Choose only ONE of these topics that come most fluidly to yo
Choose only ONE of these topics that come most fluidly to you.Write a 3-4 page paper (double-spaced) on one of the following topics. Papers will be graded onthe basis of clarity, insight, organization, and depth of argumentation.Brief general note on philosophy papers: Generally, one is not looking merely for your opinionon any given topic — though a thesis ought to be clearly stated. Rather, at least as important arethe reasons for your opinion. That is, your view ought to be made to seem reasonable to thereader, and simply declaring what your view is does not do that. For example, in class, we havenot just stated the standard opinion that the verificationist theory of meaning is wrong, but wehave given reasons to think that it is wrong. If we were doing an even more thorough job, wewould explore possible responses to those reasons — and even responses to those responses.When at its best, philosophy is the practice of evaluating positions using rational considerations.Thus, the reasons for your thesis are rather important philosophically. At a minimum, the reasonsyou give ought to be sufficient to make your view seem somewhat plausible. Of course, onecannot argue for everything since some things have to be taken for granted as reasonable. But, itis good to show awareness of what you are taking for granted, when you do take something forgranted. Ideally, the things you take for granted ought to be views held in common by whoeveryou take yourself to be arguing against so that there is some chance that they will be persuaded. 1) Since we have spent relatively little time on any individual thinker (or group of thinkers likethe logical positivists), it is reasonable to think that their views have been presented — bothin the textbook and in lecture — in a way that is not terribly fair to the person beingdiscussed. That is, one might think either that 1) their actual views had to be moresophisticated than presented or 2) even if their actual views were not more sophisticated, it ispossible to make their views more plausible while preserving the core of the view. Either bylooking more deeply into the view of a certain person (or group of people) that we havestudied or by thinking up a reasonable defense on your own, argue (i.e. give reasons) that atleast one objection to the view that we discussed can be successfully answered. (Althoughcertain figures were mentioned in class, we did not study Hegel, Heidegger, Adler or Freud.When in doubt about whether we studied a figure, consult your TA or me.) Here is anexample: a. We dismissed Popper by noting that holism about testability suggests that notheory is straightforwardly (or “outright”) falsifiable since one may always placethe blame for a bad prediction on something other than the theory. But, maybePopper doesn’t need to think that theories are straightforwardly falsifiable tosolve the demarcation problem. Perhaps we only defeated a rather crude andsimplistic version of his view. How could his view be made to be moresophisticated while still solving the demarcation problem? 2) Another thing one might think is that the views that we have dismissed really cannot be mademore sophisticated without rejecting a core element of the view. One way to argue this is tosuggest the most reasonable response to a certain objection to the view and then to suggestthat that response will contradict other elements of the thinker’s views. For example: a. One might think that if Popper doesn’t think that theories are outright falsifiable(because of holism about testability) then he thinks instead that we are sometimesjustified in thinking that theories are false even if they might be true. But, it can,at least, look as if that claim contradicts his view that induction is unjustified; wecome to a conclusion that is not guaranteed by our evidence. If it does, then itdoesn’t seem that his view can be made more sophisticated without leading tointernal contradiction. Can it? 3) In the online forum, it was suggested that a key difference between “green” and “grue” is thatI can tell purely observationally whether something is green whereas I cannot tell whethersomething is grue by observation alone. For example, if I become confused about what yearit is and I am unsure whether it is currently 2020 or 2050, if you show me something green, Iwill be able to tell you that it is green by looking at it (assuming reasonable lighting), but ifyou ask me whether it is grue, I won’t know. (It is grue if it was first observed before 2030and it is not grue, if it wasn’t. But I don’t know whether it was or wasn’t in the imaginedscenario.) Why would the fact that one can observe whether something is green but notwhether something is grue suggest that the all emeralds are green induction is more cogentthan the induction that concludes that all emeralds are grue? Alternatively, argue that it isn’tthat fact that suggests that the one induction is better than the other. One way to do thatwould be to argue that it is some other fact that suggests it. Another way is just to arguedirectly that it isn’t that fact without giving a positive suggestion as to what fact it, instead, is. 4) Has Quine provided convincing reasons to think that there are no analytic truths, that everystatement could, in principle, be given up as a response to experiment? If you think he has,why not think that when we come to reject a sentence that we previously took to be analytic,we have simply changed the meanings of the words it contains? For example, though theremight be an observation that might make us say “There are non-male bachelors”, one mightthink that we are now simply using the word “bachelor” with a different meaning than before.The idea here is that using the original meaning of “bachelor”, “bachelors are male” reallywas an analytic truth. All he has shown, one might think, is that we can change the meaningsof words, but that is obvious insofar as you and I could set up a code in which the word“bachelor” means anything we like and it isn’t clear why that fact would show that there areno analytic truths. If, on the other hand, you think Quine hasn’t shown that there are noanalytic truths, why do so many putative examples of analytic truths seem not to really be so.For example, most would say that “Bicycles have two wheels” is an analytic truth, butbicycles with four wheels (including two additional “training wheels”) are routine and wellknown to us. So it looks as if it is not straightforwardly part of the meaning of “bicycle” thata bicycle has only two wheels. Why not think that other putative examples of analytic truthsare exactly like this in not really being analytic? Perhaps we just lack the ability to imaginetheir falsity, but they could be false.GRADING RUBRIC:I will grade based on the following categories:Organization (40 points)30 points: Paper structure and clarityStructure – does the order in which you present your ideas to make your argument makesense?Clarity – is there a clearly stated thesis that directly addresses the prompt? Does theentirety of the paper support that individual thesis in a cogent manner?10 points: StyleFlow – are the transitions between sentences and paragraphs purposive?Writing style – are you writing philosophically (clearly, deliberately, and withoutunnecessary “flowery” language or jargon)?Quotes vs. paraphrase – do you paraphrase content, rather than use direct quotes?Citations – did you include all necessary citations?*Spelling and grammarContent (60 points)30 points: Strength of argumentConciseness – do you avoid repetition and include only relevant and necessary details?Completeness – have you answered all parts of the prompt fully?Dialectic – do the claims you make, as presented, interact logically and cohesively?Accuracy – are you true to the text?Precision – do you avoid ambiguity?30 points: Comprehension of course materialsDo you display a clear, well-rounded understanding of the text?I will provide brief comments and a fial breakdown of points by category when I return your papers.Organization: x/40Paper structure: x1/30Style: x2/10Content: y/80Philosophical argument: y1/30Comprehension: y2/30Overall: x+y/100*A word on citations: When in doubt, cite. Any style (MLA, Chicago, APA) is fine but be consistent.Lack of citation is plagiarism and will be treated as such. I will be more strict about this policy on yourfinals than I was on midterms. For minor citation issues (i.e. lack of citation when required) I will deduct2 points. For larger plagiarism issues, I will send your paper to Professor Smith, who will decide how toproceed. Include authors, year published, and page numbers, like (Godfrey-Smith 2020, 31).
Collepals.com Plagiarism Free Papers
Are you looking for custom essay writing service or even dissertation writing services? Just request for our write my paper service, and we'll match you with the best essay writer in your subject! With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.
Get ZERO PLAGIARISM, HUMAN WRITTEN ESSAYS
Why Hire Collepals.com writers to do your paper?
Quality- We are experienced and have access to ample research materials.
We write plagiarism Free Content
Confidential- We never share or sell your personal information to third parties.
Support-Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.
