Overview
Reaction Paper Guidelines
I. Assignment Overview. NB: You are required to write one reaction paper for this course.
Each student is required to write one reaction paper. The paper is to be a focused, 2-page (600-word) critical discussion of some aspect of a reading included in the paper topics folder or embedded under a topic below. A typical reaction paper would include a) an explanation of an important argument, principle, distinction, or concept presented in the reading and b) critical evaluation of the argument, principle, distinction, or concept selected. Papers are due by 11:59 p.m., Wednesday, 4/9/24. Late papers are lowered by 2 points for each day they are late. Papers submitted more than two weeks after the deadline will receive a zero.
II. Mechanics. The paper should be approximately 600 words (2 pages with 12 pt. font, double-spaced with one-inch margins). Late papers will be lowered by 2 points for each day they are late; including weekends and holidays. It is permissible to e-mail your paper as an attachment.
Though it is not required, feel free to consult additional sources in writing your paper. Where you do consult additional sources, be sure to indicate this with a footnote or endnote. You must also give full citations for any reading that serves as the basis of the assignment. You may use any of the several accepted methods for documenting your sources, including MLA or Chicago Manual of style; however, it is imperative that you document fully your sources. (Most dictionaries include citation guidelines in their appendices.)
III. Structure & Content. The paper should include the following components.
A. Thesis Statement. The paper should begin with a brief (one to three sentence) statement in which you characterize the topic of the paper and the conclusion you will be defending.
B. Exposition. (200 - 250 words) Explain the argument/principle/concept/distinction on which you are focusing. Given the brevity of these assignments, you will need to streamline your exposition, taking care to explain only those components most germane to the topic. Your exposition should not be simply a string of quotes or a very close paraphrasing of the relevant texts. Some reliance upon an author's terminology is inevitable; however, you should strive to explain his or her thought in your own words as much as possible.
C. Analysis. (200 - 250 words) Once you’ve articulated the aspect of the article you’ve chosen to focus on, subject it to critical scrutiny. Here you might do any of the following: a) disagree with it, b) defend it by suggesting an additional argument the philosopher might have used to defend his/her view, c) apply it to a related issue or d) anticipate an objection to it and respond to the objection. This list is not meant to be exhaustive. Anything that engages the topic and has you doing some critical thought is acceptable. Remember, however, that these are philosophy papers; thus, it is important that you have argumentation to support your position.
N.B. If you are in trouble (if the assignment doesn't make sense to you or if some confusion is haunting you that you cannot quite resolve), see the instructor as soon as you can. Any help compatible with fairness to the rest of the class is available.
IV. Evaluation of Reaction Papers.
A. Each reaction paper is worth 100 points. The possible points awarded for each part of the paper are as follows:
1. Thesis Statement: 10 points
2. Exposition: 45 points
3. Analysis: 45 points
B. Criteria for evaluation:
1. Criteria relevant to the thesis:
a. Clarity
b. Accuracy
2. Criteria relevant to the exposition:
a. Clarity
b. Accuracy
c. Completeness
3. Criteria relevant to the analysis:
a. Clarity
b. Accuracy
c. Tenability
d. Originality
C. Point Deductions for Errors in Style and Mechanical Errors:
1. Misspellings (including typographical errors) = -1 each
2. Failure to properly cite a source = -1 each. For print sources, you may use the forms of citation given in the Chicago Manual of Style or the MLA Stylesheet. (I will be content with any of the common methods used to document sources, provided full bibliographic information is supplied. Please note that most dictionaries include a manual of style.) I’d prefer that you avoid using Internet sources; however, if you use web-based materials, be sure to give both the title of the main page and the URL as well as the author’s name.
3. Grammatical Mistakes = -1. These include but are not limited to the following: sentence fragments, run-on sentences and agreement errors.
4. Exceeding the length limit by more than 1/3 of a page or 100 words = -2
D. Plagiarism. By plagiarism I mean “work done by another party that you present as if it is your own.” Any work presented that is a) not your own and b) not identified as from another source will be counted as plagiarism. Papers containing any plagiarism will receive an “F,” and, depending on the severity of the case, may result in failure for the course and referral to university judiciaries. Papers composed using AI programs like ChatGPT are plagiarism. No credit will be given for papers that Turnitin flags as having been composed by ChatGPT or another AI program. Moving beyond the issue of the repercussions of turning in an AI generated paper, I would encourage you to not cheat yourself of the opportunity to work on your own powers of thought and expression. Like all human abilities, these can be improved only through use and will atrophy when they aren't practiced. Embrace the challenge of expressing your own thoughts on a difficult topic!
Reaction Paper Topics. You must write on one of the topics below for your reaction paper; however, you are free to choose any of the topics below. (Please note that the topics vary quite a bit in terms of the source material. In some cases, you would need to read an article of several pages and provide a condensed explanation of the author’s argument that you would then subject to critical analysis. In other cases, the text you are working with is short and may require that you engage in interpretive speculation as the author’s meaning.)
Select and complete one of the following reaction paper topics.
A. Topic One: Explain and critically evaluate G.E.M. Anscombe’s distinction between irrational causes and non-rational causes and why she thinks it poses a problem for C.S. Lewis’s argument that naturalism is self-defeating. (Please see “Associated Texts” folder for Anscombe’s, “A Reply to Mr. C. S. Lewis's Argument that ‘Naturalism’ is Self-Refuting” in Socratic Digest (Oxford, 1947), pp. 224-232.)
B. Topic Two: On pp. 39-41 of “A Theodicy of Heaven and Hell,” Richard Swinburne presents an account of happiness. In this reaction paper, explain and critically evaluate this account, including in your discussion Swinburne’s view of the deepest form of happiness. Swinburne’s essay, “A Theodicy of Heaven and Hell,” in The Existence and Nature of God, edited by Alfred J. Freddoso (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1983), can be found in the “Associated Texts” folder. (Note: you may want to read the beginning of the article as well to fully understand the context of Swinburne’s account of happiness.)
C. Topic Three: Simone Weil wrote much of her philosophy in the form of brief reflections. In this reaction paper, speculate on what you think Weil means in the following reflection, and critically react to what you believe she had in mind.
When we are disappointed by a pleasure which we have been expecting and which comes, the disappointment is because we were expecting the future, and as soon as it is there it is present. We want the future to be there without ceasing to be future. This is an absurdity of which eternity alone is the cure. --Simone Weil. Gravity and Grace, translated by Emma Crawford and Mario von der Ruhr (New York: Routledge, 1999), p. 20.
D. Topic Four. Explain and critically evaluate Peter van Inwagen’s argument to show that if a human being were completely destroyed, it would not be possible even for an omnipotent God to resurrect the human being in question. (Please see the “Associated Texts” folder to find Van Inwagen’s essay, “The Possibility of Resurrection” in Immortality, edited by Paul Edwards (MacMillan, 1992), pp. 242-246.)