Your first paper is due by the end of the day (midnight) on Tuesday Sept 21. Papers should be 1000-2000 words (typically this will be 4-5 pages).
Here is the procedure for submitting your papers, so that I can grade them anonymously: Compose your paper as a Google Doc (or paste it into a new blank Google Doc). The first line of the file should be your PID (not your name). The second line of the file should be the UNC Honor Pledge: “I certify that no unauthorized assistance has been received or given in the completion of this work.” (What assistance counts as authorized will be addressed below.)
When you’re ready to submit:
You should try to write as clearly, straightforwardly, and accessibly as you can. Don’t use special philosophical vocabulary (some examples are “dualism,” “physicalism/materialism,” “infallible,” “incorrigible,” “privileged access”) without explaining it or giving an illustration of what it means. You need to explain the vocabulary you’re using even if it was introduced and explained in class. Philosophers often attach subtly different meanings to their technical words, so it’s important that your reader knows precisely what you mean by them. When introducing philosophical vocabulary or positions or arguments, write as though you’re explaining it to a reader who’s never encountered it before.
Your papers must also present some reasons for or against something. Perhaps for/against a philosophical position, or for/against an assessment of whether that position’s response to some objection is reasonable, and so on.
When presenting your reasons, keep in mind that asserting a thesis again and again isn’t an argument. Nor do you count as objecting to a thesis when all you’ve done is describe an opposing thesis. Another bad strategy students sometimes employ is to say “Theory T has to answer this question this way, and I believe theory T.” That’s not yet an argument, either. You’d need to offer some reasons in support of theory T, or against competing theories.
It’s not essential that your papers be totally original. They have to present reasons for/against something, but it’s OK if the reasons you’re presenting are ones we discussed in class. (It’s also OK if they’re not, so long as they’re still responding to an assigned topic.) But your papers do need to at least contain some of your own ideas or examples, and be written in your own voice.
Here are more guidelines about philosophical writing.
Here is the grading rubric I’ll use.
Information about extensions and missed deadlines is on the course’s front webpage.
Read the topics carefully and be sure to answer the specific questions asked. Don’t try to write everything you know about the topic. 1000-2000 words is not much space, so you will have to budget. What are the most important things to say? What can you leave out?
To write a good paper, you’ll need a clear plan or outline for how you want your paper to go. And you’ll need to write several drafts. You are welcome to come talk to me about your ideas. I also encourage you to talk to each other, and get feedback on your ideas and/or drafts before submitting them. You can also use each other’s ideas as starting points for your own writing. But what you submit must represent your own developed thoughts and expression, and you must give appropriate credit for ways that others influenced the product, whether in written or oral form. In other words, if someone gave you an idea, or helped you substantially to refine your own ideas, you should say so.
Here is more information about the university honor code; see also honor.unc.edu. Papers submitted for this and another class (whether taken the same semester or not) must be substantially different.
Suppose that in a few decades, our space drones discover animate creatures on the moon Europa. We don’t know yet whether these creatures are biological or mechanical, just that they act in sophisticated ways (and are hard to catch). What would it take to make it reasonable to think these creatures have minds (thoughts, intelligence, feelings)? Note: We’re not asking how we could prove they do; maybe this can’t be proved even for other human beings. We’re just asking when would it be reasonable to count them as having minds like we do? or are they instead just clever mindless automata (perhaps like ants or fancy plants)? What would persuade you they do have minds? What would persuade you they don’t? What would persuade you they have minds in some senses but not others? (Explain what are the different senses you’re thinking of.)
Here’s a use of Leibniz’s Law to argue against dualism.
The argument begins by observing that nature is continuous in various ways. Contrast the property of being bald to the property of having a soul:
On the other hand, it is not clear how having a soul could be a vague matter, or a matter of degree. A soul would have to be something such that either one’s got it or one doesn’t got it. Some souls may be better, or smarter, than others. But still, either you’ve got a soul or you don’t.
According to this argument, though, the continuities in nature make it appear that having a mind is more like being bald, than it is an all-or-nothing affair. There does not seem to be any sharp point in the development of a human embryo where it first acquires the ability to have thoughts and feelings. That is, it is a vague matter when an embryo/fetus/infant is first able to think. Similarly, there does not seem to be any sharp point in our evolutionary history where we first acquired the ability to have thoughts and feelings. It is a vague matter which animals are capable of thoughts and feelings. And this is also a matter of degree.
But if the extent to which one has a mind is vague and admits of degrees, whereas having a soul is all-or-nothing, then it’s hard to see how having a mind could consist in having a soul.
In other words, this argument says:
What do you think of this argument? Should the dualist insist that it is a perfectly sharp matter when one first acquires a mind, and which animals have minds? Or do they have better replies?
Clarification: This topic is about a challenge to substance dualism and if you choose this topic, you should explore what responses the substance dualist could make to the challenge. (It’s OK if in the end you think the substance dualist still comes out having difficulties, but you should at least make a serious effort at trying to defend them. Then if you want to, you can say why you think the defense you came up with is ultimately unsatisfying.) It would not be a good way to address this topic to say “I think this criticism is a serious problem for the substance dualist, so I won’t attempt to defend them; but I hold [some other theory] so it’s not a problem for me.” That could all be true, but it wouldn’t be a paper that made interesting progress.
In class we briefly reviewed some different ways that philosophers have proposed your “access to,” or knowledge about, your own mind is “special” and better than your access to your physical environment and to other people’s minds. Spell out in more detail some proposal of this sort. (It needn’t be exactly what anybody has really said, nor need you identify people who have said it. You just need to explain, as carefully as you can and using examples, a way in which one might plausibly think that your access to your own mind is special/better.) Formulate a challenge to this proposal, that is, describe a case that certain of your mental states aren’t accessible in the way you described. Your initial proposal should have some plausibility, even if in the end you think you don’t have that kind of access to many/any of your mental states. The challenge you raise should also have some plausibility, even if you think it’s ultimately wrong and can be rebutted. You’re allowed to come down on either side. I just want to hear you set up the debate, and explain the most compelling reasons for each side.