(I have attached my class notes for your reference about what we talked about in class and I attached many readings for you to decide which 3 are the best to include to make the argument for and against the position you take)
Technics: 4 pages, give or take 1 page; engage with at least 3 course authors (at least 1 of whom must be counter to your position) and include citations; Chicago footnotes; 12” font, 1” margins. One single PDF document.
The final paper will be approximately four (4) pages, and includes two parts. Part A has two subcomponents (A1 and A2), Part B has two subcomponents (B1 and B2).
So, two big questions for us: what does good mean, and how do you know?
Part A will be a philosophically informed, succinctly argued paper answering those questions, with specific attention to the relationship between the good and divine transcendence (needed/not needed conceptually and/or practically). It will feature both:
(A1) a strong argument of and motivation for the best theory and practice answering those questions, sourced in course readings and authors,
and (A2) a strong counterargument against your view, also using course readings and authors.
NB that there are two questions: what is a good life AND how do you know? Be sure to answer both!
Part A is, basically, the “term-paper” part. A clear thesis and reasoned argument throughout is the basic expectation. But I do not need it labored!
Don’t waste time on wordy intros and conclusions; get to the heart of the case and its counter.1
1 Try something like this as the formula for your opening line: “In this short paper, I am arguing that a conception of [divine?] transcendence is/is not necessary for [both?] theoretically rendering answers to the question of what is good [and/but not?] practically [aiming for? doing/participating in?] what is good. I’ll use authors X and Y to explicate my position against counterclaims from P and Q.” And that’s it, 1-2 sentences, and they are your first 1-2 sentences, and then get to the arguments and reasoning. If your paper starts with “We’ve been arguing about meaning and the good since time immemorial” or “Ever since Plato…” or “According to recent Pew…” it will turn off your reader (me!) so much that he’ll immediately take off 10 points. Conversely, if you can open with a pithy quote from one of our authors or a song lyric, I’ll be in a better frame of mind to receive your arguments if you do it well. But if you don’t do it well, I’ll be even more annoyed that you didn’t just slug out the opening thesis I handed to you. While the forgoing may or may not tell you something about links between emotional disposition, subjective preference, and discursive propositional argument, it certainly tells me something about your ability to read and follow directions.
Shoot for 3-4 authors total, maybe one or two on your side and one or two as counters, and 2-3 pages total.
Part B will be a two-page analysis and reflection on the following question: was this a good course?
There are to be two subparts to this:
(B1) is an analytical unpacking of the question and answering it. That is, of course you will address what the question means or is asking (good means …), but do not forget to answer the question (yes? no?). Be sure to tie this into the first part of your paper. You just wrote a philosophically informed analysis of what good means in part A; it would be weird not to use it here, right?
(B2) is a reflection on the course and how you’ve been thinking about questions of good, meaning, purpose, love, death, transcendence, God, authority, freedom, & c. There really isn’t anything in particular I am looking for here other than to give you space for reflection on your experience and relate it to question of what is good, what makes something good, how do you know, what happens when there is disagreement, and so forth. Reflect on how your thoughts on such themes have been sharpened, dulled, dramatically altered, fundamentally reinforced, totally confused, fully wasted your time, or whatever.
