PHI 2010, Highlights and Lowlights

Second Paper:

These are two passages from the same paper. Can you guess which is good and which is bad?

"Hume states that senses, reason, or the even imagination can determine a continued or a distinct existence, that the senses cannot produce the opinion of a continued existence because they only provide us with a single, distinct perpection. They then produce the opinion of a distinct existence only by illusion, as I stated before. The senses cannot operate beyond their own faculties of operation and therefore cannot give us a notion of continued existence. However, they do produce a distinct existence because they cannot offer it to the mind in an original or represented form."

"Coherence is the regular dependence objects have on each other that produces the opinion of continued existence. Our imagination fills in the blanks, which is not a justification. Constancy is the instance when perceptions of external objects do not change when the perception is interrupted. In order to maintain the regularity of operation, external objects require a continued existence. If it has continued existence it must have independent existence. I guess we suppose that there is more regularity than we deserve [observe]."

Each of these passages is an attempt to summarize Hume's writing on the origin of our belief in continued and distinct existence of physical objects.

The first contains all the right words from Hume - senses, reason imagination and so on. However, these words are not put together in a coherent way. Senses, reason and imagination are named, but with no attempt to discern the proper role of each. Hume's point is that it is the combination of imagination and the senses, rather than the combination of reason and the senses, that results in our idea of continued and distinct existence of body. By simply listing senses, reason and imagination together, this vital point is lost. Hume thinks that we first have the idea of continued existence, and then from this, we deduce that this existence must also be distinct. That is, I see a book. I then decide that the book continues to exist when I am not in the room. But if it then continues to exist without my being there, it must be distinct from me. However, we are told that the senses produce the idea of a distinct existence as an illusion, without any consideration of where the idea of continued existence comes from. The ending of the final sentence is completely unclear. "..they cannot offer it"; but what is it?

The second paragraph is far from perfect, but it is much better. We are told clearly what the role of imagination is, and, correctly, that imagination is not justification. We are told correctly that if the regularity we see is not an illusion, objects must have continued existence, and that it is from this continued existence we then derive their independent (i.e. distinct) existence. This follows Hume's train of reasoning. In the final sentence, the word 'deserve' is not correct: I presume the author meant 'observe'. Because the passage as a whole is coherent (apart from the initial definition of 'coherence', perhaps), it is possible for me to reconstruct the last sentence even when the wrong word is used. The word 'deserve' has no business being included in a discussion of Hume on continued and distinct existence of body, so I know it is an error. However, it is also immediately clear that if I substitute 'observe', the sentence makes sense. However, with the last sentence of the first passage, I'm completely at a loss. Perhaps in this case the author omitted a word, or used the wrong word - the kind of error we can all easily make. But when the passage as a whole just doesn't fit together, reconstructing the intended meaning is just impossible.



First Paper: Does the existence of evil constitute a proof that God does not exist?

Some rules when writing philosophy papers:

1) Aim for clarity:

",,,what is trying to be accomplished is a fusion."

Students are often taught to use the passive voice to avoid self-reference. I have nothing against either self-reference or the use of the passive voice, as is indicated by this sentence and its predecessor. However, in this case, the use of the passive makes no sense. You could say "Beckham scored a goal" or "A goal was scored by Beckham." However, although you can say "Beckham tried to score a goal" you cannot say "A goal tried to be scored by Beckham." First, a goal does not try to do anything. Secondly, if the goal was not scored, it did not exist. So too in this case, the sentence should read "I am trying to accomplish a fusion."

Another example:

"And the very problem we face here is that question we are faced with has to go beyond the boundaries of logic..."

I find myself thinking of the dialogue written by Ed Wood for Plan Nine From Outer Space: "And remember, friends, future events such as these will afftect you in the future." Why not just say "We are faced with a problem that goes beyond the boundaries of logic."? To be fair, all of us sometimes write sentences like this: you should proof-read your paper carefully to eliminate them.

2) Engage with your opponents:

"...you cannot fully understand something unless you have experienced its opposite. That makes evil a necessary opposite. Just as the Yin and the Yang, there is no evil without some good, and there is no good without some evil."

This is not a new idea, and you cannot expect that as soon as you state it, everyone will agree with you. You need to consider why some people have rejected this idea.

In this instance, it shouldn't be difficult. You have all read Mackie's article on 'Evil and Omnipotence', and on pages 105-106 he discusses and rejects two proposals: 'Good cannot exist without evil' and 'Evil is necessary as a means to good.' Mackie clearly is not convinced that evil is a necessary opposite.
He argues that there is no impossibility in the idea that everything could be red. Why would that be impossible? If this were the case, perhaps we would never notice that everything was red because we would have nothing to contrast it with. Still, everything would be red even if we didn't notice the fact.

The passage that I've quoted above ignores this distinction. The argument is that we cannot fully understand good without having experienced its opposite, therefore, good cannot exist without its opposite. This assumes that good cannot exist without the conditions that make it fully understood - an assumption that needs to be acknowledged and defended.

In any case, let's get back to Mackie. He allows that perhaps there must be some evil if we are to appreciate good, but he then suggests that surely only a little bit of evil would be necessary. Let me explain Mackie's point with an example of my own. Perhaps I can never appreciate how good it is to have a hot shower in the morning until I've been forced to take a cold shower, but if I take a cold shower just one time, I can then appreciate a hot shower every day for the rest of my life. However, the amount of evil that we find in the world is much more than the basic minimum necessary to appreciate good - so the evidence suggests that  the evil that exists in the universe is not there as a necessary balance to the good.

I am not saying that Mackie's argument is decisive, but, in the paper I've been quoting from, Mackie's paper was not mentioned once. This is a major failing.

Let me be clear. I do not expect you to include in your paper a summary of everything that you have read. As I have said, you have the freedom to decide which ideas you want to focus on. But as you read, you should be aware when philosophers are advancing arguments that undermine the position you are going to defend in your paper, and you need to consider your response.

Here is how it should be done:

"In contrast to Plantinga's Incompatibilist belief that determinism and freedom are not compatible David Hume insists that human choices are judged, but involuntary actions are not judged because they are determined by a physical cause."

Here, we have a mention of a paper by Alvin Plantinga that was included in the folder in the library. I also included a link to Plantinga's debate. This is good: it shows that the student has gone beyond the basic minimum of doing the required reading. Also, the student is aware that it is necessary to choose between the arguments of these two important philosophers, Plantinga and Hume. Who is right, David or Alvin? Other papers, by contrast, seem to be written in a vacuum: "Here is what I have to say. The problem is now solved. End of discussion."

Back to PHI 2010