Next: About this document ...
Up: HUMA 11600, Winter 2003,
Previous: Instructions
- Comment on the following statement: ``Things are deceptive, but
nevertheless always contain some truth.'' By ``comment on,'' I of
course mean: talk about how our authors and/or characters might react
to it (not: give your own opinion of it). In particular: Descartes and
Don Quixote (among others) are afraid of being deceived. According to
the authors we've read (including Descartes himself), are they right
to fear this? In what ways, according to them, are we liable to
deception (by our senses, by books, by other people, by God)? What
steps, if any, can be taken to head this off? How, if at all,
according to them, might or must potentially deceptive things
(including, for example, but not limited to: dreams, fictions,
history, traditional philosophy, logical arguments, the Bible, the
sensible world, the Eucharist) nevertheless yield truth if properly
used and/or understood?
- What if anything, according to our sources (authors and/or their
characters), is or should be the relationship between metaphysics
and/or epistemology, on the one hand, and ethics and/or politics, on
the other? Is correct (or incorrect?) thought necessary, according to
them, for correct action? Or vice versa: is it possible, according to
them, to think correctly--to know what one knows, to have certainty,
to know what (kind of thing) really exists--without moral and/or
political reform? How, if at all, can a human being, with human needs
and desires, be a philosopher? How if at all, can the philosopher
function within society as it now is (or: as it was in the 17th
century)? Is knowledge of what is right or just (proper moral
judgment) useful, according to them, for determining what is true or
what exists (proper theoretical judgment), and if so why and how?
- Included in the above, but you might want to focus on it in
particular: according to our sources, what are the political
implications of metaphysics and/or epistemology, and vice versa? (See
above topic for some more detailed issues.) (Note: if you choose this
topic, you may be tempted to discuss only Cervantes. Don't do that!)
- A topic from last time, but you could write about it for this
paper, too: of these possible sources of human knowledge: the senses;
logic and/or reason and/or the intellect; imagination (i.e., in some
way producing or entertaining sense-like images which do not come
directly through the senses); reading authoritative texts, which,
according to our sources (authors and/or their characters), is useful
or reliable and which is not? What is the proper relationship between
them? What is or might be or tends to be the actual relationship? (If
the last two are different, then something is or might be or tends to
be wrong.) What kinds of error stem from or affect the use of these
alleged sources of knowledge, and how, if at all, is it possible to
guard against them? (If you wrote about this last time, you can still
write about it again, but obviously you must write a completely new
paper which says something new.)
- How much, according to our sources (authors and/or their
characters), do we know about ourselves? Supposing we yield Descartes
the point that I cannot (rationally) doubt my own existence, how about
the rest of the Second Meditation, where he talks about
essence? In what sense, according to Descartes and others we've read,
is it or is it not possible to know, to be certain, to doubt, and/or
to be deceived about what kind of thing/person one really is, and/or
about what kind of thing a human being (or human soul) is? Descartes
claims that we know this about ourselves better (more distinctly) than
about anything else--do others agree with him, and why or why not?
(If not, what do they think we know better?) What are the implications
for metaphysics and/or for ethics?
- What (according to our sources) makes something what it is
(i.e. makes what it the individual thing it is, different from
everything else, and/or what makes it the kind of thing it
is)? (Are there different ways of saying ``what kind of thing''
something is, ``what it is like''--essence and quality, say--and if
so what is the relationship between them?) What does it take to know what something is (in the above sense(s))? To what extent (in
what cases and with how much clarity and certainty) do we humans know
such things, and how do we know them if/when we do? (You might want to
contrast the case of human knowledge with that of angelic and/or
divine knowledge.) Note: if you choose this topic, I don't necessarily
expect you to bring Cervantes in (though you should feel free to if
you think it's relevant). On the other hand, you should say
something about the ancient and medieval authors we read, in addition
to at least one of Leibniz or Descartes, and preferably
both. Obviously this topic is more difficult than the others; I
provide it here in case someone is really interested in these
metaphysical issues and wants to write about them.
Next: About this document ...
Up: HUMA 11600, Winter 2003,
Previous: Instructions
Abe Stone
2006-01-03