philosophy term paper sample

Information on Writing Philosophy Papers

Please familiarize yourself with the university’s academic honest policies if you have not already done so. They are available here: http://www.rochester.edu/college/honesty/docs/Academic_Honesty.pdf . Note in particular that it is a violation of these policies to use material from any source (other than yourself) in your papers without attribution and, where relevant, use of quotation marks. This applies especially to copying and pasting material from websites, which should always be avoided. You may, of course, make limited use of academically respectable web resources where relevant, as long as they are properly cited (I'm not picky about the exact format of your citations, as long as they contain the relevant information) and any quoted material is clearly placed in quotation marks (though this should still be a very limited portion of your paper). However, you should never make any use at all of student 'essay mills'--websites that offer students canned student essays for 'research' purposes: these essays are not research and do not meet the standards for scholarly sources; they have no place in the writing of your papers.

General Guidelines for Writing Philosophy Papers

• Clarity and straightforwardness of thought and language are crucial: avoid flowery styles and long, superfluous introductions and conclusions. (No paper should ever start with a sentence like: "Since the dawn of time, mankind has pondered the question of...") The bulk of your paper should consist of philosophical exposition and analysis, in plain but precise language.
• If you are writing an essay in response to an assigned essay topic, the most important thing is simply to make sure you answer the question that was asked , carefully and thoroughly. Avoid getting off on tangents that are not crucial to your topic, and avoid sweeping generalizations you can't support in the paper . In addition to the quality of exposition, one of the central things we look for in a philosophy paper is how well the thesis in question is supported. Even if the reader thinks some of your claims are false, your paper can be excellent if you do a solid job of defending your claims.
• If you are asked to explain something, do not merely summarize what an author or lecturer has said. Explain and illuminate the relevant ideas or arguments in your own words, as if you were trying to help a fellow student gain a deeper understanding of them.
• Avoid excessive quotation! Stringing together quotes is not explaining a position or an argument, and does not display your understanding of the material. Even paraphrasing in your own words is not enough. Again, explanation involves clarifying the claims, bringing out hidden assumptions behind arguments, noticing ambiguities as they arise and nailing them down, and so on.
• In addition to careful explanation of positions or arguments, some paper topics ask for critical evaluation of those positions and arguments. An example of critical evaluation of an argument would be my lecture criticizing Thomson's argument for the conclusion that abortions wouldn't violate a fetus' right to life even if it were granted to have a full right to life. (I developed and used a distinction between positive and negative rights, and argued that the central parallel she appeals to in her argument fails to go through, since it involves a conflation of positive and negative rights.) Some paper topics ask you to do the same sort of thing, and if you're writing on such a topic, be sure that this component of your paper is strong and well developed.
• Proofreading of papers is a necessity. So is decent grammar: incoherent grammar makes the effective communication of ideas impossible.
• As for which topic you choose: You should choose something you're most interested in and have the most to say about. Beware of any topic that seems too easy: If it seems simple--like something you can dash off in a few paragraphs--then that's a good sign that you're not thinking deeply enough about it, and you should probably write on another topic. So choose your topic carefully.
• This is important : If you use someone else's words, you have to use quotation marks and cite the source in a footnote. If you don't, it's plagiarism, which constitutes cheating and is a violation of the honor code. See note at top.

Sample Short Paper and Commentary

For Illustrative purposes only

Sample Essay Question : Is Socrates' position in the Crito , concerning the moral authority of the state, consistent with his view that one should never do anything that is wrong? Is it consistent with what he says, in the Apology , about what he would do if commanded by the state to cease practicing philosophy, or about what he did when commanded by the Thirty to capture Leon of Salamis for execution? Explain.

(Note: page references are to a different edition than the one you have ; paragraphs should be indented, but are not here due to limitations of html formatting; I have not here included footnotes for the same reason; and your papers should be double-spaced, rather than single-spaced.)

Socrates on the Moral Authority of the State

In the Crito , Socrates makes some surprisingly strong claims about the moral authority of the state, which might even seem to be inconsistent both with another fundamental claim he makes in the Crito and with certain claims he makes in the Apology . I shall argue that although these claims seem to be in some tension with each other, the crucial claims about the authority of the state in the Crito can plausibly be interpreted in such a way as to remove any real inconsistency with the other claims.

The first, rather striking claim about the moral authority of the state occurs at 51b of the Crito . Socrates argues that, because of the state's role as a provider of security, education, and various important social institutions (such as marriage), the citizens of the state are its "offspring and servants"; and from this he concludes that citizens are subordinate to the state and its laws to such an extent that if a citizen ever disagrees with the state's laws or orders, he "must either persuade it or obey its orders," even if the latter amounts to suffering death. The implication for his own case is clear: Socrates had tried to persuade the court of his innocence and of the injustice of his execution (as detailed in the Apology ), but he had failed; therefore, he argues, he must now obey the court and accept his death sentence--even though he still thinks that he is in the right on this matter.

The second, closely related claim, comes only a few paragraphs later, in 51e and 52. Socrates there argues that by virtue of remaining in the state, a citizen enters into an implied contract with it to obey its commands. More precisely, the claim is again that a citizen who has a disagreement with the state must either persuade it that it is wrong, or else obey it. In the voice of the personified laws: "either persuade us or do what we say" (52a). The implication, again, is that if one fails to persuade the state to change its mind, for whatever reason, then one must obey its orders. A citizen has no moral right to continue to resist the state, even if he is convinced that he is in the right and the state is in the wrong.

Now as mentioned above, these claims seem directly opposed to certain other claims Socrates makes. Most importantly, earlier in the Crito itself, Socrates had stressed that "one must never do wrong" (49b). Indeed, this serves as the driving principle behind the rest of his argument in the Crito . But is this really consistent with maintaining that one must always obey the state, if one fails to persuade it that something it orders is wrong? The obvious objection is that the state might well order one to do something wrong--e.g. because one of its laws is an unjust one, as Jim Crow laws were. In that case, Socrates' claim that one should never do anything wrong would entail refusing to do what the state orders-- even if one is unsuccessful in persuading the state that it is wrong. Thus, Socrates' claim that one should never do wrong seems inconsistent with his claim that one must always obey the final orders of the state. 

Secondly, it might be objected that Socrates' view of the moral authority of the state is inconsistent both with what he did when ordered by the Thirty to capture Leon of Salamis for execution, and with what he says he'd do if ordered by the state to cease practicing philosophy (both from the Apology ). When the Thirty ordered him to capture Leon, he refused, on the grounds that this would have been wrong (unjust and impious). ( Apology , 32c-d) This seems to be a recognition that one is morally obligated or at least permitted to disobey the state when what it commands is wrong--even if one fails to persuade it of its wrongness. And similarly, Socrates makes clear that he would disobey the state and continue philosophizing if it were to order him to stop--again, on the grounds that it would be wrong for him to stop philosophizing (recall that he saw philosophy as his life's mission, given him by the god). ( Apology , 29c-d) Again, this seems to contradict what he says in the Crito about the supreme moral authority of the state and its laws and orders.

I believe, however, that it is possible to read the crucial passages about the authority of the state in the Crito in such a way as to render them consistent with Socrates' exhortation never to do wrong, and with his remarks about disobedience in the Apology . To see this, it is necessary to distinguish first of all between two issues: (a) what the law might require you to do , and (b) what the law might require you to endure . With this distinction in mind, consider the following possible interpretations of Socrates' claim about the moral authority of the state in the Crito :

( i ) Citizens must obey any law or order of the state, whatever it asks them to do or to endure ;

(ii) Citizens must endure whatever any law or order of the state says they must--including the law that verdicts arrived at through proper procedures shall be carried out--but citizens need not and morally should not do what is prescribed by an unjust law.

Now which of these positions is it most plausible to attribute to Socrates in the Crito ?

There are passages that might seem to suggest i (e.g. 51e, 52a), but again, the obvious problem is that it seems inconsistent with his fundamental principle that one should never do wrong (49a)--at least on the assumption, which Socrates clearly accepts in the Apology , that the state is not infallible as regards judgments of right and wrong. Thus, a more charitable reading would interpret the passages about the moral authority of the state as referring implicitly to cases where the state does not require one to do anything unjust, but merely to endure something (or perhaps to do something that is not itself unjust, such as rendering some political service).

If the passages are read in this way, we can interpret Socrates' claim as ii above. When he says that one must obey the state's final laws and orders, what he means is that one must do anything it tells one to do within the bounds of justice , and that one must endure anything it tells one to endure. Thus, Socrates was not obligated to capture Leon of Salamis, and would not be obligated to cease philosophizing if ordered to, since that would be doing something wrong (i.e. something that is not within the bounds of justice); but he is obligated to accept and endure his punishment, as long as it was arrived at through proper judicial procedures. The latter is true, according to Socrates, even though the punishment is wrong; for by suffering it, he is not himself doing anything wrong, but only enduring something wrong. This is perfectly consistent with Socrates' exhortation never to do anything wrong.

Thus, what at first appears to be a blatant contradiction among Socrates' various claims is fairly easily remedied if we interpret the relevant passages in the Crito as making the claim in ii rather than the claim in i above. This interpretation is supported not only by the fact that it helps to reconcile Socrates' seemingly contradictory claims, but also by the fact that Socrates' examples of obedience to the state over one's own objections all involve having to endure something, rather than having to do something. He speaks in Crito 51b, for example, of having to "endure in silence whatever it instructs you to endure, whether blows or bonds, and if it leads you into war to be wounded or killed, you must obey." Though he does not explicitly formulate his claim as in ii above, his focus is clearly on the issue of having to endure something prescribed by the state, over one's own objections. Therefore, it is consistent with the text to interpret him as making only the claim in ii, which is fully compatible with his claim that one must never do wrong, and with his claim that under certain conditions one should refuse to do something the state orders (such as refusing to capture someone for an unjust execution, or refusing to cease carrying out your divine mission as long as you live).

As for the plausibility of Socrates' view, I believe that it is still overly demanding, even when qualified as in ii above. It's unclear why any of the factors Socrates mentioned should give the state such overriding moral authority that one should be morally obliged to endure execution without resistance even in cases where the state is genuinely in the wrong. It seems more plausible to hold that if one stands to be unjustly executed, one can rightly resist this punishment ( even if it would equally be permissible not to resist). One could do this, I think, without showing any contempt for the laws, or challenging their authority, since one still grants the state's authority to do its best to carry out the punishment, and simply asserts a moral right to do one's best in turn to avoid such wrongful punishment. But that's a topic for another paper.

COMMENTARY :

Note, first of all, the concise, crisp introduction. The problem is plainly stated, and then I explain clearly what I'm going to do in the paper--all in just a few sentences. There's no rambling introduction with sentences starting with "Since the beginning of time, mankind has pondered the mysteries of etc."

The style is straightforward, striving for clarity rather than literary flair. Jargon is avoided as far as possible.

After the introduction, the problem is stated in more depth and detail, with textual references. Notice the spare use of quotes. I quote only a few words here and there, where necessary to illustrate the points. This might be extended to a few sentences, if necessary, but beware of over-quoting and letting someone else's words do your work for you. (The worst mistake is just stringing together quotes, which accomplishes nothing.) Notice also that textual references are given for the quotes, as well as for paraphrased passages. (Normally, I'd use footnotes and have complete citations, but I'm limited by html format here.)

Notice how, in describing the problem, I try to elucidate it, rather than just summarizing it. Summary is not explanation . Instead, I try to make clear where exactly the tensions among the various claims seem to arise and why, and how they apply to Socrates' own case. I've tried to go well beyond the superficial statement of the problem in the essay question, to illuminate and develop it.

Now having done that, one might just stop and claim to have answered the question: "No, the various positions are not consistent, and Socrates is just contradicting himself." But that would be a very superficial paper. Instead, I tried to dig beneath the surface a little bit, and to notice that the central claim can be interpreted in more than one way. So I first of all made a distinction between two possible interpretations, which in turn depended on a distinction between what you might be commanded to do and what you might be commanded to endure . That distinction enabled me to argue for an interpretation of what Socrates is claiming about the moral authority of the state that renders this claim consistent with his other claims. (Noticing and exploiting distinctions is a large part of what doing philosophy is all about.)

Whether or not you agree with that particular argument, you can see the difference between bringing the discussion to that level of detail and merely staying on the surface. So even if you would have taken a different position, the point is that a good paper would still be engaging with the issues at that level of depth, rather than remaining on the surface. If you think Socrates really is contradicting himself, for example, you might then also discuss the distinctions I pointed out, but then argue for an interpretation along the lines of the first interpretation instead, despite the inconsistencies with other things he says. (Of course, you'd have to be able to give an argument for why the text should be understood in that way, despite the fact that Socrates winds up with rather glaringly conflicting claims on that reading.)

Again, notice that I am striving for clarity , precision and thoroughness , along with a straightforward organization for the paper.

News alert: UC Berkeley has announced its next university librarian

Secondary menu

• Log in to your Library account
• Hours and Maps
• Connect from Off Campus
• UC Berkeley Home

Search form

Philosophy research and writing: sample papers.

• Reference Texts
• Sample Papers
• Writing Guides

Examples of Philosophical Writing

One of the most difficult things about writing philosophy papers as a new undergraduate is figuring out what a philosophy paper is supposed to look like! For many students here at Cal, a lower division philosophy class is the first experience they have with philosophical writing so when asked to write a paper it can be difficult to figure out exactly what a good paper would be. Below are a few examples of the kinds of papers you might be asked to write in a philosophy class here at Cal as well as the papers written by professional philosophers to which the sample papers are a response.

Precis Sample Paper

• "War and Peace in Islam" by Bassam Tibi In this paper, Bassam Tibi explores the Islamic position on war and peace as understood through the Quran and its interpretations in Islamic history.
• Max Deleon's Precis of Tibi on war and peace in Islam In this sample paper, Max Deleon, a former tutor at the university of Vermont gives a summary of an argument made by Bassam Tibi in his paper "War and Peace in Islam"

Critical Response to a Philosopher's Position

• "In Defense of Mereological Universalism" by Michael C. Rea In this paper, Michael Rea defends the position in ontology known as mereological universalism which he defines as that position which holds that "for any set S of disjoint objects, there is an object that the members of S compose."
• Max Deleon's critical response to Michael Rea on Mereological Universalism In lower division philosophy courses here at Cal, the most common type of paper that you will write will be one in which you are asked to respond to some given philosopher's position by uncovering some difficulty in that position. In this paper, Max Deleon critically examines Michael Rae's paper "In Defense of Mereological Universalism"

Exposition and Amending of Existing Philosopher's Position

• "Against Moral Rationalism, Philippa Foot" in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy The section "Against moral Rationalism" in the article "Philippa Foot" from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy explores Foot's positions on moral motivation which Max Deleon deals with in the paper below.
• Max Deleon's exposition and emendation of "Morality as a System of Hypothetical Imperatives" In this paper Max Deleon looks at Philippa Foot's argument from "Morality as a System of Hypothetical Imperatives," raises a few possible objections, and proposes emendations to Foot's position to respond to those objections.
• "Morality as a System of Hypothetical Imperatives" by Philippa Foot One of the most influential paper in 20th century philosophy, Philippa Foot's "Morality as a System of Hypothetical Impreatives" tackles to dominant Kantian conception of the nature of morality and offers an alternative understanding of the nature of morality.
• << Previous: Reference Texts
• Next: Writing Guides >>
• Last Updated: May 19, 2020 2:25 PM
• URL: https://guides.lib.berkeley.edu/philosophy_writing

357 Philosophical Topics to Write About for Essays & Term Papers

• 🔝 Top-10 Philosophy Topics
• ⛪ Philosophy of Religion
• 🗳️ Political Philosophy
• ⚖️ Philosophy of Law
• 🔬 Philosophy of Science
• 😊 Easy Philosophy Topics
• 😀 Fun Philosophy Topics

✅ Philosophy Argumentative Essay Topics

📝 philosophy term paper topics, ✒️ philosophical topics to write about, ❓ philosophy essay questions.

• ✍️ Bonus: 17 Writing Tips

There is a joke that in successful relationships, one becomes happy, and in unsuccessful, one becomes a philosopher. Unfortunately, that could be true only if the person read philosophical books on philosophy or developed their philosophical research theories in the latter case.

Philosophy is a Greek word meaning “love for wisdom.” It analyzes how we perceive the outside and inner world using logic and reason. This discipline teaches us close reading, clear writing, critical thinking, and logical analysis. These methods try to formulate the appropriate language to describe reality and our place in it.

🔝 Top-10 Philosophy Essay Topics

• How does death shape the meaning of life?
• Do our senses reflect the accurate picture of the world?
• Why do we consider some actions to be morally incorrect?
• Is there a correct way to live a life?
• What makes humans different from other mammals?
• If art is subjective, how can we tell whether a given artist is talented or not?
• Knowledge can hurt. Why do we strive for it?
• Idealism: A way to perfection or fantasy?
• Does love have a meaning beyond itself?
• Should happiness be the ultimate purpose in life?

⛪ Philosophy of Religion Topics

• Do religious beliefs contradict scientific thinking?
• Does religion improve or degrade humanity?
• Religion and Politics in Durkheim’s Theories .
• The belief system of each person limits their faith.
• How do different faiths envision the ultimate reality?
• Islam and Its Influence on the World Society.
• Can God’s existence be justified on rational grounds?
• If God exists, does it mean that only one religion is genuine?
• Same-sex Marriage as a Religious Issue .
• Omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, omnibenevolent: Is that true?
• What is the source of any religious belief?
• Descartes’ proof of the existence of God.
• Philosophy and religion: theory and practice.
• Differences between religion and philosophy of religion.
• Does philosophy admit that god exists?
• Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.
• Harmonization of god’s purposes with human goods in Kant’s philosophy.
• Reason and religious belief. An introduction to The Philosophy of Religion’ by M. Peterson.
• Religious Studies and Theology.
• Aristotle’s god: the universal source of change in the universe.
• Human rights from the perspective of Islam .
• Christian Religious Fundamentalism and Family Role Identities .
• Do you think the five philosophical proofs of god’s existence are trustworthy?
• Evangelical theology: Jesus Christ.
• Does Hegel’s doctrine of god match Christian theology ?
• Religion and public life in “American Grace” by Putnam.
• Pragmatic views in “The Will to Believe” by William James.
• God in Descartes and Nietzsche.
• Which model of faith do you prefer?
• Sociology of religion: purpose and concept.
• Describe the constant conflict of creationism.
• Relation between god, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit.
• Can religious experiences confirm the existence of ultimate reality?
• Islamic civilization: religious practices.
• How could one distinguish the genuine experience of god from the ungenuine?
• What is the highest good in Buddhism ?
• Descartes and God’s existence.
• Is morality possible without religion?
• Buddhism: teachings of Buddha.
• Can there be free will if god is omniscient?
• Afterlife in different world cultures.
• Miracle: A transgression of the natural law or a transgression of our understanding of it?
• Which side of the mind-body debate would you take?
• Religious beliefs and political decisions.
• Establish the relationship between a person’s belief in the afterlife and their theistic position.
• Karma, dharma, and samsara in Indian religions.
• How to make sense of religious diversity?
• Conceptions of Christ.
• Can the language of god be understood from the human position?
• Judaism concepts.
• The nature of miracles in the philosophy of religion.
• Moses in Christianity, Judaism, and Islam.
• The difference in the conceptions of god in monotheist and pantheist religions.
• World religions studies and key concepts.
• Does the doctrine of the trinity relate Christianism to pantheism?
• What is the logical problem of evil?

🗳️ Topics in Political Philosophy

• Why is the term “political” a problem in philosophy?
• The Research of Morality in Politics.
• Why is climate change an issue for political philosophy?
• Political Science, Philosophy & Social Criticism.
• Is it possible to establish global justice?
• What does it take to be a free citizen?
• Political Ideologies From the Philosophic Point of View.
• Does a fair way to distribute wealth exist?
• Does a nation owe anything to another country?
• Utopia: ideal state basic principles.
• What are the limits of the legal obligations of a citizen?
• The destructive nature of capitalism.
• Civil liberties in the supreme court.
• Nationalism vs. Cosmopolitanism: A comparative study.
• Political justice: Muslims discrimination.
• The equality in opportunity for racial justice.
• Marxism and realism in international relationships.
• What are an individual’s rights against the state?
• Karl Marx’s ideas: society alienation and conflict theory.
• Alternative theories in international relations.
• Is democracy another unattainable ideal?
• International relations theories: realism & green politics.
• To which degree should the state force its people to do something for their own good?
• Democracy: pluralist theory and elite theory.
• Realist versus liberal international relations theory.
• Democracy vs. Epistocracy: which one do you support and why?
• Realism and idealism in modern international relations.
• Does the government have the moral right to ban unhealthy behavior?
• Liberal international relations theories and global security.
• Explain the importance of political philosophy in the education of future citizens.
• Italian fascism and German nazism contrast analysis.
• What could Aristotle tell us about the world of globalization: A critical study of ancient philosophy.
• Political realism is the theory of international relations.
• Why are there no permanent answers in political philosophy?
• The role of the state: ideologies and policies.
• What are the principal goals of a decent society?
• Marxism philosophy, a constitutional republic, and American criminal justice.
• Why should a person obey the law?
• The Idea of Republican Theory
• What is the basis of human dignity: freedom, virtue, friendship, and love?
• Neoliberalism: history and modern perception.
• What are the meeting points between the philosophy of religion and political philosophy?
• “The german ideology” by Karl Marx and materialism.
• Is there a single best political regime?
• Karl Marx’s theory of exploitation: a critical analysis.
• Can humanity exist without wars?
• Tocqueville and the idea of America moving toward communism.
• The mechanism of redirecting conflict to the common good in politics.
• The essential concepts and principles of democracy.
• Is international politics a sum of the regimes of the member countries?
• Concept and the significance of soft power.
• What is the standard character type of a democratic society
• Democratic society and the capitalist system.
• What is the most praiseworthy thing for a community?
• “Civil disobedience” essay by Henry David Thoreau.
• Do you believe that humanity will find something better than democracy in the future?
• Bureaucracy and its role in society.
• Are people capable of establishing a government based on reflection and choice?
• Federalism: challenges and debates.
• What are the qualities of successful and wise statesmanship?
• Neoliberalism and human suffering.

⚖️ Philosophy of Law Topics

• Should we obey the law because of fear of punishment or because it is good?
• Capital Punishment: The Philosophical Perspective.
• Why cannot humanity adopt single legislation for all countries?
• Individual and Social Theories in Explaining a Crime .
• The difference between consequential and categorical moral reasoning of crimes.
• The theory of rational choice in criminology.
• Are the institutions of punishment morally justifiable?
• Stanford Prison Experiment and Its Consequences.
• Wrongful conviction in the criminal court system.
• A Utilitarian Approach to Capital Punishment.
• What distinguishes law from ethical norms?
• Crime theories and countermeasures.
• How did the principal legal issues transform through the ages?
• Assisted suicide: euthanasia and self-determination.
• Do the changes in morality entail changes in the legal systems?
• The common law background of the Fourth Amendment.
• Is morality objective or subjective?
• Is healthcare a civil or human right?
• Can the empowerment of a certain population group limit the opportunities for another?
• Rights protected by the Second Amendment.
• Where is the line between the right to free speech and discrimination?
• Poverty or low income as a cause of crime.
• Can we say that law has conventional nature?
• Constitution and system of separation of powers.
• A legal system requires a sanction for non-compliance.
• Rights and freedoms in the US.
• Legal realism: the law is the product of court decisions.
• The financial cost of crime to society.
• The law of human interpretation in law.
• Is the Bill of Rights necessary or not?
• Deontology : preserving the autonomy of other people.
• Importance of drug legalization in the USA.
• The abortion debate – understanding the issues.
• Life in prison and death penalty comparison.
• Capital punishment and the concept of redemption.
• Death penalty for and against.

👼 Philosophy & Ethics Topics

• Moral right and wrong vs. moral good and evil: A personal experience.
• Capital Punishment and Its Ethics.
• Any society has its specific moral outlook.
• Positive Psychology and Philosophical Concepts.
• Ethics and morality: Interchangeable terms?
• Ethical Decision-Making & Counseling on Abortion.
• Will humanity ever find a correct way to live?
• Philosophical Ethical Theories: Kantianism and Utilitarianism .
• Should secondary education comprise ethics?
• What is the current theory of ethics prevailing in philosophy?
• Death Penalty: Crime and Morality.
• Ethics in Descartes and Nietzsche.
• Does the level of schooling define a person’s morality?
• “The Allegory of the Cave” – The philosophy of Plato and Socrates.
• Is there a moral justification for the class system?
• Is there anything morally wrong with abortions?
• Moral Philosophy and Peter Singer.
• Lawyers and ethics: the attorney-client privilege.
• Mass surveillance as an anti-crime measure: An ethical perspective.
• Equal consideration of interests to non-human animals.
• Is honesty a must for a moral person?
• Police ethics and misconduct.
• Wealth: A prerequisite for charitable actions?
• Do we have a moral responsibility over developing countries?
• The ethics of cloning: morality and issues.
• The ethical side of human cloning.
• Should governments consider the ethical aspects of new laws?
• Morality, ethics, and ethical integrity.
• The ethics of discrimination: is there any?
• Censorship: should we ban morally harmful content?
• Lifestyles in Don Giovanni and Dangerous Liaisons.
• Are criminals evil by nature?
• Animal experiments: benefits, ethics, and defenders.
• Do you support or discard utilitarianism ?
• Do you think there is such a thing as a moral fact?
• Animal research, its ineffectiveness, and amorality.
• Can ethical rules limit free will?
• Ethical life issues in works by Cicero and C.S. Lewis.
• Write a dissertation on the drivers of human behavior.
• The problem of moral superiority.
• Socrates and Thrasymachus’ views on justice in Plato’s Republic.
• Do we have the right to restrict the immigrant inflow?
• Does every action presuppose an intent?
• Plato and Kant’s understanding of justice.
• Does the current state of morality make us civilized?
• Case study on models of making ethical decisions.
• Is a good death possible?
• Al-Ghazali philosophy.
• Deontological ethics vs. value ethics: Research project.
• Does there exist a bad motivation for procreation?
• Euthyphro’s definition of “Holiness” or “Piety.”
• Ethics in the institutions of global governance.
• Nihilism in Nietzsche’s, Kierkegaard’s, and Heidegger’s views.

🔬 Philosophy of Science Essay Topics

• The future of technology : The responsibility of philosophers?
• Human Being in the Modern Science.
• Time travel: Should we learn to do that?
• Thinking and Intelligence in Psychological Science.
• Is artificial intelligence our only hope for unparalleled technological development?
• Explain the distinction between science and non-science.
• Einstein and his Contribution to Science .
• What are the ultimate aims of science?
• Is there a universal way to interpret scientific findings?
• St. Thomas Aquinas’ cosmological argument analysis.
• A scientific theory and antirealism: Useful but not trustworthy.
• Is the philosophy of science useful for scientists?
• Debates of Using Animals in Scientific Analysis .
• Theory vs. empirical data: What comes first?
• Hobbes and Locke in the state of nature.
• What is a measurement in science?
• The Vienna Circle of Positivism: A historical outlook.
• Legal Positivism and Natural Theory .
• How and why did the science of ecology emerge?
• Popper’s philosophy of science and falsification.
• Describe the difference between a semantic view and a model-based approach.
• Which research problems compose the evolutionary theory ?
• Philosophical views and cultural influences.
• What does it take to obtain authoritative knowledge ?
• Analyze the social nature of any scientific knowledge.
• Clifford’s and James’ knowledge theories.
• Does gender define trust in science?
• What does it mean to be an objective scientist?
• Feminist Approaches to Gender and Science Issues.
• Mind plus computer: Homunculus theory.
• Compare Aristotle’s and Plato’s approaches to knowledge.

😊 Easy Philosophy Paper Topics

• Do you believe in the extra-sensory powers of some people?
• In which ways does God speak to people?
• Death as the Final Destination.
• Describe the future of humanity in 200 years.
• Aristotle and relationships at work.
• The way we treat nature is worse than ever before.
• Describe the ideal society.
• The Role of the Belief System in Projecting the Future.
• Analyze the most famous words of your favorite philosopher.
• Dreams: A parallel world or our fears and wishes?
• A fallacy: term definition and examples.
• Heaven and hell are our visions of good and evil.
• What is the nature of intuition?
• Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill’s Moral Theories .
• Why do people lie?
• Mind-body relationship.
• Onlooker’s responsibility: When should you not interfere?
• When do children become adults?
• Skepticism Theory of Knowledge .
• Each death is a tiny end of the world.
• People and the meaning of life.
• Can international relations be moral?
• Happiness or success: What is our purpose?
• The Concept of Justice According to Socrates and Augustine .
• Are human virtues so good for everyone?
• Plato’s allegory of the cave.
• What would happen if animals spoke?
• Luck is a form of optimism.
• The relationship between money and happiness.
• Where does responsibility come from?
• Virtue and Human Good by Aristotle and Socrates .
• Tolerance: A gateway to discrimination?

😀 Fun Philosophy Paper Topics

• Why are clowns scary and fun at the same time?
• How do our names define our personalities?
• Why Do We Make Bad Decisions?
• Light meal vs. large snack: How do we form our eating habits?
• How do you know you are not sleeping now?
• Why Do People Behave the Way They Do?
• Why don’t passengers get a parachute on a plane?
• How do you think your pet calls you?
• What Justifies My Existence?
• What makes you “elderly?”
• Why Do Adolescents Engage in Risk-Taking Behaviors?
• Embalming the dead: The pointless attempt to stop decomposition.
• What is the gap between living and existing?
• Why Marijuana Should Be Legalized?
• Is it moral for a vegetarian to eat animal-shaped cookies?
• Most time-saving devices are a total waste of time.
• Why Does Crime Require Punishment?
• Does a white painting on white paper exist?
• If you plan to fail, do you succeed when it happens?
• Why Should We Pay for Music?
• Everyone can be replaced.
• What would happen if you told only the truth?
• Why Are Reality Shows So Popular ?
• Knowing the date of your death: The best motivator?
• Who do we owe for our success?
• Courage and Fear: What Do You Know About Them?
• How do you know that something has a meaning?
• What does it mean to control your life?
• What Is Consciousness and How Does It Work?
• What comes first: the ends or the means?
• Is utilitarianism morally correct?
• Should abortion be legal around the world?
• Are current policies properly protecting individuals from discrimination?
• Does Plato provide a compelling argument for the immortality of the soul?
• Al Gore and Steven Koonin have competing views on climate change awareness. Which one is better?
• Should hate speech on the Internet and social media be prohibited?
• Has feminism as a movement accomplished all of its goals?
• Is presentness a real property of events?
• Is it acceptable to have zoos and circuses?
• Do wealthy countries have a moral obligation to help reduce global hunger?
• Does faith in God transform a person?
• Michael Bloomberg and Wayne LaPierre have opposite views on gun control. Which one is better?
• The development of the notion of government by social contract.
• The issues of democracy and possible solutions.
• Civil disobedience and its efficiency in advancing social change today.
• The role of government in the distribution of economic justice.
• The textual genesis of Wittgenstein’s philosophical investigations.
• The defense of Julian Simon’s views of the environmental crisis.
• The essence of time: how do we perceive the past, present, and future?
• The current status of measures of spirituality.
• The problem of free will in the context of metaphysics.
• Analysis of Isaiah Berlin’s understanding of “positive” and “negative” liberty.
• The key principles of just and unjust wars.
• The morality of field research on animals.
• The absolute way to achieve a happy state of mind.
• What is the problem with synthetic a priori knowledge?
• The role of AI technologies in wiping humanity.
• True beauty: subjective or objective?
• The meaning of rich and poor in the modern world.
• The importance of having a perfect life.
• Does religion have an impact on scientific thinking?
• The role of spirituality in a world of material prosperity.
• Life purpose and methods to find it.
• The possibility of time travel in the modern world.
• The methods to control human thoughts.
• Is it beneficial to be aware of your consciousness?
• How can we know for certain that there is an afterlife?
• Why are people the biggest threat to humanity?
• Does religion provoke more conflict than it solves?
• Does effective time management make our lives more meaningful and happier?
• Can money buy happiness?
• Why do we respect dead people more than the living?
• Is peace the only way to stop war?
• What is the primary goal of humanity?
• How does consciousness fit into the physical world?
• Will stronger regulations create a better world?
• How do we know about what there is outside of ourselves?
• Do guns protect people or kill people?

✍️ Bonus: 17 Tips on Writing a Philosophy Paper

When you’re assigned a philosophy paper, it can be a perfect moment to obtain a philosophical attitude: “This too shall pass.” However, while working on it, it’s better to concentrate and make maximum effort to do it right. Here are 17 quick tips that can help you a lot.

• Scholar.google.com
• The OALster database
• Internet Public Library
• Biblioscape
• Brainstorm your topic. This simple method can save you plenty of time and bring surprising results. Set a timer and try to generate as many ideas as possible within a chosen time period. Make it a rule to write down every idea crossing your mind (even if it seems crazy). You’ll have time to sort out your ideas later.
• Create an outline. After you choose all major arguments, work on the logical structure of your paper. As an option, draw a mind map for your would-be paper.
• Create a thesis statement. Just like any other academic paper, your Philosophy term paper will require a strong thesis statement, the last sentence in the introduction part, and briefly summarizing the main idea of your paper.
• Write a stunning introduction. Start with an attention hook – a quote, a rhetorical question, striking stats, or an interesting fact.
• Explain why you chose this topic.
• Write an effective literature review. Divide your sources into groups according to the authors’ conclusions. Point out the gap in the literature.
• Make transitions between sections. Make your Philosophy term papers flow. Just a couple of words connecting sections can improve the logical structure of your paper.
• Use hamburger paragraph structure. Start every paragraph with a topic sentence – a brief summary of what you’re going to discuss in the paragraph. Complete every paragraph with a concluding sentence – a brief repetition of what you’ve just said. It’s a great way to make your writing more logical and convincing.
• Spend 70% of word count on your own ideas. One of the best things about Philosophy writing is that you should include your own vision of the problem. Instead of jumping from one quote to another one, balance the quotes you use by adding your own ideas.
• Align your ideas with your course readings. Include a couple of terms you discussed in class or heard in lectures in your Philosophy term papers to impress your teachers.
• Discuss counterarguments. Show your deep understanding of the topic, shedding light on the conflicting points of view.
• Point out the limitations. Show your analytical thinking. Make it obvious that you understand that any research can have certain flaws, such as sampling or research method.
• Use spell, grammar, style, and plagiarism checkers. The software can help you improve the quality of your writing and help you avoid trouble.
• Cite all sources. Make sure that you give credit to the authors whose writing you used.
• Write a logical conclusion. Briefly repeat what you have said in your paper and add a new perspective – ideas for further research. Avoid including any new information in the conclusion of your Philosophy term paper.

We hope that our examples of philosophy topics for essays have inspired your philosophical thinking. Still, if you haven’t found what you are looking for, try out the topic generator . Enter the related keyword and check dozens of philosophy of science essay topics, philosophy of law topics, and many more.

❓ Philosophy Essay FAQ

What topics are in philosophy.

Philosophy topics for essays are subdivided into topics on law, politics, science, ethics, existential issues, and philosophy of religion topics. You can also research feminism, logical argumentation, human rationality, empiricism, stoicism, metaphysics, and epistemology. The broadest and the most exciting title could be: What is the world we live in really like?

How to Come up With a Topic in Philosophy?

• Select the domain. Would you like to discuss ethics, metaphysics, or epistemology? These are the three pillars of philosophy.
• If you prefer something more practical, choose topics on political philosophy.
• Read through your notes over the last semester. You will find an interesting research question.

What Is a Good Philosophy Essay Topic?

A good philosophy topic for an essay does not reveal your position but instead suggests an argumentative question. Does life have a superior meaning? Does an individual have the right to suicide? Can we build a happy society without international conflicts? Such questions allow you to develop arguments and explain your opinion.

What Are Easy Topics to Write About on Philosophy?

Philosophy ethics topics are probably the easiest papers to write because each person has their moral code, which could serve as a reference point. Consider the following:

• Why do all societies have different moral standards?
• Is there a universal paradigm of ethics?
• Is it ethical to apply euthanasia?

🔗 References

• Why Study Philosophy? | University of Washington
• Research Areas | Department of Philosophy
• How death shapes life | The Harvard Gazette
• Reflections on Death in Philosophical/Existential Context
• Research Overview | Department of Philosophy
• Philosophy of art | Britannica
• Research Clusters – Philosophy – Columbia University
• Political philosophy | Britannica

IELTS Preparation Tips & Resources [How to Study IELTS by Myself?]

How to prepare for pte academic test: study guide & tips.

The Writing Place

Resources – how to write a philosophy paper, introduction to the topic.

The most common introductory level philosophy papers involve making an original argument (“Do you believe that free will exists?”) or thinking critically about another philosopher’s argument (“Do you agree with Hobbes’ argument about free will?”). This short checklist will help you construct a paper for these two types of assignments.

The Basics of a Philosophy Paper

1. introduction and thesis.

There is not a need for a grand or lofty introduction in a philosophy paper. Introductory paragraphs should be short and concise. In the thesis, state what you will be arguing and how you will make your argument.

2. Define Terms

It is important to define words that you use in your argument that may be unclear to your reader. While it may seem like words like “morality” and “free will” have an obvious definition, you need to make clear to your audience what those words mean in the context of your paper. A generally useful rule is to pretend that your reader does not know anything about your course or the subject of philosophy and define any words or concepts that such a reader may find ambiguous.

In a philosophy paper, you need to give reasons to support the argument you made in your thesis. This should constitute the largest portion of your paper. It is also important here to name preexisting conditions (premises) that must exist in order for the argument to be true. You can use real-world examples and the ideas of other philosophers to generate reasons why your argument is true. Remember to use simple and clear language and treat your readers as if they are not experts in philosophy.

4. Objections and Responses to Objections

Unlike other types of persuasive essays, in a many philosophy papers you should anticipate criticisms of your argument and respond to those criticisms. If you can refute objections to your argument, your paper will be stronger. While you do not have to address every potential counterargument, you should try to cover the most salient problems.

5. Conclusion

Like the introduction, you should be simple and concise. In the final paragraph you should review and summarize what your paper has established. The conclusion should tell readers why your argument is relevant. It answers the question, “Why do I care?”

General Tips

• Do not overstate or over generalize your ideas.
• Do not try to argue for both sides of an issue. Be clear about where you stand or your reader will be confused.
• Be specific. Do not try to tackle a huge issue, but rather, aim to discuss something small that can be done justice in just a few pages.
• Be wary of using religious or legal grounds for your argument.

A Quick Practice Exercise...

Practice: what is wrong with this paragraph.

This paragraph contains 5 major errors that you should try to avoid in a philosophy paper. Can you find them all?

“In his argument from design, Paley uses the example of a watch that he finds upon a road that has dozens of pieces that work together to make the clock function.  He asserts that this watch is too perfect of a creation not to have a creator and that it would be obvious to conclude that the timepiece must have a maker. Similarly, the Bible proves that God must exist because he made the world beautiful in seven days.  Paley notes, “There cannot be design without a designer; contrivance, without a contriver; order, without choice; arrangement without anything capable of arranging” (Paley 49). This reasoning is strong because it is apparent that beings found in nature have a complex design.  For example, the iris, retina, lens and ocular muscles of the eye all work together to produce sight in the human eye and without any one of these mechanisms, one would be blind.  For all of these tiny pieces that are required for a functioning eye to have randomly come together seems impossible. Therefore, it is logical that there had to be a designer who created a world in which DNA replicates and dozens of small parts create a functioning human or animal.  By simply viewing the natural world, it is highly plausible to see that Paley’s theory is correct.”

1.  “Similarly, the Bible proves that God must exist because he had the power to make the flood happen in Noah’s Ark.”  Arguments based off religious texts, such as the Bible, are generally frowned upon and only weaken an essay.

2. The writer does not define what he means by “God.” Is God a benevolent overseer of the earth? Or is God a vengeful figure? Although it may seem as though everyone knows who God is, in reality, people have different perspective and the writer needs to define God’s character for the reader.

3.  “For all of these tiny pieces that are required for a functioning eye to have randomly come together seems impossible.”  The phrase “ seems impossible ” is weak and unclear. In a philosophy paper, you should take a strong stance and avoid words that weaken your argument like “probably” or “seem.” Additionally, the phrase “ highly plausible ” appears at the end of the paragraph, which is also a phrase that weakens the argument.

4. The writer gives not premises for Paley’s argument to be true. A stronger paper would name the preexisting conditions that must exist in order for the argument to stand.

5. The “real world” example of the human eye is not the best. The writer neglects strong counterarguments such as evolution and the existence of blindness in humans. A good philosophy paper would be more careful when considering real world examples.

Developed by Ann Bruton

Adapted from:

Harvard University’s Short Guide to Philosophical Writing

Kenneth Seeskin’s “How to Write a Philosophy Paper,” Northwestern University

Click here to return to the “Writing Place Resources” main page.

Jim Pryor: Sample Philosophy Papers

These pages have resources discussing how your philosophy papers will be graded, and some samples of student writing with our analysis and feedback on them. In many classes we’ll also have group discussion of some of the writing samples, to solicit your ideas on what problems the papers might have, and how they could be improved.

What We Look For and How We’ll Grade

Here are some general guidelines on how I understand different grades for written work.

My “Guidelines on Writing a Philosophy Paper” have a section on how you’ll be graded . With more detail and specificity: when I grade your papers I will use this grading rubric .

Sample Papers

These three sample papers all aimed to answer the following prompt:

Do creatures like cats and dogs have minds? Or are we just projecting our own reactions onto them, the way we do with baby dolls and stuffed animals? If you think they do have minds, explain what you think the evidence for this is. If you think they don’t have minds, explain what your reasons are for thinking that. If you think they have “minds” in some senses but not others, explain what are the different senses you’re thinking of.

I asked for short response papers, only 1-2 pages long.

The first paper is a made-up paper written by David Barnett when he was a teaching assistant in a class we ran. He intended the paper to be “flawed” in ways that reflected problems he was seeing in many student papers.

Read that paper and come to class ready to discuss what problems you think it has, and how it could be improved.

David numbered the paragraphs in the flawed paper, to make it easier to refer to it. He also wrote up detailed comments on this paper, and an “improved” revision of the paper. The two versions are similar in terms of the conclusion they arrive at, and the arguments they give for them. But the improved paper is written in a clearer way. After our class discussion, I will post David’s comments and improvements. -->

Original Paper | Comments | Revisions with Explanations | Just the Revised Paper

The second and third papers are real student papers submitted for this assignment in past years. I don’t know whether they’re the results of one hours’ work or of five. But they’re fair first efforts. However, like all philosophical writing, including yours and including my own, they can be improved. We’ll talk through some ways to make them better.

Read the original versions of these papers first. Think about what’s going on in them, and how they might be improved. Then you can click the “Analysis” link to see my large-scale, general feedback on the paper. The kind of feedback you get on your papers will look like that, as well as an indication of how you did on the different components of the grading rubric .

For the third paper, you can also click the link to see a discussion of small-scale details of the writing, and how they can be improved. It can be useful to walk through this and try to learn how to improve your own writing in the same way. However, it’s more important first to address the large-scale problems identified in the Analysis links. It does help your readers a lot if the details of your writing are as polished and clear as they can be. But you have to already have good and well-structured things to say, before that’s worth your attention.

Original Paper | Analysis/General Feedback

Original Paper | Analysis/General Feedback | Improving Small-Scale Details of this paper’s writing

Simon Fraser University Engaging the World

Department of philosophy.

• A-Z directory

Writing A Philosophy Paper

Copyright © 1993 by Peter Horban Simon Fraser University

THINGS TO AVOID IN YOUR PHILOSOPHY ESSAY

• Lengthy introductions. These are entirely unnecessary and of no interest to the informed reader. There is no need to point out that your topic is an important one, and one that has interested philosophers for hundreds of years. Introductions should be as brief as possible. In fact, I recommend that you think of your paper as not having an introduction at all. Go directly to your topic.
• Lengthy quotations. Inexperienced writers rely too heavily on quotations and paraphrases. Direct quotation is best restricted to those cases where it is essential to establish another writer's exact selection of words. Even paraphrasing should be kept to a minimum. After all, it is your paper. It is your thoughts that your instructor is concerned with. Keep that in mind, especially when your essay topic requires you to critically assess someone else's views.
• Fence sitting. Do not present a number of positions in your paper and then end by saying that you are not qualified to settle the matter. In particular, do not close by saying that philosophers have been divided over this issue for as long as humans have been keeping record and you cannot be expected to resolve the dispute in a few short pages. Your instructor knows that. But you can be expected to take a clear stand based on an evaluation of the argument(s) presented. Go out on a limb. If you have argued well, it will support you.
• Cuteness. Good philosophical writing usually has an air of simple dignity about it. Your topic is no joke. No writers whose views you have been asked to read are idiots. (If you think they are, then you have not understood them.) Name calling is inappropriate and could never substitute for careful argumentation anyway.
• Begging the question. You are guilty of begging the question (or circular reasoning) on a particular issue if you somehow presuppose the truth of whatever it is that you are trying to show in the course of arguing for it. Here is a quick example. If Smith argues that abortion is morally wrong on the grounds that it amounts to murder, Smith begs the question. Smith presupposes a particular stand on the moral status of abortion - the stand represented by the conclusion of the argument. To see that this is so, notice that the person who denies the conclusion - that abortion is morally wrong - will not accept Smith's premise that it amounts to murder, since murder is, by definition, morally wrong.
• When arguing against other positions, it is important to realize that you cannot show that your opponents are mistaken just by claiming that their overall conclusions are false. Nor will it do simply to claim that at least one of their premises is false. You must demonstrate these sorts of things, and in a fashion that does not presuppose that your position is correct.

SOME SUGGESTIONS FOR WRITING YOUR PHILOSOPHY PAPER

• Organize carefully. Before you start to write make an outline of how you want to argue. There should be a logical progression of ideas - one that will be easy for the reader to follow. If your paper is well organized, the reader will be led along in what seems a natural way. If you jump about in your essay, the reader will balk. It will take a real effort to follow you, and he or she may feel it not worthwhile. It is a good idea to let your outline simmer for a few days before you write your first draft. Does it still seem to flow smoothly when you come back to it? If not, the best prose in the world will not be enough to make it work.
• Use the right words. Once you have determined your outline, you must select the exact words that will convey your meaning to the reader. A dictionary is almost essential here. Do not settle for a word that (you think) comes close to capturing the sense you have in mind. Notice that "infer" does not mean "imply"; "disinterested" does not mean "uninterested"; and "reference" does not mean either "illusion" or "allusion." Make certain that you can use "its" and "it's" correctly. Notice that certain words such as "therefore," "hence," "since," and "follows from" are strong logical connectives. When you use such expressions you are asserting that certain tight logical relations hold between the claims in question. You had better be right. Finally, check the spelling of any word you are not sure of. There is no excuse for "existance" appearing in any philosophy essay.
• Support your claims. Assume that your reader is constantly asking such questions as "Why should I accept that?" If you presuppose that he or she is at least mildly skeptical of most of your claims, you are more likely to succeed in writing a paper that argues for a position. Most first attempts at writing philosophy essays fall down on this point. Substantiate your claims whenever there is reason to think that your critics would not grant them.
• Give credit. When quoting or paraphrasing, always give some citation. Indicate your indebtedness, whether it is for specific words, general ideas, or a particular line of argument. To use another writer's words, ideas, or arguments as if they were your own is to plagiarize. Plagiarism is against the rules of academic institutions and is dishonest. It can jeopardize or even terminate your academic career. Why run that risk when your paper is improved (it appears stronger not weaker) if you give credit where credit is due? That is because appropriately citing the works of others indicates an awareness of some of the relevant literature on the subject.
• Anticipate objections. If your position is worth arguing for, there are going to be reasons which have led some people to reject it. Such reasons will amount to criticisms of your stand. A good way to demonstrate the strength of your position is to consider one or two of the best of these objections and show how they can be overcome. This amounts to rejecting the grounds for rejecting your case, and is analogous to stealing your enemies' ammunition before they have a chance to fire it at you. The trick here is to anticipate the kinds of objections that your critics would actually raise against you if you did not disarm them first. The other challenge is to come to grips with the criticisms you have cited. You must argue that these criticisms miss the mark as far as your case is concerned, or that they are in some sense ill-conceived despite their plausibility. It takes considerable practice and exposure to philosophical writing to develop this engaging style of argumentation, but it is worth it.
• Edit boldly. I have never met a person whose first draft of a paper could not be improved significantly by rewriting. The secret to good writing is rewriting - often. Of course it will not do just to reproduce the same thing again. Better drafts are almost always shorter drafts - not because ideas have been left out, but because words have been cut out as ideas have been clarified. Every word that is not needed only clutters. Clear sentences do not just happen. They are the result of tough-minded editing.

There is much more that could be said about clear writing. I have not stopped to talk about grammatical and stylistic points. For help in these matters (and we all need reference works in these areas) I recommend a few of the many helpful books available in the campus bookstore. My favorite little book on good writing is The Elements of Style , by William Strunk and E.B. White. Another good book, more general in scope, is William Zinsser's, On Writing Well . Both of these books have gone through several editions. More advanced students might do well to read Philosophical Writing: An Introduction , by A.P. Martinich. Some final words should be added about proofreading. Do it. Again. After that, have someone else read your paper. Is this person able to understand you completely? Can he or she read your entire paper through without getting stuck on a single sentence? If not, go back and smooth it out. In general terms, do not be content simply to get your paper out of your hands. Take pride in it. Clear writing reflects clear thinking; and that, after all, is what you are really trying to show.

Undergraduate

Study philosophy at sfu, department events.

.................

Department News

Horban Award 2024: Nava Karimi June 12, 2024 The Department of Philosophy at Simon Fraser University would like to congratulate Nava Karimi, who...

Horban Award 2023: Danielle Jones July 04, 2023 The Department of Philosophy at Simon Fraser University would like to congratulate Danielle Jones,...

Horban Award 2023: Parmida Saemiyan July 04, 2023 The Department of Philosophy at Simon Fraser University would like to congratulate Parmida...

2023 BC Lower Mainland Ethics Bowl Report March 09, 2023 by Cem Erkli On February 25th, 150 high school students from all across the Lower Mainland met on...

Blended learning: spotlight on SFU’s newest course designation September 21, 2022 Philosophy Chair Evan Tiffany is one of the first faculty members at SFU to design and deliver a...

MA Student Aaron Richardson at Aesthetics For Birds - Accessibility and the Problem of Alt Text September 21, 2022

SFU Philosophy's collection of 'be employable, study philosophy' web content: PHIL IRL on Flipboard

Quick Links

Current Courses Don Berkich: Medical Ethics Philosophy of Love and Sex Resources Reading Philosophy Writing Philosophy

• This Semester
• Next Semester
• Past Semesters
• Descriptions
• Two-Year Rotation
• Double-Major
• Don Berkich
• Stefan Sencerz
• Glenn Tiller
• Administration
• Philosophy Club
• Finding Philosophy
• Reading Philosophy
• Writing Philosophy
• Philosophy Discussions
• The McClellan Award
• Undergraduate Journals
• Undergraduate Conferences

The Term Paper Topics

Instructions.

On this page I've provided a menu of reasonably specific problems I've spelled out as best I could. To be sure, there are many more problems besides these, but you must select one of the problems from this list as the starting point for your term paper.

Read through each of these problems carefully. Be sure that you understand each problem and that you understand why it is a problem. You might also do some prefatory research: I strongly recommend visiting the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy . Try to find a problem you find genuinely fascinating . It should be a problem which spurs you to wonder and to thinking about possible solutions. It should also be a problem you think important , something you want to continue studying regardless of the extent to which we cover it in class. This is extremely important. Being excited to explore a topic will make the term paper projects--involved, lengthy, and challenging though it is--will help to make it a labor of love, something you enjoy doing, and not simply labor. Bored, uninspired, and unimaginative writers write boring, uninspiring, and uninteresting (shallow) writing. The more keen you personally are to grapple seriously with a puzzle, the more eager you will be to share your enthusiasm and and convince readers of its importance.

1. Inverted Qualia

Let us start with the platitude that mental states are different if they have different functions. A belief is different from a desire because they have distinct functional characteristics. For example, it would make no sense to desire a car you believe you have. Desires bear on how the world ought to be; beliefs bear on how the world is. Thus desires and beliefs are functionally distinct. Mental states that had no difference in function could not be considered distinct mental states.

Consider, however, the following story.

Sidney is just like you and me, except that Sidney's phenomenal experience is, and always has been, just the opposite. For example, when you and I are having an experience of redness, Sidney is having an experience of greenness. We see the ripe tomato as a bright red; Sidney sees the ripe tomato as a bright green.

Nevertheless, Sidney grew up just like this. What Sidney sees as green she has learned to call “red”. Sidney's linguistic and non-linguistic behavior is just exactly like ours, except that Sidney's actual phenomenal experience is just the opposite of ours.

The upshot is that what Sidney experiences is radically unlike what we experience, yet her mental states are functionally exactly like ours. So what it is like to be me, what it is like to be you, and what it is like to be Sidney, cannot be a matter of the functional features of our mental states.

The possibility of qualia inversion is problematic because it appears to show that mental states can differ without differing in function. It appears (pun intended) there are only two possibilities:

• If mental states can differ without differing in function, then it follows that Machine Functionalism is false. Contrary to current theory and findings in philosophy, psychology, and neurobiology, we are not meat machines. Worse, given Dretske's Dictum and Nagel's Argument that no subjective fact can be determined from any collection of objective facts--viz., if there is something it is like to be a bat, there is nothing we can learn about what it is like to be a bat by dissecting bats, studying bat behavior, etc.--it follows that we can never understand the mind.
• Alternatively, we are meat machines, but qualia are irrelevant to the mental states that have them. Qualia are inessential or accidental features of mental states. Qualia may differ, invert, or even be entirely absent--but see the problem of the Philosophical Zombie below--while their associated mental states are functionally identical. Yet why, in that case, do we have phenomenal consciousness at all?

2. Original Intentionality

Words on a page have at most derived intentionality, since prior to being viewed by someone to whom they convey meaning, the words are simply marks on a page. They are about nothing until we take them to be about something or mean something. Unlike the marks on the page, we enjoy original intentionality. We have mental states that are essentially and originally intentional. That is, mental states by their very nature are intentional, and nothing else is needed for them to be intentional. No viewer or reader is needed; they themselves suffice for their own intentionality.

Without rehashing the whole of Searle's Chinese Room Thought Experiment, we have the following argument.

Yet if any function calculable by some effective procedure is Turing Machine Computable (the Church-Turing Thesis) and we cannot understand the mind if we cannot build it (Dretske's Dictum), then it seems that the original intentionality necessarily exhibited by cognitive functions precludes our understanding minds.

3. Hypercomputability and the Quantum Computer

It may be that we are meat machines even though not all cognitive functions are Turing Machine Computable. How could this be?

Consider that there are at most countably many Turing Machine Computable functions but uncountably many functions. Thus the totality of functions is much, much larger than the relatively small but infinite number of Turing Machine Computable functions.

Let us say that some procedure computes a function which is not Turing Machine Computable iff it hypercomputes .

Perhaps, then, we are meat machines, but we hypercompute: We are hypercomputers since our cognitive capacities depend on hypercomputation. That is, cognitive functions can only be calculated by physical systems whose operations somehow exceed those any person with pencil, paper, and (finite) rulebook could calculate or, given the Church Turing Thesis, a digital computer, which is just a physical system implementing a Universal Turing Machine.

Hypercomputation is an exciting possibility, as it gives us some reason to think that the terribly difficult skeptical challenges we have been facing can in principle be met without jettisoning the assumption of Machine Functionalism. We are meat machines, just much more extraordinary kinds of machines than we first thought!

There is still Dretske's Dictum to consider: You don't understand it if you don't know how to build it. The problem with the proposition that humans hypercompute is that we then have no understanding of the mind because we don't know how to build hypercomputers--viz., we only know how to build good old fashioned digital computers that implement the Universal Turing Machine in a physical system.

If humans hypercompute, which is the last best hope for machine functionalism if the skeptical arguments we've been considering succeed, then our question necessarily becomes whether there are any other physical systems that might implement not merely a Universal Turing Machine but a hypercomputer.

One of the most promising new technologies which might in principle be used to implement a hypercomputer takes advantage of quantum effects. Instead of the cells or bits over which both probabalistic and deterministic Turing Machines hover, Quantum Turing Machines utilize Qubits which contain a superposition of '1' and '0'. The heads of the Quantum Turing Machine also exists in quantum states, so Quantum Turing Machines have the capacity to take many inputs simultaneously and compute their outputs, also simultaneously.

The mundane hope is that the resulting quantum computer would overcome at least some of the (temporal) complexity limitations which constrain the efficient computability of Turing Machine computable functions, which would represent a vast improvement in the speed of ordinary digital computers.

A more sophisticated hope is that a suitably designed quantum computer--some physical system implementing a Universal Quantum Turing Machine--would also have the capacity to hypercompute, or compute functions which cannot be computed regardless of spacial or temporal constraints by any physical system implementing a Universal Turing Machine.

To be sure, this is exotic technology. Nevertheless, its implications for our efforts are important. Yet there is a deeper philosophical puzzle quite apart from the question of whether such technology is even possible: Since quantum processes are themselves closed to observation under Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, would the ability to build a quantum hypercomputer at all satisfy Dretske's Dictum with respect to understanding minds? Moreover, why should we think the human brain actually is a hypercomputer, which it must be if cognitive functions presuppose hypercomputation?

4. Belief and the Disjunction Problem

Recall Brentano's characterization of mental states:

Every mental phenomenon is characterized by what the Scholastics of the Middle Ages called the intentional (or mental) inexistence of an object, and what we might call, though not wholly unambiguously, reference to a content, direction toward an object (which is not to be understood here as meaning a thing), or immanent objectivity. Every mental phenomenon includes something as object within itself, although they do not do so in the same way. In presentation, something is presented, in judgment something is affirmed or denied, in love loved, in hate hated, in desire desired and so on.

This intentional inexistence is characteristic exclusively of mental phenomena. No physical phenomenon exhibits anything like it. We can, therefore, define mental phenomena by saying that they are those phenomena which contain an object intentionally within themselves.

Thus we have Brentano's Thesis : Intentionality is the mark of the mental. Now revisit a portion of our earlier discussion of Brentano's Thesis.

Recast in our terms, Brentano's Thesis is the claim that a function is cognitive iff it exhibits original intentionality, where original intentionality is understood to be the relationship the function has in representing the objects in the world and their states-of-affairs. Intentionality, however, is an extremely puzzling property. Borrowing from--and supplementing, just a bit--Michael Thau's excellent Consciousness and Cognition , four paradoxes emerge from intentionality. Although the same paradoxes trouble other cognitive functions if Brentano is right, let us cast them as problems for belief specifically.

• Beliefs can represent in absentia . How do we account for my believing that extraterrestrial aliens are responsible for UFO sightings if there are no extraterrestrial aliens? In that case I am mistaken, of course. But even mistaken, if intentionality is a relation between a belief and the content of the belief, or the state-of-affairs the belief represents, then how can my belief have any content if there are no extraterrestrial aliens? Beliefs are representational, even when there is no thing being represented. Yet if representation is a relation, there must be something to stand in the relation. This is what Brentano is talking about when he uses the apparently absurd phrase, the 'inexistence of an object'.
• Beliefs can represent indeterminately . Contrast my belief that the cat is in the cat-tree with my belief that some cat or other is in the cat-tree. In the first case, my belief is about a specific, and specifiable, animal. In the second case, my belief is about some specific yet un-specifiable or indeterminate animal. Or consider another cognitive function, my desire to own a cat. The content of my desire is not even a specific cat, but it is some cat. Again, if representation is a relation, there must be some specific, determinate thing that stands in the relation.
• Beliefs can represent differentially . My belief that Frank has degree in psychology is perfectly consistent with my belief that the manager of B&J's Pizza does not have a degree despite the fact that Frank is the manager of B&J's pizza. Thus my beliefs represent the same object, Frank, in different--in this case, even incompatible--ways.
• Beliefs can represent mistakenly . My belief that there is a horse in the horse-trailer represents the state-of-affairs of horse's being in the horse-trailer even if the furry brown ear I glimpsed through the dusty window and which caused me to believe that there is a horse in the horse-trailer is attached to a cow. My belief, in short, represents a horse, but the object so represented is not a horse. It is a cow.

Focus for a moment on the problem that beliefs can represent mistakenly. Suppose instead of the case as given that I, taking my morning constitutional early one foggy morning, stride by a farmer's field and see a brown shape off in the distance which causes me to form the belief that there is a horse in the field. Thus

Don believes that there is a horse in the field.

That is, the content of my belief is of a certain state of affairs, namely the state of affairs of the horse's being in the field. My belief has this content insofar as it represents the horse as being in the field. Further, I bear a relationship to this representation of the horse as being in the field: I believe it, which is just to say that I hold the content of my representation obtains.

Nevertheless, that which caused me to form the belief that the horse is in the field is compatible with there being a cow in the field. The content of my belief that the horse is in the field is strictly compatible with the disjunctive content,

the horse is in the field or the cow is in the field.

Yet this is puzzling, because it seems that I don't hold that the state of affairs of the horse's being in the field obtains. Rather, I hold that the disjunctive state of affairs either the horse is in the field or the cow is in the field obtains.

In general, any mental representation caused by any state of affairs represents indefinitely many disjunctive states of affairs just as well. If so, then the content of our beliefs are about everything and, hence, nothing. Our beliefs are promiscuous and indiscriminate , because they do not allow us to distinguish the very states of affairs they are supposed to be about.

This is one way of characterizing the Disjunction Problem. Any theory of mental representation must solve the problem, yet it is altogether unclear just how to proceed.

5. The Knowledge Argument

Following Jackson, let us suppose that in some far-future time, Mary has become a neuroscientist without peer. Impressively, she has a true theory of the human brain. She can account for every fact of the brain. Moreover, the physics of light and color are also completed science. She knows all the facts there are to know about physics.

There is one curiosity about Mary, however. She has lived her whole life in a room devoid of the color red. She has never seen the color red. She does not even know it exists as a distinct color.

One day Mary is let out of her room, whereupon she for the first time sees the color red in the form of a red apple.

It seems that Mary, despite her complete and true theory of the human brain, has learned something new.

She has learned what it is like to see the color red .

In particular, facts about phenomenal consciousness are not physical facts.

That Mary has learned something new despite having a complete and true theory of the human brain apparently implies that phenomenal consciousness escapes physicalism. That is, physicalism (of whatever kind, machine functionalist or not) is false given phenomenal consciousness.

We cannot, then, be meat machines in light of phenomenal consciousness because we are not entirely meat.

Consider the following story:

I like chocolate ice-cream. In fact, I like chocolate ice-cream very, very much. But I know that it is not good for me to eat chocolate ice-cream, particularly when I scoop it onto fudge brownies and dowse the whole affair with chocolate syrup.

One evening I return home from campus and consider fixing just such a chocolate ice-cream sundae. I weigh all the reasons for it (they are delicious and I am hungry) and all the reasons against it (it's really, really fattening, and I am already too fat). I decide that, all things considered, it would be better for me to abstain from having the chocolate ice-cream sundae.

I then calmly, deliberately, and intentionally go to the kitchen, fix, and eat a large chocolate ice-cream sundae.

This is the problem of Akrasia , sometimes also called the problem of Weakness of the Will. Where to have autonomy is to enjoy self-control, akrasia is a curious failure of self-control--curious, that is, because although it might be tempting to say that I was overcome by desire, I wasn't. I intentionally made and ate the sundae; there was nothing frantic or wanton in my action. Yet I acted so after consciously deliberating about what would be best to do and deciding that it would be best to not have the sundae. If asked, “But didn't you just conclude that you shouldn't have the sundae?”, I would respond, between mouthfuls of sundae, “Yes, that is quite correct. But here we are anyway. I'm as surprised about it as you.”

Thus it seems that my actions contradict my reasons for them. Yet I am not raving or mad.

Intentionally performing an action the agent judges worse than an available and incompatible alternative suggests self-deception and perhaps irrationality. If actions are evidence of dispositions and dispositions reliably indicate beliefs, then the agent apparently holds the contradictory belief that P and not P: “I shall refrain from acting yet I shall so act.” This is the problem of weakness of will or akrasia:

What in Anglo-Saxon philosophical circles is called the problem of weakness of will concerns what worried Socrates: the problem of how an agent can choose to take what they believe to be the worse course, overcome by passion. The English expression would not, or at least not primarily, bring this sort of case to mind, but rather such examples as dilatoriness, procrastination, lack of moral courage and failure to push plans through. The Greek word 'akrasia', on the other hand, means 'lack of control', and that certainly suggests the Socratic sort of example. [Gosling (1990), p. 97]

The phrase 'lack of control' should be taken literally. Akrasia is problematic because the weak of will or incontinent somehow fail to act as they themselves think they should--it is as if they are not the authors of their own actions, which makes the intentionality with which they act all the more puzzling.

The tension between best judgment and intentional action the akrates presents, a tension wholly lacking in those who enjoy abundant kratos or power of self-control ( enkrateia ) [cf Mele (1987), p.4], is so great Socrates concluded it was simply absurd. Apparent cases are impossible, since “no one who either knows or believes that there is another possible course of action, better than the one he is following, will ever continue on his present course when he might choose the better.” [Protagoras 358c]. Yet Aristotle famously dismisses Socrates' conclusion, since it “contradicts the plain phenomena.” [Nicomachean Ethics 1145b27]

Let us assume Aristotle is correct: Conceptual difficulties notwithstanding, akrasia is a puzzling yet common feature of human agency. Solving the puzzle requires explaining how the akrates' intentional action can deviate so remarkably from her best judgment. How, that is, does it happen that the akrates lacks self-control for actions she herself presumably controls? Is the akrates fundamentally irrational? Self-deceived? Temporarily insane?

Let us set the problem a bit more precisely. Following Davidson, “How is Weakness of the Will Possible?”, we shall define akrasia as follows:

D: An agent A performs an action X akratically iff a) A does X intentionally, b) A believes that there is an alternative action Y open to A, and c) A judges that, all things considered, it would be better to do Y than X.

Now consider the following three principles:

P1: If A wants to do X more than she wants to do Y and she believes herself free to do either X or Y, then A will intentionally do X if she does either X or Y intentionally.

P2: If A judges that it would be better to do X than to do Y, then she wants to do X more than she wants to do Y.

P3: There are akratic actions.

The problem of Akrasia can be restated thusly: P1, P2, and P3 are true but contradictory. That is, each principle is true, but together they imply a contradiction. Hence they cannot all be true.

adapted from Berkich, D. "A Puzzle about Akrasia" (Teorema Vol. 26 No. 3, Fall 2007)

7. Super Blindsight

The phenomenon of Blindsight has been extensively studied by psychologists. It turns out that some people have blind areas in their field of vision, often due to damage in the occipital cortex. They sincerely report that their blindspot is blank to them. That is, they have no phenomenal experience of perception in that area.

Curiously, though, people with blindsight have the ability to make accurate "guesses" of what is happening in the visual field of their blindspot, despite having no conscious experience of it. Indeed, the eye focuses on objects in the blindspot just as if it were consciously directed to do so, and guesses about the position, orientation, presence, and sometimes even color of objects in the blindspot are much, much better than mere chance, provided that the person is presented with alternatives from which to choose. That is, the person with blindsight cannot just report on what is occurring in the field of their blindspot. They must be presented with alternatives. Yet their choices among alternatives, despite their protestations to the contrary, are not mere guesses.

Following Michael Tye, let us suppose that Marti develops super blindsight. Marti is just like a person with blindsight -- she's had blindsight her entire life -- except that she has trained herself to report on events in her blindspot without having been presented with alternatives. Moreover, she is so accurate that she comes to believe what she reports with just as much confidence as a normally sighted person would. In other words, when you or I utter "I believe that that is a red rose", we attach a certain strength or degree to the belief. When Marti asserts "I believe that that is a red rose", she has the same degree of belief. Experience has taught her that her reports are veridical.

The problem of Super Blindsight may be given as a question:

What is the difference between Marti's belief that that is a red rose and our belief that that is a red rose, given that Marti has absolutely no conscious, phenomenal experience of a red rose?

8. Philosophical Zombies

For each of us, there is something it is like to be us. We know what it is like to see the rose and to smell the rose. We know what it is like to smell the wine and taste the wine. We have rich inner mental lives without which there would be nothing it would be like to be us.

There is, however, a discomforting possibility. It is conceivable that there be a microphysical duplicate of me, a being just like me in every respect, that functions exactly as I do but which has no phenomenal experience whatsoever. He has no experience of what it is like to see the rose or taste the wine.

He is a microphysical and functional duplicate of me, but having no inner mental life, he is a zombie. There is nothing it is like to be my zombie. Yet my zombie is functionally indistinguishable from me. No one could ever tell the difference between me and my zombie.

The possibility of zombies is troubling, however, because it tells us that facts about phenomenal consciousness do not depend on the microphysical facts of my composition or even my functional characteristics. Worse, the possibility of my having a zombie duplicate implies that the rich inner mental life I so value and fervently believe has everything to do with my intentions, goals, and resulting behaviors has in fact no bearing whatsoever on what I do or why I do it.

9. Personal Identity

The unit of interest in Minds and Machines is not really the mind per se , but the person . The classic artificial intelligences of science fiction fame like Robby the Robot, HAL, or Commander Data are of particular speculative interest because the totality of their functional capacities combine not just for mere mentality but personhood . Yet persons are deeply puzzling, as a few simple thought experiments demonstrate.

Suppose I step into a transporter that works as follows. First, the transporter records the state of every particle in my body, call this my “template”. The template is then sent to another transporter at a distant location which uses it to construct an exact, molecule for molecule, particle for particle, duplicate of me. At the same time, the transporter into which I stepped obliterates my body by reducing it to all the molecules from which I was formerly composed.

Question: Is the person that steps off the distant transporter the same person or different than the person who stepped on the first transporter?

Let us change the story a bit. Suppose that everything proceeds as above except that the first transporter fails to obliterate me.

Question: Are there two persons, one standing on the first transporter, the second stepping off the distant transporter? Or is there just one person, me, in two locations?

Consider an altogether different story. Suppose that my brain is carefully removed from my skull and placed in a special vat. Each nerve to and from my brain is hooked up to an extremely complicated radio transceiver. Inside my now-empty skull the mate to the radio transceiver is installed in such a way that where once there was a continuous neural path there is a continuous radio path. That is, each severed nerve is re-linked precisely as it was originally linked when my brain occupied my skull via the radio. When the switches are thrown on the radios (the one with my brain in the vat and the one in the skull of my body), I see just as I used to see, feel just as I used to feel, and otherwise can't tell that my brain has been removed and is now floating in a vat. I even go to the vat and look at my brain, trying to imagine that I am that brain in the vat.

There is a curious virtue to being a brain in vat. If anything were to happen to my body, all that would be required would be to hook up another body with a similar radio.

Question: If I do get in an accident and am killed, and if another body is obtained, is it still me in the new body?

Suppose it all happens as above but add the following wrinkle. What if I (my body?) were to rob a bank and get caught.

Question: Should my brain be put in prison, leaving my body out to enjoy the good life? Or should my body be put in prison, leaving my brain free to do as it wishes?

Suppose my brain is split in a lab accident and, in an emergency operation, each half is hooked-up to a different body.

Question: Am I now two persons? Or one person in two different places?

It is not clear how one should answer these thought experiments. They are, of course, stock and trade science fiction examples. Nevertheless, such puzzles raise an important question.

It seems that there are only three possibilities for personal identity:

1) Person A = Person B because they have the same body (bodily continuity suffices for personal continuity);

2) Person A = Person B because they have the same psychology (psychological continuity suffices for personal continuity);

3) Person A = Person B because they have the same non-physical and psychologically vacant thing, usually called a soul.

Even if (3) were a live possibility under the assumption of physicalism, it is not clear how having the same soul ensures personal identity, since it is not clear what souls are in the first place. We only know what they are not.

Yet neither (1) nor (2) appears to work in light of the above thought experiments. So the problem of personal identity is serious: We have no idea what persons are.

10. Mechanism and Autonomy

Human persons are generally convinced that they are autonomous. That is, human persons are convinced that, when not restricted from doing so, they act of their own accord.

Notice what is at stake if we are mistaken. Many, if not most, of our social institutions and practices presume that one's actions are self-initiated and self-directed. For example, it would make no sense to appreciate someone's holding the door for you if they did not do it of their own accord. Likewise, it would make no sense to blame someone for cheating if they could not have done otherwise. Blameworthiness and praiseworthiness depend on an agent being the author of her own actions.

The ancestor to the problem of Mechanism and Autonomy is the problem of Free Will and Determinism. Loosely speaking, let us say that Determinism is the thesis that every event is causally determined. Then we have the following dilemma:

Either Determinism is true or Determinism is not true.

If Determinism is true, then Free Will is impossible. (Since our actions would not be the result of our reasons for them. Rather, they would be determined by antecedent causes.)

IF Determinism is not true, then Free Will is impossible. (Since our actions would not be determined by causes; they would, instead, be determined by nothing at all beyond mere chance. Yet free will seems as incompatible with mere chance as causal determinism.)

Free Will is impossible.

Nevertheless,

Free Will exists. (Unless we are all deluding ourselves.)

The problem of Free Will and Determinism, however, is not as pressing as the problem of Mechanism and Autonomy. To the best of our knowledge, Determinism is not true, but some local processes may be purely mechanistic in an otherwise stochastic universe. Just as gears turn in a precisely regular way in a watch, perhaps the human mind is the result of purely mechanistic processes.

Machine Functionalism, the view that we are meat machines, underscores this problem. For if all the mental events that make up our lives – our beliefs and desires, for example – are the result of underlying mechanistic processes, then we are not the authors of our actions. The mechanistic processes are. Thus Mechanism is incompatable with Autonomy, yet Autonomy is presupposed by many of our most important social practices (or so it seems.)

The problem Autonomy presents is made especially clear with a short story.

Suppose that Ted the Survivalist, in a fit of deepening paranoia, resolves to keep his gun trained on the door of his shack so as to kill anyone who might try to enter. After twenty hours of this Ted frightens himself by startling awake upon nodding off: for a few seconds at least he was vulnerable! As clever as he is paranoid, Ted fashions a simple system of strings and pulleys such that the gun fires dead-center into the doorway when the door is opened. Ted is free to sleep and go about his usual business, secure in the knowledge that anyone trying to enter his shack will be killed.

Ted’s contraption acts so as to kill any would-be attackers. It has this potential only insofar as Ted built it thus and so. The agency of the contraption, should it ever fire, is thus wholly derived from Ted’s original, albeit deranged, agency. In that sense it would be far better to put Ted in a secure psychiatric hospital than the contraption if, say, the postman were killed.

Let us press the example further. Suppose that Ted isn’t any ordinary paranoid survivalist. Ted is also a brilliant roboticist with considerable economic resources. To protect himself, Ted constructs a mobile adaptive live-fire robot, anticipating somewhat recent DARPA advances. The robot, which Ted affectionately dubs ‘R2D3', looks like a wheeled trash-can. It has three arms stuck out the sides that articulate in four locations and terminate in large, fully-automatic guns. On top of R2D3 stands a thin, retractable pole, and on the top of the pole is the its ‘head’. The ‘head’ is just a pair of side-by-side cameras which can swivel in nearly every direction. Ringing R2D3's base are sonar sensors which allow it to navigate from room to room and around the yard.

In operation, R2D3's head continuously bobs up and down and swivels back and forth as it scans its vicinity. R2D3's head orients on any movement and, using cues such as bi-lateral symmetry, zeroes in on any faces. It then compares key features of the face to an on-board database of such features. If there is, within a certain narrow tolerance which Ted keeps notching up as his paranoia deepens, a match in the database, then the object the robot is tracking is a “friend”. If it fails to find a match, the object is a “foe”, at least for a few milliseconds.

Fortunately R2D3 is adaptive in the sense that it updates its “friends” database whenever Ted himself opens the door and speaks in normal tones with a person. Thus Ted congratulates himself on having protected the postman--until, that is, the postman falls ill and his substitute walks into the yard.

Suppose R2D3, suffering no malfunction whatsoever, kills the substitute postman. Did it kill the substitute postman autonomously in such a way that we should blame R2D3 and not Ted? Surely not. Put another way, does it make any more sense to put R2D3 in the secure psychiatric hospital than Ted’s original string-and-gun contraption? Again, surely not. Of course R2D3 ought to be disabled, but not as a punitive measure. We disable the robot for precisely the same reason that we disable the string contraption: to avoid any more 'accidents'. The scrap heap is the appropriate end for R2D3. Ted, the lethal robot’s designer and programmer, is the one who gets to go to the secure psychiatric hospital.

Robots are designed and programmed: They can never be autonomous agents. Yet if autonomy is incompatible with the mechanisms underlying their behavior, how can autonomy be compatible with the mechanisms underlying our behavior? If Machine Functionalism is true, then how can we be any more autonomous than R2D3?

11. The Frame Problem

Let us revisit Dennett's description of the frame problem:

Once upon a time there was a robot, named R1 by its creators. Its only task was to fend for itself. One day its designers arranged for it to learn that its spare battery, its precious energy supply, was locked in a room with a time bomb set to go off soon. R1 located the room, and the key to the door, and formulated a plan to rescue its battery. There was a wagon in the room, and the battery was on the wagon, and R1 hypothesized that a certain action which it called PULLOUT (Wagon, Room, t) would result in the battery being removed from the room. Straightaway it acted, and did succeed in getting the battery out of the room before the bomb went off. Unfortunately, however, the bomb was also on the wagon. R1 knew that the bomb was on the wagon in the room, but didn't realize that pulling the wagon would bring the bomb out along with the battery. Poor R1 had missed that obvious implication of its planned act.

Back to the drawing board. `The solution is obvious,' said the designers. `Our next robot must be made to recognize not just the intended implications of its acts, but also the implications about their side-effects, by deducing these implications from the descriptions it uses in formulating its plans.' They called their next model, the robot-deducer, R1D1. They placed R1D1 in much the same predicament that R1 had succumbed to, and as it too hit upon the idea of PULLOUT (Wagon, Room, t) it began, as designed, to consider the implications of such a course of action. It had just finished deducing that pulling the wagon out of the room would not change the colour of the room's walls, and was embarking on a proof of the further implication that pulling the wagon out would cause its wheels to turn more revolutions than there were wheels on the wagon - when the bomb exploded.

Back to the drawing board. `We must teach it the difference between relevant implications and irrelevant implications,' said the designers, `and teach it to ignore the irrelevant ones.' So they developed a method of tagging implications as either relevant or irrelevant to the project at hand, and installed the method in their next model, the robot-relevant-deducer, or R2D1 for short. When they subjected R2D1 to the test that had so unequivocally selected its ancestors for extinction, they were surprised to see it sitting, Hamlet-like, outside the room containing the ticking bomb, the native hue of its resolution sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought, as Shakespeare (and more recently Fodor) has aptly put it. `Do something!' they yelled at it. 'I am,' it retorted. `I'm busily ignoring some thousands of implications I have determined to be irrelevant. Just as soon as I find an irrelevant implication, I put it on the list of those I must ignore, and...' the bomb went off.

All these robots suffer from the frame problem. If there is ever to be a robot with the fabled perspicacity and real-time adroitness of R2D2, robot-designers must solve the frame problem. It appears at first to be at best an annoying technical embarrassment in robotics, or merely a curious puzzle for the bemusement of people working in Artificial Intelligence (AI). I think, on the contrary, that it is a new, deep epistemological problem - accessible in principle but unnoticed by generations of philosophers - brought to light by the novel methods of AI, and still far from being solved. Many people in AI have come to have a similarly high regard for the seriousness of the frame problem. As one researcher has quipped, `We have given up the goal of designing an intelligent robot, and turned to the task of designing a gun that will destroy any intelligent robot that anyone else designs!'

The Frame Problem, as Dennett suggests, is not simply a problem for the goal of Artificial Intelligence. It is a mystery for us as well. As Dennett puts it,

I will try here to present an elementary, non-technical, philosophical introduction to the frame problem, and show why it is so interesting. I have no solution to offer, or even any original suggestions for where a solution might lie. It is hard enough, I have discovered, just to say clearly what the frame problem is - and is not. In fact, there is less than perfect agreement in usage within the AI research community. McCarthy and Hayes, who coined the term, use it to refer to a particular, narrowly conceived problem about representation that arises only for certain strategies for dealing with a broader problem about real-time planning systems. Others call this broader problem the frame problem-'the whole pudding,' as Hayes has called it (personal correspondence) - and this may not be mere terminological sloppiness. If 'solutions' to the narrowly conceived problem have the effect of driving a (deeper) difficulty into some other quarter of the broad problem, we might better reserve the title for this hard-to-corner difficulty. With apologies to McCarthy and Hayes for joining those who would appropriate their term, I am going to attempt an introduction to the whole pudding, calling it the frame problem. I will try in due course to describe the narrower version of the problem, 'the frame problem proper' if you like, and show something of its relation to the broader problem.

Since the frame problem, whatever it is, is certainly not solved yet (and may be, in its current guises, insoluble), the ideological foes of AI such as Hubert Dreyfus and John Searle are tempted to compose obituaries for the field, citing the frame problem as the cause of death. In What Computers Can't do (Dreyfus 1972), Dreyfus sought to show that AI was a fundamentally mistaken method for studying the mind, and in fact many of his somewhat impressionistic complaints about AI models and many of his declared insights into their intrinsic limitations can be seen to hover quite systematically in the neighbourhood of the frame problem. Dreyfus never explicitly mentions the frame problem, but is it perhaps the smoking pistol he was looking for but didn't quite know how to describe? Yes, I think AI can be seen to be holding a smoking pistol, but at least in its `whole pudding' guise it is everyone's problem, not just a problem for AI, which, like the good guy in many a mystery story, should be credited with a discovery, not accused of a crime.

Conceived broadly, the Frame Problem amounts to the epistemic problem of understanding just how plans are made and intentions realized. To be sure, we do sometimes make mistakes. Yet even in failure we are mysteriously able to associate relevant beliefs with our desires. Moreover, these desire-relevant beliefs are really relevant, in the sense that they accurately characterize enough of the actual world for us to successfully satisfy our desires (or for the word 'failure' to make sense.) We know what to attend to and what to ignore in our environment, a capacity we bring with terrible ease to each new situation and goal. How, though, is this possible? Why aren't we always blowing ourselves up like hapless robots?

12. Externalism

The traditional model of linguistic communication that has us using linguistic behavior (speaking, writing, etc.) to convey our ideas runs afoul of the Twin Earth Thought Experiment. As Putnam explains it, those seeking to understand communication have unreflectively and uncritically made two assumptions. Quoting Putnam,

(I) That knowing the meaning of a term is just a matter of being in a certain psychological state (in the sense of "psychological state," in which states of memory and psychological dispositions are "psychological states"; no one thought that knowing the meaning of a word was a continuous state of consciousness, of course).

(II) That the meaning of a term (in the sense of "intension") determines its extension (in the sense that sameness of intension entails sameness of extension).

which Putnam clarifies by adding,

Let A and B be any two terms which differ in extension. By assumption (II) they must differ in meaning (in the sense of "intension"). By assumption (I), knowing the meaning of A and knowing the meaning of B are psychological states in the narrow sense-for this is how we shall construe assumption (I). But these psychological states must determine the extension of the terms A and B just as much as the meanings ("intensions") do.

...if S is the sort of psychological state we have been discussing--a psychological state of the form knowing that I is the meaning of A , where I is an "intension" and A is a term-then the same necessary and sufficient condition for falling into the extension of A "works" in every logically possible world in which the speaker is in the psychological state S. For the state S determines the intension I, and by assumption (II) the intension amounts to a necessary and sufficient condition for membership in the extension.

The argument Putnam gives to show that "these two assumptions are not jointly satisfied by any notion, let alone any notion of meaning" is simple, elegant, and devastating:

That psychological state does not determine extension will now be shown with the aid of a little science-fiction. For the purpose of the following science-fiction examples, we shall suppose that somewhere in the galaxy there is a planet we shall call Twin Earth. Twin Earth is very much like Earth; in fact, people on Twin Earth even speak English. In fact, apart from the differences we shall specify in our science-fiction examples, the reader may suppose that Twin Earth is exactly like Earth. He may even suppose that he has a Doppelgänger-an identical copy-on Twin Earth, if he wishes, although my stories will not depend on this.

Although some of the people on Twin Earth (say, the ones who call themselves "Americans" and the ones who call themselves "Canadians" and the ones who call themselves "Englishmen," etc.) speak English, there are, not surprisingly, a few tiny differences which we will now describe between the dialects of English spoken on Twin Earth and Standard English. These differences themselves depend on some of the peculiarities of Twin Earth.

One of the peculiarities of Twin Earth is that the liquid called "water" is not H2O but a different liquid whose chemical formula is very long and complicated. I shall abbreviate this chemical formula simply as XYZ. I shall suppose that XYZ is indistinguishable from water at normal temperatures and pressures. In particular, it tastes like water and it quenches thirst like water. Also, I shall suppose that the oceans and lakes and seas of Twin Earth contain XYZ and not water, that it rains XYZ on Twin Earth and not water, etc.

If a spaceship from Earth ever visits Twin Earth, then the supposition at first will be that "water" has the same meaning on Earth and on Twin Earth. This supposition will be corrected when it is discovered that "water" on Twin Earth is XYZ, and the Earthian spaceship will report somewhat as follows:

"On Twin Earth the word 'water' means XYZ."

(It is this sort of use of the word "means" which accounts for the doctrine that extension is one sense of "meaning," by the way. But note that although "means" does mean something like has as extension in this example, one would not say

"On Twin Earth the meaning of the word 'water' is XYZ."

unless, possibly, the fact that "water is XYZ" was known to every adult speaker of English on Twin Earth. We can account for this in terms of the theory of meaning we develop below; for the moment we just remark that although the verb "means" sometimes means "has as extension," the nominalization "meaning" never means "extension.")

Symmetrically, if a spaceship from Twin Earth ever visits Earth, then the supposition at first will be that the word "water" has the same meaning on Twin Earth and on Earth. This supposition will be corrected when it is discovered that' "water" on Earth is H2O, and the Twin Earthian spaceship will report

"On Earth[6] the word 'water' means H20."

>Note that there is no problem about the extension of the term "water." The word simply has two different meanings (as we say) in the sense in which it is used on Twin Earth, the sense of waterTE, what we call "water" simply isn't water; while in the sense in which it is used on Earth, the sense of waterE, what the Twin Earthians call "water" simply isn't water. The extension of "water" in the sense of waterE is the set of all wholes consisting of H2O molecules, or something like that; the extension of water in the sense of waterTE is the set of all wholes consisting of XYZ molecules, or something like that.

Thus psychological state does not determine extension because the extension of the words I and my Twin Earth counterpart use can differ even though we are in identical psychological states. "Meanings", as Putnam memorably put it, "just ain't in the head!"

The implications of this for the philosophy of mind are unsettling. As Putnam explains,

Of course, denying that meanings are in the head must have consequences for the philosophy of mind, but at the time I wrote those words I was unsure as to just what those consequences were. After all, such accomplishments as knowing the meaning of words and using words meaningfully are paradigmatic "mental abilities"; yet, I was not sure, when I wrote "The Meaning of 'Meaning,'" whether the moral of that essay should be that we shouldn't think of the meanings of words as lying in the mind at all, or whether (like John Dewey and William James) we should stop thinking of the mind as something "in the head" and think of it rather as a system of environment-involving capacities and interactions. In the end, I equivocated between these views. I said, on the one hand, that "meanings just ain't in the head," and, on the other hand, that the notion of the mind is ambiguous, and that, in one sense of "mental state" (I called mental states, in this supposed sense, 'narrow mental states'), our mental states are entirely in our heads, and in another sense (I called mental states in this supposed second sense "broad mental states"), a sense which includes such states as knowing the meaning of a word , our mental states are individuated by our relations to our environment and to other speakers and not simply by what goes on in our brains. Subsequently, under the influence of Tyler Burge and more recently of John McDowell as well, I have come to think that this conceded too much to the idea that the mind can be thought of as a private theater (situated inside the head).

However it might be fleshed-out, the conclusion that mind is not a private theater situated inside the head is counterintuitive. Among other things, it seems to undermine first-person authority . I presumably enjoy privileged access to my psychological states: I know my beliefs, desires, and intentions long before anyone else does, because the only way they can find out is if I tell them. If, however, my mind depends on broader sociolinguistic facts well beyond what happens inside my head, then it is not clear what, if any, first-person authority I enjoy. What are the implications of externalism for the philosophy of mind, and should we, can we , resist them?

13. A Pseudoscience?

Evolutionary psychology is a relatively new field of inquiry within psychology which purports to provide explanations of social and behavioral phenomena in terms of the adaptive advantage the phenomena presumably conferred on our ancestors. Three examples come to mind. First, college women are reported to wear more attractive clothing when they are ovulating because, as evolutionary psychology has it, doing so is in response to unconscious drives to improve the opportunity for successful procreation. Second, women are supposed to prefer wealthy so-called 'alpha' males because they need protection and support before, during, and for some time after childbirth. Third, men tend to stray from monogamous relationships because it is to their selective advantage to have as many children as possible without incurring the costs of care and upbringing, while women seek stable monogamous relationships because it is to their selective advantage to ensure that the few children they can have, given lengthy gestation, will thrive.

The organizing idea seems to be that our minds are machines that were made (evolved) to suit certain purposes. If we understand the making of the machine, if you will, then we can understand the machine itself and why it behaves the way it does.

Skeptics like Jerry Fodor find the explanations of evolutionary psychology ad hoc and peculiarly suited to the desires of well-to-do male evolutionary psychologists. Thus in his review of Steven Pinker's “How the Mind Works” (London Review of Books, (January 1998, Vol. 22, No. 2), Fodor, referring to evolutionary psychology as “Psychological Darwinism” and with considerable sarcasm, writes that

A lot of the fun of Pinker’s book is his attempt to deduce human psychology from the assumption that our minds are adaptations for transmitting our genes. His last chapters are devoted to this and they range very broadly; including, so help me, one on the meaning of life. Pinker would like to convince us that the predictions that the selfish-gene theory makes about how our minds must be organised are independently plausible. But this project doesn’t fare well. Prima facie, the picture of the mind, indeed of human nature in general, that psychological Darwinism suggest is preposterous; a sort of jumped up, down-market version of original sin. Psychological Darwinism is a kind of conspiracy theory; that is, it explains behaviour by imputing an interest (viz in the proliferation of the genome) that the agent of the behaviour does not acknowledge. When literal conspiracies are alleged, duplicity is generally part of the charge: ‘He wasn’t making confetti; he was shredding the evidence. He did X in aid of Y, and then he lied about his motive.’ But in the kind of conspiracy theories psychologists like best, the motive is supposed to be inaccessible even to the agent, who is thus perfectly sincere in denying the imputation. In the extreme case, it’s hardly even the agent to whom the motive is attributed. Freudian explanations provide a familiar example: What seemed to be merely Jones’s slip of the tongue was the unconscious expression of a libidinous impulse. But not Jones’s libidinous impulse, really; one that his Id had on his behalf. Likewise, for the psychological Darwinist: what seemed to be your, after all, unsurprising interest in your child’s well-being turns out to be your genes’ conspiracy to propagate themselves. Not your conspiracy, notice, but theirs. The literature of Psychological Darwinism is full of what appear to be fallacies of rationalisation: arguments where the evidence offered that an interest in Y is the motive for a creature’s behaviour is primarily that an interest in Y would rationalise the behaviour if it were the creature’s motive. Pinker’s book provides so many examples that one hardly knows where to start. Here he is on friendship: Once you have made yourself valuable to someone, the person becomes valuable to you. You value him or her because if you were ever in trouble, they would have a stake – albeit a selfish stake – in getting you out. But now that you value the person, they should value you even more . . . because of your stake in rescuing him or her from hard times . . . This runaway process is what we call friendship.’ And here he is on why we like to read fiction: ‘Fictional narratives supply us with a mental catalogue of the fatal conundrums we might face someday and the outcomes of strategies we could deploy in them. What are the options if I were to suspect that my uncle killed my father, took his position, and married my mother?’ Good question. Or what if it turns out that, having just used the ring that I got by kidnapping a dwarf to pay off the giants who built me my new castle, I should discover that it is the very ring that I need in order to continue to be immortal and rule the world? It’s important to think out the options betimes, because a thing like that could happen to anyone and you can never have too much insurance. At one point Pinker quotes H.L. Mencken’s wisecrack that ‘the most common of all follies is to believe passionately in the palpably not true.’ Quite so. I suppose it could turn out that one’s interest in having friends, or in reading fictions, or in Wagner’s operas, is really at heart prudential. But the claim affronts a robust, and I should think salubrious, intuition that there are lots and lots of things that we care about simply for themselves. Reductionism about this plurality of goals, when not Philistine or cheaply cynical, often sounds simply funny. Thus the joke about the lawyer who is offered sex by a beautiful girl. ‘Well, I guess so,’ he replies, ‘but what’s in it for me?’ Does wanting to have a beautiful woman – or, for that matter, a good read – really require a further motive to explain it? Pinker duly supplies the explanation that you wouldn’t have thought that you needed. ‘Both sexes want a spouse who has developed normally and is free of infection . . . We haven’t evolved stethoscopes or tongue-depressors, but an eye for beauty does some of the same things . . . Luxuriant hair is always pleasing, possibly because . . . long hair implies a long history of good health.’

Critics also object to the assumption that many human behaviors are both unconscious and largely determined by genetic heritage. Yet studies in evolutionary psychology are often reported in the press as important and insightful results from science without, note, any questions about the status of the field as a science. Are the explanations of evolutionary psychology defensibly scientific or are they merely self-interested pseudoscientific speculations?

14. The Problem for Psychology: Psychophysical Laws

It is a commonplace that Biology is reducible to Chemistry and Chemistry is reducible to Physics. That is, Biology is fundamentally Chemistry, Chemistry fundamentally Physics. Put another, we can 'explain' biological facts and laws in terms of (more fundamental) chemical facts and laws, and we can explain chemical facts and laws in terms of (more fundamental) physical facts and laws.

Of course, the vocabulary of Biology is very different from the vocabulary of Chemistry, and the vocabulary of Chemistry is very different from the vocabulary of Physics. So we need Bridge-Laws which connect the vocabulary of one science to the vocabulary of another and explain how a law in one science can ultimately be translated into the laws of a more fundamental science.

All of this is not without philosophical controversy, but it is the standard view of science.

Consider Psychology as a science. Many, if not most, cognitive scientists hold that psychology is ultimately reducible to biology, much as any good physicalist would hold. There are, however, two problems:

• We cannot imagine what bridge laws between psychology and biology would even look like; and,
• There don't seem to be any psychological laws which might make psychology a science in the first place.

Thus there seems to be an explanatory gap such that psychological facts about, for example, phenomenal consciousness cannot be explained by reducing them to biological facts. For imagine they could be so reduced. Then it should be the case that we could tell from an organism's biological facts what it is like to be that organism, yet this seems precisely to be what we cannot learn.

In general there seems that what we call the hard sciences , which are in principle reducible one to the other and, ultimately, the physics that presumably underwrites all of them. Yet contrast the presumed reducibility via bridge-laws found in the hard sciences with the apparent irreducibility of the so-called soft sciences : Psychology, Sociology, Anthropology, and so on. Thus the absence of psychophysical laws seems on the face of it to create a rift in the sciences between the hard sciences and the soft sciences. It is but one short step further to condemn the soft sciences as sciences at all. After all, science permits explanation and prediction based on the discover of natural laws, yet there are no laws when it comes to the psychological. Thus psychology and its associated sciences, lacking any laws, fail to be reducible to actual sciences and, in the final analysis, fail to be sciences at all .

15. The Computational Turn

Incorporating ever-cheaper and vastly more powerful computational resources has at once streamlined scientific inquiry and opened many more horizons of investigation up to now thought unassailable.

On the side of observation, computational and robotic resources accumulate, organize, and disseminate observational data itself obtained by remote and laboratory sensors of increasing sensitivity and sophistication. Tycho Brahe's passion for accurate astronomical observation and meticulous record-keeping, which raised the bar for serious scientific observation at his time and set it for several hundred years after, has become the automatic, daily standard for nearly every science on a scale and with a precision he could not have imagined possible.

On the side of theory, computational models move beyond static systems of equations at the core of mathematical models and physical laws to help predict the behavior of enormously complex physical systems, be they ecological, cellular, neurological, meteorological, or astronomical. Fine-tuning and combining the models, extracting statistical correlations among large data sets, and judiciously deploying deep learning techniques combine to permit increasingly reliable predictions where formerly we would have expected the equivalent of a scientific shrug and a guess.

Scarcely any domain of scientific observation has neglected to incorporate some or all of the many advantages the computational turn provides for the twin sakes of more robust empirical observation and more predictive theory construction, to say nothing of the advantages gained in collaboration, data sharing and curation, and model building and testing. Thus 'computational turn' understates the transformation in the practice of science building for the past forty years or so. 'Computer revolution' is, however, cliche, passive, and overwrought, given the thoughtful, methodical, and painstaking work that has gone into making this turn.

Set aside the inevitable bugs, glitches, and errors. Current scientific observation and theory built on sophisticated computational resources ranging from ip-enabled remote sensor packages to multi-cluster super-computers is as far beyond the baconian scientific enterprise as GPS navigation is to sextant and soundings, and for strictly analogous reasons. Firmly and fastidiously dedicated to satisfying our curiosity about the natural world, scientific practice computationally augmented could only more ably---speedily and completely---explore our many intellectual terrae incognitae .

The journey is fraught, however, with epistemological hazards, not least among them the widespread deployment of computationally mediated observation creating a firehose of data to be computationally analyzed and modeled. On the one hand, computer science is thereby elevated to a privileged, unquestioned status like mathematics or logic even as the use of computational methods changes the very character of science itself. On the other hand, science, which was formerly thought to both explain and predict by discovering and testing theories about the natural phenomena in question, provides better and better predictive power at the cost of explanation. That is, identifying strongly correlated variables vastly improves our predictive powers without providing any insight into why those variables are correlated. Further, computational models are useful so long as they improve prediction, but there is no reason to think the resulting models better reflect the reality they model in doing so.

The Computational Turn is thus as troubling as it is advantageous. It requires that computer science be certain in the way mathematics is usually certain--less a science and more an applied mathematics, as it were--while in practice splintering off explanation from prediction, promoting the latter while demoting the former. Is explanation any longer a proper goal of scientific inquiry, and what is computer science qua science?

• College of Liberal Arts
• Bell Library
• Academic Calendar

• Free Samples
• Premium Essays
• Editing Services Editing Proofreading Rewriting
• Extra Tools Essay Topic Generator Thesis Generator Citation Generator GPA Calculator Study Guides Donate Paper
• Essay Writing Help
• About Us About Us Testimonials FAQ
• Philosophy Term Paper
• Samples List

An term paper examples on philosophy is a prosaic composition of a small volume and free composition, expressing individual impressions and thoughts on a specific occasion or issue and obviously not claiming a definitive or exhaustive interpretation of the subject.

Some signs of philosophy term paper:

• the presence of a specific topic or question. A work devoted to the analysis of a wide range of problems in biology, by definition, cannot be performed in the genre of philosophy term paper topic.
• The term paper expresses individual impressions and thoughts on a specific occasion or issue, in this case, on philosophy and does not knowingly pretend to a definitive or exhaustive interpretation of the subject.
• As a rule, an essay suggests a new, subjectively colored word about something, such a work may have a philosophical, historical, biographical, journalistic, literary, critical, popular scientific or purely fiction character.
• in the content of an term paper samples on philosophy , first of all, the author’s personality is assessed - his worldview, thoughts and feelings.

The goal of an term paper in philosophy is to develop such skills as independent creative thinking and writing out your own thoughts.

Writing an term paper is extremely useful, because it allows the author to learn to clearly and correctly formulate thoughts, structure information, use basic concepts, highlight causal relationships, illustrate experience with relevant examples, and substantiate his conclusions.

• Studentshare

Examples List on Philosophy Term Paper

• TERMS & CONDITIONS
• PRIVACY POLICY
• COOKIES POLICY

We use cookies to enhance our website for you. Proceed if you agree to this policy or learn more about it.

• Essay Database >
• Essays Samples >
• Essay Types >
• Term Paper Example

Philosophy Term Papers Samples For Students

129 samples of this type

If you're seeking a viable method to simplify writing a Term Paper about Philosophy, WowEssays.com paper writing service just might be able to help you out.

For starters, you should skim our large database of free samples that cover most various Philosophy Term Paper topics and showcase the best academic writing practices. Once you feel that you've determined the basic principles of content presentation and drawn actionable insights from these expertly written Term Paper samples, putting together your own academic work should go much easier.

However, you might still find yourself in a circumstance when even using top-notch Philosophy Term Papers doesn't allow you get the job accomplished on time. In that case, you can contact our writers and ask them to craft a unique Philosophy paper according to your individual specifications. Buy college research paper or essay now!

Traditional Analysis of Knowledge Term Papers Example

Example of philosophy of nursing leadership term paper, philosophy of nursing leadership.

A good nurse can be described in many words. An outstanding nurse should be someone who shows care, who is compassionate and very kind. They should always be engaging, good listeners, good bedside manner and thorough in their duties. The philosophy of nursing is simple and straightforward. It comprises of the responsibilities and functions of nurses. It simply defines the nursing program (Sanford, 2012).

Good Term Paper On Photography As A Form Of Art

Don't waste your time searching for a sample.

Get your term paper done by professional writers!

Just from $10/page

Good Term Paper On Wittgensteins Tractatus

Existentialism term paper, good example of term paper on plato and the just community:an argument against political idealism, good example of term paper on hegel and ethical life:an argument for civil society, free albert camus the stranger term paper sample, plato and the just community:an argument against political idealism term paper samples, good term paper about nursing: nursing philosophy scholarly paper, 1970-1980’s (newman, parse, watson, rogers) iv. development of the metaparadigm per fawcett.

v. Development of paradigms 1. Simultaneity and Totality 2. Particulate-Deterministic, Interactive -Integrative, Unitary Transformative III. Discuss knowledge development in nursing (10 points) a. Carper’s Ways of Knowing b. Emancipatory Knowing c. Ways of unknowing d. Role of research e. Role of the socio political environment IV. Application/Synthesis for Advanced Practice (10 points)

Describe how the new advanced knowledge, in the course to date has informed and influenced your own perspective on nursing:

Understanding buddhism: case of religion or philosophy term paper, introduction: siddhartha gautama, different views of society among ancient greek philosophers term papers examples, introduction, good term paper about controversy of diotima's love- aristotles symposium, example of enlightenment philosophies as treated in voltaires candide term paper, example of term paper on education in the republic of plato, karl marx and his philosophical work term paper examples, immanuel kant and his philosophical work term paper sample, term paper on democracy as a governing system, the philosophy of nitzche and its orgins term paper, socratic questioning term paper, a) my personal philosophy term paper examples, personal philosophy of nursing, term paper on the good life, religious experience as evidence for the existence of god term paper examples, religious experience as evidence for the existence of god, final paper the sovereign and the philosopher-king term paper examples, is any sex act intrinsically wrong term paper, rousseau's eenightenment movement values - term paper example.

DID ROUSSEAU REMAIN TRUE TO THE ENLIGHTENMENT MOVEMENT’S VALUES?

Term paper on french enlightenment philosophical notes by voltaire and dalemberts dream by diderot

Term paper on science and philosophy.

The modern scientific method dates all the way back to the days of Isaac Newton who, ironically, only went to university because his parents thought he was too poor of a farmer to make anything of himself – so they sent him to read theology (Weisstein, 2011). The climate of research and inquiry produced one of the most transformational minds in all of the history of science. In addition to his laws of motion, he also developed the basis of a scientific method that still guides research and experimentation done in the present day.

Plato Term Paper

Introduction, term paper on evolutionary ethics, evolutionary ethics, term paper on what is platonic love, what is postmodernism term paper.

Postmodernism is not really easy to define, taking into account this fact that such would violate the postmodernist's argument that no distinct, boundaries, terms or absolute truths exist. In this case, the term “postmodernism” remains totally vague, given that those claiming to be postmodernists have unreliable opinions and beliefs on various issues (Johannes).

A-Level Term Paper On British Literature Term Paper For Free Use

Good term paper about gottfried wilhelm leibniz, travels term papers examples.

___________ University

Exemplar Term Paper On Methods Of Experimentation And Observation To Write After

Kantian philosophy term papers example, good example of revolution of science term paper, science from a philosopher’s perspective, example of world literature final term paper, good example of legal positivism term paper, customer name, sample term paper on the meaning of life, the truth term paper sample, understanding of the west: literature comparison term paper samples, free we talked about the nation, the political society, the state. what about the people term paper sample, instructors name term paper sample, duality and free will, sample term paper on the curriculum project: phases iv-vi, phase iv: discuss a process for curriculum reform.

Introduction This paper will be focused on the process, timeline and strategies that I will follow in order to properly reform the Pre-kindergarten Elementary Math’s Curriculum developed and adopted by the Pre- kindergarten school. As previously established in Phase III, there are two primary changes that must be made in order to achieve proper compliance with the CCSS – making clearer distinctions between instructional and activity time in the math’s courses, and ensuring the school curriculum meets the criteria for research and evidence-based curriculum based on the CCSS.

Process, Timeline and Strategies

Aspects of the akan belief system term papers examples.

This essay examines and discusses aspects of the belief system of the Akan people, who represent the largest ethnic grouping in the African country of Ghana, comprising in total just under half of Ghana’s entire population. Aspects of the Akan culture and beliefs covered within the paragraphs of this essay include their concepts of God and of Evil, their philosophy of the Person, and the links between the symbolic significance of their heritage art and their culture and beliefs. The aim is to gain some insight into the Akan belief system.

The Akan Concept of God

Freud and skinner's approaches to understanding behavior term paper sample, the origins and spread of buddhism term paper sample, free term paper on differences in the use of nature as a concept in the writings of hobbes, locke and, abortion term paper example, example of augustine term paper, st. augustine and western civilization, quality management toyota motor corporation term paper sample.

Quality management is perhaps one of the most important strategies in the current business world. Several big firms are shifting attention from sales projected businesses to production of quality goods as well as quality service provision. In developing long term strategies, businesses in different fields have developed keen interest in quality assurance and making it a priority in business management. This paper looks to examine how Toyota Company has risen to the top of vehicle manufacturing through implementation of quality management systems in its operation.

Quality Assurance and Quality Management

Example of curanderismo term paper, example of term paper on the philosophy of the hero transcendence and the role of storytelling in the odyssey, example of term paper on comparative analysis: confucius lives next door vs. children of dust, free the theme of dystopian society in the works of orwell, huxley and bradbury term paper: top-quality sample to follow, the theme of dystopian society in the works of orwell, huxley, and bradbury, good example of term paper on the meaning of life, example of term paper on rhetorical analysis, description, example of hindu culture term paper.

Password recovery email has been sent to [email protected]

Use your new password to log in

You are not register!

By clicking Register, you agree to our Terms of Service and that you have read our Privacy Policy .

Now you can download documents directly to your device!

Check your email! An email with your password has already been sent to you! Now you can download documents directly to your device.

or Use the QR code to Save this Paper to Your Phone

The sample is NOT original!

Short on a deadline?

Don't waste time. Get help with 11% off using code - GETWOWED

No, thanks! I'm fine with missing my deadline

• Undergraduate
• High School
• Architecture
• American History
• Asian History
• Antique Literature
• American Literature
• Asian Literature
• Classic English Literature
• World Literature
• Creative Writing
• Linguistics
• Criminal Justice
• Legal Issues
• Anthropology
• Archaeology
• Political Science
• World Affairs
• African-American Studies
• East European Studies
• Latin-American Studies
• Native-American Studies
• West European Studies
• Family and Consumer Science
• Social Issues
• Women and Gender Studies
• Social Work
• Natural Sciences
• Pharmacology
• Earth science
• Agriculture
• Agricultural Studies
• Computer Science
• IT Management
• Mathematics
• Investments
• Engineering and Technology
• Engineering
• Aeronautics
• Medicine and Health
• Alternative Medicine
• Communications and Media
• Advertising
• Communication Strategies
• Public Relations
• Educational Theories
• Teacher's Career
• Chicago/Turabian
• Company Analysis
• Education Theories
• Shakespeare
• Canadian Studies
• Food Safety
• Relation of Global Warming and Extreme Weather Condition
• Movie Review
• Admission Essay
• Annotated Bibliography
• Application Essay
• Article Critique
• Article Review
• Article Writing
• Book Review
• Business Plan
• Business Proposal
• Capstone Project
• Cover Letter
• Creative Essay
• Dissertation
• Dissertation - Abstract
• Dissertation - Conclusion
• Dissertation - Discussion
• Dissertation - Hypothesis
• Dissertation - Introduction
• Dissertation - Literature
• Dissertation - Methodology
• Dissertation - Results
• GCSE Coursework
• Grant Proposal
• Marketing Plan
• Multiple Choice Quiz
• Personal Statement

Power Point Presentation

• Power Point Presentation With Speaker Notes
• Questionnaire
• Reaction Paper
• Research Paper
• Research Proposal
• SWOT analysis
• Thesis Paper
• Online Quiz
• Literature Review
• Movie Analysis
• Statistics problem
• Math Problem
• All papers examples
• How It Works
• Money Back Policy
• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• We Are Hiring

Philosophy on Education, Term Paper Example

Pages: 1

Words: 407

Hire a Writer for Custom Term Paper

Use 10% Off Discount: "custom10" in 1 Click 👇

You are free to use it as an inspiration or a source for your own work.

The way one learns would basically depend on how he views life as a whole. This is the concept of understanding that the principle of phenomenology suggests in relation to educational development and learning. On the other hand, when one develops a better sense of understanding on the purpose of his being and how this purpose ought to affect him as an individual, the concept of existentialism becomes evidently affective on how one thinks. These two concepts of learning and human development tend to become the source of competence in the way the author of this educational-philosophy paper views the real value of learning.

For the presentation that follows, a distinct insistence on how the principles of existentialism and phenomenology actually apply on determining the improvement of learning pattern that each person tales into account shall be discussed. Accordingly, this presentation shall make a definite form of indication on how modern educational procedures are determined to establish better value to the thinking pattern that students are taking into account at present; especially in the hope of contributing a much better sense of control on how they support the advancements the society endeavors to achieve.

Accordingly, the purpose of this discussion is to give a background on how the ideals of existentialism and phenomenology work together in determining the primary thoughts of the author on what education is and how its application in determining students’ capacities should actually be undergone by educators. Among the primary sections of educational development to be proven workable in this discussion includes that of the condition by which points of realization on the purpose of education is established as the following sections of understanding are given particular consideration:

• The creation of a well-defined curriculum that specifically addresses student needs
• The establishment of lesson proceedings that would establish a better vision of how the teacher ought to take stand on her value as the manager of the lesson and as an assistant to her students

These are only two among the most important sections that shall establish the overall value of the context of the discussion to be presented herein. All are directed towards providing a more clarified understanding on what education and what is its personal value to the author of this paper.

Luper, Steven (ed.) (2000). Existing: An Introduction to Existential Thought. Mountain View, California: Mayfield.

Merleau-Ponty, M. (1962). Phenomenology of Perception [Colin Smith]. New York: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Stewart, Jon (ed.) (2011). Kierkegaard and Existentialism . Farnham, England: Ashgate.

Stuck with your Term Paper?

Get in touch with one of our experts for instant help!

Code of Ethics Education, Power Point Presentation Example

Philosophy on Education, Outline Example

Time is precious

don’t waste it!

Plagiarism-free guarantee

Privacy guarantee

Secure checkout

Money back guarantee

Related Term Paper Samples & Examples

5 ways intersectionality affects diversity and inclusion at work, term paper example.

Pages: 5

Words: 1355

Combating Climate Change Successfully Through COP26 Glasgow 2021, Term Paper Example

Pages: 9

Words: 2580

Telehealth, Term Paper Example

Pages: 3

Words: 848

Impact of Spanish, Mexican, and Anglo Social Ordering on Mexican-American Culture in California, Term Paper Example

Pages: 7

Words: 1809

Empowerment and Social Change, Term Paper Example

Pages: 2

Words: 642

Directed Energy Ethics, Term Paper Example

Pages: 18

Words: 4973

The Social Contract: a Melodic Approach to Political Philosophy

This essay is about the social contract, a foundational concept in political philosophy, and its parallels with the dynamics of a jazz ensemble. It explores how thinkers like Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau envisioned the social contract as a theoretical agreement among individuals to form a government that ensures order and protects their rights. The essay compares this agreement to the cooperation required in a jazz band, where musicians must listen, adapt, and work together to create harmonious music. It also examines the relevance of the social contract in modern governance, environmental sustainability, and educational institutions, highlighting the importance of cooperation, mutual obligations, and shared goals in achieving a just and equitable society.

How it works

Imagine a bustling jazz club, where musicians gather to create spontaneous and harmonious music. This setting offers a unique perspective to understand the social contract, a foundational concept in political philosophy articulated by thinkers like Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Just as jazz musicians must cooperate, listen, and adapt to one another to create a coherent performance, individuals in a society agree to form a government that ensures order and protects their rights. By exploring this analogy, we can uncover fresh insights into the principles of the social contract and its relevance to both political theory and the art of improvisation.

Thomas Hobbes, in his influential work “Leviathan” (1651), envisioned a state of nature where life would be “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” Hobbes believed that without a central authority, individuals would be driven by self-interest and perpetual fear, leading to chaos and conflict. This scenario can be likened to a chaotic jam session without any agreed-upon structure or harmony, where each musician plays independently, resulting in dissonance. To escape this disorder, Hobbes argued that individuals collectively agree to surrender some of their freedoms to a sovereign authority, much like musicians agreeing to follow a bandleader’s cues. This sovereign, with absolute power, ensures peace and order, guiding the ensemble to create a harmonious performance.

John Locke’s “Two Treatises of Government” (1689) presents a more optimistic view, akin to a well-rehearsed jazz ensemble. Locke argued that individuals in the state of nature possess natural rights to life, liberty, and property and are generally rational and capable of self-governance. This state of nature resembles a group of skilled musicians who can improvise beautifully on their own but come together to create something greater. According to Locke, the social contract forms a government with limited powers, designed to protect these natural rights. If the government fails to uphold its duties, much like a bandleader who cannot coordinate the group effectively, the musicians (citizens) have the right to replace them. Locke’s vision emphasizes a government accountable to its people, where the collective efforts of individuals create a symphony of freedom and protection.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau, in his work “The Social Contract” (1762), offered yet another perspective. Rousseau emphasized equality and the general will, arguing that individuals enter into a social contract to achieve collective self-governance and promote the common good. This can be likened to a jazz ensemble where each musician’s contribution is vital, and the bandleader represents the collective will of the group. Rousseau envisioned a form of direct democracy, where citizens actively participate in decision-making, akin to musicians having a say in the direction of the performance. His vision highlights the importance of collaboration and shared purpose, ensuring that the final performance resonates with the values and aspirations of the entire community.

The theoretical framework of the social contract extends beyond political philosophy and finds intriguing parallels in the world of jazz. Just as the social contract emphasizes consent, mutual obligations, and the protection of rights, a jazz ensemble relies on mutual respect, cooperation, and the interdependence of its members. This analogy underscores the importance of working together and respecting mutual responsibilities to achieve a harmonious and successful outcome.

In modern governance, the social contract remains a crucial framework for understanding the relationship between individuals and the state. Debates over social justice, individual rights, and the role of government often invoke the principles of the social contract. Issues such as economic inequality and civil liberties can be examined through this lens, much like assessing the dynamics of a jazz performance. A well-governed society, where each citizen’s role is respected and valued, parallels a well-coordinated jazz ensemble where all musicians contribute to and benefit from a cohesive performance.

The social contract also finds relevance in contemporary movements advocating for environmental sustainability. Much like an ensemble that must maintain balance and harmony, societies must navigate the complexities of preserving natural resources for future generations. The collective agreement to protect the environment reflects a long-term commitment to the common good, mirroring Rousseau’s emphasis on the general will guiding decision-making. Environmental policies, thus, become a modern manifestation of the social contract, where the goal is to achieve ecological balance and sustainability.

Educational institutions, too, operate on a form of social contract. Students agree to adhere to academic standards and conduct codes, while institutions commit to providing quality education and resources. This mutual agreement fosters an environment conducive to learning and personal development, akin to the collaborative spirit of a jazz ensemble working towards a flawless performance. The cooperative nature of an academic community mirrors the interdependent relationships within a jazz band, highlighting the importance of shared goals and mutual support.

The enduring relevance of the social contract theory lies in its ability to adapt to various contexts and provide insights into the dynamics of human interactions and governance. From the philosophical musings of Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau to the practical applications in jazz ensembles, modern governance, environmental policies, and educational settings, the principles of the social contract remain deeply embedded in our collective consciousness. By examining these diverse applications, we can appreciate the profound impact of the social contract on shaping the structures and dynamics of human society.

The social contract is not merely a historical concept but a living framework that continues to influence contemporary thought and practice. Its emphasis on consent, mutual obligations, and the balance between individual rights and collective responsibilities offers valuable insights into the ongoing quest for a just and equitable society. As we navigate the complexities of modern life, the social contract serves as a guiding principle for fostering cooperation, trust, and shared commitment to the common good. Much like a jazz ensemble, where each musician’s contribution is essential to the overall harmony, the social contract underscores the importance of working together to create a society that resonates with the values and aspirations of all its members.

Cite this page

The Social Contract: A Melodic Approach to Political Philosophy. (2024, Jun 17). Retrieved from https://papersowl.com/examples/the-social-contract-a-melodic-approach-to-political-philosophy/

"The Social Contract: A Melodic Approach to Political Philosophy." PapersOwl.com , 17 Jun 2024, https://papersowl.com/examples/the-social-contract-a-melodic-approach-to-political-philosophy/

PapersOwl.com. (2024). The Social Contract: A Melodic Approach to Political Philosophy . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/the-social-contract-a-melodic-approach-to-political-philosophy/ [Accessed: 25 Jun. 2024]

"The Social Contract: A Melodic Approach to Political Philosophy." PapersOwl.com, Jun 17, 2024. Accessed June 25, 2024. https://papersowl.com/examples/the-social-contract-a-melodic-approach-to-political-philosophy/

"The Social Contract: A Melodic Approach to Political Philosophy," PapersOwl.com , 17-Jun-2024. [Online]. Available: https://papersowl.com/examples/the-social-contract-a-melodic-approach-to-political-philosophy/. [Accessed: 25-Jun-2024]

PapersOwl.com. (2024). The Social Contract: A Melodic Approach to Political Philosophy . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/the-social-contract-a-melodic-approach-to-political-philosophy/ [Accessed: 25-Jun-2024]

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Hire a writer to get a unique paper crafted to your needs.

Our writers will help you fix any mistakes and get an A+!

Please check your inbox.

You can order an original essay written according to your instructions.

Trusted by over 1 million students worldwide

1. Tell Us Your Requirements

2. Pick your perfect writer

3. Get Your Paper and Pay

Hi! I'm Amy, your personal assistant!

Don't know where to start? Give me your paper requirements and I connect you to an academic expert.

short deadlines

100% Plagiarism-Free

Certified writers

Researchers Say There’s a Vulgar But More Accurate Term for AI Hallucinations

This is a compelling philosophical argument., not just nomenclature.

It's not just your imagination — ChatGPT really is spitting out "bullshit," according to a group of researchers.

In a new paper published in the journal  Ethics and Information Technology , a trio of philosophy researchers from the University of Glasgow in Scotland argue that referring to chatbot's propensity to make crap up shouldn't be referred to as "hallucinations," because it's actually something much less flattering.

Hallucination, as anyone who's studied psychology or taken psychedelics knows well, is generally defined as seeing or perceiving something that isn't there. Its use in the context of artificial intelligence is clearly metaphorical, because large language models (LLMs) don't see or perceive anything at all — and as the Glasgow researchers maintain, that metaphor misses the mark when the concept of "bullshitting" is right there.

"The machines are not trying to communicate something they believe or perceive," the paper reads. "Their inaccuracy is not due to misperception or hallucination. As we have pointed out, they are not trying to convey information at all. They are bullshitting."

Calling Bull

At the crux of the assertion from researchers Michael Townsen Hicks ,  James Humphries, and Joe Slater is philosopher Harry Frankfurt's hilarious and cutting 2005 epistemology opus " On Bullshit ." As the Glaswegians summarize it, Frankfurt's general definition of bullshit is "any utterance produced where a speaker has indifference towards the truth of the utterance." That explanation, in turn, is divided into two "species": hard bullshit, which occurs when there is an agenda to mislead, or soft bullshit, which is uttered without agenda.

"ChatGPT is at minimum a soft bullshitter or a bullshit machine, because if it is not an agent then it can neither hold any attitudes towards truth nor towards deceiving hearers about its (or, perhaps more properly, its users') agenda," the trio writes.

Rather than having any intention or agenda, chatbots have one singular objective: to output human-like text. Citing the lawyer who used ChatGPT to write a legal brief and ended up presenting a bunch of "bogus" legal precedents before the judge, the UG team asserts that LLMs have proven themselves adept bullshitters — and that sort of thing could become more and more dangerous as people keep relying on chatbots to work for them.

"Investors, policymakers, and members of the general public make decisions on how to treat these machines and how to react to them based not on a deep technical understanding of how they work, but on the often metaphorical way in which their abilities and function are communicated," the researchers proclaim. "Calling their mistakes 'hallucinations' isn’t harmless: it lends itself to the confusion that the machines are in some way misperceiving but are nonetheless trying to convey something that they believe or have perceived."

More on AI shit: This Simple Logic Question Stumps Even the Most Advanced AI

Share This Article