Short Writing Assignment #3 for PHIL 120 (Fall 2009)
Instructor: Dr. Jan Garrett
Most recent alteration: November 9, 2009 The third short paper is due Wednesday, December 2, for those writing on Kant or Marx; Friday, December 4, for those writing on the other options.
Because I want to encourage a reasonable distribution of topics, no more than thirteen (13) persons may write on any single topic. Please check with me when you have decided on your preference. I'll let you know whether the topic is oversubscribed.
The best way to begin preparing for these papers is to read the appropriate textual material well in advance and work through the corresponding Study Questions that have been provided on the course website. Be engaged in the classroom discussion of these texts in the weeks before the SWA is due.
Start work on these papers several days before they are due, so you can revise your original drafts while consciously paying attention to the virtues of good papers, also known as Intellectual Standards, and trying to ensure that you have followed the requirements stated below.
Incidentally, such intellectual standards are normally used by teachers in evaluating written work in subjects like ours. You might as well be aware of what they are.
The papers should be in essay style, broken into paragraphs of no more than ten lines each. Papers may be from 600 to 800 words in length. They should be double-spaced and employ complete sentences, most of them declarative sentences. How the sentences are related to one another should be clear.
On the first page of the paper, put your name, email address, assignment indicator (SWA 3), class and section (e.g., 120-002), the date the assignment is being turned in, and the word count. Please do not forget the word count.
Quantity
If you have not written 600 words of original composition, you have probably not done enough.
When figuring the word count, do not include any quoted material in your word count.
Documentation
Do not fail to properly quote material taken directly from the textbook. Document your direct quotations using embedded page numbers, for instance (11) for page 11 of the textbook. Plagiarism is an academic offense. Please read and be sure to understand this FAQ page on plagiarism.
If you use any outside sources, please minimize borrowing passages from these for purposes of writing the paper. If you do directly cite an outside source, be sure to cite accurately and provide an accurate bibliographic reference to your source. Plagiarism is an academic offense.
I reserve the right to require that you supply me with a copy of your outside source, so that I can check your use of sources.
For a sample short writing essay on a philosophical topic, this may be helpful, but pay attention to the note at the beginning.
Options for Discussion in this SWA (SWA 3):
1. Hobbes, pp. 137-38, and Kant, chapter 7, in Ten Theories.2. Marx, chapter 8, in Ten Theories.
3. Sartre, chapter 9, up to p. 197, in Ten Theories. (Note: I have not yet created Study Questions for this chapter. Unless I have time to do so, anyone writing on this topic will be without the guidance provided by such questions. It's possible that I won't discuss Sartre in class.)
4. Darwinian theories, chapter 10, in Ten Theories; see the concluding chapter for critical evaluation of the evolutionary theories in light of the the other theories and other considerations. The conclusion also contains a "Diagnosis" and Prescriptive remarks not stated explicitly in chapter 10.
General Instructions For topic 1, focus on Kant, human nature, diagnosis, and prescription. Compare Kant's position with Hobbes' theory of human nature. (Kant was opposed to Hobbes' view on certain key points.)
For topics 2, focus on pp. 167-180.
For topic 3, focus on pp. 185-197.
For topic 4, focus on one or two major parts of the chapter (201-211; 212-220; 222-233) and reflect on the comments and challenges given by Stevenson in the Conclusion, which is a reflection on the entire book, but especially chapter 10.
Space permitting, present a reasoned criticism of the primary view under discussion. Obviously, there is no sense in presenting a criticism of a theory criticized by Stevenson if you haven't first fairly summarized the particular theory being criticized.
The task is to show you've understood the essentials and could explain them to somebody else.