SUGGESTED TOPICS FOR WEEKLY SEMINAR ESSAYS
(Pick one from the list below or write on a theme of your choosing)

From the syllabus: You are required to write 10 short papers. These assignments are intended to stimulate class discussion and to help you master the material. About 2 pages (3 page maximum). Typewritten, double spaced in a 12 point font. No title page.

Week One (12 September)

1. Carefully reconstruct and critically evaluate G. E. Moore's alleged proof for the external world. You may elect to incorporate material from the Unger piece.

2. Carefully reconstruct Descartes' argument for his certainty in his own existence as a thinking thing. Attend especially to what Descartes' appears to think certainty is. You may elect to incorporate material from Moore's discussion of certainty or from Unger's discussion of certainty, but not both, as there is not enough space to offer a credible discussion of Moore and Unger.

3. Carefully reconstruct Unger's argument for skepticism. Notice that Unger neglects to directly engage Descartes' certainty of the second meditation. Remedy that lacuna in the discussion by testing Unger's views against Descartes'.

Week Two (19 September)

1. Carefully reconstruct and critically evaluate Vogel's argument against skepticism through an inference to the best explanation. Focus especially on the background assumptions that must be present in order to declare some explanations better than others.

2. Craft a response to either Vogel or Cruz in the spirit of Lehrer's treatment of skepticism.

3. Carefully reconstruct and critically evaluate Cruz's argument against skepticism. Focus either on the possibility that the discrimination principle may be mis-applied or on the response to the phenomenalist version of skepticism.

4. Respond directly to Lehrer's treatment of skepticism by appealing to arguments in the spirit of either Vogel or Cruz.

Week Three (26 September)

1. Is Gettier's objection to the analysis of knowledge as justified true belief an instance of skepticism?Why or why not?(If you answer in the affirmative, be sure to explain what variety of skepticism it is. If you answer in the negative, be sure to say what kind of objection Gettier is offering, and what sort of solution will be necessary to reply to it.)

2. Recount in detail Klein's conception of knowledge. Does it, in your view, succeed in defeating Gettier-type example? Is it an otherwise adequate account of the concept of knowledge?

3. Propose and defend a solution to the Gettier problem.

Week Four (3 October)

1. For Nozick or for Goldman (but not both), state precisely what they think the relationship is between the knower and the known. Assess whether this is a plausible account of knowledge, and attend especially to the contrast of their views with what we have called justificationism.

2. Assess how Goldman's view fares against different varieties of skepticism.