Praise the Lord, the above picture features two copies of each of the two essays I am to hand in today. Only one more to go! God has been gracious to provide me with the strength to write! Thanks for your prayers!
In case you wanted to learn some of what I have had my head into recently, I thought I’d include a copy of my essays here for you to browse.
The first essay was for a class called Recent Topics in Metaphysics and Epistemology, where we took a semester to study how things persist through time. Sounds like a fairly obvious answer- yet, philosophers have numerous views on how an object exists and persist. There are three mains theories for how objects persist through time- my essay examined one of the positions called stage theory. I present a brief look at the two advocates who are readily associated with stage theory, compare and contrast them, as well as look at their differing responses towards the problem stage theory has with counting objects (i.e. the problem of counting is a dilemma for all persistence views, it questions how to number the objects as they persist through time. For example, if there is a banana in the fruitbowl- how do you go about counting the banana in reference to time [how many bananas were there yesterday, how many are there today, what about tomorrow]? Some philosophers advocate counting by identity, or by temporal characteristics of the banana [like counting when the banana was green and unripe versus counting the banana when it is yellow and ripe]). So, without further ado, “The Problem of Counting for Stage Theory”. [NOTE: please do not use, reproduce, or cite without permission]
The second paper was for a class called Special Subject in Philosophical Research where we took a semester to study metaethics. Most are familiar with the topic of ethics (the field wherein we study what is right and what is wrong) similarly on a more philosophical level, metaethics seeks to decipher how one accouts for moral language (i.e. how do we know what the word “right” is? what is “good”? Can all know what “good” is? If so, does one learn about this from a personal standpoint or an objective standpoint? What is implied by morality-is it just a emotional response when one commands, “do not steal”? [i.e. should we feel guilty over this command?] or is moral talk full of error and cannot be referenced for moral obligations?) My paper examined one metaethical theory called constructivism. I looked at a specific strand of Humean constructivism advocated by Sharon Street. This view proposes that moral facts are constructed by personal choice and legislate judgments through a procedure of reflective scrutiny (i.e. Street claims that each person arrives at moral choices through their own evaluative standpoints and can determine for themselves what is right and wrong). I specifically look at the implications of conclusions of Street’s view and warn that her view embraces an objectionable relativity. I conclude that one should not consider her view as a tenable position for metaethics. Thus…“A Critique of the Implications of Sharon Street’s Humean Metaethical Constructivism” [NOTE: please do not use, reproduce, or cite without permission]
I’d appreciate your continued prayers as I plow through this last one. Perhaps more philosophical ramblings to come.
Have a wonderful weekend,
Thanks for reading!