Overview
DON'T BID IF YOU DON'T HAVE ANY EXPERTISE IN ARGUMENTATIVE ESSAYS & PHILOSOPHY KNOWLEDGE.
Critical Response Paper #2
PHIL 2020 – Self and Values
Topic: Human Nature in Contemporary Theories of the Mind, 225-249
Instructor: Dr. Thomas Provenzola
Be sure to carefully read the Critical Response Paper Guidelines posted to the 'Contents' folder under the 'Course Information' tab of eLearn before attempting and submitting the assignment.
Read: Pojman, Chapter 14: Human Nature in Contemporary Theories of the Mind, 225-249
Critical Response Paper Question
This assignment interacts with the assigned reading in Pojman, Chapter 14: Human Nature in Contemporary Theories of the Mind, 225-249.
What, specifically, is the mind-body problem in philosophy? In your response, briefly define substance dualism, materialism (physicalism), idealism, dualism, panpsychism, behaviorism, and monism.
Indicate at least two major criticisms of substance dualism. What is the significance of Occam's Razor in this discussion? What is thought to be some of the advantages of materialism? What is the problem of causality, and how does this apply to substance dualism?
How does the problem of consciousness factor into the discussion?
Additionally, choose among one of the alternative theories to dualism under materialism listed in the table on page 227—metaphysical behaviorism, reductive materialism, eliminative materialism, functionalism, and neutral monism—and offer one strength and one weakness of the theory and why you think this is the case.
Finally, offer what you think is the most defensible position on the mind-body problem and the reasoning behind this position.
Additional Considerations
Your critical response paper should accurately identify the philosophical stance held by the opposing points of view. The paper should demonstrate a thorough understanding of the different positions and include carefully reasoned arguments that give evidence of the various tensions and problem inherent to the topic.
Notice the critical response paper does not require you to take particular position on the matter at hand, although you are free to indicate your leanings if you so choose. Rather, the purpose of the paper is to give evidence of critical thinking from a philosophical point of view.
Show your awareness of the philosophical difficulties inherent to both natural law and legal positivism, and what may be some of the rational deliverances and/or objections to either position. The paper should also make as many connections as possible to course materials, including specific references to the readings assigned to date.
The purpose of a written assignment is to write. So, while there is a minimum of 1800 words, you are strongly encouraged to produce a paper of sufficient length to cover the critical nuances necessary clearly and concisely for a substantive discussion of the question.
As all good philosophical arguments go, the conclusion is only as good as the premises from which it follows. If we reject the truth of the premises or premises, or if the premise is expressed as a definition, we find inadequate or objectionable on good rational grounds, it's difficult to make a rational defense for the conclusion. For example, which premises of the hypothetical social contract do you think are most likely to be challenged and why?
Be sure to carefully define your terms. A good deal of critical analysis is about asking the right kinds of questions and thinking through various implications.
The real value of the paper is to allow yourself to go through the process of reflective thinking. This means you'll want to start sooner rather than later to allow yourself plenty of time to introspect on the ideas in question.