Phil 2 Puzzles and Paradoxes F’20

Professor M. Oreste Fiocco

1st Writing Assignment

Due: Submit via Turnitin by 6PM on Saturday, October 31

Format:

length: 3 pages, double spaced

font: 11-point, Calibri

margins: top, bottom 1”; left, right 1”

DO NOT quote large sections of the text. I would prefer if you did not quote at all, but if you must, merely put the author and page number in parentheses, e.g. (Newton, pg 160).

DO NOT use any outside sources. There is no need to use outside sources on a paper of this kind. I know the language of the text and of the discussion in lecture. If you use outside sources, it will be immediately obvious to me. Use only your brain, the text and your notes.

DO NOT collaborate with other students in writing your paper. You are, of course, allowed to discuss the material and assignment with each other. But the act of writing must be done independently.

DO NOT assume that your reader is familiar with the course. Your paper should be self-contained and written as if you were presenting the material to someone outside the course—who has had no previous exposure to it.

You are to write a single, well-structured essay, responding to the following prompt:

What is philosophy as critical thinking? What is the proper focus of philosophical, that is, critical inquiry? Present the problem of the criterion. According to Chisholm, there are three ways of responding to this problem. What are they? Discuss, briefly, Chisholm’s preferred way of dealing with the problem. In the end, does Chisholm regard his own solution to the problem of the criterion as satisfactory? Explain why he does or does not. What is analysis? What is a concept? Present what Ackerman calls the second paradox of analysis. How does she propose to resolve this paradox? Present the problem of material constitution. Discuss the problem in terms of Lumpl and Goliath, a specific version of the problem. (Make clear what is special about this version.) What do you think is the most plausible solution to the problem of material constitution? Succinctly defend your answer. In what sense are the problems and paradox under discussion here philosophical? Propose some conditions under which it might be appropriate for philosophical inquiry with respect to some subject matter to end.