Thomas Nagel What is it Like to be a Bat?

TASK: to make an argument in support of a particular philosophical thesis statement. Word count: 750-1000
A good critical paper is part exegesis, in that you will spend some time carefully, charitably and thoroughly reconstructing the philosophical arguments in question, with direct and indirect support from the relevant philosophy texts, and part critique, in which you engage those ideas critically and argue for your own position on the matter.
Your own position should be stated clearly in your thesis statement in your introduction: tell us what you are going to do in this paper. (I.e., I will be challenging the view of Philosopher X, and showing why I believe his conclusion is incorrect/incomplete/incoherent… Or Philosopher Zs analysis of how to define Y is valid, but I will propose some examples that challenge her view, and then suggest how she might modify her definition to include them…. Or In this essay, I will explain why view ABC is ultimately an incoherent theory, and will not be able to successfully account for…. Etc.)
There should be numerous references back to the text itself, highlighting key quotes from the text, explaining what the quote means, and demonstrating how it fits into the argument. Each reference to the text should be cited parenthetically at the end of the sentence in question. You should cite every substantive point you are attributing to the text or to the philosopher in question: both direct quotes and indirect paraphrases.
Imagine your reader is a fellow student who has not been keeping up with readings or with attending class, and asks you to explain the main argument in one of these excerpts. How would you show them? Remember that the goal of this is to highlight the arguments and explain the views in question, and then to state a critical opinion on them. Also remember to show, not merely tell: dont just summarize the arguments, use direct references back to the texts to show the arguments of philosophers, and use clear examples to explain your own arguments which may be obvious to you, but wont be as obvious to your reader until you make them so!
The critical aspect of your paper can take one of a few different forms. For example:
o Refutation using counterexamples, or counterarguments, show why you think certain arguments (or certain philosophers) are mistaken. In response, offer the alternate argument that you think is better or more correct. When you attempt to refute a philosopher, make sure to include what you think that philosopher would say in response to your critique, and how you would respond in turn.
o Friendly critique if you agree with the position or argument in question, you can show your critical understanding of it by defending it against what critics do say about it (or what you imagine Some critics might argue….). Offering additional arguments that the philosopher would likely use if pressed, or bringing new examples to the table that help illustrate (and support) the point you are defending is a good way to do this.
o Fence-sitting you may be unsure whether you agree with the philosopher in question or not, in which case you can simply explain in detail the source of your ambivalence, by citing both some strengths and weaknesses of the argument. You can note obvious objections to the argument, and also note obvious responses to those objections. Remember that sitting on the fence is a little bit cheap, so if you are going to make that your conclusion, make sure that you have some really good reasons why non-committal is the best, most sensible option in this case.
TOPICS: Your paper can be on one of the three attached excerpts:
1. JJC Smart Sensations and Brain Processes
2. Thomas Nagel What is it Like to be a Bat?
3. Andy Clark & David Chalmers The Extended Mind

 

"Looking for a Similar Assignment? Get Expert Help at an Amazing Discount!"