PHI 3882 Fall 2009 Highlights and Lowlights of Paper 2

Remember, you need to find a philosophical question, and demonstrate that it is connected to the book you are writing about. This is harder than it sounds. Consider the following:

Do you mean, I asked, that there would be no possible and communicable learning any more if the very criterion of truth were lacking, or do you mean that you could no longer communicate what you know because others would not allow you to?

By making his theological conclusion, he asked William essentially the same question philosophers have asked themselves regarding consciousness: Is it only a physical affair, or does it have non-physical elements to it.

But in fact, Adso is asking William whether he is really a closet atheist. The question is not essentially one about the nature of consciousness. You need to pay attention to what points are being made by passages that you quote. The question about the nature of consciousness is indeed a philosophical one, but it is not really connected to The Name of the Rose.

When you do find a good question, do not be side-tracked. This paper starts well:

...after reviewing certain websites we have the very question I asked upon making discovery of Umberto Eco's affiliation, which was why Atheists do borrow religious morals?

A better question might be whether atheists borrow religious morals: many atheists think they have morals of their own. But it is still a good start. However, a few paragraphs later, we come to this:

An atheist is supposed to believe in nothing, even the acceptance of tradition defaults you as a God-fearing Catholic in a sense. Umberto Eco states that he was raised a Catholic and that he abandoned the Catholic Church which does give him grounds to claim Atheism; but even then wouldn't it be the case that for you to be considered a true atheist you would have to renounce the very traditions you were brought up with?

The answer to this question is simple. You are a true atheist if you don't believe that God exists. Being an atheist isn't about belonging to some club with strict membership requirements. The problem, though, is that once this question has been raised, we are going down a not very interesting path. The initial question was about how traditional religious morals retain an influence over non-believers. Now we are just quibbling about the exact definition of "atheist" - instead of learning something interesting about Eco's thought in all its complexity, we are just considering whether or not he exactly fits some definition. The essay ends with a definition of atheism: what a disappointment! Don't misunderstand - of course it is important to be clear about the precise meaning of words like "atheism", but precise meanings are easy to find, and definitions are tools that you should use in answering questions. A definition should be the starting point, not the goal.

Many of the essays had what I consider to be weak endings. An ending should be the climax, the punch-line. Consider the following:

So, if Jesus went through poverty and suffering so that his followers didn't have to, isn't remaining poor the same as not appreciating his efforts? While one can see the point that supporters of poverty make, it is often times hard to defend, when analyzing that religion is meant to better a man's life, not to burden it.

This is, in fact, a mistake. Jesus asked his disciples to take up their own crosses and follow him, to give up everything they have and sleep out in the open. He offers treasure in heaven, but nowhere does he suggest that he experienced poverty so that other people don't have to. However, although I strongly disagree with these sentiments, it at least has the merit of being a striking ending: this is a student who is not afraid to take sides and make an audacious point. So, when you write your papers, start out by thinking of a good, strong ending, and then think about how to build up to it.

Back to PHI 3882