are given below. These topics are suggestions: if you want to
write on another topic, feel free to do so. It might be a good idea, however, in that
case, to check with me and/or your TA first (i.e., even before writing your
introductory paragraph and outline).
Note that the topics tend to have many sub-questions. You need not (and
probably should not) try to answer all of them. (You certainly should not just
answer them one after another in order — that would make a bad paper.) I put
them there to suggest various directions for thinking about the topic, and in
particular to head off superficial or excessively simple ways of thinking about
it.
All of the topics below require you to make substantial use of material from at
least two of our main authors (Descartes, Spinoza, and Leibniz). You can also
write about all three if you feel it improves your paper (but you will not get extra
credit just for including a third author). If you want to write about a topic which
involves only one of the three, you should check with me or with your TA about
it.
I don’t expect any of these papers to use the ancient and medieval material
from the beginning of the course. You’re free to quote it if it seems useful, but I
don’t necessarily recommend trying that (you will not get extra credit just for
throwing it in). On the other hand, if you can use traditional metaphysical
terminology — and use it correctly — in your discussion of the early
modern authors, that might well be helpful. (But this doesn’t mean: try to
get in as much Aristotelian terminology as you can for extra credit. It
means: use it if and when it enables you state your point more clearly or
concisely.)
You can also use other outside material if you think it helps your paper
(though, again, I don’t necessarily recommend that). If so you must of course
make it clear exactly what you are using and how. Also, it should still be clear
that the paper was written for this course. If you have any questions about what
plagiarism is or how to avoid it, you can ask me, or consult the resources listed on
the Library website. For possible consequences of plagiarism, see the Academic
Misconduct Policy.
AI policy: I encourage the use of AI assistance with proper caution
(i.e., keeping in mind that current AI is often wrong). You may use AI
assistance basically in any way that would not constitute cheating if you
used a human for the same thing. Similarly, you should cite the AI in
cases where you would cite a human. If in doubt, feel free to ask me for
clarification.
The intent of the paper is to discuss the views or attitudes manifested in the
reading, rather than your own opinions on the topic. That is: you should ideally
come up with something interesting and original to say (not mere summary), but
it should something interesting and original about what our authors mean. (In
particular: I don’t expect or encourage you to reach a judgment about whether
what they say is correct or not.) If you are upset by something one of our authors
says, or find it ridiculous, you should use that as an excuse to try and understand
better why someone would say such a thing. If you can’t manage that, you
should try to write about a topic which doesn’t touch on the problem
area.
For a good comparison paper, remember that the comparison should be
interesting. This means, for example, that the paper should not read like two
shorter papers (one on each author) stuck together. Also it should say something
non-obvious about their similarities and differences. (It is always possible to make
any two positions sounds similar if one is vague enough. But that isn’t
interesting.)
If you’re using the editions I ordered, you can refer to the readings just by
giving the page number. If you use a different edition and/or some other source,
please give at least enough bibliographical information that I and/or your TA can
find it if necessary. There’s no need for a separate bibliography or title
page.
You can find answers to some commonly asked questions about my
assignments and grading in my FAQ.
Suggested topics
1.
Descartes’s Meditator is afraid of being deceived. According to the authors
we’ve read (including Descartes himself), is the Meditator right to fear this?
In what ways, according to those authors, are we liable to deception (by our
senses, by books, by other people, by God, by ourselves)? What steps, if any,
can be taken to head this off? How, if at all, according to them, might or
must potentially deceptive things (including, for example, but not limited to:
dreams, fictions, history, traditional philosophy, logical arguments, the Bible,
the sensible world, the Eucharist) nevertheless yield truth if properly used
and/or understood? (In other words: to what extent is it our own fault if
we are deceived?) Are there some kinds of deception which we can’t and/or
shouldn’t want to avoid? (Note: some pieces of advice for avoiding deception
are not surprising and therefore not interesting — e.g. don’t treat a fiction
as if it were a history, don’t trust your senses about very small or very distant
objects. Also some are too vague to be interesting — e.g., trust your senses
and your reading and your reason, but only in the proper balance. If you
think there’s nothing more surprising than that in our authors, you should
probably write about a different topic.)
2.
What if anything, according to our authors, is or should be the relationship
between metaphysics and/or epistemology, on the one hand, and ethics
and/or politics, on the other? For example: is correct (or incorrect?) thought
necessary, according to them, for correct action? Or vice versa: is it possible,
according to them, to think correctly — to know what one knows, to have
certainty, to know what (kind of thing) really exists — without moral and/or
political reform? How, if at all, can a human being, with human needs and
desires, be a philosopher? How if at all, can the philosopher function within
society as it now is (or: as it was in the 17th century, if that is relevantly
different from now)? Is knowledge of what is right or just (proper moral
judgment) useful, according to them, for determining what is true or what
exists (proper theoretical judgment), and if so why and how?
3.
Included in the above, but you might want to focus on it in particular:
according to our authors, what are the political implications of metaphysics
and/or epistemology, and vice versa? See the above topic for some detailed
issues, to which can be added here in particular: in what ways, if any, is the
structure of our knowledge (and of “the sciences”), or the structure of beings
in general (of the world as a whole) like that of a city/state, and in what
ways if any is it different?
4.
Of these possible sources of human knowledge: the senses; logic and/or
reason and/or the intellect; imagination (i.e., in some way producing or
entertaining sense-like images which do not come directly through the senses);
reading authoritative texts, which, according to our authors, is useful or
reliable and which is not? What is the proper relationship between them?
What is or might be or tends to be the actual relationship? (If the last two
are different, that would mean that the actual relationship is or might be or
tends to be not the proper relationship, i.e. that something is or might be
or tends to be wrong.) What kinds of error stem from or affect the use of
these alleged sources of knowledge, and how, if at all, is it possible to guard
against them? (Note that a good answer to this must be more than just a
list of which sources are reliable and which are not — you must find a single
surprising and interesting point to make about how different authors relate
to different sources.)
5.
How much, according to our authors, do we know about ourselves?
Supposing we yield Descartes the point that I cannot (rationally) doubt my
own existence, how about the argument which follows in the Second and SixthMeditations, where he talks about essence (about what kind of thing “I”
am)? In what sense, according to Descartes and others we’ve read, is it or is
it not possible to know, to be certain, to doubt, and/or to be deceived about
what kind of thing/person one really is, and/or about what kind of thing
a human being (or human soul) is? Descartes claims that we can know this
about ourselves better (more distinctly) than about anything else (except
God?). Do others agree with him, and why or why not? (If not, what do
they think we know better, or just as well?) What are the implications for
metaphysics and/or for ethics?
6.
In what ways, according to our authors, are we or is our world imperfect?
Which of those imperfections, according to them, are imperfections only
relative to some purpose or to some arbitrary preference on our part (so that
they might look like perfections from some other point of view), and which,
if any, are absolutely imperfect? How, if at all, according to them, can we
know/be certain that there are imperfections (of either kind) in ourselves or
in the world? Who or what, if anything, according to them, is to blame for
imperfection? To what extent, if at all, according to them, can imperfections
be corrected, and if so how and by what or whom? Are there imperfections
that are better left uncorrected, according to them, and if so why? What are
the implications for metaphysics and/or for ethics?
7.
In what sense (if any), according to our authors, are human beings free,
or in what sense (if any) can they become free? In what sense (if any) can
the become unfree? What is the relationship, according to them, between
freedom and power? Between freedom and necessity? Between freedom
and divine causation? Between freedom and divine foreknowledge? Between
freedom and coercion? Between freedom and clear and distinct intellectual
perception? Between freedom and correct or moral action? Between freedom
and happiness? Between freedom and error or sin? What is freedom good
for, according to them? Why does God make human beings free (if God does
make them free, and if there is a reason)? Or why does God allow them to
become free? Or why does God allow them to become unfree?
8.
How, according to our authors, can we know that God exists? What is it,
according to them, that we know, when we know that? How much or little
do we know about God’s nature? About God’s power? About God’s will (its
nature and contents)? Why, if at all, is this knowledge important, according
to them? What, if anything, will it help us to understand about ourselves?
About the world? About the proper course of action? How is the knowledge
we gain in this way related to the human institution of religion (e.g. Judaism,
Catholicism)? To the contents and interpretation of the Bible?