** Next:** About this document ...
** Up:** Phil. 100Bpaper2, Winter 11
** Previous:** Phil. 100Bpaper2, Winter 11

Due via e-mail (to your TA, with cc to me) Tues., Feb. 22.

Please choose one of the eight definitions or one of
the seven axioms at the beginning of the *Ethics*. Point out
some way in which the axiom or definition is odd or surprising --
i.e., a way in which someone might argue that the definition or axiom
in question should be corrected -- and explain briefly why Spinoza
would not be able to prove one of his key conclusions (either Prop. 11
or Prop. 14) unless this definition or axiom were put the way it
is. (Note that the axiom or definition need not appear directly in the
proof of the proposition in question; it might be in the proof of one
of the earlier propositions. If so you need to explain both how
Spinoza's version is necessary for the proof of the earlier
proposition, and how that earlier proposition is necessary for the
proof of Prop. 11 or 14.) Finally, suggest briefly how Spinoza might
defend his version of the axiom or definition. (Needless to say this
should be your own original work.^{1})

Note that, as with the first assignment, this is not a full scale
paper--please do *not* write an introduction and conclusion,
summarize other parts of the *Ethics*, etc.

#### Footnotes

- ... work.
^{1}
- If you have any questions
about policies on plagiarism and related issues, please see
`http://www.ucsc.edu/academics/academic_integrity/undergraduate_students/resources.html`.

** Next:** About this document ...
** Up:** Phil. 100Bpaper2, Winter 11
** Previous:** Phil. 100Bpaper2, Winter 11
Abe Stone
2011-01-02