Philosophy Essay Explanation of Clifford’s View

Instructions:
• Write a paper answering one of the following prompts.
• Read the prompts carefully, and ensure that your answer addresses each part of the prompt you choose.
• Your paper should be 5 – 6 pages in length.
• Your paper should adhere to the following formatting guidelines: 12-point Times New Roman font, 1-inch margins, double-spaced.
1. According to Clifford, it is always wrong for anyone to ever believe something on the basis of insufficient evidence. Explain Clifford’s view and his argument for it in detail. Then, consider James’s response to Clifford in “The Will to Believe.” Explain why James thinks Clifford’s evidentialism undermines itself, and under what circumstances James believes it is permissible to believe without sufficient evidence. Finally, critically assess the debate between James and Clifford. How could Clifford respond to James’s objections, and would that response be convincing? Why or why not?
2. In Meditation I, Descartes presents a skeptical hypothesis that threatens to undermine our claim to know anything about the external world. Present the skeptical challenge clearly in the form of an argument, explaining why one might think that it implies the following conclusion: for any empirical proposition P, you do not know P. Can the skeptical argument be resisted? In answering this question, you may wish to consider whether the principle of Closure could plausibly be rejected, or whether Jonathan Vogel’s appeal to Inference to the Best Explanation provides a compelling response to the skeptic.
3. In the Dialogues, Berkeley argues that so-called material objects are merely ideas in the mind. Reconstruct the arguments Berkeley gives for idealism. In expositing the text, make sure that you explain and motivate the distinction between primary and secondary qualities on which Berkeley’s argument relies, and show clearly how Berkeley generalizes the argument, which purports to show that colors are secondary qualities, to properties like extension. Then, consider the following objection to Berkeley’s view: idealism cannot explain why objects continue to exist when no one is looking at them, or how dreams and fantasies are different from reality. Develop these objections, and explain how Berkeley responds to them in the Third Dialogue.
4. Suppose you are holding a clay statue in your hand; many metaphysicians think that you are holding not one, but two objects. Relying on Yablo’s discussion in “A Thing and Its Matter,” explain why one might think this. Then explain why one might wish to resist the conclusion that you are holding two objects, rather than one. Which view should we endorse? In adjudicating the debate, you will find it helpful to consider which commonsense beliefs will have to be rejected by proponents of each view. Which revisions to our intuitive picture of the world, in other words, do you find more acceptable?
5. Isaac Newton and Samuel Clarke hold a “substantivalist” view of space. Leibniz, by contrast, holds a “relationalist” view. Explain what these views are and how they are different. In so doing, you will want to consider what each view implies about the metaphysical status of space and the bodies within it. Then, explain in detail Leibniz’s PSR argument for relationalism and Clarke’s response to that argument. Finally, critically assess the dispute between Leibniz and Clarke. If you think Leibniz is right, then provide a response to Clarke’s objections on Leibniz’s behalf. If you think Clarke and Newton are right, then consider how Leibniz would defend his view and explain why you think this defense would be unsuccessful.
6. Moral responsibility is often thought to depend on freedom of the will in the sense of the ability to do otherwise. Philosophers like Kant therefore think that freedom and determinism are incompatible. Explain why Frankfurt rejects the common view. What positive conception of freedom does he propose instead? How does it avoid the threat posed by determinism? Make sure that you explain clearly what determinism is, and why it might be thought to pose such a serious threat to freedom and moral responsibility. After presenting Frankfurt’s view, consider how an incompatibilst might respond to it. Do you think this response would be convincing? Why or why not?
7. Philosophers generally agree that there is a metaphysical distinction to be drawn between sex, which is a biological category, and gender, which is a social category. Elizabeth Barnes distinguishes between “externalist” and “internalist” theories of gender. Explain the distinction between these two theories, discussing Sally Haslanger’s externalist account and the internalist account that Barnes sketches. Which of these accounts do you think is more promising? In crafting your argument make sure to explicitly mention and respond to the potential problems for both accounts that Barnes mentions.
8. There tends to be a fair amount of disagreement about which objects the predicates ‘beauty,’ ‘aesthetically good,’ and so forth, are correctly applied to; this might suggest that judgments about an object’s beauty are merely a private manner. On the other hand, we tend to argue about our aesthetic judgments in a way that we don’t about whether, say, chocolate ice cream tastes good; this might suggest that our judgments about beauty are, or at least aim to be, objective. Present and develop this puzzle clearly. Then, consider Hume’s attempt to split the difference between the subjectivist and objectivist camp in “Of the Standard of Taste.” In what sense does Hume think judgments of beauty are objective, and in which sense are they subjective? Finally, assess Hume’s account of taste. Is he successful in locating a “standard” of taste?