Main instruction : ‘Defend a view on personal identity, and use this view to support an answer to the question ‘Can we survive the death of our bodies?’.’ Here is a suggestion for how to do so in detail:
-
Introduction: This should be one short paragraph in which i) you indicate to the reader what will be your answer to the main question, and ii) you indicate how you will support your answer. (For example: “I’ll argue that the X view on personal identity is the best one, and that it implies that we can/cannot survive our bodily deaths.” [‘X’ can be the soul, body, brain, memory, or psychological view.])
-
Part I : explain your view on personal identity (i.e. give examples, explain technical terms, contrast to other views, etc).
-
Part II: argue for the view. (That is, explain what you think are the best features of, or arguments for, your view, or what you think are the main problems with alternative views.)
-
Part III : defend the view against an objection (either consider an objection to your view on personal identity and then argue why you think this objection is unsuccessful, or consider an argument in favor of another view and then argue why you think this argument is successful.)
-
Part IV : explain how your view implies a positive/negative response to the question ‘Can we survive the death of our bodies?’. (Explain and make appropriate distinctions concering the expression ‘death of the body’. What exactly does that mean?)
* The order of the items above is just a suggestion. Feel free to imagine a different way to order your paper. Maybe you’ll find a structure that will make more sense to you. This would be nice. If so, I recommend that you send me an email with an outline of the structure before you start writing the paper.
1
Citations
Cite sources. For lecture or textbook readings it’s OK to just cite in parenthesis e.g. (Lecture, day …) or (Slides, day …) or (Parfit, ’text’ p. #). [For other sources give author’s name and date in parenthesis and complete citation at end of paper: author, title, date, journal/publisher or web address. These should not be included in the word count though. Any citation style is fine. ]
Further tips
How to explain a position : Explain technical terms. Give examples. Contrast it with other views.
How to explain and defend an argument for a position : i) State the argument in the stan- dard (numbered) format; ii) then defend each one of the premises; iii) when defending each premise you might want to respond to objections against one or another premise. [If I want to explain the premise that ‘the body is divisible’, for example, I can explain what ‘divisible’ means and what it doesn’t mean; and then, to justify the premise, I can give an example of how I can divide my body. ]
How to respond to an argument against a position : i) First, you must state the argument in the standard (numbered) format; ii) second, you must briefly explain the argument [Briefly explain what do the premises mean and how they lead to the conclusion.] iii) finally, say exactly why you think the argument is not convincing.
– How to say exactly why an argument against a position is not convincing? You have to show that one of the premises is not true or that the premises don’t support the conclusion or that the argument is circular.
-
* How to show that a premise is not true? Give an argument against it or give
a counter-example. (For example, if the premise is a conditional statement a statement of the form ‘IF p THEN q’, then you have to tell a story where p is true but q is false. This will be a counter-example to this statement.)
-
* How to show that the premises don’t support the conclusion?
-
· If the argument is deductive, you show that the premises do not support the conclusion by showing that the argument is not valid — that is, you have to tell a imagined story that, if true, would make the premises of
the argument true but the conclusion false.
-
· If the argument is an inference to the best explanation, you show that the
premises do not support the conclusion by showing that there is an alter- native explanation that is better than the one the argument concludes. Explain exactly why you think it’s better. Is it more simple, closer to common sense, parsimonious? Why?
-
-
* To show that an argument is circular you have to explain exactly which premise depends on the conclusion being true, and why. [The paradigm case here is the argument from the bible to the existence of God. You can see it in the slides of the first week. ]
3 of 4
Even more tips
Examples and Imagination : As you might have noticed from the previous tips, examples are really important. Philosophy is very abstract; examples help us thinking about abstract things. They sometimes help clarifying statements (premises and conclusions). They sometimes help justifying premises. And they sometimes help raising objections against statements. Thus, your paper will end up having many of them. This is how it’s supposed to be.
I mentioned many examples in classroom and on slides for these various purposes. The more original your examples are, the better. [That is, the more ‘original’ they are in the sense that we didn’t talk about them in class, the more you show that you understood a statement and that you thought about why that statement is true or false.] So use your imagination. The more you do this, the better your paper will be.
Clarity : Be as clear as you can. Use simple prose. Besides the technical, philosophical terms, use words that you would normally use in a conversation. No need for fancy big words when a short one will do.
Use space effectively : Don’t repeat points already made. (If you think you might not achieve the required number of words, remember that there is always something substantial to clarify, to exemplify, to explain or to justify. Don’t assume that your reader knows the topic. Write as if your reader was a colleague who is not taking our course.)