Topic: Philosophy

Order Description pick ONE and only One of the topics PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION Second Essay Assignment 1st November 2015 Gabriel Citron Assignment Length: 2000-2500 words Due: by the end of Friday November 20th (i.e. by 11:59pm) How to submit: via Blackboard (find a submission link in the column of choices on the left) Lateness: 5% will be deducted for each day beyond the deadline Proportion of course grade: 30% Things to include on the first page of your essay: (i) your name, (ii) your student number, and (iii) the full text of the option that you have chosen to respond to Submission format: ideally, Word; next best, PDF; but if neither of those are possible, then just use whatever format works! Citation format: use any format you like, as long it’s user friendly – i.e. as long as it is easy to go and look up the thing that you’ve cited Pick one of the following five options: OPTION 4: PANENTHEISM o (A) Present the strongest argument that you can, for the claim that if there is a God then the world must be – in some sense – included within God, or be a part of God. (You can reconstruct and develop one of the arguments given by Nozick, Eriugena, Dinant, Maimon, Kook, or others1; or you can construct one of your own). (B) Explain what exactly your argument means by the world being ‘included in’ or ‘a part of’ God. And then (C) evaluate whether or not, or to what degree, the argument you have presented is successful. If you have room, you can extend your discussion to a second argument – but there is no need to do so. 1 Note that if you do choose to reconstruct and develop an argument from one of the philosopher’s we studied, the main point is not to present an exegesis of their work for its own sake, but rather to use their ideas (with due acknowledgement) to help you present the strongest argument for the conclusion that you can manage. OPTION 5: EMPTINESS o (A) Present the strongest argument that you can, for the ultimate emptiness of the self. (You can reconstruct and develop one of the arguments given by Candrakirti or Palden, or others2; or you can construct one of your own). (B) Explain what exactly your argument means by the ultimate emptiness of the self. And then (C) evaluate whether or not, or to what degree, the argument you have presented is successful. If you have room, you can extend your discussion to a second argument – but there is no need to do so. OPTION 6: REALIZATION o Pick one of the forms of enlightenment which we looked at (whether the realization that all things are ultimately empty, or the realization that all things are ultimately nothing in the divine unlimited). (A) Describe in what important ways your life would change and in what important ways your life would stay the same if you became enlightened in that way right now, and (B) justify the various elements your description. (E.g. would you retain your current relationships, and if so, in what ways, if any, would they change? Would you continue to engage in your current projects, and if so, in what ways, if any, would your involvement in them change? Etc). If you have room you can also discuss whether or not, and why, these changes would be for the better or worse – but there is no need to do this. OPTION 7: POLYTHEISM o Imagine that Lake Ontario is a god. (A) What would be involved in its being so? And (B) what would be involved in your experiencing it as such? And (C) what is the relationship (if any) between the word ‘god’ as applied to the lake and the word ‘God’ as applied to the unique highest being of Ontotheism? Make sure to justify your claims as best you can. OPTION 8: ATHEISM o In his essay, ‘On the Meaning of Life’, Moritz Schlick wrote: “[H]e might then exalt into his highest rule of action the principle: ‘What is not worth doing for its own sake, don’t do for anything else’s sake!’ All life would then be truly meaningful, down to its ultimate ramifications; to live would mean: to celebrate the festival of existence.” (A) What did Schlick mean by this? (B) What were his philosophical reasons for saying it (flesh them out or develop them in the strongest way you can)? And (C) was he justified in saying it (i.e. evaluate the argument that you have just presented)? Each of the above options parallels the topic which we discussed in the lecture of the same number. In responding to the option that you have chosen you may well find it helpful to look at some of the optional extra readings that I have posted on Blackboard for each of the classes thus far. And the PDFs of the material from the classes themselves will definitely be helpful… Happy thinking and writing – and good luck! 2 Note that if you do choose to reconstruct and develop an argument from one of the philosopher’s we studied, the main point is not to present a detailed exegesis of their work for its own sake, but rather to use their ideas (with due acknowledgement) to help you present the strongest argument for the conclusion that you can manage.