PHIL-2255: Mid-Term Paper Topics and Guidelines
About three-and-a-half to four pages of the paper should be employed on explaining and analyzing the authors’ views. This means clearly and carefully answering all of the topic questions, explicating the relevant arguments, and explaining their significance. In this part of your paper, it is extremely important to accurately characterize the authors’ position (if this hasn’t been done properly, any criticisms or objections made will fall flat). Most of the paper should be in your own words, though the use brief quotations, as needed, is encouraged as long as the text is properly cited. Always illustrate the relevance of the quotation, situate its context, and explain its meaning in your own words.
The other page or two of the paper should be devoted to your own critical assessments of the arguments presented and a defense of your own position on one of the philosophical issues. If you disagree with the author, offer objections and explain why you think their argument is unsatisfactory, and then defend your own position on the issue. You may find yourself agreeing with the author’s conclusion; be sure to give good reasons for why you do. Either way, it is always a good idea to entertain possible objections to your own conclusions, followed by reasons for thinking that the objections do not hold up. This will make your own conclusion much stronger.
This assignment can be completed without the use of sources outside of our class texts. If you do look to secondary sources, stick to published books or peer-reviewed journal articles. Never use any internet sources without approval from the instructor. The instructor will also be checking your paper against AI-assisted technology, such as ChapGPT; use of these technologies for completing this assignment is strictly prohibited as a violation of the Academic Honesty Policy.
How Does Kierkegaard Answer the Question about How to Live? What is the traditional understanding of truth seen from the objective point of view (from Concluding Unscientific Postscript)? What are Kierkegaard’s grounds for criticizing it? What kind of question cannot be adequately answered by the objective point of view? What is subjective truth for Kierkegaard? What is the “paradox” of Christianity, and why is it the ideal that can give our lives the greatest meaning?
Explain the difference between the person who lives in “infinite resignation” and the “knight of faith.” How does Kierkegaard apply this distinction to the case of Abraham? Why does he consider Abraham to be the exemplar of true faith and not simply a base murderer?
Nietzsche on the Death of God and the Origin of Moral Concepts. Explain what is meant by “God is dead” in the context of the madman passage (aphorism 125 from The Gay Science; aphorisms 108 and 343 may also prove helpful). Why do you think the madman believes he has “come too early”? In aphorism 335 of the same work, Nietzsche offers a critique of Kantian morality. What is his argument against the categorical imperative? Do you think his critique is successful?
Next, choose one of the following essays to complete your paper:
Genealogy of Morals, First Essay: In the First Essay of Genealogy, Nietzsche analyzes a societal transformation in values (from a “good versus bad” model to an “evil versus good” model). First, explain the distinction between values that are “good” and “bad” (as were present, for example, in Homeric Greek or ancient Roman societies). Next, articulate how Nietzsche believes this structure was “inverted” such that what was formerly labeled “good” was now considered “evil.” What values were now believed to be “good” after this inversion had taken place? Why does Nietzsche think this movement was Judeo-Christian?
Genealogy of Morals, Second Essay: In the Second Essay of Genealogy, Nietzsche argues that our modern understanding of guilt, moral responsibility, and the “bad conscience” originated in a debtor-creditor relationship. How is the infliction of pain on another a form of repayment? Why is moral guilt like a debt that one owes? How is our modern notion of justice as “an eye for an eye” rooted in this debt-recompensation model, according to Nietzsche?