Essay on Metaphysics Article

Value: 40% of final grade. Write an essay of approximately 1700-1900 words on one of the following topics (The articles from my textbook have been given to me and I will scan and upload them both for you to have access too): 1. Harry Frankfurt contrasts a person who has free will with one who is what he calls a “wanton.” What is the contrast he draws? Discuss at least one example of Frankfurt’soffered to illustrate this difference. Is his case for this difference being what matters — “indeed all the freedom it is possible to desire or to conceive”(92) — regarding free will adequate? Critically assess. 2. Daniel Dennett discusses the threat to free will, or at least responsible/accountable action, posed by cases where a mental state is caused (even “implanted”) in various ways which bypass or subvert a person’s rational capabilities. What does he conclude regarding these cases and what we should conclude regarding them? Critically assess Dennett’s reasoning regarding at least two such examples and his treatment of them. ***PLEASE HAVE A THOROUGH READ OVER THIS (PROFESSORS EXPECTATIONS)***: Writing a Philosophical Essay in General, and This One Specifically What follows this first paragraph is exactly what was part of the first essay assignment except for added material re bibliography and citation at ** below. The only change/addition is that in addition to, or as part of, your critical evaluation I want you to consider how an advocate of a position you are criticizing could respond to at least one of your criticisms and then, in turn, respond to that response from your viewpoint. If you are not criticizing a position but defending it, then try to think of a reasonable critical response that could be made to your defense and, again, try to respond to that response. In either case the relevant response need not be considered a knockdown argument so long as it poses a problem to be addressed. There are many ways to write a philosophy essay. The sort I recommend strongly is the critical, or critical/comparative, essay. It usually consists of two quite discrete parts. First, write a summary of the view or views to be discussed. Here it is important to clearly state not only the author’s conclusions, but also – indeed, especially! – the author’s reasoning in support of these conclusions. Much of this reasoning will be stated explicitly as premises or assumptions (though not always explicitly so identified), some of which may have themselves been argued for, others perhaps not. Your job is to extract these crucial bits of reasoning from the text, leaving out rhetorical devices. But some of the reasoning (not usually terribly complex, although sometimes…) may need to be “uncovered” because it does its work in the form of unstated assumptions that play a key role the reasoning nonetheless. Showing that such an assumption is being made can be tricky; one must generally show that the most plausible reason for an author saying/believing something important to the position is the assumption attributed. This is sometimes the most interesting and important work. Having summarized the view(s) in play, follow this with a critical evaluation of the reasoning involved. (One need not declare definitely for or against a position, as raising clearly the unanswered questions it must address can itself be an important form of criticism.) This involves two different, but interconnected, axes of evaluation. On the one hand you want to know whether the internal logic is good; does the conclusion follow from the premises? That is, if the premises were true, would the conclusion follow? But then we also want to know whether particular premises or assumptions used in the reasoning are true. Or even highly plausible. (The question of the internal logic is usually called the validity of the reasoning; the question of substantive truth – given the validity – is usually called the soundness.) How does one know how much to put in the summary? Focus on the reasoning involved, and try to describe all the important inferences and assumptions. To check, ask yourself: “Have I told the reader why the author believes what I have attributed to her/him?” If not, you may well need to say more. (Of course, I am expecting only as much as can reasonably be put into an essay of the assigned length. Prioritize.) The same test is useful in the critical evaluation. Students ask: “Do you want my opinion?”. Stating your own conclusion regarding the position(s) discussed is fine, but what matters most is the clarity and subtlety of your reasoning/justification in support of that opinion. Use the “Have I said why?” test here, too. One can intertwine summary and critical evaluation, stating part of the reasoning and evaluating it “as you go.” I suggest that students not do this. Why? Because while I have received some excellent papers like that, I have also received a lot more where the assessment of the overall reasoning gets lost (and sometimes much else). Many students find writing an outline of the argument/reasoning at issue helpful as an organizational tool. Subject to time constraints, I am available to discuss an outline with students. **It is imperative that all sources are fully cited (i.e. traceable to the page the source is to be found on). The particular style one puts this in is optional, so long as the information is clear and includes: the author’s name(s); the title of the work; the date of publication; the publisher or place published; and the exact page the (s) the citation refers to. Sources in the course reader need be identified only by the author’s name and page number, as follows: (Minorski: 234) No bibliography is needed for these. Outside sources are not required, but please feel free to use them if they are of help to you. Just cite fully (i.e. author, title, date, publisher, pages referred to) and provide a bibliography. This must include a URL link which takes the grader to the relevant pages. Just citing a website without that is insufficient; some website articles are very long. NB: Quotation is a normal part of academic writing, but one should not rely on it unduly, especially when a major point is being made. In such cases, it is often wise to follow the quote with a restatement in one’s own words. Paraphrasing, too, can be useful. But it should not hew too closely to the original text. Passages of more than a few words where only a few words have been changed from the original text are not acceptable.Finally, Ryerson’s Policy 60, Academic Misconduct, forbids the re-submission of papers, or extensive sections thereof, that have written for another class to this course unless the student receives the instructor’s permission.