Second Paper Topics

• Option 1: Write a 3–6 page paper, answering one of the questions below. Paper is due April 19^th. If you choose this option, you will write a third paper of the same length which will be due on Dean's Date.
• Option 2: Write a 9–12 page paper, answering either one of the following questions or one of the questions from the third paper assignment. Paper is due on Dean's Date. If you choose this option, you should feel free to expand the focus of the question you answer or to combine related questions if you think it necessary (though I don't) to achieve a topic of appropriate scope for a longer paper.

1. Give a critical presentation of Stalnaker's discussion of the argument for fatalism in "Indicative Conditionals." What does Stalnaker take Dummett's view of the argument to be? What is Stalnaker's own view? (Be sure to present the argument itself!)

   By a "critical presentation" I mean a presentation the primary aim of which is exigetical, but in which you should point out or discuss any unclarities, ambiguities, equivocations, points of contention, outright mistakes, etc., that you might come across.

   I want you to write as clearly as possible, use the plainest language you can, and make sure to put everything in your own words. Be sure to explain (in your own words) the meaning of any jargon or special terminology from the paper that you need to use. For this question you should think of your audience as an intelligent person with training in philosophy but who knows very little about the philosophy of language.

2. Give a critical presentation of Stalnaker's discussion of Karttunen's discussion of factives and semi-factives in "Pragmatic Presuppositions." Where does Stalnaker think Karttunen has gone wrong? Why does Stalnaker think the discussion reveals an advantage for pragmatic presuppositions?

   For this question you should think of your audience as an intelligent person with training in the philosophy of language but who has not read Stalnaker or Karttunen.

3. Give a critical presentation of Strawson's objections to Russell's theory of descriptions and his objections to Russell's arguments for that theory. (You may if you wish, but don't at all have to, consult Russell's 1905 article, "On Denoting.")

   Your target audience for this question should be as in the first question.

This page created and maintained by Delia Graff
URL:http://instruct1.cit.cornell.edu/research/graff/phi345/paper2.html
Last modified: Tue 4/5/2001

Validate this page