Difference between revisions of "Fall 2008 Philosophy 201 Paper Topics"
m |
|||
| (3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | Return to [Human Nature] main page. | + | Return to [[Human Nature]] main page. |
| − | ==Stoicism and Epicureanism== | + | ==Classical Philosophy== |
| + | |||
| + | ===Stoicism and Epicureanism=== | ||
Compare and contrast the Stoic and Epicurean accounts of the causes of human suffering and the conditions for human happiness. What elements of their theories of virtue, pleasure and happiness would you consider adopting or rejecting? Why? | Compare and contrast the Stoic and Epicurean accounts of the causes of human suffering and the conditions for human happiness. What elements of their theories of virtue, pleasure and happiness would you consider adopting or rejecting? Why? | ||
| − | ==Buddhism== | + | ===Buddhism=== |
Topic A: Write a paper on the Buddhist theory of dependent origin, evaluating it in both literal and metaphorical terms. Does it have explanatory power? Consider how it might suggest specific insights that support the Buddhist philosophical point of view. | Topic A: Write a paper on the Buddhist theory of dependent origin, evaluating it in both literal and metaphorical terms. Does it have explanatory power? Consider how it might suggest specific insights that support the Buddhist philosophical point of view. | ||
| Line 11: | Line 13: | ||
Topic B: Reconstruct and evaluate the Buddhist rationale for the 8 fold path. | Topic B: Reconstruct and evaluate the Buddhist rationale for the 8 fold path. | ||
| − | ==Descartes and Radical Doubt== | + | ==Epistemology== |
| + | |||
| + | ===Descartes and Radical Doubt=== | ||
Follow Meditations 1 and 2 in your anthology and then read a little bit about what philosophers have said about Descartes' meditations (use the Wikipedia & Routledge Encyclopedia (through Foley). Also, consider the Grau article. Then choose a focus for a paper which evaluates Descartes process of doubt and his claim to have grounded the certainty of knowledge. You might give a "close reading" of Descartes text or you might focus on an issue connects generally with Descartes' project but takes you in a different direction. In any case, develop your own philosophical views in some depth and detail. Don't just state claims; give reasons for reasons. If possible, follow some of the implications of your views. Always consider other viewpoints as you focus your thinking. | Follow Meditations 1 and 2 in your anthology and then read a little bit about what philosophers have said about Descartes' meditations (use the Wikipedia & Routledge Encyclopedia (through Foley). Also, consider the Grau article. Then choose a focus for a paper which evaluates Descartes process of doubt and his claim to have grounded the certainty of knowledge. You might give a "close reading" of Descartes text or you might focus on an issue connects generally with Descartes' project but takes you in a different direction. In any case, develop your own philosophical views in some depth and detail. Don't just state claims; give reasons for reasons. If possible, follow some of the implications of your views. Always consider other viewpoints as you focus your thinking. | ||
| − | ==The Problem of Induction in Empiricist Epistemology== | + | ===The Problem of Induction in Empiricist Epistemology=== |
After reading Hospers, "A Pragmatic Solution to the Problem of Induction," and Kahane and Tidman, "The Problem of Induction - Old and New," evaluate Hospers solution to the problem of induction and make your own statement about the problem, drawing upon your reading. | After reading Hospers, "A Pragmatic Solution to the Problem of Induction," and Kahane and Tidman, "The Problem of Induction - Old and New," evaluate Hospers solution to the problem of induction and make your own statement about the problem, drawing upon your reading. | ||
| − | ==Empiricism and other sources of knowledge== | + | ===Empiricism and other sources of knowledge=== |
Evaluate the claim that empiricism is a rich enough epistemology to ground all of our knowledge and certainty about the world. Reconstruct a general account of how empiricists claim to know the world, then consider various ways of critiquing that account. Consider a variety of philosophical options, including the possibility that empiricism, take broadly, is as useful for knowing God or Justice as it is for knowing physical reality. Consider also the possibility that there are other kinds of "belief states" or certainty that empiricism may not give us access to. As always develop and defend your view against opposing views. | Evaluate the claim that empiricism is a rich enough epistemology to ground all of our knowledge and certainty about the world. Reconstruct a general account of how empiricists claim to know the world, then consider various ways of critiquing that account. Consider a variety of philosophical options, including the possibility that empiricism, take broadly, is as useful for knowing God or Justice as it is for knowing physical reality. Consider also the possibility that there are other kinds of "belief states" or certainty that empiricism may not give us access to. As always develop and defend your view against opposing views. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===Pragmatism=== | ||
| + | |||
| + | In light of your reading of James, "Pragmatism's Conception of Truth," (and other sources) give your own reconstruction and assessment of pragmatism as an epistemology. Consider strengths and weaknesses from class discussion. | ||
==Personal Identity== | ==Personal Identity== | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===Personal Identity=== | ||
Review the major positions on personal identity and provide and defend your own view in relation to these positions. You may choose to focus on one or more of the readings (such as the brain thought experiments) or you you work with the general positions themselves and bring your own relfection to bear on them. | Review the major positions on personal identity and provide and defend your own view in relation to these positions. You may choose to focus on one or more of the readings (such as the brain thought experiments) or you you work with the general positions themselves and bring your own relfection to bear on them. | ||
==Free Will== | ==Free Will== | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | ===Free Will=== | ||
Give your own analysis of the problem of free will. Be sure to defend your conception of free will in addition to considering the strengths and weakness of major positions. | Give your own analysis of the problem of free will. Be sure to defend your conception of free will in addition to considering the strengths and weakness of major positions. | ||
Latest revision as of 16:06, 31 October 2008
Return to Human Nature main page.
Contents
Classical Philosophy
Stoicism and Epicureanism
Compare and contrast the Stoic and Epicurean accounts of the causes of human suffering and the conditions for human happiness. What elements of their theories of virtue, pleasure and happiness would you consider adopting or rejecting? Why?
Buddhism
Topic A: Write a paper on the Buddhist theory of dependent origin, evaluating it in both literal and metaphorical terms. Does it have explanatory power? Consider how it might suggest specific insights that support the Buddhist philosophical point of view.
Topic B: Reconstruct and evaluate the Buddhist rationale for the 8 fold path.
Epistemology
Descartes and Radical Doubt
Follow Meditations 1 and 2 in your anthology and then read a little bit about what philosophers have said about Descartes' meditations (use the Wikipedia & Routledge Encyclopedia (through Foley). Also, consider the Grau article. Then choose a focus for a paper which evaluates Descartes process of doubt and his claim to have grounded the certainty of knowledge. You might give a "close reading" of Descartes text or you might focus on an issue connects generally with Descartes' project but takes you in a different direction. In any case, develop your own philosophical views in some depth and detail. Don't just state claims; give reasons for reasons. If possible, follow some of the implications of your views. Always consider other viewpoints as you focus your thinking.
The Problem of Induction in Empiricist Epistemology
After reading Hospers, "A Pragmatic Solution to the Problem of Induction," and Kahane and Tidman, "The Problem of Induction - Old and New," evaluate Hospers solution to the problem of induction and make your own statement about the problem, drawing upon your reading.
Empiricism and other sources of knowledge
Evaluate the claim that empiricism is a rich enough epistemology to ground all of our knowledge and certainty about the world. Reconstruct a general account of how empiricists claim to know the world, then consider various ways of critiquing that account. Consider a variety of philosophical options, including the possibility that empiricism, take broadly, is as useful for knowing God or Justice as it is for knowing physical reality. Consider also the possibility that there are other kinds of "belief states" or certainty that empiricism may not give us access to. As always develop and defend your view against opposing views.
Pragmatism
In light of your reading of James, "Pragmatism's Conception of Truth," (and other sources) give your own reconstruction and assessment of pragmatism as an epistemology. Consider strengths and weaknesses from class discussion.
Personal Identity
Personal Identity
Review the major positions on personal identity and provide and defend your own view in relation to these positions. You may choose to focus on one or more of the readings (such as the brain thought experiments) or you you work with the general positions themselves and bring your own relfection to bear on them.
Free Will
Free Will
Give your own analysis of the problem of free will. Be sure to defend your conception of free will in addition to considering the strengths and weakness of major positions.
