Philosophy 394D - Seminar: Death

Paper Topics

 

Term Paper

Due Monday, May 16 by 2:00 p.m.
in my office (or box) at the philosophy department

(papers turned in that day after 2:00 p.m. sharp will be considered one day late)

 

Instructions: Write a 10-15 page paper on some topic related to the course.  The "Instructions," "How I Grade," "Cheating," and "Guidance" statements from the previous papers (below) apply, with the following exception:

- The Term Paper is worth 30 points (which is 30% of your grade).

Late Paper Policy: Your score will go down two points for every day your paper is late.  Late papers may be submitted by email.

Since your paper is longer, it is especially important that you have a clear goal in mind when writing.  Padding your paper with superfluous digressions will only hurt your grade.  Some features of a good paper:

- It has a clearly stated thesis in the first paragraph.
- It contains explanations of some doctrines.
- It contains explanations of some arguments for or against some doctrines.
- It evaluates some arguments for or against some doctrines.
- It takes a stand on some issue.
- It responds to objections to the stand it takes.
- It contains not a single spelling error or grammatical mistake.

Topics:

You may come up with your own topic, but it must be approved by me.  You may expand one of your earlier papers; if you do this, you are strongly encouraged to consult me about how best to expand it.  Here I suggest some topics, some of which are ways a prior paper might be expanded.

1. Personal Identity.  Defend a view about the nature personal identity over time.  This could involve showing why all (or many) of the competing views are defective, and why the view you defend is better.  You should respond to the most important objections to the view you defend.  (Defend a view about personal identity need not involve defending one of the theories; instead, your thesis could be that every theory on the table is unacceptable; or it you could pursue the Parfitian idea (alluded to at the end of the Perry reading) that personal identity is not what matters.

2. The Evil of Death.  Defend an answer to the question, Can death be bad for the one who dies?  This might likely include discussion of one or more of Epicurus's arguments.  It should make use of the notions of intrinsic and extrinsic value.  You may include discussions of the problem of the time of death's badness, of the "no subject" problem, or of the Lucretian asymmetry argument.  You may include discussion of the views of Nagel, Rosenbaum, Feldman, Williams, Suits or others.  Your paper may be a defense of the views of one of these philosophers alongside a criticism of the views of some of the others.  You could consider some of the objections to deprivationism Bradley discusses in his paper.

3. The Lucretian Asymmetry Argument.  Defend some view on this debate.  You could present and explain Lucretius's argument.  You could indicate what seems to be required in order to defeat it.  You could present, explain, and, if you want, criticize any of the response we looked at -- i.e., those of Nagel, Feldman, Kamm, Parfit, Brueckner and Fischer.  (In some of these cases, it is imperative that you very clearly and explicitly identify the feature of our postmortem nonexistence for which there is no prenatal mirror feature.) 

4. The Meaning of Life.  Approach this topic with caution -- I still expect a paper on it to be clear and rigorous, and to discuss some of the points from the relevant readings.  It can't just be an exposition of "your philosophy of life."  Whatever you do, you must make it clear what you take the question "What is the meaning of life?" to mean (there is the "cosmic sense" of that question, there is the "terrestrial sense," and others as well).  You could explain and evaluate the pessimistic answer to the question.  You could explain the rationale behind the idea that if there is no God and we are mortal, then life has no meaning.  Then you could critically asses this idea -- does it have any merit?  (Notice you would not be criticizing either the idea that there is no God or the idea that we are mortal; rather, you are criticizing an if-then statement.)  You could present and defend your own answer to the question (or answers to the questions).

 

AT THE TOP OF YOUR PAPER, PLEASE IDENTITY YOUR TOPIC

(E.G., WRITE "THE EVIL OF DEATH" IF THAT IS YOUR TOPIC)

 

 

 

 

Short Paper

Due Wednesday, April 20 in class

 

Instructions: Write a short -- 4-6 page -- paper on one of the topics below.   Your paper must:

Failure to conform to these rules will hurt your grade.

Be sure to define and explain any technical terms that you use in your paper. When I ask you to explain some thesis or some argument, you really need to explain it. Don't merely state the view verbatim as it appeared in class or in the book. Explain it in your own words. And when you're explaining an argument, do it carefully -- don't leave out any crucial steps.

When I ask you to evaluate some argument, this is your chance to give your own opinion on the matter -- do you think the argument is any good? Whatever you say in your evaluation of an argument, keep it focused. Don't go all over the map.

How I Grade: I will grade your answers on both content and style.  As regards style, aim for clarity, precision, succinctness, and directness.  Avoid flowery language, polysyllabic words, and long, winding sentences.  Instead, just make it completely clear to your audience exactly what you are trying to say.  Don't try hard to sound "deep" -- just keep it simple.  Also regarding style, I have a very low tolerance for spelling and grammatical mistakes.  Use a spell checker and get a good style manual.

As regards content, be sure you address each part of the question you choose, but do not include any content not relevant to your answer.  Especially avoid padding your answers with “fluff” and other BS.  This will only hurt your grade on the paper.  Do not assume in your writing that I already know about the issues you discuss.  Pretend you are writing for a reader who is ignorant of the topic. In particular,

The paper is worth 20 points (which is 20% of your grade for the course).

Cheating: You are free to discuss the material with others in the class; however, the paper you turn in must be your own work.  Students turning in near-duplicate papers will receive an F for the entire course and may be subject to expulsion from the university.  I take cheating very seriously.

You shouldn't be quoting very much or at all in your papers, but if you must use the words of others, put them in quotes and cite the source.  Otherwise, you are plagiarizing.  Plagiarism will earn you an F for the whole course and possible expulsion from the university.

Late Paper Policy: Your score will go down one point for every day your paper is late.  Late papers may be submitted by email.

Guidance: I am more than happy to provide assistance to you as you work on your paper.  Feel free to email me with questions or to meet with me to discuss your paper.  Feel free to email me a draft of your paper some time before it is due.  But if you want to show me a draft, you cannot wait until the day before the paper is due.  If you wait that long, it is likely that I will not be able to look at your paper.

The Topics (pick just one):

PLEASE HANDWRITE AND CIRCLE AT THE TOP OF YOUR EXAM THE NUMBER OF THE QUESTION YOU ANSWER.

1. Personal Identity and the Soul Theory. What is the Question of Personal Identity?  Explain, in your own words, what is being asked; be sure to distinguish between numerical identity and qualitative identity (i.e., exact similarity) and explain which kind of identity is relevant to the Question.  Explain the Soul Theory of Personal Identity.  Illustrate the theory by means of an example.  Present and Explain an argument or two against the Soul Theory.  Evaluate the argument(s).  Is the Soul Theory refuted?  Or is it a plausible theory of personal identity?

2. Personal Identity and the Bodily Theory. What is the Question of Personal Identity?  Explain, in your own words, what is being asked; be sure to distinguish between numerical identity and qualitative identity (i.e., exact similarity) and explain which kind of identity is relevant to the Question.  Explain the Bodily Theory of Personal Identity.  Illustrate the theory by means of an example.  Present and Explain an argument or two against the Bodily Theory.  Evaluate the argument(s).  Is the Bodily Theory refuted?  Or is it a plausible theory of personal identity?

3. Personal Identity and the Psychological Theory. What is the Question of Personal Identity?  Explain, in your own words, what is being asked; be sure to distinguish between numerical identity and qualitative identity (i.e., exact similarity) and explain which kind of identity is relevant to the Question.  Explain the Psychological Theory of Personal Identity.  Illustrate the theory by means of an example.  Present and Explain an argument or two against the Psychological Theory.  Evaluate the argument(s).  Is the Psychological Theory refuted?  Or is it a plausible theory of personal identity?

4. Personal Identity and the Brain Theory. What is the Question of Personal Identity?  Explain, in your own words, what is being asked; be sure to distinguish between numerical identity and qualitative identity (i.e., exact similarity) and explain which kind of identity is relevant to the Question.  Explain the Brain Theory of Personal Identity.  Illustrate the theory by means of an example.  Present and Explain an argument or two against the Brain Theory.  Evaluate the argument(s).  Is the Brain Theory refuted?  Or is it a plausible theory of personal identity?

5. Epicurus, Nagel, and the Evil of Death. Present and explain what you take to be Epicurus's "evil implies awareness" argument against the evil of death.  Be sure to explain the principles or other theses that lie behind the argument (e.g., hedonism, the experience requirement, Epicurus's view about the nature of death).  Be sure to explain what the conclusion means, and what it does not mean.  What general approach does Nagel take to accounting for the evil of death.  What are Nagel's examples supposed to show?  How do you think they are supposed to bear on Epicurus's argument?  Do they succeed in casting doubt on Epicurus's argument?  Why or why not?

6. Rosenbaum. Present and explain Rosenbaum's argument against the evil of death.  Be sure to explain how Rosenbaum defends each of the main premises of his argument.  Rosenbaum's principle about badness and Epicurus's principle about badness don't say the same thing about Nagel's case of behind-the-back ridicule?   Explain the difference.  Explain the distinction between intrinsic badness and extrinsic badness.  If we interpret Rosenbaum's argument as using the concept of intrinsic value, is it a sound argument?  Explain.  If we interpret Rosenbaum's argument as using the concept of extrinsic value, is it a sound argument?  Explain.

7. Feldman vs. Suits.  Explain Feldman's view about the evil of death.  Explain an argument made against Feldman's view by David Suits (in his paper “Why Death Is Not Bad for the One Who Died,” in your course packet).  Evaluate the argument.

8. The Time of Death's Misfortune.  Present Epicurus's "no time" argument against the evil of death.  Explain Feldman's view about when the harm of death occurs.  Explain Bradley's view.  Who is correct: Epicurus, Feldman, Bradley, or none of the above?  Explain.

9. Lucretius's Asymmetry Argument.  Present Lucretius's asymmetry argument against the rationality of the fear of death.  Explain how Feldman responds to Lucretius.  Explain how Brueckner and Fischer respond.  Who is correct: Lucretius, Feldman, Brueckner and Fischer, or none of the above?  Explain.

 

 

 

home

 

 

 

 

Very Short Paper

Due Wednesday, March 2 in class

 

 

Instructions: Write a very short -- 1-2 page (absolutely no more than 3 page) -- paper on one of the topics below.   Your paper must:

Failure to conform to these rules will hurt your grade.

Be sure to define and explain any technical terms that you use in your paper (e.g., 'intrinsic property', 'transitivity of identity'). When I ask you to explain some thesis or some argument, you need to really explain. Don't merely state the view verbatim as it appeared in class or in the book. Explain it in your own words. And when you're explaining an argument, do it carefully -- don't leave out any crucial steps.

When I ask you to evaluate some argument, this is your chance to give your own opinion on the matter -- do you think the argument is any good? Whatever you say in your evaluation of an argument, keep it focused. Don't go all over the map.

How I Grade: I will grade your answers on both content and style.  As regards style, aim for clarity, precision, succinctness, and directness.  Avoid flowery language, polysyllabic words, and long, winding sentences.  Instead, just make it completely clear to your audience exactly what you are trying to say.  Don't try hard to sound "deep" -- just keep it simple.  Also regarding style, I have a very low tolerance for spelling and grammatical mistakes.  Use a spell checker and get a good style manual.

As regards content, be sure you address each part of the question you choose, but do not include any content not relevant to your answer.  Especially avoid padding your answers with “fluff” and other BS.  This will only hurt your grade on the paper.  Do not assume in your writing that I already know about the issues you discuss.  Pretend you are writing for a reader who is ignorant of the topic. In particular,

The paper is worth 10 points (which is 10% of your grade for the course).

Cheating: You are free to discuss the material with others in the class; however, the paper you turn in must be your own work.  Students turning in near-duplicate papers will receive an F for the entire course and may be subject to expulsion from the university.  I take cheating very seriously.

You shouldn't be quoting very much or at all in your papers, but if you must use the words of others, put them in quotes and cite the source.  Otherwise, you are plagiarizing.  Plagiarism will earn you an F for the whole course and possible expulsion from the university.

Late Paper Policy: Your grade will go down one "notch" for every day your paper is late (i.e., an A will go down to an A-, an A- to a B+, a B+ to a B, etc.).  Late exams may be submitted by email.

Guidance: I am more than happy to provide assistance to you as you work on your paper.  Feel free to email me with question or to meet with me to discuss your paper.  Feel free to email me a draft of your paper some time before it is due.  But if you want to show me a draft, you cannot wait until the day before the paper is due.  If you wait that long, there is no guarantee I will have time to look at your paper.

The Topics (pick just one):

1. Explain the view that death is the permanent cessation of life. Explain Feldman's argument against this view based on the case of the cryogenically frozen twins. Evaluate the argument.

2. Explain the view that death is the permanent cessation of life. Explain Feldman's argument against this view based on the case of Alvin the amoeba. Evaluate the argument.

3. Choose some theory of life. Explain the theory. Explain one of Feldman's arguments against the theory. Evaluate the argument.

4. Ingmar Persson rejects Feldman's thesis of the mystery of death. What does Persson think death is? Explain what must be the case, according to his theory, for a thing to die. What does this theory imply about the case of the mouse and the "cell separator"? Does the theory give the right result here? Why or why not?

5. Consider the question, "Will I survive my death?" This question is open to several interpretations. Give one interpretation according to which the question is trivial. Explain what the trivially-arrived-at answer is on this interpretation. Give two additional interpretations of the question and explain how they are different. Finally, explain exactly what question Weirob is asking in Perry's dialogue and how it is different from the interpretations given above.

 

 

 

home