Philosophy minimum 4-5 pages

PHIL 101 Final Project | Spring 2022

Due: submit to iLearn by 11:55pm on Friday, May 13th

Points: 20 points

Assessment: the instructor will use a credit/no credit grading rubric when evaluating your final project. A credit grade will be given for due effort shown. A detailed grading rubric will be available on iLearn.

Preliminaries

Goals/Purpose

• Analyze and articulate the philosopher’s thesis/conclusion—i.e., the position they defend in their argument.

• Understand and explain the “logical steps” of the argument and present a reconstructed argument.

• Advocate for the view—that is, make a case for why it is plausible and should be accepted.

• Present a critique of the argument—i.e., an objection against the original argument.

Terminology

Claim: a truth-functional sentence (i.e., a sentence that is either true or false)

Argument: a set of claims that establish an inference

Inference: a logical “step” from supporting claims to the supported claim

Premises: claims in argument that do the supporting—the evidence or reasons to accept another claim in the argument

Conclusion: the claim that is supported by the premises in an argument—the claim that the whole argument is built to defend

A note on “I”

In the context of a philosophy paper, it is perfectly reasonable to use the first-person pronoun “I”. Unlike other disciplines that treat authors as third-person spectators in exposition, analysis, and criticism, philosophy asks that the author insert themselves into their writing. Afterall, it is your exposition, analysis, and critique of the argument, so it is permissible (and perhaps beneficial) to include yourself in the discussion. So, phrases like “I argue” or “to my mind” are acceptable and a way to claim ownership of the views you express in your paper.

General Instructions

Pick a format

• Essay (3-5 pages, double-spaced) • Poster Presentation

Pick a topic

• Pick a topic we covered during one of the weeks of the semester o e.g., What Can We Know?

• Pick one of the required readings for the weekly topic you pick

Project Components

You must include all and only the following four components in the order they appear below.

1. Introductory Background/Context of the Debate 2. Exposition

2.1 Philosopher’s Thesis Statement/Conclusion of the Argument 2.2 Argument Reconstruction: reconstruct the argument and outline the logic of the argument (i.e., the connection between the premises and conclusion)

2.3 Advocate the View 3. Critique 4. Conclusion

Detailed Instructions

1. Introductory Background/Context of the Debate

Summarize the topic you are writing/presenting on. In so doing, tell us what the central question(s) is that motivates the issue (e.g., “Is morality dependent on the existence of God?”) and why this makes for a philosophical problem. Utilize historical context if you feel that this would be both appropriate and helpful to the reader. It is not necessary to include any biographical information about the author.

2. The Exposition

2.1. Thesis Statement/Conclusion of the Argument

Outline the philosopher’s thesis, that is, the conclusion they argue for in their argument. State explicitly what the conclusion of the argument is in the reading (e.g., “Jones argues that morality is dependent on the existence of God”) and provide any relevant background information to help understand the conclusion (to whom the philosopher is perhaps responding to or the state of the debate up to this point).

2.2. Argument Reconstruction

Summarize and outline the philosopher’s argument (and, if helpful, standard form [i.e., showing how the conclusion follows from a set of premises in numerical order]). Present their supporting claims (i.e., the premises) and articulate how they support the conclusion in sufficient detail. Be sure to also explain how the conclusion follows according to the logic of the premises and why this gives the arguments its plausibility. Be as charitable as possible in your argument reconstruction—this will help your critique in section 3.

2.3. Advocate the View

Advocate for the view you have just presented. That is, tell us why it is plausible and why it should be accepted on the grounds provided in the premises. It can be difficult to cast arguments in their best light; however, if you are charitable in your argument reconstruction, advocating the strengths of the argument should be easy.

3. The Critique

Present an objection to a premise or premises in the argument. If you cannot think of an objection on your own, feel free to research an objection made by another philosopher. Researching an objection can be performed via the SFSU library website or using various internet resources (e.g., Google, SEP, IEP, YouTube, etc.). Please thoroughly summarize the objection and, if using the objection of someone else, give quotes/citations when necessary.

Note: it is not enough to find an objection to the conclusion of the original argument. Rather, the objection must critique the supporting claims in the original argument—i.e., the premises. Be sure to state how or why the objection represents a fault/shortcoming of the original argument (that is, why we shouldn’t accept the view being argued for) and how severe the objection is.

4. Conclusion

Summarize each section and provide any concluding thoughts/ideas/takeaways that you think are helpful and insightful.

Sources

Section 2 only requires the assigned reading you are writing on. Section 1 will largely rely on internet resources to provide the reader with sufficient background/context of the debate. Please feel free to use your own summary of the background/context of the issue; however, be sure to cite any materials you draw from elsewhere.

Useful resources for this project can be found online in places like the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (www.iep.utm.edu) and Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (www.plato.stanford.edu). A simple Google search will perhaps be the best place to start, though.

Citations

When citing source materials in the body of your essay, please use the following format:

According to Dreier, “Moral judgments express beliefs. So, there are some beliefs which are necessarily (all three propositions are supposed to obtain with necessity) connected with motivation. And motivation is a matter of having a desire.” (Dreier, p. 363)

A bibliography or works cited is required in your paper. APA, MLA, or Chicago Style are acceptable formats for your bibliography/works cited.