Philosophy 291 Philosophy of Language and Mind  Spring Quarter 2001 Andrew Mills'  Homepage Course Resources Homepage  Dept. of Religion and Philosophy

Substance Dualism is perhaps the view of the mind held by the common person in the street (and perhaps the most initially attractive view of the mind), and Functionalism is the view of the mind most widely accepted by contemporary English-speaking philosophers. Accordingly, it is worthwhile to examine these two views side by side.

Let’s formulate your task this way. Consider the following two claims:

You will want to make sure that you spend some time (and it need not be a lot) describing just what the views are, but the bulk of your paper should be an argument for either SD or F. You may want to review the end of Chapter 1, where Cunningham sets out some of the criteria for deciding between views of the mental, and for determining which of two competing views is more plausible.

You have a fair bit of leeway here, so use it wisely. Do bear in mind the length limitations (500-750 words), and structure your paper accordingly.

The best papers will have the following features:

(a) They will be written clearly and in a manner that someone not intimately familiar with the philosophy of mind will be able to understand the course of the argument.

(b) They will not simply repeat arguments in the book, but will move beyond the book in interesting ways.

(c) Though they need not talk about everything in Chapters 1-3, the material from those chapters is considered fair game, and the best papers will show a sensitivity to the discussions in those chapters. (I.e., if there is a devastating criticism of Functionalism in Chapter 2, a paper defending (F) will not avoid talking about it.)

(d) While not necessarily "knock-down", the argument presented in the paper will be a strong one, and it should be evident to the reader just what the argument is.

General Paper Writing Guidelines and Tips

Essays will be graded according to the following criteria: (i) The strength of your reasoning and argumentation (ii) Accuracy and clarity of your presentation of the philosophical views (iii) General stylistic and organizational matters--correct spelling, punctuation, no run-on sentences, etc.

Your paper should make it clear to someone who is not in our class just what is going on in this debate over the proper analysis of non-referring definite descriptions.  Toward that end, you should write in whatever style is most comfortable.  Most philosophical writing is in the first person (that is, the author uses "I" and talks to the reader), and if you find that style comfortable, you should use it.  There is no need for dramatic opening paragraphs ("Ever since the dawn of time, mankind has wondered whether Functionalism is an adequate account of the mind....") 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 read the other meditations but not this particular one.  Thinking of your reader in this way will force you to be clear and precise and fully explain yourself.

As to mechanics, your paper should be 500-750 words long (about 2 to 3 pages), and is due to Prof. Mills on 7 May 2001. You can email your paper, or put it in my mailbox (located in the Towers Faculty Suite, on the second floor, in the back of the building). Please turn in two copies of your paper. 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.  Please proofread your paper.  In the age of spell-checkers, there is no excuse for spelling errors, but you should read your paper over before handing it in--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 unforeseen should happen to the copy you hand in.  Late papers will not be accepted without previous approval from Prof. Mills.