DOCSLIB.ORG

Paper Topics and Guidelines

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Paper Topics and Guidelines Paper Topics and Guidelines 1. Assignment: Write an argumentative essay of 1500-1800 words (~5-6 pages), on some philosophical topic from this course. 2. Due Date: Due Friday, 4/27, at the beginning of class. By that time, please turn in a paper copy in class AND upload a digital copy to Blackboard (click on PHIL 232 Assignments Paper Scroll down to Attach File, and click Browse My Computer) 3. Late Penalty: Late papers will be penalized: Turn it in between 12:01 - 11:59pm, 4/27, –10 points (out of 100). Receive –2 points for each additional 24 hour period after that. 4. Suggested Topics: You will argue for or against some philosophical position in the context of the philosophers and texts we have discussed. Below are some suggestions. Note: You may design your own thesis based on ANY topic from our course, but you must first get instructor approval for any topic NOT listed below. 1) Freedom and Foreknowledge: Present the problem of human freedom vs. divine foreknowledge, as well as Boethius’s solution to that problem. Then, argue either that his solution is successful, or unsuccessful. Alternatively: You may defend or reject Ockham’s solution to this problem. 2) The Nature of Free Will: Present Anselm’s theory of the nature free will as laid out in his On Freedom of Choice & On the Fall of the Devil (especially his thesis of the dual wills) and argue that his theory is satisfactory, or unsatisfactory. 3) The Nature of Sin: Present Abelard’s view of sin (where sin is located solely in intentions rather than in actions—which, he says, are morally indifferent), and argue that this view is correct, or mistaken. Alternatively: Present Abelard’s theory of the nature of sin, as well as the problem of moral luck (i.e., the fact that we often praise or blame people based on factors outside of their control; we even reward or punish them differently, though their sin, or lack of sin, is identical—and this seems unjust). Then, present his explanation for why this practice is nevertheless permissible, and argue that his stance is satisfactory, or unsatisfactory. 4) The Cosmological Argument: Present Avicenna’s cosmological argument for the existence of God, and argue that it is successful, or unsuccessful. 5) Divine Command Theory: Drawing on the writings of Scotus and Ockham, present the (Euthyphro) dilemma regarding the relationship between God and morality. Present their solution to that dilemma (i.e., Divine Command Theory), and argue that their stance is satisfactory, or unsatisfactory. (Be sure to assess the pros and cons of each horn of the dilemma along the way.) 5. How to Begin: First, decide which of the above topics you want to discuss. Then decide what stance you will take regarding that issue. Did any particular topic or reading excite you? Do you feel passionate about any of these issues? Write about that. 6. Structure: Once you have decided your topic, you will write a paper where you introduce some philosophical view, argument, or problem. As you explain it, be sure to motivate it (i.e., make it sound plausible to the reader that it might be a sound argument, or that the problem is a legitimate and troubling problem, etc.). Then, critically grapple with what you’ve presented by way of, e.g., raising objections to the argument you’ve presented, or problems for the view you’ve presented, or a potential solution to the problem you’ve presented, etc. You will then evaluate these objections, or this solution, by explaining why they are unsuccessful, or successful. Then add a concluding remark, explaining what conclusion the reader should draw from your discussion. For instance, if you were writing on topic #1, you may want to use something like the following structure: Sample Structure for: Freedom and Foreknowledge (Boethius) (a) Write a brief introduction explaining what you are about to do. Be sure that your paper has a clear thesis. That is, you are trying to persuade the reader to agree with you about something (for instance, that Boethius has successfully solved the problem of freedom vs. foreknowledge). (b) Explain what the problem of human freedom vs. divine foreknowledge is. (c) Provide the details of Boethius’s solution to that problem. How does he arrive at his solution? And why does he think that his proposal has solved the problem? (Keep in mind that, as this is a course in the history of philosophy, one of your most important tasks will be to bring to life the words and ideas of some historical figure—in this case, Boethius.) (d) Critically assess Boethius’s proposal. Is he successful? Why or why not? Either way, the first step toward critically assessing his proposal is to come up with potential (and plausible) objections to that proposal. (e) How does (or, how might) Boethius reply to these criticisms? If you are defending Boethius’s solution, you will need to explain why you think that Boethius is able to give a satisfactory reply to the objections. If you are rejecting Boethius’s solution, you will need to explain why you think that any reply he might give to those objections would not be satisfactory. (f) Write a brief conclusion summarizing what you have just done. You should also check out these guides on how to write a philosophy paper—especially if this is the first one that you’ve ever written: from CU Boulder professor Michael Huemer (sections A & B only) from W&M professor Aaron Griffith 7. Grading Rubric: Primarily, I will be looking for two things when I assign grades: (1) Clarity: Do you explain yourself in a way that is clear, concise, persuasive, and well-organized? Imagine that you are writing for someone who has never taken a philosophy course. Your writing should be clear enough so that they would (a) easily understand you, (b) would learn something new about a philosophical problem and the ideas of a historical figure, and (c) maybe even be persuaded by you. (2) Critical Reasoning: Does your treatment of the view demonstrate your ability to think critically? It should be apparent that you have thought about the view and the objections carefully, that you understand their implications, and that you have put some thought into your response. 8. Academic Dishonesty: As per the syllabus, any student caught cheating or plagiarizing will automatically receive an F for the course. Plagiarism is defined as any case of presenting someone else’s work as your own (e.g., by copying an internet source, another student’s work or ideas, or any other source at all without citation). So, be sure to cite any and all ideas that are not your own. Note: I will not require you to cite ideas gained from the assigned readings and/or my lectures. However, do not simply turn in a copy or a re-wording of the readings, podcasts, or my notes. That is still plagiarism. .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • RELG 399 Fall2019
    McGill University School of Religious Studies RELG 399 TEXTS OF CHRISTIAN SPIRITUALITY (Late Antiquity) In the Fall Term of 2019 this seminar course will focus on Christian spirituality in Late Antiquity with close study and interpretation of Aurelius Augustine’s spiritual odyssey the Confessiones, his account of creation in De genesi ad litteram, and his handbook of hermeneutics De doctrina Christiana. We will also read Ancius Manlius Severinus Boethius’s treatment of theodicy in De consolatione philosophiae, his De Trinitate, and selections from De Musica. Professor: Torrance Kirby Office Hours: Birks 206, Tuesdays/Thursdays, 10:00–11:00 am Email: [email protected] Birks Building, Room 004A Tuesdays/Thursdays 4:05–5:25 pm COURSE SYLLABUS—FALL TERM 2019 Date Reading 3 September INTRODUCTION 5 September Aurelius Augustine, Confessiones Book I, Early Years 10 September Book II, Theft of Pears 12 September Book III, Adolescence and Student Life 17 September Book IV, Manichee and Astrologer 19 September Book V, Carthage, Rome, and Milan *Confirm Mid-Term Essay Topics (1500-2000 words) (NB Consult the Style Sheet, essay-writing guidelines and evaluation rubric in the appendix to the syllabus.) 24 September Book VI, Secular Ambitions and Conflicts 26 September Book VII, Neoplatonic Quest for the Good 1 October Book VIII, Tolle, lege; tolle, lege 3 October Book IX, Vision at Ostia 8 October Book X, 1-26 Memory *Mid-term Essays due at beginning of class. Essay Conferences to be scheduled for week of 21 October 10 October Book X, 27-43 “Late have I loved you” 15 October Book XI, Time and Eternity 17 October Book XII, Creation Essay Conferences begin this week, Birks 206.
    [Show full text]
  • Intellectual Elitism and the Need for Faith in Maimonides and Aquinas
    INTELLECTUAL ELITISM AND THE NEED FOR FAITH Intellectual elitism and the need for faith in Maimonides and Aquinas Elitismo intelectual y la necesidad de la fe según Maimónides y Tomás de Aquino FRANCISCO ROMERO CARRASQUILLO Departamento de Humanidades Universidad Panamericana 45010 Zapopan, Jalisco (México) [email protected] Abstract: In his Commentary on Boethius’ De Resumen: En su Comentario al De Trinitate de Trinitate 3.1, Aquinas cites Maimonides as Boecio 3.1, Tomás de Aquino cita a Maimóni- giving fi ve reasons for the need for faith. Yet des, de quien afi rma que presenta cinco ra- interpreters tend to see Aquinas as “stand- zones a favor de la necesidad de la fe. Los in- ing Maimonides on his head”. In this paper, térpretes suelen ver a Tomás de Aquino como the author places Maimonides’ text (on the si “hubiera puesto a Maimónides de cabeza”. five reasons for concealing metaphysics) En el presente artículo se retoma el texto de within the context of his rational mysticism Maimónides (acerca de las cinco razones por and compares it to Aquinas’ own Christian las que la metafísica debe reservarse a los mystical thought in an attempt to show that doctos y ocultarse a las masas), y se sitúa en el in his own mind Aquinas is not misquoting, contexto de su misticismo racional. Compa- reversing, or doing violence to Maimonides’ rándolo con el pensamiento místico cristiano text; rather, Aquinas is completing Maimon- de Tomás de Aquino, se muestra cómo éste ides’ natural, rational mysticism with what he no está citando erróneamente, ni invirtiendo understands to be the supernatural perfec- ni violentando el texto de Maimónides; más tion of the theological virtue of faith.
    [Show full text]
  • Bonaventure's Threefold Way to God
    BONAVENTURE’S THREE-FOLD WAY TO GOD R. E. Houser Though he became Minister General of the Franciscan Order in 1257, Bonaventure’s heart never left the University of Paris, and during his generalate he delivered three sets of “collations” or university sermons at Paris. On 10 December 1270 Itienne Tempier, bishop of Paris, had condemned certain erroneous propositions. Bonaventure ruminated over these matters, and in the Spring of 1273 delivered his magisterial Collations on the Hexameron.1 Left 1 For Bonaventure’s dates see J.G. Bougerol, Introduction a l’étude de saint Bonaventure 2nd ed. (Paris: Vrin, 1988); J. Quinn, “Bonaventure” Dict. of the M.A. 2: 313-9. On the circumstances of the Collations, one friar noted: “But oh, no, no, no! Since the reverend Lord and Master who gave out this work has been elevated to a sublime position, and is leaving his way of life [as a friar], those attending his sermons have not received what was to follow [the missing last three collations]. This work was read and composed at Paris, in the year of our Lord 1273, from Easter to Pentecost, there being present Masters and Bachelors of Theology and other brothers, in the number of 160.” Bonaventure, Opera Omnia (ed. Quaracchi) 5: 450 n. 10; Coll. in Hex. ed. F. Delorme (Quaracchi: 1934) 275. 92 unfinished owing to his elevation to the cardinalate, in them he read the first chapter of Genesis spiritually, distinguishing seven levels of “vision” corresponding to the seven days of creation. The first level is “understanding naturally given” or philosophy, divided into logic, physics, and ethics.
    [Show full text]
  • John M. Hill Chaucer's Neoplatonism
    John M. Hill Chaucer’s Neoplatonism: Varieties of Love, Friendship, and Community Jonathan Fruoco To cite this version: Jonathan Fruoco. John M. Hill Chaucer’s Neoplatonism: Varieties of Love, Friendship, and Commu- nity. 2019. hal-01995227 HAL Id: hal-01995227 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01995227 Submitted on 26 Jan 2019 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. JOHN M. HILL. Chaucer’s Neoplatonism: Varieties of Love, Friendship, and Community. Lanham-Boulder-New York-London, Lexington Books, 2018. Pp. 201. $95.00. It would certainly be difficult to count the number of monographs studying the Boethian nature of Geoffrey Chaucer’s poetry. Readers and literary critics from the past centuries have long recognised that connexion and studied how Chaucer went through The Consolation of Philosophy for his own understanding of Love’s binding principle, or for notions such as providence, fate, and free will. John M. Hill’s detailed analysis in Chaucer’s Neoplatonism: Varieties of Love, Friendship, and Community follows that critical tradition but accomplishes, however, a rare feat: indeed, for a study underlying the importance of old books in the production of new science, to paraphrase Chaucer, Hill brilliantly manages to absorb past criticism and to offer something new on the subject.
    [Show full text]
  • Divine Omnipotence in Descartes' Philosophy
    City University of New York (CUNY) CUNY Academic Works All Dissertations, Theses, and Capstone Projects Dissertations, Theses, and Capstone Projects 6-2014 Divine Omnipotence In Descartes' Philosophy Alfredo Rodriguez Graduate Center, City University of New York How does access to this work benefit ou?y Let us know! More information about this work at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu/gc_etds/274 Discover additional works at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu This work is made publicly available by the City University of New York (CUNY). Contact: [email protected] DIVINE OMNIPOTENCE IN DESCARTES’ PHILOSOPHY BY ALFREDO RODRIGUEZ A master's thesis submitted to the Graduate Faculty in Liberal Studies in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts, The City University of New York 2014 © 2014 Alfredo Rodriguez All Rights Reserved ii This manuscript has been read and accepted for the Graduate Faculty in Liberal Studies in satisfaction of the requirement for the degree of Master of Arts. Professor Douglas Lackey Date Thesis Adviser Professor Matthew K. Gold Date Executive Officer THE CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK iii Abstract Divine Omnipotence in Descartes’ Philosophy by Alfredo Rodriguez Adviser: Professor Douglas Lackey The present thesis explores various aspects of Rene Descartes’ doctrine of divine omnipotence within the context of his overall philosophy and with reference to his medieval heritage. This thesis shows that, contrary to his multiple and explicit statements that God’s power cannot be limited in any way, Descartes took a more nuanced position on divine omnipotence that incorporated aspects of the widely accepted medieval position that God’s goodness is a constraint on his power.
    [Show full text]
  • “Anselm of Canterbury,” Pp. 138-151 in Jorge JE Gracia and Timothy B
    Jasper Hopkins, “Anselm of Canterbury,” pp. 138-151 in Jorge J. E. Gracia and Timothy B. Noone, editors, A Companion to Philosophy in the Middle Ages. Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell, 2003. Reprinted here by permission of the pub- lisher (Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, England). The short bibliography on pp. 150-151 is here excluded. Anselm of Canterbury JASPER HOPKINS Anselm (b. 1033; d. 1109) flourished during the period of the Norman Conquest of England (1066), the call by Pope Urban II to the First Crusade (1095), and the strident Investiture Controversy. This latter dispute pitted Popes Gregory VII, Urban II, and Paschal II against the monarchs of Europe in regard to just who had the right—whether kings or bishops—to invest bishops and archbishops with their ecclesiastical offices. It is not surprising that R. W. Southern, Anselm’s present-day biographer, speaks of Anselm’s life as covering “one of the most momentous periods of change in European history, comparable to the centuries of the Reformation or the Industrial Revolution” (1990, p. 4). Yet it is ironic that Anselm, who began as a simple monk shunning all desire for fame, should nonetheless today have become one of the most famous intellectual figures of the Middle Ages. And it is even more ironic that this judgment holds true in spite of the fact that he wrote only eleven treatises or dia- logues (not to mention his three meditations, nineteen prayers, and 374 letters). Anselm was born in Aosta, today a part of Italy but in Anselm’s time a part of the Kingdom of Burgundy.
    [Show full text]
  • Supplementary Anselm-Bibliography 11
    SUPPLEMENTARY ANSELM-BIBLIOGRAPHY This bibliography is supplementary to the bibliographies contained in the following previous works of mine: J. Hopkins, A Companion to the Study of St. Anselm. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1972. _________. Anselm of Canterbury: Volume Four: Hermeneutical and Textual Problems in the Complete Treatises of St. Anselm. New York: Mellen Press, 1976. _________. A New, Interpretive Translation of St. Anselm’s Monologion and Proslogion. Minneapolis: Banning Press, 1986. Abulafia, Anna S. “St Anselm and Those Outside the Church,” pp. 11-37 in David Loades and Katherine Walsh, editors, Faith and Identity: Christian Political Experience. Oxford: Blackwell, 1990. Adams, Marilyn M. “Saint Anselm’s Theory of Truth,” Documenti e studi sulla tradizione filosofica medievale, I, 2 (1990), 353-372. _________. “Fides Quaerens Intellectum: St. Anselm’s Method in Philosophical Theology,” Faith and Philosophy, 9 (October, 1992), 409-435. _________. “Praying the Proslogion: Anselm’s Theological Method,” pp. 13-39 in Thomas D. Senor, editor, The Rationality of Belief and the Plurality of Faith. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1995. _________. “Satisfying Mercy: St. Anselm’s Cur Deus Homo Reconsidered,” The Modern Schoolman, 72 (January/March, 1995), 91-108. _________. “Elegant Necessity, Prayerful Disputation: Method in Cur Deus Homo,” pp. 367-396 in Paul Gilbert et al., editors, Cur Deus Homo. Rome: Prontificio Ateneo S. Anselmo, 1999. _________. “Romancing the Good: God and the Self according to St. Anselm of Canterbury,” pp. 91-109 in Gareth B. Matthews, editor, The Augustinian Tradition. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1999. _________. “Re-reading De Grammatico or Anselm’s Introduction to Aristotle’s Categories,” Documenti e studi sulla tradizione filosofica medievale, XI (2000), 83-112.
    [Show full text]
  • THE ROYAL FRAGMENT the Royal Fragment of Heraclitus May Be
    THE ROYAL FRAGMENT The Royal Fragment of Heraclitus may be carried over into English thus: Moderation is the greatest virtue and wisdom is to speak the truth and to act, according to nature, giving ear thereto.1 The Royal Fragment commands all that is most necessary in pursuing and attaining wisdom, but it is above our understanding in the brevity of its universal power.2 Hence, it is necessary to divide the universal thought of Heraclitus into less universal thoughts which are more proportioned to our minds. The chief part of the Royal Fragment is the second part which says that “wisdom is to speak the truth and to act, according to nature, giving ear thereto”. But before this main part, Heraclitus says that “moderation is the greatest virtue”. By itself, or as a statement in ethics, these words would be a paradox to the Greeks. Is not courage, for example, which defends one’s country a greater virtue? But Heraclitus is not making a statement in ethics here. His words are joined by the conjunction and to the second and main part of the fragment and they must be understood in reference to the second and main part. There are three reasons why Heraclitus begins with the words “Moderation is the greatest virtue”. The first reason is to help us understand better what is said in the second part and also avoid a misunderstanding of what is meant there. 1Dk 112 2Commenting on the words of the Epistle to the Romans , Chapter 9, v. 28, Thomas explains the connection of the two things said of the word: "...primo, ponit efficaciam evangelici verbi, dicens Verbum enim consummans et abbrevians in aequitate.
    [Show full text]
  • Chaucer and the Disconsolations of Philosophy: Boethius, Agency, and Literary
    Chaucer and the Disconsolations of Philosophy: Boethius, Agency, and Literary Form in Late Medieval Literature by Jack Harding Bell Department of English Duke University Date:_______________________ Approved: ___________________________ David Aers, Supervisor ___________________________ Sarah Beckwith ___________________________ Thomas Pfau ___________________________ Nancy Armstrong Dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of English in the Graduate School of Duke University 2016 ABSTRACT Chaucer and the Disconsolations of Philosophy: Boethius, Agency, and Literary Form in Late Medieval Literature by Jack Harding Bell Department of English Duke University Date:_______________________ Approved: ___________________________ David Aers, Supervisor ___________________________ Sarah Beckwith ___________________________ Thomas Pfau ___________________________ Nancy Armstrong An abstract of a dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of English in the Graduate School of Duke University 2016 Copyright by Jack Harding Bell 2016 Abstract This study argues that Chaucer's poetry belongs to a far-reaching conversation about the forms of consolation (philosophical, theological, and poetic) that are available to human persons. Chaucer's entry point to this conversation was Boethius's Consolation of Philosophy , a sixth-century dialogue that tried to show how the Stoic ideals of autonomy and self-possession are not simply normative for human beings but remain within the grasp of every individual. Drawing on biblical commentary, consolation literature, and political theory, this study contends that Chaucer's interrogation of the moral and intellectual ideals of the Consolation took the form of philosophical disconsolations: scenes of profound poetic rupture in which a character, sometimes even Chaucer himself, turns to philosophy for solace and yet fails to be consoled.
    [Show full text]
  • The Guilt of Boethius
    The Guilt of Boethius Nathan Basik Copyright © 2000 by Nathan Basik. All rights reserved. This document may be copied and circu- lated freely, in printed or digital form, provided only that this notice of copyright is included on all pages copied. 2 Introduction In the nineteenth century, Benjamin Jowett spent over thirty years translat- ing Plato’s Republic. That is an extreme example of perfectionism, but it helps us appreciate the magnitude (and the hubris) of the goal Boethius set for himself in the Introduction to his translation of Aristotle’s De Interpretatione: translating, analyzing, and reconciling the complete opera of Plato and Aristotle.1 As “incom- parably the greatest scholar and intellect of his day,”2 Boethius may have had the ability and the energy his ambition required. But we will never know how much Boethius would have achieved as a philosopher if he had not suffered a premature death. In 523, less than a year after being named Magister Officiorum3 by King Theodoric, Boethius was charged with treason, hastily and possibly illegally tried, and executed in 526.4 Since the contemporary sources of information about the affair are vague and fragmented, the passage of nearly 1500 years has brought no consensus in explaining Boethius’ tragic fall from a brilliant intellectual and political career. Though disagreement still shrouds the details of every aspect of the case, from indictment to execution, I will argue that Theodoric was fully justified in perceiving Boethius as a traitor. Claims that age or emotional passion or military pressures diminished the King’s judgment are, in this instance, unacceptable.
    [Show full text]
  • The Consolation of Philosophy Anicius Manlius Severinus Boethius
    The Consolation of Philosophy By Anicius Manlius Severinus Boethius Translated from the Latin By W. V. Cooper Published by the Ex-classics Project, 2009 http://www.exclassics.com Public Domain -1- BOETHIUS -2- THE CONSOLATION OF PHILOSOPHY -3- BOETHIUS CONTENTS EDITORIAL NOTE.......................................................................................................5 CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE .......................................................................................6 BOOK I..........................................................................................................................8 BOOK II.......................................................................................................................17 BOOK III .....................................................................................................................28 BOOK IV.....................................................................................................................46 BOOK V ......................................................................................................................61 Publisher's Note ...........................................................................................................72 APPENDIX (See Book II, Prose III) ...........................................................................73 NOTES.........................................................................................................................74 -4- THE CONSOLATION OF PHILOSOPHY EDITORIAL NOTE THE incompatibility
    [Show full text]
  • Four ST. THOMAS AQUINAS and THOMISM
    Four ST. THOMAS AQUINAS AND THOMISM 1. Life of St. Thomas The introduction of Aristotle in the Latin world was not facile or peaceful. The topics on which the ancient and the new thinking had to confront them- selves were the conception of a nature autonomous in its own processes: a God, unmoved motor, wholly by itself (aseity) in its natural egoism; a reality of things, not of spirits; a divine action resembling the work of the human artificer; the surreptitious dualism between pure act and first matter; and a universal necessity controlled not by the free will but by chance. Human be- ings and their souls no longer are the center of reflection; Aristotelian natural- ism is. Averroism has already consolidated its polemic on the contrast be- tween reason and faith, a rational universal and a living individuality, eternity of the world and creation, death and the immortality of the soul, and between the necessary laws of things and providence. An orientation of Christian thought in a Platonic sense seemed highly justifiable. In the Sermones, Bonaventure had declared that Plato was essen- tially concerned with the things above, while Aristotle was mostly interested with the things below (Ille enim principaliter aspiciebat ad superiora, hic vero principaliter ad inferiora). Thomas of York declared that the Platonic position was totally consonant with the thought of Augustine (vide igitur posi- tionem Platonis per omnia consonam sententiae Augustini) and that Augustine had indicated the way to go. What dominated in Platonism were the desire for the divine and the need of escaping from this world.
    [Show full text]