Pick one of the topics below. Make sure each part of any question is addressed in the paper. Essays are two pages max, 12 pt. Times New Roman font, double-spacing, standard 1” margins. Essays are to be submitted via Blackboard and will be graded anonymously. Please do not put your name anywhere on the paper, but do have a header with prompt #. Submission of assignment will be counted as pledging that you have not plagiarized, cheated, or otherwise engaged in intellectual mischief. You will be expected to be familiar with all writing resources and instructions. And have fun! Writing is awesome. It’s like playing philosophy chess. Don’t rush it.

 

1. Socrates says, “No one in any position of rule, insofar as he is a ruler, seeks or orders what is advantageous to himself, but what is advantageous to his subjects” (Plato, 37). In class we discussed that in the human psyche, Reason is the ruler (see notes on Plato; also the Irani article). Do you think the claim made in this passage holds for Reason and its subjects, as well? (Tip: Make sure you explain the passage and what it means)

 

2. Mengzi says, “People having these four sprouts is like their having four limbs…”. Do you think this analogy really works? (Tip: Explain what sprouts are as best you can. You will probably have to add to Mengzi a bit, make sure to distinguish what he says and what you’re adding to help him out.)

 

3. Among philosophers, Thomas Hobbes (in Leviathan, 1651, writing just after the brutal English civil war) is notorious for the following cheery position on humans in a state of nature:

“During the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war, and such a war as is of every man against every man. For WAR consists not in battle only, or the act of fighting, but in a tract of time wherein the will to contend by battle is sufficiently known; and therefore the notion of time is to be considered in the nature of war as it is in the nature of weather. For as the nature of foul weather lies not in a shower or two of rain but in an inclination thereto of many days together, so the nature of war consists not in actual fighting but in the known disposition [for fighting to occur]…In such condition there is no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no culture of the earth;… no commodious building; no [tools]; no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear and danger of violent death; and the life of man solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.”

Put very simply, Hobbes thinks human nature is bad, and we need rulers who can keep us in “awe” to keep us in line. Do you think Xunzi would agree with Hobbes about human nature? Why or why not? (In other words, do Xunzi and Hobbes mean the same thing when they suggest human nature is bad?) (Tip: this is essentially a compare/contrast essay; make sure you explain both authors’ views clearly and accurately)

 

4. Andreicut offers a nice metaphor that for Kant, we perceive the world as if we’re wearing blue-tinted glasses, and so perceive the world to be bluish. Does this metaphor work for Hume’s account of perception?
   1. If yes, how does the metaphor work? Are there any snags?
   2. If no, where’s the problem? What would be a good metaphor?
   3. Tip: make sure to explain the metaphor for Kant too

 

 

5. John Dewey asks, “How was the separation of intellect from action affected the theory of knowledge?… What would the effect be if the divorce were annulled, and knowing and doing were brought into intrinsic connection with one another?” (5). In Ch 7, we see a bit of his response to the second question, in proposing an account that does bring intellect and action together. It is most clearly illustrated by his example of a doctor examining a patient (139). Pick ONE of the following topics to address.
   1. Consider the doctor example from the point of view of Hume OR Kant (pick one). First explain the account in light of that view—for example, talk about the impressions involved, etc. Then assess whether there is a “separation of intellect from action” as Dewey claims.
   2. Consider the following thought experiment. In truth, the doctor is actually hooked up in the Matrix, and does not have a physically existent patient, and is not actually doing anything but lying in a bed of goo. Do you think the doctor still knows something about the “patient”? (You must engage with Hume, Kant, or Dewey in your response—agree/disagree/etc. with one of them.)

 

 

6. If one of these masterfully constructed questions somehow does not strike your philosophical fancy, you may devise one of your own—you must email me for approval by Mar 17 (Sat). And it should really be a question or argumentative claim not, for example, “I want to write on Xunzi.” You can also revise a GGS, with approval.