Philosophy paper

Essay Topics Instructions: 1200 words, 12pt Times New Roman font, double-spaced, 1 inch margins Choose one prompt below to address. You essay should begin with the following information: First & last names Course & year Essay prompt written out in full (including the number) Due: April 3, hard copy, to be turned in at the start of class and soft copy, to be submitted online. I will provide a link as the due date approaches. Secondary sources: Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy — See for general overviews Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy — See for detailed, scholarly discussions It is perfectly acceptable to write on the same philosopher that you presented on. Each prompt should be answered by returning to and carefully re-reading the text. You are free to consult the primary text from which a reading selection was taken, but you are highly discouraged from consulting any other material. If you need clarification, feel free to search the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy or the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Note that whatever you look at, you must cite. Even if you don’t cite it in the essay itself, then at least include it on the works cited page. Do not plagiarize. Writing a bad paper that nonetheless passes, or even one that doesn’t pass, is never worth the risk of plagiarizing. Note about style & citing primary sources: you are required to cite all of your sources, including the primary text that your chosen prompt directs you to write on. Thus, if you are writing on Plato, you must cite the Plato excerpt in Reality when necessary (or, if you’re relying on the primary source excerpted in Reality, that primary source). If you use sources other than Reality (or the respective primary text), you must also include a works cited page. The citations and works cited page should follow an American English style guide. This can be MLA, APA, or Chicago. I don’t care which. I just care that it follows some style guide. Essay Prompt: Hume: Give Hume’s skeptical argument. Explain how this relates to natural laws like Newton’s law of gravity and/or one of his laws of motion (for example: force = mass * acceleration) Word Count I've decreased the word count to 1200 words (approx. 5 pages, double spaced, and absolutely no shorter than 4 full pages)—this is reflected now on the essay prompts handout and on the syllabus. Grading Rubric These are the most general aspects we'll be looking at when evaluating your papers: Clarity​ - Is your paper easy to follow, with a clearly stated thesis, clear structure, and lucid writing? Are the arguments put in your own words and not bogged down with too many technical terms? Depth​ - Does your paper discuss the details of the argument and how the author arrived at his conclusions rather than just stating the conclusions? Accuracy​ - Is the paper's discussion of the author largely accurate? Topicality​ - Does the paper answer the prompt in full?

Extra​: Does the paper engage with the argument by, for example, posing an objection? (This is not necessary to get a top CR+ grade, but it can help. And raising objections is a key part of doing philosophy. If you finish answering the essay prompt, and thus have a clearer understanding of what the author is trying to argue for, try articulating an objection.) In class, we've gone over a few aspects of how to structure and write a philosophy paper. Below, I review what we've gone over. Also, when I was an undergraduate, my professors always pointed me to a website by philosopher Jim Pryor on how to write a philosophy paper. Right now, his site is timing out, but you can find his guidelines here: https://philosophy.dept.shef.ac.uk/papers/PryorWRITE.pdf​ -- note that nothing in his guidelines supersedes what I've said to you about your paper. Pryor's guidelines assume a paper that is a little bit more involved than the one you are being asked to write. Nonetheless, most of what he says will be very helpful. Let me know if you have any questions & good luck! Best, Daniel Review (note that the example text below is just an example and is not necessarily an accurate interpretation of the ​Theaetetus​) Structure of an Introduction Stasis​ - An intellectually significant belief or theory that, if accepted by readers would prevent them from accepting your thesis or its importance. Think: what theory or position is the author that you're writing on arguing against? Or, what is a widely held or common sense belief that your author is arguing against? These target theories are often stated in the text, if only briefly. In the ​Theaetetus​, Plato describes a theory of knowledge that today we would call “empiricism,” stating that those who adhere to it believe that “knowledge is nothing but perception” (151e2-3). Concession​ - State why some aspect of this stasis that may be right, helpful, productive, etc. That is, why would it be reasonable for someone to believe the stasis? Although ancient, in its broad outlines, this thesis corresponds to how we think of things today. We have knowledge of a tree, rock, and triangle because we have experienced them in the world. Destabilizing condition​ - Something that makes the stasis inaccurate or outdated, inappropriate, etc. However, Plato casts serious doubt on the empiricist thesis. For how could we have received our idea of a triangle from the world when all we have experienced are flawed approximations of a triangle? Or, how could we have received a generic idea of a tree from the world when all we have experienced are specific trees, each flawed in their own way? There is no straightforward answer that is forthcoming. Consequences​ - Together, the stasis and destabilizing condition create a problem. The stasis states that something is the case and the destabilizing condition shows that this is problematic. If we just let this problem stand, what are the consequences of that? Or, if we accept that the destabilizing condition is right, and that we must give up the stasis, what benefits do we gain by going in this direction? Plato resolves this problem by locating the source of our ideas in the non-material realm of the forms. By locating the source of our ideas in a place independent of the perceptual word,

he avoids the empiricist's problem of having to explain how we can receive knowledge from imperfect perceptions, basing knowledge instead on stable, permanent forms. Depending on how they are formulated, the destabilizing condition and/or the consequences state the thesis of your paper. That is, they state what your paper will be arguing for. In this case, my thesis is stated in the consequences. Roadmap -​ a brief statement of how your paper will be structured. In what follows, I will give an interpretation of Plato's account of knowledge in the Theaetetus​. I will begin with a brief statement of what I take to be his primary target, empiricism. Next, I will show that for Plato, knowledge must be stable, and thus empiricism, which depends on the always changing perceptual world, cannot explain how we have knowledge. Finally, I will show why Plato must therefore locate the objects of knowledge in the realm of the forms, a stable realm separate from the fluctuating perceptible world. I will end by raising a worry about the reality of the realm of the forms and offer a suggestion about how, as contemporary readers, we might understand this realm today. After the intro, you will start on your body paragraphs. Each body paragraph should be thought of as a piece of a longer argument defending your thesis. In this case, that would be showing Plato's argument that knowledge must be stable and hence be based on forms not perceptions. The main claim of each paragraph can be thought of as a reason or premise of that argument. The content of the paragraph can be thought of as defending those claims. Structure of a Paragraph Claim - A statement that is arguably true or false Reason - Why should we accept this claim as true? Evidence - why should we accept your reasons? The reason supports the claim and the evidence supports the reason. In the ​Theaetetus​, Plato prepares his argument by setting up his opposition, what can be thought of as an empiricist theory of knowledge.​ ​Some, he says, claim that "knowledge is nothing but perception” (151e2-3), a claim very similar to the central tenant of empiricism, namely that all knowledge is derived from perception. ​To be sure, taken in its most literal sense, Plato can be seen here as ​identifying​ knowledge with perceptions themselves. The perception I am having of an apple now just ​is ​my knowledge of the apple. This interpretation, however, is doubtful. It would imply that we have knowledge of an apple so long as we are looking at it but lose that knowledge as soon as we look away, and it is difficult to see how anyone could take that to be plausible. More charitably, I think, we can interpret this as saying that knowledge, whatever it is, must ultimately be spelled out in terms of "nothing but perception." Thus, in explaining our knowledge of an apple, we must explain how it is derived from the many impressions of apples that we have received throughout our lives and nothing else. The text in ​bold ​is the claim. The ​underlined​ text is the reason. It explains why we should think that what Plato starts out with is an empiricist theory. Everything else can be thought of as the evidence. The reason is not straightforwardly true since this quote probably isn't quite how empiricists would describe their position. So why think that Plato is describing empiricism and not some other position? In a brief manner, this paragraphs provides some further evidence to show why we should accept this reason as true while also offering a brief explanation of what empiricism is.

My next body paragraph would either be expanding on this, if I thought I had room, or it would begin to set up my text topic (laid out in the roadmap) by arguing that the perceptual world is always in a flux.