Syllabus

Reading Schedule

Handouts & Assignments

Study Questions

Paper Topics

Final Exam Study Guide

Internet Links

Some of these topics are more sketchy than others.  You need to come talk to me while you are in the writing process.  (Bring in an outline, or some further thoughts about the direction of the paper).  I will make appointments with you for the Seventh Week (the week of Feb. 18th).  Don't think that the paper topics that are described in one sentence are necessarily easier than the paper topics that are described in one paragraph. Some of the paper topics require looking at some supplementary readings, and these are on reserve at the library.  If there is some issue that you wish to write about that is not reflected below, come speak to me.

1. In his article, "Physical Objects" C. H. Whiteley argues that tables and chairs are "explanatory and theoretical" entities.  What does he mean by that? What is his argument for that conclusion? Do you agree with him?  Why or why not?  In what ways is Whiteley an intellectual descendant of Berkeley? [The article by Whiteley is on reserve at the library, under the title "WHITELEY ON PHYSICAL OBJECTS"]

2. In Section X of his Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding (pp. 534-543 in our text), David Hume provides an argument against belief in miracles. Clearly reconstruct and critically assess that argument.  Be sure it is clear to the reader just what Hume's conclusion is, and what reasons he offers in support of that conclusion.  It should also be clear to the reader what your view of Hume's supporting reasons are, and what criticisms you have of that argument.

3. In Book I of his Essay, Locke criticizes the view that the mind comes equipped with any 'innate ideas'. The mind is, as Locke famously put it, a 'tabula rasa' or 'blank slate' at birth, and all the ideas that it comes to have, it acquires through experiences. Leibniz was a defender of innate ideas, and composed a reply to the arguments Locke set out in Book I of the Essay.  Explain this debate, and take a side in it.  That is, you should set out Locke's criticisms of innate ideas, as well as explain Leibniz' replies to Locke. But then you need to take a side in the debate, and defend your choice.
[The supplemental texts for this paper topic are on reserve at the library, under the title, "LOCKE AND LEIBNIZ ON INNATE IDEAS"]

4. Critically examine the notion of substance as it appears in the writings of Descartes, Locke and Berkeley.  That is, set out arguments in favor of the existence of substance, and examine the objections which Berkeley raises to it.  Take a position on this issue: do we have good reason to believe in the existence of substance?

5. Thomas Reid (Scottish, 1710-1796) criticized Locke's account of personal identity and proposed an alternative one in its place.  Set out Locke's account of personal identity (as presented in II.xxvii), set out Reid's objections and his alternative account, and judge between them.  (Perhaps you will want to offer replies on Locke's behalf to Reid, or offer criticisms of Reid's account.)  Don't just "compare and contrast" the two accounts, but take a position on who has the better account of personal identity.
[The supplemental text for this paper topic is on reserve at the library, under the title "REID ON LOCKE'S ACCOUNT OF PERSONAL IDENTITY"]

General Instructions  All of these papers involve an expository element, but are not mere expository papers.  That is, you will have to explain the view of one or more of the philosophers we have read, but you will need to do more than that.   You will need to take a position (some of the papers require you to ajudicate a debate between two or more philosophers), and it should be clear to your reader by the end of your introductory paragraph what your position is.  Your paper, in other words must have a thesis, and a clear statement of that thesis in the introductory paragraph.  In the case of some topics, I have set out a number of issues that you need to discuss.  Make sure you cover them all, but don't think of your paper as merely a list of answers to those questions.

Grading Criteria Papers will be graded according to the following criteria: (i) Accuracy and clarity of your presentation of the view of the philosopher or philosophers you are writing about, (ii) The ability to separate what is central and important from what is tangential and parenthetical, (iii) The strength and originality of your argument (iv) general stylistic and organizational matters--grammar, correct spelling, no run-on sentences, etc.

Academic Honesty  I have included the college statement on academic dishonesty and plagiarism in the course syllabus, so you should be familiar with it by now.  All reference to the ideas of someone else must be properly referenced.  This applies not merely to quoted passages, but to paraphrases of the ideas and thoughts of someone else.  Please include a bibliography of all works cited and footnotes where appropriate.  If you have questions about these matters, please consult me.  Work that is determined to be the product of academic dishonesty will receive a failing grade.

General Writing Tips  Your primary focus in writing this paper should be to make the issues, arguments and themes clear to someone who is not as familiar with the material as you or I are.  Toward that end, you should write in whatever style is most comfortable.  Most philosophical writing is in the first person, and in the present tense (that is, the author uses "I" and talks to the reader, as in a letter), and if you find that style comfortable, you should use it.  There is no need for dramatic opening paragraphs of the middle school sort ("Ever since the dawn of time, man has wondered about the primary-secondary quality distinction"), nor sweeping conclusions.  Simply tell the reader what you are going to do, and then do it.  I find it best to conceive of your reader not as me, nor even as someone else in the class, but rather as an intelligent person who has passing familiarity with the material, but not as close a familiarity as you do.  Thinking of your reader in this way will force you to be clear and precise and fully explain yourself.  (If you want to get a friend to read over the paper before you turn it in, you may of course do that.)

Mechanics  Your paper should be in the 1000-1200 word range, and is due to me by 5:00 pm on Friday, 1 March (= the end of the 8th week of the quarter).  It must be typed, double-spaced, and in a reasonable font (something ordinary like 12 point Times New Roman), with one inch margins all around.  Your paper should have a title (and not something boring like "Philosophy Paper"), and should be stapled (not paper-clipped) in the upper left-hand corner.  Elaborate report covers and folders are not necessary (I just throw them away, so save your money). Please proofread your paper.  In the age of spell-checkers, there is no excuse for spelling errors, but you should read your paper over once or twice before handing it in.  (Spell checkers don't catch everything.)  If you need to make a last-minute correction by hand, that is fine.  Do make sure to keep a copy of your paper in case something unforseen should happen to the copies you turn in.  Late papers will not be accepted wihtout previous approval from Prof. Mills.