Home

A 2.5 to 3 double spaced paper on Hume and Descartes on the a priori proof for God regarding to Philosophy. The paper is to expand on the ideas talked about in the text which will be provided below and can be counted as source. Only essay topic A should be written, all other topics should be ignored. I will provide any other additional text if needed.
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/4583/4583-h/4583-h.htm
__________
General Paper Instructions
Assignment: 2.5 to 3 double-spaced page paper (no less than two full pages please)
The paper should be expository in nature. By expository, I mean that you should primarily strive to make sense of (i.e. explain) the ideas, arguments and views expressed in the text(s) rather than to provide your own critical analysis of them. The purpose of the paper is to demonstrate the depth of your comprehension of the text(s) and to showcase your ability to interpret and make sense of subtleties and complexities of the author’s thought. Consequently, you will need to substantiate your interpretation with direct reference to the text(s) in question, in the form of quotations or, preferably, paraphrases. Always include page numbers for these references, such as (p. 24) and indicate which work you are citing if it is not absolutely clear (i.e., Meno or Meditations) The key to a good paper is to be specific, concrete and focused. Be sure to avoid making vague generalizations. Make sure that you back up your claims with textual support. In fact, every non-trivial claim in your paper should be accompanied by some sort of textual reference (to either primary or secondary sources). Make sure that your thesis is formulated clearly and explicitly in the first paragraph and that the body of your paper (i.e., every subsequent paragraph) directly supports that thesis. I expect to see well-written, well-organized, polished prose: coherent sentences, a natural flow from sentenced to sentence, unified paragraphs and transparent transitions from paragraph to paragraph.
Clear writing can only result from clear thinking. So, first and foremost, you must get to know the material that you chose to write about—read it and read it often, before you begin to write. I suggest that you start writing well before the deadline so that you have time to revise your ideas and edit your writing. Also, I suggest that you have a family member, friend or classmate or fellow philosophy club member read a draft for clarity. You are also encouraged to take advantage of Metro’s Writing Center (KD 3rd floor).
Although you must provide textual support of you claims (by cite page numbers), you are free to be creative in your responses. So, for instance, you are free to compose your essay in the form of a dialogue between Descartes and Socrates, Chomsky, Nagel, etc. But if you go that route, you must still offer something like a “thesis statement,” strive for clarity and provide textual support for you claims. Rubric:
Although I do not assign grades based on a rubric, I offer the following rubric for your own benefit. It will give you a sense of the kinds of things that I hope to see in a paper. Total points for the assignment correspond to the following grade:
16 to 20 total points = A
11 to 15 total points = B
6 to 10 total points = C
1 to 5 total points = D
0 total points = F
I. “Thesis” or statement of student’s position 4. Specific position (thesis, perspective or hypothesis) is sophisticated, interesting and original, and it reflects a comprehensive awareness of the nuances and complexities of the relevant philosophical issues/problems.
3. Specific position may not be original or imaginative, but it is articulated in a sophisticated manner that reflects a comprehensive awareness of the complexities of the relevant philosophical issues/problems.
2. Specific position is relevant and stated clearly, but reflects only a basic awareness of the relevant philosophical issues involved. 1. Specific position is stated, but is either obvious or trivial, and it reflects partial or inadequate awareness of the relevant philosophical issues involved. 0. The statement of one’s position is irrelevant, unintelligible, or absent.
II. Evidence/Explication:
4. Successfully identifies and masterfully explicates the texts, passages and aspects of an author’s work that are most relevant to the student’s position. 3. Successfully identifies the texts, passages and aspects of an author’s work that are most relevant to the student’s position, and appropriately explains or explicates some, if not all, of them. 2 Partially identifies and adequately explicates the texts, passages and aspects of an author’s work that are most relevant to the student’s position. 1. Identifies the some of the texts, passages and aspects of an author’s work that are relevant to the student’s position, but fails to identify the most important texts, passages and aspects of an author’s work or fails to explicate them adequately.
0. Fails to identify and explicate relevant texts. III. Analysis 4. The analysis is fresh and exciting, posing new ways to think about the material, and it clearly and compellingly relates “textual” evidence to the student’s position. 3. The analysis is compelling, if not original, and it consistently relates “textual” evidence to the student’s position.
2. The analysis sometime relates “textual” evidence to the student’s position, but the connections are not always clear or compelling. 1. The analysis only minimally supports the student’s position.
0. The paper lacks analysis, or the analysis fails to support the student’s position.
IV. Contextualizing
4. Clearly demonstrates command of the broader philosophical theories and ideas (of the authors/texts under consideration) by situating the specific evidence in the appropriate argumentative contexts and by articulating some of the relevant implications of the student’s analysis.
3. Demonstrates adequate awareness of the broader philosophical theories by situating the specific evidence in the appropriate argumentative contexts.
2. Demonstrates some awareness of the broader philosophical theories and ideas by attempting to situate the specific evidence in broader argumentative contexts.
1. Demonstrates little awareness of the broader philosophical theories and ideas.
0. Demonstrates no awareness of the broader philosophical theories and ideas.
V. Control of Syntax and Mechanics (including essay structure)
4. Uses graceful language that skillfully communicates meaning to readers with clarity and fluency, and is virtually error free. 3. Uses straightforward language that effectively conveys meaning to readers with few errors.
2. Uses appropriate language that usually conveys meaning to readers with clarity, although the writing may include some errors. 1. Uses language that sometimes impedes meaning because of errors in usage. 0. Uses words that nevertheless I not certain if language this is or what because ; )
ESSAY TOPICS: (Please select ONE AND ONLY ONE topic from the below…a, b, c or d). A) Hume and Descartes on the a priori proof for God:
In Part IX of the Dialogues, both Philo and Cleanthes offer objections to Demea’s a priori proof for God’s existence. Some of these criticisms specifically target Demea’s cosmological proof for God, but others are designed to challenge the credibility of any a priori proof whatsoever. Those broader objections might, therefore, serve to undermine the proofs for God that Descartes puts forth in his Meditations. In your essay, I want you to (a) spell out Demea’s cosmological proof in some detail. (b) Next, explain one or two of the criticisms that Philo and/or Cleanthes mounted against that proof. Finally, (c) I’d like you to consider how Descartes might have responded to these criticisms. Do those objections prove fatal to Descartes’s own proofs for God. If so, why? If not, why not? (You can, if you like, write this paper in the form of a dialogue between Philo, Demea and Descartes.).