Papers may be submitted as early as Monday, November 26, 2001, 6:00:00 AM. Papers must be submitted by Friday, December 7, 2001, 5:00:00 PM. For help with https://submit.ncsu.edu/, see http://wolfware.ncsu.edu/faq/#subhow
Uploading dualism papers via the Wolfware "Submit" facility is very easy. It is truly obvious what to do once you get to the relevant page. When you've finished uploading, you may wish to save or print the page that records your upload.
The file that you upload should be either a .txt (plain text) or .rtf (rich text) file. .rtf will retain most, if not all, of the formatting provided by most word-processing software, but .txt files are fine, too, and I've had no trouble reading MS WORD files (often with an automatically supplied .doc extension).
However, do not send Word Perfect .wpd files.
Please name the file for your dualism paper with your last name and initials. So, for example, I'd name the file
austindf
UPPERCASE is fine, too. If your word processing software automatically adds an extension (e.g., .txt, .rtf) there's no need to remove the extension from the name.
On December 7, at 5:01:00PM, I will download whatever is in the relevant directory. I'll then grade the papers submitted, put comments on them and return them to their authors via e-mail. Please include the e-mail address to which you want the graded paper sent - Unity or not - at the very beginning of the file that you upload.
Unless hardship or disability based exemption is granted by the instructor, all papers must be submitted via https://submit.ncsu.edu/ .
I have written the paper for readers who are bright, interested, rational people but who have not been enrolled in this course and who disagree with me.
I have not assumed that: the readers have ever seen or read the course materials, have previously heard of Cartesian Dualism or have heard the reasons or arguments for or against it. I have not mentioned:
quantum mechanics, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, Gödel's theorems, Superstring Theories, Alternate Dimensions or any other part of science or mathematics that I did not explain fully and clearly in the paper.
At the beginning of my paper, either on the title page or as its first two sentences I have included the following true statement:
"I have studied very carefully all of the guidelines and rules provided for the Dualism paper and will do my best to follow all of them. I have studied the relevant PHI 340 web site material and I have either attended or obtained full notes on the in-class discussion of any relevant material."
I have studied the selection on electronic reserve from Richard Feldman's Reason and Argument. I have not confused the statement of Cartesian Dualism's five tenets with
either Descartes's Argument for the Distinctness of Mind from Body or with the No Interaction Argument.
either
Descartes's Argument for the Distinctness of Mind from Body
or with
the No Interaction Argument.
I explained the Evidence from Common Usage: I gave examples of simultaneous opposites and explained how they provide evidence for dualism. I explained how dualism is able to give a straightforward and systematic account of the infinitely many true sentences that we typically use to describe people.
I explained the Evidence from Common Usage:
I gave examples of simultaneous opposites and explained how they provide evidence for dualism.
I explained how dualism is able to give a straightforward and systematic account of the infinitely many true sentences that we typically use to describe people.
I presented each and every line of Descartes's Argument for Distinctness of Mind and Body, including the intermediate and final conclusions and I defined any abbreviations I used: line (1) line (2) line (3) intermediate conclusion line (4) line (5) Conclusion I explained lines (1), (2) and (4) of Descartes's Argument for Distinctness of Mind and Body: line (1): I explained why this is supposed to be true. In explaining why (1) is supposed to be true, I defined "classically self-evident" and explained how it is relevant to this line. line (2): I explained why this is supposed to be true. In explaining why (2) is supposed to be true, I explained how the definition of "classically self-evident" is relevant to this line. I was careful to point out that line (2) says that the body is never knowable in the classically self-evident way. line (4) I explained why this is supposed to be true. In explaining why (4) is supposed to be true, I explained, and did not simply re-assert, the supposed connection between fallibility and physicality.
I presented each and every line of Descartes's Argument for Distinctness of Mind and Body, including the intermediate and final conclusions and I defined any abbreviations I used:
line (1)
line (2)
line (3) intermediate conclusion
line (4)
line (5) Conclusion
I explained lines (1), (2) and (4) of Descartes's Argument for Distinctness of Mind and Body:
line (1): I explained why this is supposed to be true. In explaining why (1) is supposed to be true, I defined "classically self-evident" and explained how it is relevant to this line.
line (2): I explained why this is supposed to be true. In explaining why (2) is supposed to be true, I explained how the definition of "classically self-evident" is relevant to this line. I was careful to point out that line (2) says that the body is never knowable in the classically self-evident way.
line (4) I explained why this is supposed to be true. In explaining why (4) is supposed to be true, I explained, and did not simply re-assert, the supposed connection between fallibility and physicality.
Rational Resistance to the Evidence from Common Usage: I gave a logically coherent response to the evidence of common usage. I addressed my response to bright, interested, rational people who have not been enrolled in this course, who disagree with me and have never seen or read the course materials, previously heard of Cartesian Dualism or the reasons or arguments for or against it. I did not misrepresent the evidence from common usage as if it were intended as a proof of dualism. I did not rely on a defective analogy between once widely-held falsehoods (e.g., "Earth is flat") and the true sentences about persons that are relevant here. I described and evaluated a systematic, non-dualistic way of accounting for the relevant truths of common usage, and I argued that its not being as straightforward as the dualistic account is not a serious disadvantage. I evaluated the claim that the particular physical object which is the brain in a person's head is not necessary for the person's continued mental activity. That is, I considered the logical possibility of "brain-substitutes." I did not mention the No Interaction Argument against Cartesian Dualism. I did not mention the Problem of Other Minds for dualism. Rational Resistance to Descartes's Argument Argument for Distinctness of Mind and Body: I gave a logically coherent response to Descartes's Argument for Distinctness of Mind and Body. I addressed my response to bright, interested, rational people who have not been enrolled in this course, who disagree with me, and have never seen or read the course materials, previously heard of Cartesian Dualism or the reasons or arguments for or against it. I did not take it for granted that there are no non-physical things. I did not take it for granted that survival of bodily death is logically impossible. I did not attribute to anyone the absurd claim that minds are infallible about all of their states. I did not misrepresent line (2) as saying that bodies can sometimes be known in the classically self-evident way. I did not mention the No Interaction Argument against Cartesian Dualism. I did not mention the Problem of Other Minds for dualism.
Rational Resistance to the Evidence from Common Usage:
I gave a logically coherent response to the evidence of common usage. I addressed my response to bright, interested, rational people who have not been enrolled in this course, who disagree with me and have never seen or read the course materials, previously heard of Cartesian Dualism or the reasons or arguments for or against it.
I did not misrepresent the evidence from common usage as if it were intended as a proof of dualism.
I did not rely on a defective analogy between once widely-held falsehoods (e.g., "Earth is flat") and the true sentences about persons that are relevant here.
I described and evaluated a systematic, non-dualistic way of accounting for the relevant truths of common usage, and I argued that its not being as straightforward as the dualistic account is not a serious disadvantage.
I evaluated the claim that the particular physical object which is the brain in a person's head is not necessary for the person's continued mental activity. That is, I considered the logical possibility of "brain-substitutes."
I did not mention the No Interaction Argument against Cartesian Dualism. I did not mention the Problem of Other Minds for dualism.
Rational Resistance to Descartes's Argument Argument for Distinctness of Mind and Body:
I gave a logically coherent response to Descartes's Argument for Distinctness of Mind and Body. I addressed my response to bright, interested, rational people who have not been enrolled in this course, who disagree with me, and have never seen or read the course materials, previously heard of Cartesian Dualism or the reasons or arguments for or against it.
I did not take it for granted that there are no non-physical things.
I did not take it for granted that survival of bodily death is logically impossible.
I did not attribute to anyone the absurd claim that minds are infallible about all of their states.
I did not misrepresent line (2) as saying that bodies can sometimes be known in the classically self-evident way.
Reminder: Once a paper is submitted, no revisions to it will be considered.
Done printing - back to Dualism Paper Rules and Advice
or Back to Syllabus, from whence I came