Modern Philosophy               Third Paper Assignment                  Due: Wednesday May 8

Basic assignment: Write a 5-6 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 last third of this course.  Since we will not be meeting on May 8, you will need to email your paper to me, preferably as a Word document.

Some guidelines:

1. Your paper should contain your thoughts and opinions, not just a summary of Hume or Kant (or whoever).  Tell me what you think, not just what other people have said.
2. 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.
3. Be sure that the question or issue your paper is addressing is clear and well focused.
4. Be sure that you have provided a clear statement of your position on that issue (or your answer to that question).
5. 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.
6. 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?
7. 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):

Note: the first three topics below are repeats of topics provided for the second paper.  If you already wrote on one of them, pick something new.  If not, perhaps you are now ready to say something about Kant.

1. Kant said that Hume woke him from his ‘dogmatic slumbers’.  What were the dogmas he was talking about, how did Hume awaken him, and what did Kant do once he woke up? Did Kant succeed in answering Hume’s challenge?
2. Kant referred (in the preface to the second edition of the Critique of Pure Reason) to his philosophical view as amounting to a ‘Copernican Revolution’ in philosophy.  Explain the analogy and evaluate its usefulness in explaining the nature of Kant’s theory of knowledge.
3. Kant says that the fundamental question a scientific metaphysics must answer is “How is synthetic a priori knowledge possible?”  What does this mean?  What is Kant’s answer? Is it a good answer?
4. Kant claims that he “ found it necessary to deny knowledge in order to make room for faith” (Bxxx) – knowledge that is of the traditional subjects of metphysics and theology: God freedom and immortality.  Explain what he meant and discuss whether this is actually helpful to the cause of religion.
5. Is there any value in seeing history as Hegel does, as the progressive unfolding of the idea of freedom?
6. Marx claimed to have turned Hegel’s philosophy of history upside down (or, rather, right side up). How so?  Which way is really right side up?
7. In different ways Marx and Nietzsche both challenge the pretensions of philosophers.  Explain and discuss.
8. Discuss (one or more of) the various ways Nietzsche criticizes Kant.
9. Nietzsche attempts a geneology of morality (“a knowledge of the conditions and circumstances out of which these values grew”), in order to attempt a critique (a ‘revaluation of all values’).  Is this a good idea?  Does he succeed?