For
each of the four response papers, you must write at least three typed
and double spaced pages on a topic of your choice that concerns the
material we have covered in the class so far. Do not spend time
summarizing the material, but rather focus on your own thoughts and
questions. You are welcome to use your own life experiences as well as
fictional and nonfictional material from outside class. While you are
welcome to reflect on anything you have found interesting, the following
are possible topics for your response.
Unlike
his teacher Plato, Aristotle argued that all forms and ideas are
manifest in substances, though ideas and gods are superior substances.
Should the ideal be identified with the material, or should the ideal
be distinguished from the material? What problems do we have with each,
and which is preferable for investigating the mind and the world?
While
Aristotle argues in his works on logic that true and false are
exclusive, in his works on ethics he argues for the doctrine of the
mean, for moderation between extremes. Are these two positions
contradictory, or can they be rectified?
Pyrrho,
Sextus and other skeptics argue that one should withhold judgement and
refrain from beliefs. Epicurus argued that no one could be a genuine
skeptic and live, as action is required for survival. Does action
require belief? Is pursuing skepticism necessarily paradoxical or
fruitless?
Epicurus
argued that the highest good is happiness, for which he was charged
with hedonism by others. Can Epicureanism avoid hedonism by taking the
social and long term view, or is this doomed to fail? Should the good
be equated with or distinguished from happiness?
Stoics
argue that one should accept one’s fate such that one’s mind conforms
to the logic of the cosmos. This is illustrated with the story of
Epictetus accepting but criticizing his master breaking his leg. Is
such acceptance wise for the pursuit of justice, or can it result in
injustice?
