See www.madwizard.com/odyssey.htm
for full Odyssey instructions.
See blam.htm
or www.madwizard.com/logical.htm for instructions on how to do a
logical analysis.
Whatever else you do, your main conclusions should always be based on careful logical analysis.
I've noticed a very
disturbing trend. More and more students are writing their papers without
first reading the prompt for their chosen topic. This results in
students writing papers that have nothing whatsoever to do with the topics
they imagine they are writing about. So far, it's only three or fours
students a semester who do this, but even one such student is deeply
disturbing, So here are three rules that should not need to be stated, but
I'm stating them anyway.
1. Write a paper that specifically responds to the specific
questions asked in the prompt. Don't just read the blurb around
the link to the prompt. Follow the link to the prompt, and
read the prompt. Don't assume you know what the prompt
says without reading it. Don't assume that the prompt means something
different from what it says. Read the prompt, understand it, and do what
it says, even if you personally want to do something completely different.
Philosophy requires people to question assumptions and to think about
things they never thought about before. This is uncomfortable for some
people, but you should not let your discomfort prevent you from thinking
rationally about important topics. Do what the prompt says. Don't do
things that the prompt doesn't tell you to do. If some piece of writing
doesn't help you achieve the goal described in the prompt, that piece of
writing is not worth anything in this assignment. (I don't take points off
except as stated in the general instructions, but writing stuff that's not
worth points is really a waste of time and effort for you. so I suggest
you don't do it.)
2. If you don't understand what the prompt wants, ask your
instructor to explain better. I've had students who turned in
bad papers try to get better grades by claiming they read the prompt but
didn't understand it. If you don't understand the prompt, then you don't
know what to do, so you should ask me to explain it to you. You can do
this by email. Think of it this way: the first mass-market personal
computers were sold as kits for the purchaser to assemble herself. Imagine
you've bought one of these kits, fail to understand the instructions, and
decide to build it anyway. Do you think that a randomly assembled computer
would work? Writing a philosphy paper is actually more
complicated and subtle than assembling a computer from parts, so it
doesn't make sense to think that you could write a successful philosophy
paper without understanding the instructions. More importantly, the
instructions describe the issue, so if you don't understand the
instructions, you don't understand the issue.
3. Don't just
write out your personal beliefs. Don't treat your personal beliefs as
evidence. This is a philosophy class, not an encounter group.
You're entitled to hold and express whatever beliefs you choose to have,
but you cannot earn credit in a philosophy class merely for
saying what you happen to believe. Expressing your personal beliefs in
your paper will not cost you any points, but it will not earn you any
points either. Furthermore, basing a thesis on an unsupported
personal belief is exactly the same as not having an argument at all, and
constitutes deliberate failure. Base your thesis on logical analysis of
the available evidence, not on things you happen to personally believe.
Finally, remember that if you do not follow the prompt for the assignment,
you are not doing the assignment, and I have no problem with giving you zero
points for a paper that does not meet the assignment.
Following are all the topics assigned for my intro class.
The boldface word at the beginning of each paragraph is the name
of that topic. Each stage should be headed with that topic name, your
name, the date and the stage number. You can add any
title you like. Don't include a cover sheet! Click on the topic
name to learn more about that topic. Once you select a topic, click on the
topic name to get the full topic statement. Read it carefully and focus of
the question I actually ask. Don't ignore any part of it, and don't
change the question. I will deduct points for changing or
adding things. If you change the problem significantly you may get zero
points for that stage. If you think the prompt is unclear on any
point, you can mention this and explain your interpretation in your paper.
Part of the reason to assign papers is to encourage intellectual
curiousity. Pick a topic that intrigues you rather than a topic that you
think will be easy. This will pay off for you, since you're more likely to
say interesting and thoughtful things about a topic you like, and the
topics people think are easy usually aren't.
If you care so passionately about some topic that you could not bear
to change your mind, or even to say that your belief is not supported by
reasons, DON'T PICK THAT TOPIC! I'm serious. You're
supposed to figure out what answer is best supported by logic, NOT
take your prexisting ideas and insist that they are
supported by logic, whether they are or not. See defender.htm
for more info on this issue.
If you would like to do some extra research, do it here: The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Topics.
A Dialogue on Personal Identity and Immortality
KYLA
What if you found out that you were really a hologram projected by a
computer? (If you pick this topic, click the link KYLA
and follow the instructions you find there.)
R42 Can a non-human-looking mechanical
body be a person? Can a human-looking body not be a person? (If
you pick this topic, click the link R42
and follow the instructions you find there.)
Non-Human Are there any non-human
people? (If you pick this topic, click the link Non-Human
and follow the instructions you find there.)
What is "free will" and do humans have it?
Do NOT google this topic.
Follow the prompt. The internet does not
understand this issue. and if you mindlessly follow the internet here,
you will find yourself saying foolish things about determinism and free
will. (Edited 10/11/16) (Please
also note that this topic is NOT about
political freedom. Don't tell me that free will exists because people in
America have freedom of speech.) And
don't just assume that determinism rules out free will. If you
want to think that it does you will have to come up with an argument
that connects the two concepts in a way that makes one rule out the
other. Don't make the mistake of thinking you can choose a random
event. If it's random, it can't possibly have been chosen. If you
can't come up with an explicit, detailed argument
that shows exactly how determinism
creates the external coercion that could rule out free will, you should
assume that determinism does not
rule out free will. If you're genuinely interested in the topic of
free will, and think you know how it is different from political and
social freedom, and understand that determinism is nonrandomness,
that
randomness rules out choice, and that determinism cannot just
be assumed to rule out free will, click this link: Free
Will (Remember, do NOT assume
that determinism rules out free will.) (If you pick this
topic, click the link Free Will
and follow the instructions you find there.)
Figure out your own best solution to the Ship of Theseus Problem
Has anyone proved we are living in a simulated universe? Some people have the idea that we're all living in a computer simulation of a universe rather than an actual physical universe. Other people think this idea is wrong. Your task for this prompt is to figure out, as best you can whether the people who think that we're all living in a computer simulation of a universe ave proved we're all living in a computer simulation of a universe..
Would your uploaded
brain-pattern be you? Many science fiction books (and at least
one TV show) involve the idea of the pattern or program
of a person's brain being uploaded into a computer. The writers of such
books (and several philosophers) seem to think that the consciousness that
then exists inside the program is the person whose brain-pattern
who was uploaded. In your opinion, is this correct? (This is a new topic,
so I don't have a developed prompt for it yet.)
Personal Identity Do NOT
write on this topic without following this link and carefully
reading the prompt! What makes you the same person as the one who
inhabited your body five seconds or five years ago? Again, you must click
on the link Personal Identity
and read what you find there before attempting this topic.
Freud
and Determinism. Does Freud's Theory really
imply that hard determinism is true?
Some people cited in the text think it does, but I think they are
completely and utterly wrong.
In fact, I think they're idiots.
Please note that looking up what the textbook says does not
constitute thinking about the issue.
If all you do is look in the textbook and write down what the book says, you
will be deliberately failing this assignment.
If your paper consists of nothing but a rehash of what Hospers and Peters
say, you will get the grade I would give those guys, which is "F."
If you are willing to actually think about whether
Hospers and Peters are right, follow the link: Freud
and
Determinism
If all you're willing to do is repeat what Hospers and Peters say, pick
another
topic.
(Click Psychological Egoism if you are
interested in this topic.)
Can computers be conscious?
Follow this link. There's an argument
for computer consciousness on the page it goes to. Do not ignore
that argument. Many people ignore the basic argument
for computer consciousness. These people are deliberately failing to
do the assignment. Do not be a deliberate failure. If you don't
read the prompt, you will get zero points for a paper on this topic. If
you ignore the basic argument for
computer consciousness, you will get zero points for a paper on this
topic.
What is the Meaning of Life? Here you would think about the nature and existence of meaning in the universe. Suppose someone else, perhaps a mad scientist, created you specifically to perform a task that neither you, nor anyone else, would ordinarily care about. Would the fact that you were doing something meaningless for someone else magically make that otherwise meaningless thing meaningful to you? What is "meaning?" What is the difference between an object or an event that has meaning, and one that doesn't? How do things get to have meaning? How is a life that has meaning different from a life that does not have meaning? (It is important that you think about this for yourself. Repeating other people's ideas without argument or analysis will get you zero for this paper.)
If you want to try a more challenging issue, the topics below are ones that almost everyone gets hopelessly wrong. If you pick one of the following topics, remember that the answer that seems easy and obvious to you is probably completely wrong.
Existentialism What is existentialism? Is it true? (Notice that there's a link to the prompt for this topic.) Is
Consciousness a Fundamental
Property? David Chalmers says it is. Is he right or
wrong?
What, In Truth, Is
Beauty? Click the link to find the prompt for this
topic. Follow all the instructions in the prompt.
If you don't follow the instructions in the prompt, don't be surprised if
you get zero points for your paper.
Which comes first, epistemology or ontology? I began this
class with questions of epistemology (How should we fix our beliefs? What
is truth?) and moved on to questions of ontology (What is real? Is
physicalism true?) on the assumption that it's pointless to talk about
ontology until we've settled on an epistemology. Our text, however, starts
with ontology and then moves on to epistemology, giving
the impression that questions of reality should come before
questions of knowledge. We can't both be right. Take a position on the
relationship between epistemology and metaphysics and defend it with
careful reasoning. If you pick this topic do not give a
survey of epistemological and ontological ideas. Do not give any kind of
survey. Doing a survey would constitute deliberate failure of the
assignment. (You can read any of the articles on pages 69 - 123 for ideas
if you like.) Who is right, the empiricists or the
rationalists? Rationalists like Plato and Descartes
believe in things like innate ideas and intangible forms, Empiricists like
John Locke do not believe in innate ideas or forms. Explain and critique
the arguments for and against rationalism. If you think the rationalists
are right about forms, you will have to explain what evidence we have that
these utterly imperceptible entities exist at all. If you think Locke is
right about forms, you will have to explain how it is possible for things
to be beautiful if there is no real thing that makes things that embody it
intrinsically beautiful. If you think the rationalists are right about
innate ideas, you will have to explain what evidence we have that the
human mind cannot develop ideas like "beauty," "object" and "sameness" for
itself, or explain what facts about the world are such that we have to
assume innate ides exist in order to explain those facts. If you think
Locke is right about innate ideas, you will have to explain how it is
possible for human minds to invent ideas like "beauty," "object" and
"sameness" if there are no specific sense impressions to which we can
point and say, "there, that's an impression of beauty, or of sameness, or
of objectness.
Is Plato's simile of the line fundamentally about epistemology or ontology? You should discuss the relationship between epistemology and ontology in Plato's simile of the line. This will require you to define both epistemology and ontology, and explain the idea of "direction of fit." Then you should describe how one side of the line "fits" with the other side, and explain why the two sides fit the way they do. Finally, you should explain what this fit means for the nature of the similie in terms of it being primarily an epistemological or an ontological theory. (What is epistemology? What is ontology? What is "direction of fit?" How do the two sides fit together? Which side can be filled in without the other? Which side cannot be filled unless the other is already in place? After you have thought this through completely, you should write a paper that starts by stating your thesis on this issue, and then goes on to explain the reasoning by which you came to support that thesis.
Does Quantum Mechanics Refute Materialism? The author of the text I
used to use for this class hinted at the following argument. Materialism
implies determinism. Determinism implies predictability. Quantum mechanics
and chaos theory prove that the universe is not completely predictable.
Therefore materialism is false. Is this a logically compelling
argument? To answer this question you must define the terms
"materialism," "idealism," "determinism" and "predictability" in your own
words, say how you think these concepts are related, and explain whether
or not the fact that the universe is largely unpredictable implies that
anti-materialism (idealism) is true.(You can read pages 3-66 for ideas if
you like.)
Read a philosophically interesting book (The Space Merchants by Frederick Pohl, The Sinful Ones by Fritz Leiber) or watch a philosophically interesting movie (The Thirteenth Floor, Inception) and apply actual philosophy to it. Get my permission to use this topic.
The following topic
questions represent deep issues in philosophy. The point of investigating
such a topic is not necessarily to settle the issue, but to gain insight
and practice with the tools of reasoning. The way to tackle one of these
topics is to find out one or two things other people have already said
about the issue and to work out your own critical response to these ideas
before going on to develop your own thinking on the issue. The best place
to start is probably our textbook. You can also look at Internet sources,
such as Wikipedia. However, it is very important that you do not waste
large chunks of time browsing through web pages. Find one or two ideas
about the topic, and put your time into thinking your own thoughts about
those ideas. If our textbook and Wikipedia do not give you enough to get
started, please e-mail me at squiptryx@gmail.com for suggestions.
The most important piece of advice I can give you here is to not trust
people to correctly represent their opponents' doctrines and arguments. If
someone opposes the coherence theory of truth, do not trust that person's
description of the theory, or her statement of the argument for that
theory. It is very, very common for writers to get each other's theories
and arguments completely wrong. In fact, one of the main sources of
controversy, even inside philosophy, is people's frequent inability to
understand, or even to listen closely, to what other people are saying.
This can be good for you, because if you can demonstrate that one writer
has failed to properly represent what another writer is saying,
demonstrating this misrepresentation can make a very nice philosophy
paper.
Solve or resolve the question of whether the ship called
"Theseus's Ship" in the time of Demetrius Phalereus was actually the same
ship that Theseus actually sailed. In this story, Theseus's ship is taken
for repairs to a shipyard where absolutely every part is
progressively replaced by a new part so that at the end of the repair
process absolutely every part of the ship has been replaced by a
completely new piece. No part of the ship is made of the original
material. Is it the same ship? You can read more in the Wikipedia article
The Ship of
Theseus or in The
Ship
of Theseus and Personal Identity or in Identity,
Persistence,
and the Ship of Theseus.
Reality, What a Concept!
The study of reality is generally called "ontology," so if you look up
that word in the index of our textbook or in Wikipedia, that should be
allow you to get started. Alternatively, you could sit down with a nice
cup of coffee, and think about what the word "real" means to you. If
somebody tells you that something (ghosts, dragons, unicorns, aliens...)
is real, how would the truth or falsity of that statement affect your
life? If something is real, how might your life be different if it was not
real? If something is not real, how might your life be different if it was
real?
Well, Whadda You Know? The study of knowledge is called
"epistemology." You can look up one or two existing theories of knowledge,
or you can sit down and think about the practical difference between
knowing something and not knowing it. Do not turn in a
survey of epistelogical theories. There are no survey questions in these
assignments. If you look up theories, just look up two, think about which
of these two is right, and explain your reasoning. don't write anything
that isn't part of this.
Rationalism vs. Empiricism. Without giving the history of philosophy, write down your own explanations of rationalism and empiricism. (Remember that "rationalism" is just a name, it doesn't mean that other theories are against rationality.) One way to look at it is to say that rationalism says we can have knowledge without relying on evidence, and that empiricism says we cannot have knowledge without relying on evidence. You can look up more details in wikipedia. You can use specific arguments by various philosophers to illustrate your points, but you should not refer to any philosopher unless you personally have a particular point you are trying to make. Remember that this essay is all about what you personally think, so don't include anything that isn't part of you trying to explain your own ideas. Once you've explained the two theories, say which one works best, and explain your reasoning in detail. (Most of the paper should consist of you explaining why you think what you think.)
Being and Knowing, Being and Being
Known. If you are really into conceptual issues, you might want
to sit down and think about the relationship between ontology and
epistemology. Can ontology and epistemology really be pursued separately,
or do you have to finish one before you can even tackle the other? Is
there any point in doing ontology before you have an epistemology worked
out? Or do you absolutely have to get your ontology squared away before
you can even think about epistemology? How exactly is epistemology related
to ontology? (I don't know if there's any point in looking this one up,
because as far as I know there's no one, besides myself, who's even
thought about this issue.)
What Is Thinking? A strong underlying theme of my intro
course concerns the nature and development of the rational thinking
process in Western society. How is a rational thinking process
("reasoning") different from a non-rational thinking process ("Glenn
Beck")? (I'm not really sure how to research this one. You could try
looking up "rationality" or "reasoning" or "informal logic," but I don't
know of anything out there that specifically concerns the nature of the
reasoning process. My own personal view of rationality revolves around
such concepts as Occam's razor and the difference between self-deception
and intellectual integrity, so you might want to start with Occam's
razor.)
Explain Occam’s razor and place it as
best you can in the larger development of modern epistemology.
Does epistemology requite Occam’s Razor, or can we develop a practical and
effective way of producing knowledge without it?
The Nature of Mind. This is a very complicated topic, and
we will devote two units to this issue, so the important thing here is to
keep things simple, and focus on one small issue in the
philosophy of mind. Read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_mind,
pick any single thinker, or any single argument,
and analyze it in detail.
What Is Truth?
Language? To be honest, I have no idea what kind of
philosophical issues might be raised about language. If you're interested,
look up "philosophy
of language" in Wikipedia, pick two
theories of language, understand the pros and cons of both, decide
which, if any, is correct, and explain your reasoning. If you pick this topic, e-mail me and let me know
what you're doing.
Definition? This term appears in the catalog description
for this course. I have no idea why it is there. If you can find a genuine
philosophical issue related to the nature of definition, please let me
know.
There Ain't No Justice! What is justice? You can tackle
this topic by evaluating one or two theories of justice,
or you can sit down and think about the real difference between just and
unjust systems of law and government. (You may read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice
for more info.)
Human, All Too Human. Is there such a thing as human
nature? What features of human beings are essential to our humanity, and
what features can we do without and still be human? Suppose a mad
scientist used human DNA to make emotionless, unreasoning, unconscious
killer androids. Would these humanoid beings be human in any meaningful
sense?
Read https://revisesociology.com/2019/04/24/karl-popper-sociology-can-be-scientific/ and figure out who is right, Popper or Durkheim.
High-Risk Topics
The following topics look easy, but are in fact extremely
difficult. So much so that virtually all students who have picked these
topics have failed completely. So if you look at one of these topics and
think, "oh, this is an easy question," you probably have not understood
the question at all!
The Value of Value Make sure
you read the whole prompt for this topic. Most people who pick this topic
get it horribly, horribly wrong at first because they don't get that they
are supposed to actually define value, not just talk about what
things they value, and how different people value different
things. This isn't defining value, any more than saying "my height is
sixty-six inches, and different people have different heights" defines
what height is.
Unprocessed Wikipedia Based Topics
Here are some topics that seem cool for me, but I haven't made a question
page for yet. The basic way to approach these topics, as always, is to
identify two opposing positions, identify a main argument on each side,
and then figure out which argument is weaker. The side with the weakest
argument loses. The side whose argument isn't weak wins.
I picked these links because they looked interesting. I can't guarantee
that each one will have two opposing positions.
Philosophical_Zombie
Metaphysical
naturalism
Cognitive
science
Consciousness
Epiphenomenalism
Hempel's
Dilemma
Monism
Ontological
pluralism
Physical
ontology
Mary's Room
Philosophy of
mind
Presentism
Reductionism
Supervenience
Multiple
realizability
Problem of Evil
Unprocessed Possible Topics
The following topics are basically just random ideas that may or may not
lead to essay prompts. They do not as yet have specific instructions.
If you pick one of them, email
me for more detailed instructions. As with any other
topic, your paper should discuss and evaluate the arguments on both sides
of some significant issue. If you can't find a significant issue with
arguments on both sides don't do that topic!
I've tried to include useful links in each of the notes. You can also google any topic that intriques you.
Nozick
and Rawls: Try to settle the argument between Robert
Nozick and John Rawls.
Deep Ecology: Analyze the ethical
arguments for and against Deep Ecology. Is it right or wrong?
Feminist
Ethics: Analyze the ethics of feminism. What cans
feminism tell us about ethics?
Duty:
Analyze duty based morality. Is it true or false? What reasoning supports
your answer?
Utilitarianism: Analyze utilitarian morality. Is it true or
false? What reasoning supports your answer?
Moral Egoism: Analyze the
relationships between morality and egoism. Is moral egoism true or false?
What reasoning supports your answer?
Existential
Freedom: Analyze the concept of existential freedom. Is it
true or false? What reasoning supports your answer?
Ontological Pluralism: Analyze the concept of ontological
pluralism. Is it true or false? What reasoning supports your answer?
Cartesian Dualism:
Analyze Cartesian dualism. Is it true or false? What reasoning supports
your answer? (Also see Mind
& Body)
Logical Positivism: Analyze logical positivism. Is it true or
false? What reasoning supports your answer?
Each of these topics asks you to analyze something, which means
doing what you can to evaluate the logical support for the ideas expressed
in the pages indicated. The best way to start out is to say what you think
is the main point in those pages, what you think about that point, and why
you think what you think. If you choose one of these text based odyssey
topics, remember that although you can start out by analyzing one small
point, you may find that your next assignment will ask you to analyze a
different point from that reading.
You should do your best to deal with the arguments
presented on each side of your chosen issue. Random speculations about the
topic that avoid dealing with the real arguments in the material you are
supposed to read might be worth a little credit as representing your
initial thoughts about
Rules For Going Off List
Occaisionally, a student asks me if he or she can do a
topic not on the official list. I always say "only if you first
provide me with a statement of your intended thesis and argument, or
alternatively a statement of the main arguments on both sides of the
issue." Invariably, this student will completely ignore these instructions
and turn in an absolutely horrible paper that purports to cover an
important topic but which in fact contains no logical analysis whatsover.
This means that the student has turned in an inadequate paper on a topic
on which he did not have permission to write. Each of these features is
worth a grade of "F," so the paper is worth a grade of "double-F," or negative
100 points.
So, if you think of a topic, relevant to Modern Philosophy, upon which you
wish to write philosophically, you may EITHER turn in a short
statement of your thesis about this topic and your argument
for that thesis OR turn in a short statement explaining the main arguments
for both sides of this issue.
If you turn this in, you MIGHT get my permission to
write on this topic. You don't have it yet.
If you don't turn in a statement as described above, you absolutely
do
not have permission to write on an off list topic.
Remember, you only have permission if I write on your thesis/argument or
argument/argument statement that you have permission. If you
don't have this permission, writing on an off list topic will get you
a zero-point "F" for that paper.
So, if you want to do a topic that's not otherwise on this list you must
obtain my approval first. You must give me your thesis,
arguments for, arguments against and final reasoning before I can
think about approving a topic. No exceptions. This is the hardest
option! Just grinding your favorite axe without seriously considering the
other side will get you an F. Taking this option without getting my
approval will get you an F.
Remember, in this class "topic" means topic from this
list!
Remember that you are not being asked to come up with a way to
make the situation come out the way you want it to. The situation in each
question is exactly as described in that question. Adding or subtracting
things to the situation makes it a different question, which means
you won't be answering an assigned question. Since only assigned
questions can get any credit, changing the question is just a
labor-intensive way of failing to do the assignment.
Remember also that you are graded on your responsiveness to the logic of
your topic, not on your ability to make your personal opinion look
plausible. If you can't support a particular position with reasons, accept
that it's not supported and explain what that implies and what we
would think if we made up our minds based only on logic.
You don't have to change your personal opinion, but asserting that
your personal opinion is supported when you can't think of any reasons
for it will get you an F.
Copyright © 2013 by Martin C. Young
This Site is Proudly
Hosted By: