PROBLEMS OF PHILOSOPHY

PHIL 232 TTh 9am-10am in AUD A, Angell Hall
The University of Michigan
Fall 2004


Instructor: James Woodbridge
email address: jwood@umich.edu
Course Webpage: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jwood/umich/Phil232.htm
Office Hours: T 2pm-3pm, W 12:30pm-2pm, and by appointment
Office: 2203 Angell Hall
Office Phone: 764-6882
Dept. Phone: 764-6285


FIRST PAPER ASSIGNMENT

Pick one of following topics and write a 4-5 page paper fulfilling the tasks assigned.

Your paper is due at the beginning of lecture (9am) on Thursday, October 7th.

Topics:

1. In "Meditation Five" from Meditations on First Philosophy, René Descartes gives a version of the Ontological Argument for the existence of God (pp. 131-132). Your task in this assignment is to reconstruct and explain this argument. This is not to offer the argument as if you are making it yourself. Your job is to talk about the argument, to describe how it is supposed to work in your own words. Do not simply paraphrase Descartes. Be as clear as possible. Make sure you discuss all of the premises the argument requires and show how they are supposed to work together to lead to the conclusion. (Note: I skipped a lot of the details in what I wrote on the board in class. Pay attention to what he says before he even mentions God.) Explain what kind of argument this is, i.e., give the technical classifications that apply to it, then explain what they mean and why they apply. Briefly contrast this Argument with Anselm's version of the Ontological Argument (do not reconstruct that whole argument, just talk about how it differs from Descartes'), and explain why one might think Descartes' argument is more successful than Anselm's. Finally, discuss the main problems with the argument and whether (and why) you think they definitively refute it (this should be at most one third of your paper).

2. In "The Existence of God," excerpted from Summa Theologica, Thomas Aquinas offers five proofs for the existence of God (pp. 47-49). Your task in this assignment is to reconstruct and explain his third proof. This is not to offer the argument as if you are making it yourself. Your job is to talk about it, to describe how it is supposed to work in your own words. Do not simply paraphrase Aquinas. Be as clear as possible. Make sure you discuss all of the premises the argument requires and show how they are supposed to work together to lead to the conclusion. Be sure to discuss the relationship between this proof and Aquinas' first two arguments. Explain what kind of argument Aquinas is giving in his third proof, i.e., give the technical classifications that apply to it, then explain what they mean and why they apply. Explain how Aquinas' strategy differs from the way Anselm and Descartes argue for God's existence, and discuss whether (and why) you think this is a better or worse approach. Finally, explain the main problems Aquinas' argument faces, both as an argument for its particular conclusion, and as an argument specifically for the existence of God (this should be at most one third of your paper).