For October 24: 
The assigned selection: Michael Huemer, "The Lure of Radical Skepticism" (p. 240)
Please go back and read your Descartes paper where I had asked about the reasonableness of his beginning philosophy with universal doubt.  Now, after going carefully through Huemer's discussion, I want you to revisit the question of whether a radically skeptical stance is or is not the best way to begin philosophy.  (Do you agree or not with Huemer's own position?)

In class: 

            Summarize the four leading arguments for a radical skepticism.  Where would Descartes’ First Meditation fit in?

            What is a foundational proposition?  Do we have any examples from Descartes’ Second Meditation?

            How does Huemer redefine the term “skepticism”?  What is “internalist justification”?
                   Please do note that Huemer's understanding of "common sense beliefs" is much more restrictive than  what we might usually have in mind.  I recommend making a distinction between his "common sense beliefs" (ones that an individual would have to be insane--or a philosopher--not to accept) and what we might call "ordinary beliefs," which clearly are cultural products and so are not universal.

For October 31:

Since this is Halloween we should prepare for it by thinking more about whether philosophers have successfully exorcised what Ryle called “the ghost in the machine.”

There are two assigned selections: Derek Parfit, “Split Brains and Personal Identity” (p. 132) and David Armstrong, “The Mind-Brain Identity Theory” (p. 156)

In your essay for today I want you to have read both selections but then write on just one.  If you choose the Parfit selection, I want you to explain the difference between an ego theory and a bundle theory in saying what we are as persons, then defend one or the other as the better approach.  If you choose the Armstrong selection, sum up what he calls a materialist or physicalist theory of the mind, then decide whether you find it acceptable.  In either case, be fairly brief about what the author himself is saying (we will have all read the selections, right?) but in your discussion concentrate on your reasons for either accepting or rejecting his position.

In class:  After reviewing some of the positions you have taken, let’s look at whether there can still be any kind of case for the Cartesian view of the mind and so for a dualist position.  We will look back to what we learned about Sartre’s understanding of human consciousness and see how it fits into these new discussions.

For November 7:

The assigned selections: Thomas Nagel, “Bat Sonar”  (p. 169) and David Chalmers, “Facing Up to the Problem of Consciousness” (p. 173)

In both selections we are looking at the question of subjectivity (so crucial for Sartre).  In your essay I want you to (1) sum up what is this supposed mind-body problem both authors bring up, and (2) decide whether you are willing to buy into Chalmers’ approach in resolving it.

In class:  Again we will review your positions.  Then we are going to see how the discussions so far relate to the difference between those who, like Sartre, emphasize free will and those who insist on what is called determinism.

For November 14:

The assigned selection: W.T. Stace, “Compatibilism Defended” (p. 212)

In your essay I want you to sum up just what is supposed to be the issue of free will and why it matters.   Then I am going to ask you to do some research on just what Plato seemed to hold about the issue (I will post some links to his understanding of how someone can choose to do evil), sum up your findings, and relate it to the position you find with Stace.

In class:  After reviewing your papers we are going to review the different selections we have gone over in this part of the course in order to see the alternative views possible on what we are as human beings.

For November 21:  There is no new reading, but I am asking for an essay in which you try to answer as clearly as possible whether you will or will not accept a dualist position (mind and body as separate realities), point out how your stand compares with any of the readings through this part of the course.  In the first half of the class we will go over what you have, and in the second half you will have your second midterm (again, bring a blue book).