Introduction to Philosophy, Fall 2011, Jeffrey Wattles, instructor
Project II: Fact, meaning, and value
The second project report includes (1) two (or more) descriptions according to the format described below plus (2) a one- or two-page commentary on your Part I narrative from the perspective of Descartes.
Using the categories from the document, “Scientific living,” select a project for self-cultivation from the biological or psychological category (or your choice may involve both) and a project from the historical category which engages you in being of service, doing good to others, practicing the golden rule (obviously multiple categories may apply here, too).
Each of your descriptions will have the following format. As you write your paper, be simply concerned with touching each base of the assignment as you circle the diamond on your way to home plate. Apart from the need for proper sentences and paragraphs, do not worry about producing a smooth essay according to standards used in other courses.
First, describe the facts of your situation honestly, clearly, and realistically. If you needed to inquire in order to establish these facts well, tell about that inquiry. If you can add a scientific perspective on your situation, do so, but this is not necessary for a successful paper, though there is extra credit if you do it well.
Second, describe the meaning of the facts in terms that relate to the dominant value—the specification of goodness that you are pursuing in this situation. (The Crito continues to serve as a model.)
Third, describe the implications of goodness for your situation. What specification of goodness is relevant in this situation? Once we begin thinking of the possible specifications of goodness, it becomes clear that the list could get long. Justice is the one we saw in the Crito. Mercy is another. Or think of providing leadership in a relationship or group or teamwork in support of a leader. Think of discipline and restraint, education and training, love and companionship. Or consider a few of the possible interpretations of the golden rule: Treat others with consideration for their feelings as you want others to do to you. Treat others according to reason, as you want others to do with you. Treat others as brothers and sisters, sons and daughters of God, as you want others to do to you. For the sake of simplicity, it is suggested that you try to select one main specification of goodness for each situation you describe (even though that specification might contain complexity within it).
Then write up the decision you made about this situation or situation type and describe your experience of living out that decision. What were the results? What did you learn? There is no need to fabricate a beautiful story, but there is a need to reflect sincerely. Tell what you learned about goodness during the project. If you can report relevant meditative or spiritual experience, do so, but this is not required for an excellent project report, though again there is extra credit if you have some discovery in this area. If philosophical living is defined to include living out decisions that are made on the basis of attempting to correlate a philosophical interpretation of the meaning of the relevant facts and values, do you see this as an important dimension of living?
Be sure to speak with the instructor if you are having problems.
Rubric to guide project report evaluation (60%)
A: the report shows competence in every area and excellence in at least some areas of the assignment.
B: the account touches all the bases reasonably well.
C: the account states facts and values clearly but has little to offer regarding the meanings of the facts and the values and little in the way of discoveries or lessons learned.
D: the account shows minimal effort, little clarity, and only modest attention to the details of the assignment.
F: The account shows little understanding of, or cooperation with, the project assignment.
The Cartesian commentary (30%)
D or F: The commentary shows poor grasp of the character and thought of Socrates as presented in the dialogues of Plato.
C: The commentary relies on the instructor’s notes for summarizing the text rather than on a fresh reading of the text(s). Points are few; they are made very briefly and without any penetrating observations. There is no attention to issues raised in class.
B: The commentary makes judicious use of three brief quotations, and comments reasonably on their meaning and relevance.
A: In addition to the achievements mentioned for a B, the commentary shows fresh insight in adapting an understanding of Socrates/Plato to the previous parts of the paper.
The writing (10%--unless the writing is below C level [as indicated in the syllabus]
A: in addition to good sentences and paragraphs, there is the kind of life in the writing shows the quality of insight that comes from sincere engagement in the project.
B: the writing is competent at the sentence level.
C: writing is at a level which is consistent with getting a Bachelors degree from Kent State University.
D: The writing is passable but marginal.
F: The writing falls below college level work. There are many errors—sentence fragments, run on sentences, poor word choice, misspelled words, punctuation problems.