Philosophy Dissertation Term Papers

It is 1.5 times the length of a typical Philosophy dissertation, so it should be of "commensurably greater depth" than a 24-page dissertation. Therefore, economy of words is one of the most important factors: therefore, it must not be said in 9,000 words, what can be said in 6,000.

The introduction and conclusion should be concise: no more than a few hundred words each:

It is unnecessary to provide a history or explanation of the Frege-Geach Problem, as that has been done ad nauseum, in the literature. Besides, my title does not open by asking "what is the Frege-Geach Problem": it assumes that all concerned are already more than familiar with it. The moderators are also aware that I have already studied the Problem (albeit at a more superficial level) in another module.

The referencing/citation style that you need is Harvard.

The topic has to be explained using language that is as clear and concise as possible. For example, arguments (in the literature) that are condensed into logical symbols need to be substituted for natural language (real-world) examples, especially where the logical form of the arguments becomes overly complex. This is because I do not have the facility with formal logic that the authors (and some readers) do.

Mention the distinction between: i) 'non-cognitivism' understood as non-representational/non-descriptive, on the one hand and ii) non-cognitivism understood as non truth-apt, on the other.

Discuss and concentrate on Blackburn's (quasi-realist), Hale’s (“modest” quasi-realist) and Gibbard's (norm-prescriptivist) accounts. R. M. Hare insists he is not a non-cognitivist, so his prescriptivist account should be excluded (though you may mention and justify the reasons for doing so).

Also, this dissertation should engage in a detailed consideration of only the Frege-Geach Problem: whether or not various non-cognitivist accounts can succeed in overcoming it. It should not, for example, be concerned with the possibility of the unhappy consequences of success: so sources such as James Lenman's 2003 article should not be included.

Argue to the effect that Simon Blackburn's account is unsuccessful. Robert Hale's 'modest quasi-realism' fares better, though still unsuccessful.

Though more promising than Blackburn’s and Hale’s, it's not certain of the success of Allen Gibbard's account.

Ultimately, argue that Mark Schroeder's suggested version of non-cognitivism is more successful than any other, but concur with him that even this falls short.

Therefore, the most essential online source (as yet unpublished) is: http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~maschroe/research/Schroeder%20Expressivist%20Negation.pdf

Of those published, my preferred sources are:

Gibbard, Allen. 2003. 'Thinking How to Live'. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Hale, Robert/Bob. 1993. 'Can there be a Logic of Attitudes?' in John Haldane and Crispin Wright (editors) 'Reality, Representation and Projection. New York: Oxford University Press.

There is a weaker grasp of Simon Blackburn's 1984 (Spreading The Word) and 1993 (Essays in Quasi-Realism), especially in the latter stages, when his arguments get bogged down in logic; but you may regard either as crucial (the 1993 not only updates but reformulates/REPLACES much of what's said in the 1984), then I'm open to persuasion (to include them, that is).

Finally, one of the best (though still not comprehensive) bibliographies for this topic from an article which is also a good overview and (perhaps?) another good source: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-cognitivism/

It may or may not also be useful to you to read http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~maschroe/research/Schroeder%20Expressivism.pdf

The structure shouldn't be the typical "literature review, methodology, etc."

It's a Philosophy dissertation, so it should be ARGUMENTATIVE. So, something like:

Introduction,
Exposition,
Analysis,
Objections,
Possible Counter-objections,
Replies to counter-objections,
Possible objections to replies,
Etc.
Conclusion.

You may want to say that the exposition is akin to what you call the "literature review", but more analytical. In fact, it is not necessary (or even desirable) to keep the exposition and analysis/arguments separate. For example, the writer may wish to launch into an attack of Blackburn's work, as soon as s/he has presented it, rather than wait until s/he presents the work of Gibbard and co. Actually, I think this is necessarily the way to do this, since most of the literature consists of criticisms of Blackburn's and/or Gibbard's work (as they are the main non-cognitivist advocates), articles (by Blackburn and Gibbard, but also by some of their allies/supporters) replying to those criticisms and defending their work, more articles criticising or pointing out the flaws in those replies/defences, etc. So, by their very nature of the literature, the exposition and criticism of them cannot be separated.

There should be "a rough 50:50 balance between textual interpretation on the one hand, and criticism on the other; criticisms should be backed by in-depth philosophical argument, and take account of possible counter-arguments".

The main argument should be like a tennis rally: at the same time as analysing the literature (or after doing so, if the writer prefers), one can start to attack the faults one finds. Then, one must imagine what the opposition might have to say in its defence/counter-attack. Then, one can think how to defend against (or attack) the opposition's new line. Then, how the opposition may reply and how one might attack them again, etc. The longer this goes on, back and forth, the better; but at the very least, it must go as far as considering how the opposition may respond to our initial criticisms.

Finally, the conclusion(s) of the debate should not be a summary of the exposition, but an evaluation of the arguments. The writer should say, one way or another (no sitting on the fence) whether moral non-cognitivism can solve the Frege-Geach Problem (I, for one, used to think it could; but I no longer think so).

However: in philosophy, (the quality of) the argumentative process is more important than the conclusion(s) that you are arguing for.

Lastly, it is very important to note that the "criticism" part of the dissertation should not consist in only "exposition of other authors/philosophers' criticisms". In other words, there should also be some independent criticism, either against the non-cognitivist works or against the criticisms levelled against them.

Custom Philosophy Dissertation Term Papers from Paper Masters

Term Papers are custom written on Philosophy Dissertation at Paper Masters. Philosophy Dissertation term paper due tomorrow? This SAMPLE term paper on Philosophy Dissertation is just a suggestion. Since all term papers are custom written, you tell us the exact criteria of your term paper on Philosophy Dissertation and we assign one of our professional academic term paper writers to the project. Also, you tell us the due date of when you need your term papers and we guarantee delivery by 11:59PM EST on date! Plagiarism free term papers delivered to your e-mail on Philosophy Dissertation !