[ Home ] [ Up ] [ Mind and Body ] [ Epistemology ] [ Ethics ] [ Readings ]

 Your first project is simple in its description but somewhat daunting in its execution.  It has two parts -- the first is a summary of the argument of ONE of the readings we will look at, and the second is your attempt to, as best you can, solve the riddle of your own identity.

 In the course of this unit we have looked at four different theories of personal identity -- the soul theory (raised and challenged by Perry), the memory criterion (Locke), the body theory (Michaels), and the narrative theory (MacIntyre).  Each has strengths and weaknesses, which you must consider as you write your essay.

Aside from all the standard criteria for evaluating a piece of written work (clarity, grammar, focus, etc.), I will pay particular attention to how well you demonstrate your understanding of each theory we have discussed.  How shall I do that?  Suppose you claim that you accept the view that Meredith Michaels attributes to Aristotle, that you are your body.  Michaels offers several scenarios to challenge this view (i.e. if your brain is placed someone else's body, is the resulting entity YOU?).  If you are defending the body theory of identity, then you need to explain (1) what precisely you mean by that (i.e. is the whole body that is important, or just certain parts like the brain, etc.), and (2) how your view would handle a case like the one described above (your brain in another's body).  In general, the greater the relevant detail, the greater the understanding, and hence the better the grade. (Notice the word relevant above).

Note that I am asking you to "as best you can, solve the riddle of your own identity."  It is almost certain that your best answer will still have some significant problems.  That's perfectly okay, since this is a very difficult issue that three weeks worth of discussion in an Intro class will not solve.  But you must still give me the best answer you can, warts and all. 

!!!!!!!!!IMPORTANT CONCEPTUAL TIME-OUT!!!!!!!!

Seriously, all of the important choices you make in your life will be like this.  Whatever career you choose, it will have good points and bad points; whatever mate you choose, he/she will have delightful qualities right alongside some rather nasty ones.  The key here is NOT to get hung up on finding the perfect career/mate/answer, but the one that has the most going for it and the least going against it.  That being said, it will IMPROVE YOUR GRADE (and your life) if you clearly identify the problems your view has, and then do your best to either (a) solve those problems if they are solvable, or (b) show why they are worth living with (i.e. that any other view has worse problems by comparison).

FORMAT: You will really be turning in two short (2-3 page) papers; the first one will summarize the argument in ONE of the readings, and the second will explain what theory of personal identity you are endorsing and why. 

PART ONE: (1) By the end of the first week of class, RANDOMLY assign one of the 4 readings (Perry, Locke, Michaels, and MacIntyre) to each group member.  (Groups larger than 4 can double up as needed, and those with less than 4 should omit assigning the Perry reading to anyone.  NOTE: Each of you is still required to do all the readings).

(2) You are to become your group's expert on the reading assigned to you.  Read it over a number of times, and write out a detailed summary of the author's position, along with what you see as the major objections to that position.  This will likely be two or three pages, typed and doubled spaced.  Print this out, and  ONE WEEK BEFORE THE PAPER IS DUE, give copies of your summary (a) to me, and (b) to each member of your group. 

WARNING: DO NOT summarize the piece, but the ARGUMENT in the piece. That requires deciding what is and is not essential, and putting it in your own words.

(3) Discuss what each of you has written in your groups.  If you think someone's summary is brilliant, say so, and say precisely what makes it brilliant.  If you disagree with a summary, offer up your alternative interpretation, and discuss it with the author.   What's critical here is the discussion and not simply its outcome (i.e. who has the better interpretation.  If you can't decide, you're welcome to run both interpretations by me).

PART TWO: write a 2-3 page essay explaining what theory of personal identity you are endorsing and why.  You have at least three options here:

a. You can endorse one of the four views we have discussed.

-- PLUSES/MINUSES: as we will have discussed each of these options in class, you'll have a good idea of the strengths/weakness of each position.  But none of these views may appeal to you, or each may have such egregious shortcomings that you can't accept any of them.

b. You can combine two or more views together.

-- PLUSES/MINUSES:  By taking appealing elements from each theory, a hybrid view with fewer problems might emerge.  Unfortunately, these can be difficult theories to combine, and in combination new problems will also emerge that must be addressed. 

c. You can offer up your own theory, one not discussed in class.

-- PLUSES/MINUSES:  At last, the chance to be your own philosopher! The biggest problem here is that not having been discussed in class, your new theory may have a devastating objection you are unaware of, or may simply be false.  (Of course, it could also be ingenious!)  Anyone taking this option should minimally run their view by me, so that I might give you some direction.

Whichever of these options you choose, be sure you explain (a) your  reasons that led you to adopt the view you adopted, and (b) your reasons for rejecting the other views discussed in this unit.  Again, your grade will improve if you can give clear, well-thought out, detailed reasons for accepting/rejecting a given view. 

NOTE:  It may be that your initial summary of the argument in the reading randomly assigned to you (the one you turn in a week before the final paper is due) changes after you have more time to think about/discuss it with your group. If you wish to revise it, see me.