|
Philosophy 342: Philosophy of Mind |
Prof. Warren Schmaus |
|
Room: 204 Siegel Hall |
Office: 228 Siegel Hall |
|
MW 10:00 - 11:15 |
Mailbox: 218 Siegel Hall |
|
Office Hrs: MW 2:00 - 4:00 |
Email: schmaus@iit.edu |
|
Phone: x 7-3473 |
|
|
|
|
FIRST PAPER TOPIC: Dualism, Behaviorism, and Materialism. This essay will be due Wednesday, February 3, 2010. It should be at least 500 words. Be sure to consult my "Guide to Philosophy Paper Writing" on the web.
CHOOSE ONE:
1. In the Discourse on Method, Descartes argued that since no physical thing could make appropriate responses, either verbally or through action, to everything that is said or happens in its presence, that the human mind must therefore be something non-physical. Do you find this to be a good argument? Explain.
2. What conclusion did Descartes reach by the end of the second Meditation? Does his experiment with the piece of wax and his observing the passing scene below his window support this conclusion? How? Has he shown that the mind really is distinct from the body at this point? Explain.
3. In the sixth Meditation, Descartes argued that since he can separate his mind and body in thought, that God can separate them in actuality, and hence that they are distinct things. Even if we grant Descartes the existence of God, does the conclusion follow? What do you think?
4. Explain Arnauld’s objection to Descartes’s argument for mind-body dualism. What is the point Arnauld made through the example of someone’s knowledge of right triangles? How did Descartes reply to Arnauld? Was he convincing? Who in your opinion won this argument and why do you say so?
5. In Locke’s view, does philosophical method suffice to settle the question whether matter is able to think? Why did he say this? That is, what is this method and what are its limitations? What are the implications of Locke’s position for the Cartesian argument that mind and body are distinct substances?
6. Why does Hempel say that the question of the relationship between mental and physical events is not a genuine problem? Why is it then, according to Hempel, that so many people have thought otherwise? Do you agree with him that these people are simply confused or mistaken? Explain.
7. In his critique of logical behaviorism, Putnam has us imagine a science-fiction world of super-stoics or super-spartans. What is he trying to show through this imaginary world? Do you think this argument undermines Hempel’s position? Do you think that there are better ways to refute logical behaviorism? Explain.
8. One objection to materialism is that the very words we use to describe our sensations, such as color terms, refer to non-physical properties of our sensations. In his defense of materialism, Smart seeks some neutral way that does not presuppose dualism to talk about his sensations. Do you think he succeeds? Explain.