Microsoft Word - IntroPhilPaperTopicsOutline.docx Intro. to Philosophy Paper Outline Instructions (over) Due on Blackboard. The link is in the "Assignments" folder. See Bb for specific time and date....

Please Follow The Instruction From the Attachment below


Microsoft Word - IntroPhilPaperTopicsOutline.docx Intro. to Philosophy Paper Outline Instructions (over) Due on Blackboard. The link is in the "Assignments" folder. See Bb for specific time and date. The following is a description of the final paper you will be writing for this class. You have a choice of three general topics, and you can choose defend any one of several different views under each topic. Your first task in writing this paper will be to develop an outline of your argument. Your outline will need to include the following: 1) A strong thesis statement (i.e. the conclusion to your argument); 2) a list of your argument's premises in the order you intend to present them; 3) an objection to your argument (you will need to provide some explanation for it make sense); 4) the reply you intend to use to overcome the objection (again, some explanation will be needed). Your grade will depend on the quality of the outline you turn in, which demonstrates the level of understanding you have of philosophical argumentation in general and the knowledge you have of the specific content you will be defending. Here is a description of the final paper assignment: You are to write a four page (1200-1500 word) argument paper. The full range of possible topics can be found below. You may argue for any side of the debate. The paper has several requirements: 1) it needs to have a clear thesis which will serve as the conclusion to your argument (i.e. it answers one of the questions below and provides a main reason to think your view is correct). 2) This thesis will need to come near the beginning of your paper, preferably at the end of the opening paragraph. 3) Your paper will need to have several clear premises that are meant to directly support the conclusion. 4) You will need to consider a strong objection to your own argument. 5) You will need to convincingly respond to this objection. Note: Remember that a premise and a conclusion need to be statements (sentences that can either be true or false). Your premises can be supported by individual facts, but the premise itself cannot be an individual fact--- it must be a claim. This draft will be graded on the above criteria and the technical aspects of paper writing. Here are the topics: 1) What is the best view for overcoming the problem of epistemological skepticism? Is Rationalism, Empiricism, or some other option the best choice? (Explain and defend one of the views concerning how we gain knowledge.) 2) What is your mind? Is it separate from your brain? (Argue for one of the views presented in the philosophy of mind section.) 3) Do you have free will? (Argue for one of the views in the Free Will debate) Your thesis will serve as answer to one of the above questions. Your goal is to simply give an argument that supports your thesis (conclusion); offer an objection to your argument, and then respond to that objection. You should make use of the textbook and arguments presented in class. You may use the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: http://plato.stanford.edu/ Please remember to properly cite sources! Links in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Philosophy of Mind Functionalism: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/functionalism/ Dualism: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dualism/ Physicalism: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/physicalism/ Problems of Mental Causation: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mental-causation/ Free Will In general: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/ Compatibilism: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/ Libertarianism: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/incompatibilism-theories/ Determinism: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/determinism-causal/ Epistemology Rationalism vs. Empiricism: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rationalism-empiricism/ Kant: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant/ (especially sections 3 and 4) Here is an example outline: The topic is on the problem of evil [you cannot choose this topic]. Thesis: I will argue that the problem of evil leads to the inevitable conclusion that God does not exist. Premise 1: God is all powerful, all knowing and all good by definition. Premise 2: Evil exists Premise 3: The existence of evil is incompatible with the definition of God. Therefore, God does not exist. Objection: Humans have been given free will by God which would, under certain circumstances, allow both God and evil to exist. Reply: The free will defense does not get God out of the problem. There is still a serious problem because God needs to explain why He created beings with free will in the first place. Without that explanation God is still culpable for the existence of evil; and thus, the original logical contradiction remains. Here is another example on another topic: Ontological argument [you also cannot choose this topic]. Thesis: I will argue that the ontological argument convincingly proves that God does exist. Premise 1: God exists only in the mind. (Assumption) Premise 2: God is a being which no greater being can be conceived. Premise 3: I can conceive of God in my mind (all knowing, all powerful, all good). Premise 4: A greater being can still be conceived---namely, a being like God but that actually exists. Premise 5: The second and fourth premises contradict one another. Thus, the first premise must be necessarily false and its opposite true. (RAA) Therefore, God exists in reality. Objection: Existence cannot be used as a predicate, like “red” or “heavy”. We do not speak this way in English and when we speak we seem to assume the thing we are referring to already exists. If existence cannot be used as a predicate, then the argument does not seem to work. Reply: We speak about fictional characters all the time and make true statements about them without assuming their existence. Everyone knows that “Dexter” is just a character on a fictitious television show, but he has characteristics we can accurately or inaccurately describe even if he does not truly exist. So it seems clear that we do apply existence as a predicate to things we think actually do exist and withhold it from things we do not think exist in reality.