Washington & Lee
University
Phil 102
Problems of Philosophy
Professor Gregory
Fall 2005
Paper Topics for Paper #1
The paper is due via e-mail by 10am Wednesday, October 26. Late papers will not be
accepted. Though it is not required, I encourage you to meet with me to discuss your paper—this
is most useful if you submit a draft or detailed outline before we meet, or if you are having
trouble getting started or have questions about writing in philosophy we can meet to discuss
ideas. You should make an appointment for this meeting. The latest date we can meet is Monday,
October 24.
While your writing should be your own, you will of course have to make use of the various
readings as well as class lecture and discussion. Proper citation is required. If you have not
already done so, you must consult the web pages “Notes on Writing and Grading”, and “Policies
on Quotation, Citation, and Plagiarism” (paper due date in schedule contains a link to those
documents). Please contact me with any questions.
Your paper must be double-spaced, with numbered pages, and reasonable font size and margins.
You must e-mail me the paper as a MS Word attachment. The Word file should be named
according to the following schema and example:
YourLastName, YourFirstName Paper1.doc
Smith, Sally Paper1.doc
In general, your task is twofold—first, demonstrate an understanding of the issues (their
complexity and depth); second, show ability to engage in critical reflection on those issues (these
need not, however, be distinct sections of the paper). The more evidence I have of critical
reflection/evaluation, the more likely you are to get a good grade, thus do not skimp on this
aspect of your paper. I expect most papers will be between 6 and 9 double-spaced pages, though
this is not a strict requirement. Do not pad your paper with nonsense, do not begin with
grandiose introductions. One key to a good paper is knowing which details are crucial and which
can properly be left out; jump right into the topic and don’t waste space on too many tangents or
niceties. You may, but do not need to, consult outside sources. If you do so, proper citation is
required—see the appropriate web page.
Choose one of the following topics and attempt to fully address it, being specific and detailed
where necessary.
1. What’s the deal with Socrates? Using the texts we have read, explicate and critically evaluate
Socrates’ view(s) on knowledge, learning, teaching, philosophy, and his own life. Some
guiding questions (not intended to exhaust or restrict the subject of your paper): Is Socrates
consistent in his portrayal of himself as one who knows only that he does not know? Is
Socrates the humble gadfly and servant of Athens? Is there a consistent and viable view of
knowledge and learning in the Apology, Meno, and Republic selections? Why does he never
answer the questions he raises? What is the value of perplexity? What good could his
philosophy be doing if it leaves people numb and perplexed? Why must he be so disruptive?
Could he have done it differently? Try to develop your discussion out of all three of the
works we have read. Be sure to consider how Socrates might respond to the
criticisms/problems/questions you raise.
2. Compare, contrast, and evaluate Socrates’ and Descartes’ approaches to philosophy as
revealed in the texts we have read—discuss similarities and differences in their methods,
goals, success or failures, and the professed origins of their philosophical programs. Some
guiding questions (not intended to exhaust or restrict the subject of your paper): Why does
Socrates embark on his mission of questioning and examining the people of Athens? What, in
speaking to various people, does he find out about wisdom? What are his views on inquiry,
knowledge, doubt, and perplexity? What prompts Descartes to begin his Meditations? What
does he decide to do about it? What is his ultimate goal, and what will his method be? What
are his views on inquiry, knowledge, doubt, and perplexity? Finally, evaluate the two
approaches. Does one approach seem better than the other? Why/why not?
3. Choose one of the following arguments for the existence of God: (a) Descartes’ argument in
“Meditation Three”; (b) Anselm’s Ontological Argument; (c) one (or two) of Aquinas’ Five
Ways; (d) Paley’s Teleological Argument. Explain the argument in detail, then raise and
explain at least one good criticism of the argument. Next, try to imagine the best response
that the author could give to your criticism(s). Explain what this response would be, and
evaluate it (you may repeat this criticism-response cycle as many times as you deem useful).
Finally, discuss the value of trying to rationally establish the existence/non-existence of God.
4. To what extent does Descartes recover from the skepticism he generated in “Meditation
One”? That is, how successful is his project of trying to establish something “firm and
lasting” by razing everything to the ground and employing the method of doubt? You will
need to explain his overall project and critically evaluate his attempt to complete it.
5. Perhaps there is some other issue in the readings/discussions we’ve had so far which you’d
like to write about. If so, let me know by October 19, so we can discuss and I can decide
whether it is appropriate. You must have my approval to exercise this option.
You should not feel as if you must drive unrelentingly towards a predetermined thesis, what is
more impressive from a philosophical standpoint is the ability to critically explore the relative
strengths and weaknesses of various alternatives, to sensitively elucidate and criticize various
positions and issues in their complexity, thereby demonstrating your critical ability. You need not
even come to a definite conclusion—assuming that you have explored and criticized some range
of possible positions with due clarity and sensitivity, then, if you feel it is appropriate to refrain
from taking a definite stand on an issue, then refrain and explain why. Of course, if you think
your critically considered reasons do support a definite thesis, then argue for and defend that
thesis.