Argument Paper

T. Parent

Philosophy 038

In a paper of no more than 5 pages, please write on one of the following topics:

(1)  

1. In response to the regress argument, Chisholm formulates a kind of foundationalism about justification. What is the regress argument, and how does Chisholm's foundationalism attempt to subvert that argument?
   
2. Please consider (what you take to be) the most compelling objection to Chisholm's view.
3. What, in your opinion, would be Chisholm's best rejoinder to the objection you raised in (ii)?
4. Finally, do you think the rejoinder in (iii) is satisfactory? Why or why not?

(2) 

1. In response to the regress argument, Bonjour articulates a "coherentist" view of justification. What is the regress argument, and how does Bojour's coherentism attempt to subvert that argument?
   
2. Bonjour considers three primary objections to his view, labeled (I), (II), and (III) in his paper. Please select (what you think is) the most intruging objection and explain it in detail.
   
3. Next, describe what Bojour says in response to the objection you selected.
   
4. Finally, do you think Bojour's response to the objection is adequate? Why or why not?

The assignment is due May 31. Please submit BOTH a hard copy of your assignment, AND an electronic version, either as an email attachment (preferred), or on disk. Finally, to ensure fair grading, please identify your hard copy ONLY with your PID.

<>Note: This is not a research paper, so you are not expected to cite sources beyond our readings for class. (In fact, I often discourage the use of secondary sources, since they can often be more confusing than enlightening.)

When explaining an idea in your paper, more detail is (pretty much) always better. So if all goes well, your challenge will be to write a paper in *less* than 5 pages.

In addition, I’d like to emphasize that this is NOT a “book report” type paper. Rather, I’m asking you to explain a theorist’s view for the purpose of critically evaluating it. So the focus of the paper should be on parts (ii)-(iv). In particular, part (iv) should be the culmination of your discussion, rather than just a few brief, closing remarks.

In formulating your arguments, it may be helpful to consult the list of argument fallacies I have posted on the course webpage. Make sure your arguments don’t commit any of these fallacies! On the course webpage, I have also posted some tips for writing a philosophy paper, and it’d probably be good to take a look at that as well.