The paper (6–8 pages long) is due, as an attachment, via the “Assignments” tool
on eCommons by midnight Tuesday, June 7. However, an introductory paragraph
and brief outline (approximately one sentence per paragraph of the proposed
complete paper) is due (via the same tool on ecommons) at some time on or
before Tues., Jun. 2. There will then be special section meetings, including
perhaps extra meetings, at which you can get feedback on these plans from your
TA and fellow students. This preliminary assignment will not be separately
graded, but if you do not hand it in at all or if it is wholly unsatisfactory,
your grade on the final paper will be reduced by one half step (e.g. A to
A-).
The following topics are suggestions. If you want to write on another topic, feel
free to do so. It might be a good idea, however, in that case, to check with me
and/or your TA first (i.e., even before writing your introductory paragraph and
outline).
Note that the topics tend to have many sub-questions. You need not (and
probably should not) try to answer all of them. (You certainly should not just
answer them one after another in order — that would make a bad paper.) I put
them there to suggest various directions for thinking about the topic, and in
particular to head off superficial or excessively simple ways of thinking about
it.
All of the topics below require you to make substantial use of material from at
least two of our main authors (Locke, Berkeley, and Hume). You can also write
about all three if you feel it improves your paper (but you will not get extra credit
just for including a third author). If you want to write about a topic which
involves only one of the three, you should check with me or with your TA about
it.
You can also use other outside material if you think it helps your paper
(though, again, I don’t necessarily recommend that). If so you must of course
make it clear exactly what you are using and how. Also, it should still be clear
that the paper was written for this course.
The intent of the paper is to discuss the views or attitudes manifested in the
reading, rather than your own opinions on the topic. That is: you should ideally
come up with something interesting and original to say (not mere summary), but
it should something interesting and original about what our authors mean. (In
particular: I don’t expect or encourage you to reach a judgment about whether
what they say is correct or not.) If you are upset by something one of our authors
says, or find it ridiculous, you should use that as an excuse to try and understand
better why someone would say such a thing. If you can’t manage that, you
should try to write about a topic which doesn’t touch on the problem
area.
For a good comparison paper, remember that the comparison should be
interesting. This means, for example, that the paper should not read like two
shorter papers (one on each author) stuck together. Also it should say something
non-obvious about their similarities and differences. (It is always possible to make
any two positions sounds similar if one is vague enough. But that isn’t
interesting.)
If you’re using the editions I ordered, you can refer to the readings just by
giving the page number. If you use a different edition and/or some other source,
please give at least enough bibliographical information that I and/or your TA can
find it if necessary. There’s no need for a separate bibliography or title
page.
You can find answers to some commonly asked questions about my
assignments and grading in my FAQ.