Modern Philosophy First Paper Assignment

Due: Saturday, October 5, by 10 AM -- (save as a Word doc and send attached to an email to Thomas.Atchison@metrostate.edu

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 Locke or Descartes (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. (Where you rely on Melchert, give him credit.)

Some possible topics (if you want to develop a different topic, check it out with me before you write your paper):

What reasons does Descartes give (in Meditation One) for doubting his former beliefs? Which of these reasons leads him to doubt even his knowledge of simple arithmetic? Do you think the reasons Descartes gives are, as he says, “valid and considered reasons” that really do show that none of our ordinary beliefs is certain?
In Meditation Two Descartes finds two things that he thinks he knows for sure: that he exists, and that he is a thinking thing (a mind). Explain his reasoning? Is he entitled to these conclusions (that is, is his reasoning sound)?
In your own words, explain and evaluate the first causal argument for God's existence that Descartes gives in Meditation Three (the so-called ‘Trademark Argument’).
What reasons does Descartes give for thinking that the mind is distinct from the body? How good are these reasons?
Princess Elizabeth challenges Descartes’ explanation of the relation between mind and body. What is her point? How does Descartes reply? Is his reply consistent with what he says in the Meditations? Is it adequate to resolve the difficulty she raises?
How does Hobbes argue that people are roughly equal in ability? How does he then argue that this natural equality should lead us to acknowledge equal rights? Do you see any flaws in his arguments?
Locke’s justification of private property: How does he reconcile his claim that people are naturally equal with his belief that there is nothing wrong with a very unequal division of property? Is his argument successful?
Locke’s argument for limited government: What limits does he specify and how does he argue for them? What do you think of his view?
Which version of social contract theory is best: Hobbes’ or Locke’s? Why?
Historically, there seems to be some correlation between philosophers' epistemological and mataphysical views and their attitudes/opinions about race. Roughly, rationalists seem to be less liiely to be racists then empiricists. Discuss.
To what extent and in what ways do the racist and colonialist attitudes of the early social contract theorists reflect or reveal flaws in their philosophical views?