SECOND PAPER

Due at the beginning of class (2pm), Wednesday December 1, 1999. This should be a 4-5 page typed, doubled-spaced paper. Include your name and your TA's name on the front. Late papers will be penalized at a rate of one letter-grade per day.

You have the option of submitting a rough draft of your paper to your TA by 2pm on Monday November 22. Your TA will return it to you with comments on Monday November 29, and the final draft will be due at the normal time. Assessment is based on the final draft. This process is optional but recommended, both to improve your paper and to improve your grade.

• Writing a Philosophy Paper (Peter Horban)
• Guide to the Study of Philosophy (Garth Kemerling)
• What Does He Want? (Geoffrey Payzant)
• Undergraduate Philosophical Writing (Martin Young)
• Guidelines on Writing a Philosophy Paper (James Pryor)

1. Present and explain Jackson's argument against materialism. Critically assess the argument. Is it valid? Are the premises true? What would an intelligent opponent (say, Jackson if you are arguing against him, or a smart materialist if you agree with Jackson) say to rebut your analysis? Present their case as strongly as possible, then rebut it.

2. Present and explain Chalmers' distinction between the "easy" and the "hard" problems of consciousness, and his argument that no purely physical approach can solve the hard problem. Critically assess the argument. Does it establish its conclusion? What would an intelligent opponent say to rebut your analysis? Present their case as strongly as possible, then rebut it.

3. Present and explain either the "perfect actor" or "super-Spartan" argument against behaviorism. Put the argument in the form of a formal argument, and then critically assess it. Is it valid? Are the premises true? What would an intelligent opponent say to rebut your analysis? Present their case as strongly as possible, then rebut it.

4. An argument against free will runs as follows: (1) If determinism is true, we have no free will, (2) Determinism is true, so (3) We have no free will. Assess the argument. If you do not accept the conclusion, which premise do you reject, and why? Depending on your choice, defend your position by answering the following questions, with reasons:

If you reject premise 1: How can free will be compatible with determinism? Isn't a deterministic life like a boat that is steering down a single underlying track with no freedom? How can we make sense of moral responsibility and choice if all actions are predetermined?

If you reject premise 2: How can nondeterminism support free will any better? If decisions are determined by random dice-rolling, is this really something that we have control over? And if we control the dice-rolling, isn't that determinism after all?

If you accept the conclusion: If there is no free will, how can there be moral responsibility? What is the difference between actions we are responsible for and actions we are not responsible for, if it is not the fact that we chose freely? If there is no freedom or moral responsibility, is it fair to punish people for acts for which they were not responsible?

FIRST PAPER

Due at the beginning of class (2pm), Monday October 4, 1999. This should be a 4-5 page typed, doubled-spaced paper. Include your name and your TA's name on the front. Late papers will be penalized at a rate of one letter-grade per day.

1. Present and explain one of Descartes' arguments for his version of dualism. Critically assess the argument. Is it valid? Are the premises true? What would an intelligent opponent (say, Descartes if you are arguing against him, or a smart materialist if you agree with Descartes) say to rebut your analysis? Present their case as strongly as possible, then rebut it.

2. Smullyan's piece "An Unfortunate Dualist" is intended to cast doubt on dualism. Set out explicitly the argument that you think is underlying Smullyan's reasoning. Critically assess this argument (validity and premises). How would a (smart) interactionist respond? How would a (smart) epiphenomenalist respond? What do you think the upshot is?

3. Present Descartes' skeptical challenge (for the conclusion that we cannot know about external reality) in the form of an argument. Critically assess this argument (validity and premises). If you think the argument fails and that you can know that external reality exists, say how you think this knowledge is possible. If you think the argument succeeds, what do you think the upshot is? Either way: what would an intelligent oppnent say to rebut your analysis, and how would you respond?

4. You are Keanu Reeves (Neo) in "The Matrix". Laurence Fishburne (Morpheus) finds you and tells you that you are in the Matrix, and says he will help you return to the real world. Is there any way for you to truly know that you are in the Matrix to start with, or that you are in reality later? If yes, could the movie situation be modified so that you could not know these things? If you cannot truly know, is it rational for you to believe that you are in the Matrix at the beginning or that you are in the reality later? Give reasons in every case, present at least some aspect of your reasoning in the form of a formal argument, and answer objections from an intelligent opponent who would disagree with you. What does this situation teach us about knowledge and external reality, and why?

Bonus question: (no formal credit for this, but fun): Are there any philosophical flaws in the movie "The Matrix"? Give reasons.

INDV 101 home page