Paper 3

Due November 30th

Topic:

Epicurus is famous for arguing that death is not to be feared:  "Death is nothing to us, because a body that has been dispersed into elements experiences no sensations, and the absence of sensation is nothing to us."  This is echoed in his Letter to Menoeccus, when he says:  "Accustom yourself to believing that death is nothing to us, for good and evil imply the capacity for sensation, and death is the privation of all sentience; therefore a correct understanding that death is nothing to us makes the mortality of life enjoyable, not by adding to life a limitless time, but by taking away the yearning after immortality. For life has no terrors for him who has thoroughly understood that there are no terrors for him in ceasing to live. Foolish, therefore, is the man who says that he fears death, not because it will pain when it comes, but because it pains in the prospect. Whatever causes no annoyance when it is present, causes only a groundless pain in the expectation. Death, therefore, the most awful of evils, is nothing to us, seeing that, when we are, death is not come, and, when death is come, we are not. It is nothing, then, either to the living or to the dead, for with the living it is not and the dead exist no longer."

Towards the end of the Apology, Socrates also came to the same conclusion, but for different reasons.  If both of their claims are correct, it would follow that death is not really bad.  At the same time, human beings live with great fear about death.  This experience is in conflict with the philosophical evidence presented by Epicurus and Socrates. 

Where does the truth lie? 

To answer this question, first explain Epicurus' argument and compare it with Socrates'.  How are they similar?  How do they differ?  Then examine Robert Nagel's analysis of death at

http://dbanach.com/death.htm

What does Nagel think of Epicurus' position?  Why does he think this?  (Nagel's argument is rather complex, so be sure to examine and explain it carefully.)

Finally, who's view of death is most convincing--Epicurus', Socrates', or Nagel's--and why?

You might find these sources useful:

http://marklindner.info/writings/Epicurus.htm  This is a general overview of Epicurus' view.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/epicur/#SH5g

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PHILOS 110

History of Early Philosophy

Paper 2

Length:  6-8 pages

Due:  Monday, November 7th , 2011 in class

 

Instructions:  Choose and write an essay on one of the topics below.

 

  1. Power Politics:  In Plato'sRepublic Socrates presents a view of justice that seeks to rise to the challenge posed by Thrasymachus and other so-called political realists.  (For a good example of a more modern political realist, look at Machiavelli's political philosophy.)  Explain in detail Thrasymachus' position on justice.  How would Thrasymachus evaluate political and moral problems in our own day, e.g. the question of just war, social inequality, death penalty, discrimination, etc.?  Explain in detail Socrates' response to Thrasymachus' position in Book I.  Why do Socrates' counter-arguments fail to convince Glaucon?  What is the ring of Gyges story?  How does this story affect Socrates' position?  What is Socrates' response to it?  Is this response convincing?  Why or why not?     

 

  1. The Nature of Justice:  What is justice according to Socrates?  How does justice relate to the other virtues, e.g. wisdom, courage, and moderation analyzed in the Republic?  What is Socrates' strategy for finding justice?  Why does the feverish city come into existence?  What is the relationship between the just person and the just city?  What is his tripartite theory of the soul, and how does this theory relate to the class structure in the city?  How might we create just people, according to Socrates?  What are Socrates' views on the nature of democracy, censorship, gender equality, and private property?  Why is it considered necessary to tell lies to the people in the republic?  Why must a myth replace logos in the political sphere?  What sorts of lies are told to people and why?  Do you find Socrates' approach to politics and justice convincing?  Why or why not?      

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

PHILOS 110 -- Early Philosophy

Paper One Topic

Due:  No Later Than Wednesday, September 21st, 2011 in class

Length:  4-5 double-spaced, one-sided pages with a 12 font

 

For this paper topic, you'll be focusing on the Pre-Socratics.  Your goal will be threefold:

 

1)      You will be explaining the theories of at least two Pre-Socratic thinkers;

2)      You will be considering possible reasons for and against each theory you discuss, i.e. in addition to explaining why a particular thinker might believe "x" is true, you'll be reflecting on possible criticisms of (and potential responses to) this thinker's views;

3)      Finally, you will be arguing for your own thesis on the topic in question.  This thesis must be clearly stated in the paper in your first paragraph.

 

Topics:

 

  1. Monism or Pluralism?  The Milesian school embraces material monism.  This metaphysical view is distinguishable from the material pluralism of Empedocles and Anaxagoras.  Explain what material monism is with reference to the three Milesian thinkers discussed in class.  Make sure to consider evidence that might be used (or might have been used by these thinkers, whose works only exist, if at all, in fragmentary form) to support each Milesian thinkers views of reality.  Consider also possible reasons for rejecting or calling into question the views of Thales, Anaximander, and Anaximenes, respectively.  Then compare their views to those of Empedocles and Anaxagoras.  After explaining what each of these pluralists believed, as well as discussing any evidence that might be used to support their theories, reflect upon the following question:  Given the options of monism and pluralism as represented by the Milesians and Empedocles and Anaxagoras, which theory do you find more convincing and why?  Make sure to consider possible objections to your thesis.

 

  1. To Change or Not to Change?  That is the question!  Discuss in detail and then compare and contrast the theories of Heraclitus and Parmenides.  Which thinker's views do you find more convincing and why?  Make sure to consider possible objections to your thesis.