For Assignment 2 (Essay), you will write a 1750 word essay responding to your choice of one of the prompts below. For this assignment (Assignment 1: Essay Outline), you will write a 500 word outline of your essay. The essay prompts for Assignment 2 are as follows:
6. Describe the problem raised for the idea that we might come to know about the intrinsic nature of things by Langton, and then argue for your preferred solution or response to the problem.
All of these prompts have a similar structure. They first ask you to describe a problem, and then they ask you to argue for your preferred solution or response to the problem. This structure should be reflected in your outline and your essay.
For the purpose of describing the problem, there are many approaches you can take. You can describe the problem as presented by a historical figure, or you can present the problem in what you take to be its most convincing form. You can present the problem in the form of an argument for a sceptical conclusion, or you can present the problem as a paradox of sorts. Whichever approach you take, you need to ensure that you describe the assumptions and/or arguments which give rise to the problem.
Your solution or response to the problem should indicate which assumption or assumptions you are rejecting and provide an argument for rejecting that assumption or those assumptions. Of course, if you think there is no solution to the problem, then you should argue for this position instead.
Your outline should probably give equal weight to each of these components. Here is a short example (taken from another context):
In my essay, I am going to examine the problem of the objectivity of aesthetic judgments.
I will argue that the best response to the problem is that there is not the kind of widespread disagreement about aesthetic properties that is needed to undermine the claim that aesthetic properties are objective properties of artworks.
The problem of the objectivity of aesthetic judgement arises from a tension between the following three claims:
Aesthetic properties (like beauty) appear to be objective properties of artworks.
If these properties are objective properties of artworks, then we should expect widespread agreement about them.
There is widespread disagreement about whether certain artworks have certain aesthetic properties.
Here are some reasons which have been offered in support of each of these by so and so theorists (references) . . .
I think that the best response to the problem is that there is not the kind of widespread disagreement about aesthetic properties that is needed to undermine the claim that aesthetic properties are objective properties of artworks. In outline my argument goes like this:
Even if these properties are objective properties, we shouldn’t expect widespread agreement among everyone about them. Some people may lack the relevant training to detect the properties.
My argument for this is . . .
People who have the relevant training (art critics) tend to agree about whether certain artworks have certain aesthetic properties.
My reason for thinking this / my evidence for this claim is . . .
This argument is a response to the problem because it shows that the argument trades on an ambiguity concerning ‘widespread agreement’. As I have argued, the third assumption is only true when ‘widespread agreement’ is not restricted to experts, and the second assumption is only true when ‘widespread agreement’ is restricted to experts.
Your outline doesn’t necessarily have to follow this example, but it should give you an idea of what we expect. Don’t forget to include references in your outline too: whose work are you drawing on / responding to? You needn’t include too many references at this stage. Nor do you need to use any referencing convention. Just mention the work you hope to draw on / respond to.
