The paper (6–8 pages long) is due, as an attachment, via the “Assignments” tool
on Canvas by midnight Wednesday, June 14. However, an introductory paragraph
and brief outline (approximately one sentence per paragraph of the proposed
complete paper) is due (via the same tool on ecommons) at some time on or
before Tues., June 1. 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-).
The following 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 authors (Locke, Berkeley, and Hume). 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.
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.
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.
In what sense can our authors be called “empiricists”? (Here, as in the
other topics below, you should most likely select two of them to compare,
not necessarily all three together). To what extent would “empiricism” mean
the same thing applied to each, and in what ways would the meaning of the
term have to differ? For example: what is “experience” for each of them, and
in what way does it form the sole basis for our knowledge? As opposed to
what? What makes anyone so much as suppose there might be some other
basis (i.e., against what opponent is the empiricist arguing)? What else is
there to our knowledge besides experience? What is the difference between
sensation, imagination, and thought (if the last two are different)? What role
is played by space, time, body (solid extended substance), spirit (incorporeal
substance), or causation, in making experience possible and/or how does
experience form the basis for the knowledge we have (if any) about those
things?
2.
In what ways do our authors take themselves to be, or present
themselves as, partisans of common sense? What is common sense, and
what is good about it? What opposes it (e.g. absurd, wrangling philosophy,
“superstition”) and why? What forces tend to corrupt healthy common
sense? How can we tell the difference between what is really common sense
and what is merely received opinion or entrenched superstition? When, if at
all, is it possible or necessary for correct philosophy to depart from common
sense? By adding to it? By outright opposing it?
3.
What does or would it mean, according to our authors, for “God” to
“exist”? How could we know, or how do we know, whether he exists? What
possible role is there, for example, for revelation, for tradition, for common
sense, or for philosophical argument, in establishing the right conclusion?
How do our moral failings (e.g., greed, ambition, desire for power, laziness,
desire to escape responsibility) tend to distort our thought about this subject
in particular? Why should we care about getting the correct answer?
4.
What, according to our authors, is or should be the relationship between
our theoretical concerns (our concerns qua wanting to know the truth) and
our practical concerns (our concerns qua wanting to act correctly)? What
can or should or must we be satisfied with as agents (doers), and how is that
different from what we could be satisfied with as knowers? Is there a kind of
knowledge or justified faith that is based on practical principles (i.e., moral
principles)? Or must it always be the other way around (practical conclusions
must be based on theoretical principles)? Or could it go both ways? Consider
relating these questions specifically to our knowledge of and/or reliance on
the existence of external world, the predictability of the future, the existence
of others (other minds = finite spirits), or the existence of God.
5.
What, according to our authors, is the meaning of personal identity:
in what sense can we say that the same person exists at different times?
(Remember that “identity” means “sameness.”) Why do we or should
we think that there are such continuing, self-identical persons (including
ourselves)? Do we know that there are? What, if any, is the role of experience
(including “inner sense”) in establishing that conclusion, if there is such a
conclusion? Why, if at all, does it matter whether the conclusion is correct?
What would be the epistemological and/or moral implications of deciding
that there are no such continuing, identical persons (persons who are the
same person at different times)? Or is that supposition (the supposition that
there are no continuing persons) just absurd?
6.
What, according to our authors, is the basis of, and the content of,
mathematics (i.e., arithmetic and geometry — though you might want to
focus on just one of the two)? In what sense, if at all, is mathematical
knowledge better (more certain, more precise, more universal, more reliable,
more useful) than other types of knowledge, and why? What are the limits
of mathematical knowledge? In what ways do mathematicians tend to claim
more than they are really justified in claiming, and why? What, if anything,
makes mathematics especially important in physical science? In “mechanics”
(or say, roughly, in engineering)? How is moral knowledge similar to or
different from mathematics?