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