Paper Topics

These topics are only intended as suggestions. You do not need to follow them slavishly. However, if it is not clear which topic you are doing, then you are doing topic 6, and you must get prior approval.

1. What was Moore's criticism of Idealism? How do you think an Idealist might reply? Do you think Moore's criticism is a good one? Give reasons.
2. What was McTaggart's argument against the reality of time? What was the response of Moore (with which Peirce agrees)? Give reasons in support of both positions. What position do you favor? Why?
3. Peirce and James both call themselves Pragmatists and associate that with views about the nature of truth. How are their views about truth alike? Different? Compare each with the correspondence theory of truth.
4. What is the Logical Positivist view of meaning? How does it show the apparent influence of Russell? How is it different?
5. Compare and contrast Russell's version of realism with that of the early Wittgenstein. Be sure to document your interpretation of their views.
6. You may write on a topic of your own choosing. You must, however, get my approval, either in office hours or after class.

Reminders

The paper should be three pages typed, double-spaced (that is, approximately 750 words, or 3,750 characters in length). When you hand in your paper, keep a copy. Your papers should each concern one of the assigned topics, presenting the relevant ideas clearly and briefly and assessing their strengths and weaknesses using examples from the texts. Note that if you get a position wrong, you are unlikely to assess it well. There is rarely only one correct interpretation of anything, but---whatever your interpretation---you must document it by giving page or line references to the passages on which the interpretation is based. Do not use quotations unless the precise wording of a passage is crucial. Explain the views in your own words.

The paper is not a research paper. You must show that you have read the assigned texts carefully, thought about them, and made some sense of them. Do not report the views of others. Struggle with the texts on your own.

If you consult works other than the assigned texts, list them in a bibliography with additional acknowledgment given to any writer who influenced your thinking. Direct quotations or close paraphrases of any source must be clearly indicated. Failure to follow these rules constitutes plagiarism, which is the ultimate academic crime—see the Code of Conduct in the ABOR Policy Manual, beginning at 5-301.C. Any cheating, fabrication, or plagiarism may result in a failing grade for the work concerned or for the course, at Professor Lavine's discretion, and he may recommend additional penalties ranging from making the infraction a permanent part of your academic record to expulsion from the University, in accordance with the UA Code of Academic Integrity. In writing this, I have drawn liberally on the work of others, especially of Kent, and Lindt.

Page references to the assigned texts should be given in parentheses in the body of a paper. Secondary literature should usually be mentioned in footnotes. The Chicago Manual of Style is a useful reference for other matters of style.

Advice on Writing a Paper

You should consult How to Write a Philosophy Paper before beginning to write your paper.

You are always welcome to submit drafts or outlines to me either by e-mail or in person—the earlier the better.

The main thing I shall be looking for in your paper is a clear thesis, stated in a sentence or two in the first paragraph of the paper, that you successfully defend by either giving good arguments for it or by undermining obvious or standard arguments against it. The thesis need not be one that solves a substantial philosophical problem. It might be, for example, that %$A$%'s argument that such and such a problem is not solvable does not quite establish that conclusion, because …. A "book report," which explains the views in the texts and in secondary sources you have consulted without giving your own reasons and analysis will receive a poor grade, however thorough, accurate, and well researched it may be.

I shall use GradingRubric to grade your papers. Look at it. That will give you a sense of what will be emphasized. The descriptions of what various subgrades mean are only intended to be indications of a standard—they do not, and were not intended to, cover all cases.

It is very important to express yourself clearly and precisely: So long as I can understand you, it doesn't matter, but, given the subtlety of the ideas being discussed, I won't understand you if you are not as clear and precise as possible. Don't confuse the reference of a term with its meaning or the idea of a thing with the thing itself: even if you are not confused, if the exact literal meaning of what you have written is not correct, I shall end up confused when reading your work. When you introduce a claim, make sure it is clear whether you are taking it be an assumption, a controversial claim requiring discussion, a hypothesis introduced so you can refute it, something you intend to establish or whatever. In addition, when you introduce a claim, make sure it is clear whether the claim is yours, something you take a philosopher (who? page reference?) to have claimed that you are reporting, something you take a philosopher (who? page reference?) to have claimed that you are endorsing, or disputing, or whatever. When you wrap up an argument, do you think you have established something, shown that an argument against it is inconclusive, shown it can't be right, given additional reasons for doubting it, …?

-- ShaughanLavine - 17 Sep 2009