The assignment for Paper 1 is to provide an explication of one of the passages below. You are not being asked to offer your opinion on the passage in question, or to advance any arguments about the position advanced in the passage. (You will do this in future papers.) Here, the task is simply to explicate the passage in question — that is, you are being asked to ‘unfold’ or ‘unpack’ the passage in a way that displays your understanding of its meaning and importance and clearly communicates this understanding, in plain language, to a general audience. What is Descartes “up to” in this passage? What is his point? Explain this clearly to your audience. You will need to exercise judgment in order to clarify to your audience which aspects of the passage are most deserving of detailed elaboration.
Your intended audience (the reader you are writing for) is not a professor, a teaching assistant, or anyone familiar with this material. You should write for an audience that is unfamiliar with the readings and ideas in question. This means, among other things, that you should write in plain and straightforward language, and that any technical terms or specialized concepts at issue should be thoroughly unpacked.
You should use your own words as much as possible. Direct quotation of the text may be needed at rare points (e.g., when the author’s choice of words raises a problem of interpretation that you are addressing in your explication) but is generally discouraged. In editing your paper, replace any unnecessary direct quotations with explanations provided in your own words.
Your understanding of the passage should be informed by its position within the surrounding text, and the role that this piece of thinking plays within Descartes’ larger philosophical project. Nonetheless, your focus should be directly and specifically on explicating the passage itself.
Expert understanding of a passage implies the ability to explicate the passage to any desired length. You should tailor the level of detail of your explication to the length of the assignment. If your initial draft falls short of the length requirement, you need to explicate in more detail; if your initial draft exceeds the length requirement, you need to work to narrow your focus by distinguishing what is most relevant.
Your explication should respect the principle of charity: Roughly, you should explicate the passage under the assumption that the passage makes good sense.
Secondary sources are not needed for this assignment and you are advised to avoid using them.
Passages
(1) “I must therefore admit that the nature of this piece of wax is in no way revealed by my imagination, but is perceived by the mind alone. (I am speaking of this particular piece of wax; the point is even clearer with regard to wax in general.) But what is this wax which is perceived by the mind alone? It is of course the same wax which I see, which I touch, which I picture in my imagination, in short the same wax which I thought it to be from the start. And yet, and here is the point, the perception I have of it is a case not of vision or touch or imagination – nor has it ever been, despite previous appearances – but of purely mental scrutiny; and this can be imperfect and confused, as it was before, or clear and distinct as it is now, depending on how carefully I concentrate on what the wax consists in.” (Second Meditation)
(2) “And whenever my preconceived belief in the supreme power of God comes to mind, I cannot but admit that it would be easy for him, if he so desired, to bring it about that I go wrong even in those matters which I think I see utterly clearly with my mind’s eye. Yet when I turn to the things themselves which I think I perceive very clearly, I am so convinced by them that I spontaneously declare: let whoever can do so deceive me, he will never bring it about that I am nothing, so long as I continue to think I am something; or make it true at some future time that I have never existed, since it is now true that I exist; or bring it about that two and three added together are more or less than five, or anything of this kind in which I see a manifest contradiction. And since I have no cause to think that there is a deceiving God, and I do not yet even know for sure whether there is a God at all, any reason for doubt which depends simply on this supposition is a very slight and, so to speak, metaphysical one. But in order to remove even this slight reason for doubt, as soon as the opportunity arises I must examine whether there is a God, and, if there is, whether he can be a deceiver. For if I do not know this, it seems that I can never be quite certain about anything else.” (Third Meditation)
(3) “If, however, I simply refrain from making a judgement in cases where I do not perceive the truth with sufficient clarity and distinctness, then it is clear that I am behaving correctly and avoiding error. But if in such cases I either affirm or deny, then I am not using my free will correctly. If I go for the alternative which is false, then obviously I shall be in error; if I take the other side, then it is by pure chance that I arrive at the truth, and I shall still be at fault since it is clear by the natural light that the perception of the intellect should always precede the determination of the will. In this incorrect use of free will may be found the privation which constitutes the essence of error. The privation, I say, lies in the operation of the will in so far as it proceeds from me, but not in the faculty of will which I received from God, nor even in its operation, in so far as it depends on him.” (Fourth Meditation)
Evaluation Criteria:
Paper marks will be assessed holistically, according roughly equal weight to each of these 4 components:
(1) Presentation (how literate, clear, and well-organized the paper is)
For example:
(i) are sentences written clearly, with reasonable grammar, punctuation, and phrasing?
(ii) is the paper written so that the author’s meaning is clear to the intended audience?
(iii) is the paper well-organized under a coherent plan, with parts appropriately distinguished, arranged, and connected?
(2) Understanding (how well the paper reflects accurate understanding of philosophical content)
For example:
(i) does the paper accurately interpret the author’s specific claims and views?
(ii) does the paper accurately comprehend the author’s overall stance in the passage?
(3) Relevance (how well the paper comprehends relevant connections)
For example:
(i) does the paper identify and explain central points, rather than ignoring them?
(ii) does the paper appropriately connect concepts and ideas in a way that is coherent?
(iii) does the paper focus on what is relevant and important in the passage?
(4) Independence (the extent to which the paper shows critical and/or original thought)
For example:
(i) does the author do a good job of thinking through the issues for themselves, using their own words?
(ii) does the paper succeed in regathering, rather than merely restating, the ideas at play in the passage?
Submission
Papers should be 1100-1200 words in length (roughly 3-4 pages). Papers should be word-processed (12-point text, double-spaced) and uploaded to Quercus as DOCX or PDF files before the deadline. You should indicate in your title which passage you chose (either 1, 2, or 3), but you need not reproduce the passage itself in your submission. Since marking is anonymous, no identifying information (such as your name or student number) should be included on your paper.
Last Completed Projects
| topic title | academic level | Writer | delivered |
|---|