The paper topics are below. A version that will print out better is available from the Lectures and Assignments page.

Instructions

Answer one (1) of the following prompts, in 1600 words or less. Your paper should be double-spaced, with 1″ margins. You should use an ordinary 12 point font (e.g., Times). Under those conditions, 1600 words comes to about 5 pages.

The paper is due Thursday, March 19th, by 11:30 am.

Prompts

1. At Phaedo 96a, Socrates says, “When I was a young man I was wonderfully keen on that wisdom which they call natural science, for I thought it splendid to know the causes of everything, why it comes to be, why it perishes and why it exists.” At 100d, he says, “I no longer understand or recognize those other sophisticated causes.” What were these “sophisticated causes”? Why does Socrates reject them? Are his reasons for rejecting these causes good reasons?
2. At Phaedo 105b, Socrates says “I say that beyond that safe answer, which I spoke of first, I see another safe answer.” Based upon this other safe answer, he provides an argument for the immortality of the soul. Present and evaluate that argument. Be sure, along the way, to explain what the two “answers” are, and in what sense are they both “safe”.
3. At Republic V 477a, Plato distinguishes three powers: knowledge, ignorance, and opinion. Present and evaluate Plato’s distinction, and his argument for the conclusion that knowledge and opinion have distinct objects.
4. At Physics I.8 191a25, Aristotle presents a puzzle, which, he says, was raised by earlier philosophers. The puzzle purports to show that change is impossible. Present and evaluate Aristotle’s solution to the puzzle in terms of his account of the principles involved in any instance of coming to be.
5. At Parmenides 132a, Plato has Parmenides raise, as an objection to the theory of Forms, the so-called “Third Man” objection. What is that objection? Is it compelling? How does it relate to the objection raised by Aristotle at Metaphysics 1.6 990b?
6. In the Phaedo, Plato describes several different purported explanations or causes of coming to be, rejecting some and endorsing others. At Physics II.3, Aristotle distinguishes four causes, suggesting that, since “causes are spoken in many ways”, apparently conflicting causal explanations might instead by complimentary. Explain Aristotle’s distinction, and try to apply Aristotle’s causal categories to the causes discussed in the Phaedo, clarifying which purported explanations are genuine competitors and which are not. Assess whether or not Plato made the mistake of supposing that complimentary causes were instead competing causes.

From Republic IV 436b to 441c, Socrates leads Glaucon “through a sea of argument” (441c) aimed at establishing that the soul has three parts: an appetitive part, a spirited part, and a rational part.

Lay out that argument in premise/conclusion form. (The argument depends on one key principle about opposites and parts, and then several examples that are designed to allow us to distinguish, on the basis of that principle, the three parts of the soul.)

In no more than 660 words or 2 pages, doublespaced, 1 inch margins, ordinary 12 pt font (e.g., Times):

At Phaedo 72b, Socrates says:

Socrates: If the two processes of becoming did not always balance each other as if they were going round in a circle, but generation proceeded from one point to its opposite in a straight line and it did not turn back again to the other opposite or take any turning, do you realize that all things would ultimately be in the same state, be affected in the same way, and cease to become?

He then applies that reasoning to death and birth (72d)

…if everthing that partakes of life were to die and remain in that state and not come to life again, would not everything ultimately have to be dead and nothing alive?

From this he concludes (72d):

Coming to life again in truth exists, the living come to be from the dead, and the souls of the dead exist.

Present, as clearly and carefully as possible, the argument Socrates gives in this passage. Be sure to clearly identify the conclusion, clearly identify the premises—i.e., the principles and assumptions Socrates and Cebes are making—and explain how the conclusion is supposed to follow from the premises.

Is the argument sound? If you think it is, identify the weakest point in the argument and defend it. If you think it is not sound, identify the fallacy that makes it invalid or the false premise that you reject, and defend your claim that that premise is false, or that the inference you identified is fallacious.

In the Euthyphro, Socrates asks Euthyphro what piety is, demands a certain kind of answer, and claims that Euthyphro is no expert on piety unless he can provide that kind of answer. What kind of answer is he demanding? Is he right that, if Euthyphro can’t provide that  kind of answer, he is not an expert?

Three quick points:

• I will post some lecture notes tonight or tomorrow morning on Parmenides. On Friday, I will skip quickly through them so we can spend most of our time on Socrates. So read them, and be ready if you have questions.
• You can turn your exercise in on Friday.
• I’ll likely be coming in for other reasons, so I’ll likely be available for my usual office hours.

Best,

David

Lay out that argument in premise/conclusion form, and consider whether or not the argument is sound.

Due next Wednesday, January 28th.