Basic assignment: Write a 4-6 page (typed, double-spaced) paper explaining and supporting your position on some issue raised by one or more of the writers we have read (or will have read) in the first few weeks of this course..
Some guidelines:
Your paper should contain your thoughts and opinions, not just a summary of Ayer or Heidegger (or whoever). Tell me what you think, not just what other people have said.
Do, however, address the position and the arguments of at least one of the philosophers we have studied. Give references to the texts to support your interpretation of their views.
Be sure that the question or issue your paper is addressing is clear and well focused.
Be sure that you have provided a clear statement of your position on that issue (or your answer to that question).
In addition to explaining what you think, your paper should contain reasons why you take the position you do. Your main job is to explain why a reasonable person should agree with the opinion or position you are expressing.
Include in your paper at least one statement of an objection to your view and a reply to that objection. How might someone who disagreed with you criticize your argument? And how can you respond to that criticism?
You are not required (or encouraged) to consult any other sources besides those already assigned for class reading. If you do use any other sources, give them credit for whatever you take from them: list them in a bibliography at the end of your paper and give specific references for any ideas you have borrowed.
Some possible topics (if you want to develop a different topic, check it out with me before you write your paper):
Compare Ayer’s account of a priori truths with the account given by C .I. Lewis. Are they the same? Different? Is one superior?
Discuss whether Ayer’s rejection of metaphysics applies to anything put forward by Heidegger. If so, does that show that Heidegger’s claims are meaningless?
Same question, only substitute Horkheimer for Heidegger.
Compare and contrast the accounts of human experience in Dewey and in Heidegger.
We have looked at early instances of four philosophical schools or approaches: analytic philosophy, existential phenomenology, pragmatism and critical theory. Each approach includes a fairly sweeping condemnation of what it takes to be the philosophical tradition. Either:
a. Compare the various grounds on which these approaches criticize/reject the traditional problems/methods/concepts of philosophy. Or,
b. Consider one or two of these critiques in more detail. Are the reasons given sufficient to justify rejecting the tradition (or some aspect of it)?
Each of these four approaches also recommends a way forward for philosophy. Either:
a. Compare the path recommended by each of the four schools. Or,
b. Consider one or two of these in more detail.