Who Am “I”?

For your first essay, you will explore definitions of the concept of “self” (sometimes called “identity,” informally called “me” or “I” as pronouns). Your goal is to explore, articulate, explain, and argue for your own definition of that term. You want to define this word for yourself in a way that seems reasonable and critical and to explain and defend that definition thoughtfully and persuasively to someone who, like Socrates, may intelligently disagree with you.

The structure of your essay will be fluid and flexible, meaning that rather than require you do one thing first, another second, etc., I want you to structure your essay in a way that seems most logical and clear to you.

However, there are few requirements that I want to see covered in your essay:

• Summarize how Descartes defines “I” or “self” in the second Meditation. Don’t just quote his answer; paraphrase WHY he defines the “self” that way. Devote at least one well-developed paragraph to covering his answer. Quote the text. Be sure to also respond to this definition—to what extent do you agree or disagree with his ideas? Explain and support your response.
• Also summarize how Locke characterizes the “self.” To what extend do Descartes and Locke agree or disagree? Capture Locke’s reasons and ideas in a separate paragraph from the Descartes paragraph, and also respond to Locke’s ideas with your own reasons and ideas.
• Consider common definitions or idea for the “self” in order to counter them and rule them out. Much like how Socrates counters definitions of “piety” and Descartes counters his old views, explain how and why some things people think their “selves” are, are in fact wrong or illogical or questionable, in your opinion. (See the list provided in class.) Eliminating some definitions for the self will help narrow down your eventual definition.
• Define what YOU think the word “self” means. Use as many or as few sources as you want to, just so long as you clearly define this concept and explain WHY you define it that way. This is the most important part of your paper; spend as long as you need to describe, explain, and defend this definition.
• Explore the implications of your definition of “I.” That is, if “self” is defined your way, how would that affect our perceptions of ourselves or how we treat ourselves? How would it affect our knowledge of ourselves and of the world outside our “selves”?
• If at any moment you wish to argue that something is UNKNOWN, in your opinion, you may do so, including the definition of “I” itself. However, show WHY you think it is unknown exactly and explore the implications of that lack of knowledge. Be critical in your confusion, in other words. Don’t just say “I don’t know” and walk away.
• Consider what Socrates might say about your definition, someone critical or skeptical. Anticipate their objections, or better yet, find a source from someone who seems to disagree with your definition. Present these possible objections, and either counter them thoughtfully or concede and compromise with whatever claim you cannot refute.

There is no set length for this paper; write thoughtfully and naturally. However, due to the nature of this difficult subject, there’s a good chance this will be a longer, more involved exploration. Neither “pad” your paper with more ideas than you really believe nor shorten your pain because you think I want that. Just write what you have naturally and let it become the length it NEEDS to be to get your discussion down thoughtfully, which is probably longer than shorter.

This paper is due Friday, March 27, by 12:00 pm (noon). You will email your final draft to pobrien@mtsac.edu. Instead of sending your essay as an attachment, please copy and paste your essay into the body of your email. Your emailed essay should have the words “Final Draft” and your class day and time (or course reference number) in the email subject line.

If your final draft is late by even one minute (12:01 pm or later), you will receive a zero on the essay and be dropped (see my syllabus). You may send the final draft as soon as you wish, though, and I highly encourage you to send it as early as you reasonably can, giving yourself options and alternatives in case anything goes wrong.

I will then email you twice. First, I will email you as soon as possible upon receiving your paper to confirm that I did indeed get it. If you do not receive this confirmation or if you are nervous about whether the essay got through to me, please send it again—I would rather receive too many copies of your paper than none at all.

Then I will begin reading and grading the essays in the order I received them. When I get to your essay, I will email you a second time with a grade and my feedback about your paper. This grade may come to you within a few days after the due date or up to two weeks later, depending on how early or late you sent your paper relative to other 1C students.

We will have optional, drop-in conferences in the classroom between 8:30 am and 11:30 am on Monday, 3/16, Wednesday, 3/18, Monday, 3/23, and Wednesday, 3/25, in addition to regular office hours (see the syllabus). This is your way to get feedback directly from me on your draft to help improve it before the final due date.

Objective 1 – Describe and discuss general area of philosophy called political philosophy and problems within Non-Western Philosophy.

Objective 2 – Describe and discuss various philosophical problems, such as the nature of reality and appearance, the problem of mind/body, standards of truth, conditions and limits of human knowledge, free will/determinism, arguments concerning the existence of God, the problem of evil, moral principles, and political principles.

Objective 3 – Re-present and formulate different types of arguments and answers which have been offered in response to philosophic problems.

Objective 4 – Clearly engage in critical summary, analysis and/or evaluation of a philosopher’s argument, by explicitly employing the methods of argument through writing, (identification of assumptions, identification of premise/conclusion relationships, evaluation of logical validity and overall soundness within an argument’s inferences).

Objective 5 – Clearly draw conclusions on the basis of explicit presentation of supporting arguments. When appropriate, these conclusions should emphasize ethical implications of issues and situations.

Description: Students will write seven papers. Use the instructions given below for this essay. The essays are worth 50 points each.

Method of Assessment: In addition to demonstration of the course objectives listed above and the unit objectives associated with the unit for this essay, student essays will be assessed on how well the student demonstrates the following:
complete all parts of the essay
objectively analyze and evaluate the topic under consideration
cite and use sources
originality of writing
Your essay will not be evaluated on whether I agree with what you are saying. I will be looking at your understanding of the issues, but, mostly, I will be looking at the amount of depth, development and thoughtfulness that you bring to your answers. I will also look to see that you develop arguments for your conclusions, and that you avoid dogma and unsupported opinion. To this end, avoid expressions such as “its true for me,” and, “I feel.” Provide thinking rather than feeling, and arguments rather than opinions.

Due Dates: Check the Course Schedule for Due Dates.

Essay Instructions: A copy of this exercise is available to download by clicking “here”.
Philosophy 191
Critical Thinking Essay
Unit 4: Who Am I?

Name: ________________________________________
Consider the following situation:

One day you and a good friend of yours are crossing Hooper Avenue. You are not looking where you are going, and you are run down by a cement truck. Your friend is so shocked that he or she drops dead from a massive stroke. But as luck has it, someone from the OCC psychology department rushes both bodies over to the nearby medical center for a dramatic emergency operation. It seems that although your body was destroyed in the accident, your head was not harmed at all. Since your friend has a perfectly healthy body, it seems that we might be able to save at least one of you, by putting your brain into your friend’s body. The doctor in charge said that we can do this by removing the upper 30% of your brain (the damaged part) and grafting on to the lower part of your friend’s brain. This way we do not have to attach the whole brain to the spine, and we do not have to worry about matching the hormones of the two people involved. You see, your friend is the opposite sex as you. So, if you are female, the top part of your brain is now attached to the bottom part of a man’s brain, which is sitting in a male body. If you are male, the situation is reversed. Thus, all portions of the brain responsible for producing hormones, (testosterone for the male body; estrogen for the female), have remained intact. The only part of the brain that was replaced was the portion responsible for consciousness, thought, memory, and, a sense of self. These are all the same that you possessed at the time of the accident. The philosophical question that we must now raise is, “Whom did we save?” You? Your friend? Or, did we create some new third person? For the time being, we will call this individual “Schwartz.” This name is not gender specific. And it does not bias our judgment, at the outset, in favor of any one conclusion in particular.

Two of your philosopher friends come into your room to visit you. Choose your two friends from any of the philosophers within Chapter 3. After a round of “Hellos” and “How are you feeling,” the three of you begin to discuss the following questions:

Who survived the operation?

Is “it” the “same” person who existed five minutes before the accident?

Is “it” the “same” person who will exist five years after the accident?

This situation is farfetched. But thinking about it forces us to ask questions about what the human “self” and a human “being” really are. Are we basically a mind, which is tied to such things as consciousness and memories? Are we a metaphysical soul, which exists separate from our body and our consciousness? Are we basically bodies, connected to instinct, hormones, and to all the various physical and material body processes? Are we products of culture, and thus tied to the way others see and judge us? Or, are we some sort of mixture of two or more of these things?

Your assignment is to write a two to three page paper (from 700 to 1000 words), which tells what happened in the conversation that you had with the two philosophers. Where did you agree; and where did you disagree?

Your paper should be organized into the four sections described below. Please use the section headings, Part One, Part Two, Part Three and Part Four, within your paper.

Part One: Area of Philosophy. Write an introduction to your paper, which clearly identifies a general area of philosophy, within which the philosophical problem that you will be exploring can be found. Refer to Chapter One if you need to review these areas. Do you think that the question posed above place your discussion within Metaphysics, Theory of Knowledge, Ethics, Political Philosophy, and/or Philosophy of Religion? Part one of your paper should be brief and concise. No more than 50 to 100 words maximum.

Part Two: Argument Analysis. Present the points of view, and the arguments supporting those views, from the two philosophers you have chosen to discuss these philosophical questions with you. Summarize and pick these arguments apart a little. What are the main premises of their arguments? Does they make any important assumptions? What evidence do they present that is factual and verifiable? And what evidence do they present that is more a matter of speculation and/or interpretation? In this section of your paper you are merely analyzing, or, picking apart the arguments. Do not draw any conclusions as to whether or not these arguments are valid and/or sound. This section of your paper should be at least 250 words.

Part Three: Argument Evaluation. In this section present and defend some judgments about these arguments. Are these premises safe to accept? Are there any questionable assumptions made? If we do accept them do they take us logically to their conclusions? Your evaluation should make explicit use of concepts such as “assumption,” “soundness” and “validity,” as these are presented within Chapter One of the text. This section of your paper should be at least 250 words.

Part Four: Conclusion. Draw your own interesting and relevant conclusions about the philosophical problem you are exploring. Do not merely offer a set of “feelings” or an “opinion.” Instead, build your own argument, regarding the questions above. If you find that you are in agreement with some of the philosopher’s ideas, then you can use these as part of your own argument, so long as you do not merely reiterate what they are saying. This part of your paper should be 300 words minimum.

Formatting the essay:

The essays should be saved into Microsoft Word file format. If they are not, then the professor will not be able to open them to grade. You should not copy and paste your essays into the dialog box associated with this essay in the Drop Box This is because your professor will need to download your essays and give you grading comments. Your essays should be single-spaced, with one-inch margins, and a 10-point Arial font.

The primary goal of each writing exercise is to (1) demonstrate your knowledge of the material, and (2), to demonstrate your ability to apply philosophical reasoning skills to the various topics we cover. Since this is a short paper, you are not allowed to use to quotes. Instead, you should paraphrase people’s ideas into your own words so that it is clear that you have comprehension of the material.

When you have finished your essay, you should upload it to the course Dropbox by the due date listed in the course schedule. You can find the Dropbox at the top right of the course home page. Your professor will grade your essay and return it to you with grading comments.

Objective 1 – Describe and discuss general area of philosophy called political philosophy and problems within Non-Western Philosophy.

Objective 2 – Describe and discuss various philosophical problems, such as the nature of reality and appearance, the problem of mind/body, standards of truth, conditions and limits of human knowledge, free will/determinism, arguments concerning the existence of God, the problem of evil, moral principles, and political principles.

Objective 3 – Re-present and formulate different types of arguments and answers which have been offered in response to philosophic problems.

Objective 4 – Clearly engage in critical summary, analysis and/or evaluation of a philosopher’s argument, by explicitly employing the methods of argument through writing, (identification of assumptions, identification of premise/conclusion relationships, evaluation of logical validity and overall soundness within an argument’s inferences).

Objective 5 – Clearly draw conclusions on the basis of explicit presentation of supporting arguments. When appropriate, these conclusions should emphasize ethical implications of issues and situations.

Description: Students will write seven papers. Use the instructions given below for this essay. The essays are worth 50 points each.

Method of Assessment: In addition to demonstration of the course objectives listed above and the unit objectives associated with the unit for this essay, student essays will be assessed on how well the student demonstrates the following:
complete all parts of the essay
objectively analyze and evaluate the topic under consideration
cite and use sources
originality of writing
Your essay will not be evaluated on whether I agree with what you are saying. I will be looking at your understanding of the issues, but, mostly, I will be looking at the amount of depth, development and thoughtfulness that you bring to your answers. I will also look to see that you develop arguments for your conclusions, and that you avoid dogma and unsupported opinion. To this end, avoid expressions such as “its true for me,” and, “I feel.” Provide thinking rather than feeling, and arguments rather than opinions.

Due Dates: Check the Course Schedule for Due Dates.

Essay Instructions: A copy of this exercise is available to download by clicking “here”.
Philosophy 191
Critical Thinking Essay
Unit 4: Who Am I?

Name: ________________________________________
Consider the following situation:

One day you and a good friend of yours are crossing Hooper Avenue. You are not looking where you are going, and you are run down by a cement truck. Your friend is so shocked that he or she drops dead from a massive stroke. But as luck has it, someone from the OCC psychology department rushes both bodies over to the nearby medical center for a dramatic emergency operation. It seems that although your body was destroyed in the accident, your head was not harmed at all. Since your friend has a perfectly healthy body, it seems that we might be able to save at least one of you, by putting your brain into your friend’s body. The doctor in charge said that we can do this by removing the upper 30% of your brain (the damaged part) and grafting on to the lower part of your friend’s brain. This way we do not have to attach the whole brain to the spine, and we do not have to worry about matching the hormones of the two people involved. You see, your friend is the opposite sex as you. So, if you are female, the top part of your brain is now attached to the bottom part of a man’s brain, which is sitting in a male body. If you are male, the situation is reversed. Thus, all portions of the brain responsible for producing hormones, (testosterone for the male body; estrogen for the female), have remained intact. The only part of the brain that was replaced was the portion responsible for consciousness, thought, memory, and, a sense of self. These are all the same that you possessed at the time of the accident. The philosophical question that we must now raise is, “Whom did we save?” You? Your friend? Or, did we create some new third person? For the time being, we will call this individual “Schwartz.” This name is not gender specific. And it does not bias our judgment, at the outset, in favor of any one conclusion in particular.

Two of your philosopher friends come into your room to visit you. Choose your two friends from any of the philosophers within Chapter 3. After a round of “Hellos” and “How are you feeling,” the three of you begin to discuss the following questions:

Who survived the operation?

Is “it” the “same” person who existed five minutes before the accident?

Is “it” the “same” person who will exist five years after the accident?

This situation is farfetched. But thinking about it forces us to ask questions about what the human “self” and a human “being” really are. Are we basically a mind, which is tied to such things as consciousness and memories? Are we a metaphysical soul, which exists separate from our body and our consciousness? Are we basically bodies, connected to instinct, hormones, and to all the various physical and material body processes? Are we products of culture, and thus tied to the way others see and judge us? Or, are we some sort of mixture of two or more of these things?

Your assignment is to write a two to three page paper (from 700 to 1000 words), which tells what happened in the conversation that you had with the two philosophers. Where did you agree; and where did you disagree?

Your paper should be organized into the four sections described below. Please use the section headings, Part One, Part Two, Part Three and Part Four, within your paper.

Part One: Area of Philosophy. Write an introduction to your paper, which clearly identifies a general area of philosophy, within which the philosophical problem that you will be exploring can be found. Refer to Chapter One if you need to review these areas. Do you think that the question posed above place your discussion within Metaphysics, Theory of Knowledge, Ethics, Political Philosophy, and/or Philosophy of Religion? Part one of your paper should be brief and concise. No more than 50 to 100 words maximum.

Part Two: Argument Analysis. Present the points of view, and the arguments supporting those views, from the two philosophers you have chosen to discuss these philosophical questions with you. Summarize and pick these arguments apart a little. What are the main premises of their arguments? Does they make any important assumptions? What evidence do they present that is factual and verifiable? And what evidence do they present that is more a matter of speculation and/or interpretation? In this section of your paper you are merely analyzing, or, picking apart the arguments. Do not draw any conclusions as to whether or not these arguments are valid and/or sound. This section of your paper should be at least 250 words.

Part Three: Argument Evaluation. In this section present and defend some judgments about these arguments. Are these premises safe to accept? Are there any questionable assumptions made? If we do accept them do they take us logically to their conclusions? Your evaluation should make explicit use of concepts such as “assumption,” “soundness” and “validity,” as these are presented within Chapter One of the text. This section of your paper should be at least 250 words.

Part Four: Conclusion. Draw your own interesting and relevant conclusions about the philosophical problem you are exploring. Do not merely offer a set of “feelings” or an “opinion.” Instead, build your own argument, regarding the questions above. If you find that you are in agreement with some of the philosopher’s ideas, then you can use these as part of your own argument, so long as you do not merely reiterate what they are saying. This part of your paper should be 300 words minimum.

Formatting the essay:

The essays should be saved into Microsoft Word file format. If they are not, then the professor will not be able to open them to grade. You should not copy and paste your essays into the dialog box associated with this essay in the Drop Box This is because your professor will need to download your essays and give you grading comments. Your essays should be single-spaced, with one-inch margins, and a 10-point Arial font.

The primary goal of each writing exercise is to (1) demonstrate your knowledge of the material, and (2), to demonstrate your ability to apply philosophical reasoning skills to the various topics we cover. Since this is a short paper, you are not allowed to use to quotes. Instead, you should paraphrase people’s ideas into your own words so that it is clear that you have comprehension of the material.

When you have finished your essay, you should upload it to the course Dropbox by the due date listed in the course schedule. You can find the Dropbox at the top right of the course home page. Your professor will grade your essay and return it to you with grading comments.