RELI3096 Contemporary Analytic Philosophy

Sem 1, 2020-21
Term Essay Topics

Deadline: 13 Dec 2020, 23:59 (No late submissions allowed without prior approval from the lecturer)
Length: 2500 words in English (±10%)
Bibliography: The essay must use original texts and some secondary literature. All essays must show
a bibliography which contains not only online resources but books and articles. When you use
online resources, only authored and peer-reviewed articles are accepted. No materials from
blogs, wikis, social media, discussion groups, lecture notes and PowerPoints, etc. are
accepted. References must be duly cited.
Plagiarism: All essays will be checked against plagiarism. Similarity rate must be kept at 34% or
below, otherwise they will be disqualified and get zero mark. You can resubmit your work until
the deadline is due.
Method of submission: One soft copy on Moodle via Turnitin before the deadline.

Aims of this assessment: This is a summative assessment to demonstrate students’ ability to achieve
all learning outcomes of this course, including demonstrating your understanding, critically
evaluating related theories and expressing your own views. See course syllabus for detailed
CILOs. This assessment constitutes 35% of the total course mark.
Structure: A typical philosophy essay should have the following structure: (1) state the problem, (2)
summarise classical arguments for or against the position, (3) discuss important criticisms from
relevant literature, (4) discuss your own comments. (1)-(3) 50%; (4) 50%.
Topic: Create your own topic or choose from the following list. All essays must show your own
research and original ideas. For fairness, all content MUST NOT SIGNIFICANTLY OVERLAP with
any work you have done before in this course, including debate and reflection paper.
You can choose your own topic provided that the principles mentioned above are observed. You
must email the lecturer your topic and a one-page outline before 1 December 2020 for
approval. I will reply to you before 4 Dec about whether it is approved or not.

Suggested Essay Topics:

1. ‘The meaning of a word is its use in the language.’ Explain what it means and evaluate how true
it is.
a. Ludwig Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations (1958), 4th ed. Oxford: Blackwell, 2009.
Excerpt: Sections 1-71.
b. Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logical-Philosophicus (1924), translated by Pears and
McGuiness, London: Routledge, 2001. Excerpt: Preface, 1-3.3, 4.1-4.1213, 5.6-5.641, 6.4-7
c. Paul Grice, “Meaning” (1957) and “Utterer’s Meaning, Sentence-Meaning, and Word-
Meaning” (1987) in his Studies in the Way of Words, Cambridge: Harvard University Press,
1989, pp. 213-223 and pp.117-137.
d. Gilbert Ryle, “Theory of Meaning” (1957), in British Philosophy in Mid-Century, C.A. Mace
(ed.), London: George Allen & Unwin. Page references are to the reprint in Collected Papers,
vol. 2, 350-372.

2. Only statements with truth-values are meaningful and sensical. Do you agree? Discuss.
a. Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logical-Philosophicus (1924), translated by Pears and
McGuiness, London: Routledge, 2001. Excerpt: Preface, 1-3.3, 4.1-4.1213, 5.6-5.641, 6.4-7
 b. W V O Quine, “Two Dogmas of Empiricism”, From A Logical Point of View, Cambridge Mass.:
Harvard University Press, 1980, pp.20-46.
c. A J Ayer, “The A Priori”, in Language, Truth and Logic. Also, in Paul Moser ed., A Priori
Knowledge.
d. Paul Boghossian, “Analyticity”, Nous 1996.
e. Adam Morton, A Guide through the Theory of Knowledge, ch.3.

3. Compare Russell’s and Early Wittgenstein’s logical atomism. How similar are they? Do you
prefer one over another and why?
a. Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logical-Philosophicus (1924), translated by Pears and
McGuiness, London: Routledge, 2001. Excerpt: Preface, 1-3.3, 4.1-4.1213, 5.6-5.641, 6.4-7
b. Bertrand Russell, The Philosophy of Logical Atomism (1918), London: Routledge, 2010, ch.7-
8, pp. 92-125.
c. David Pears, “Introduction” and Bertrand Russell, “Logical Atomism” (1924) in The
Philosophy of Logical Atomism, London: Routledge, 2010, pp. 126-150.

4. Explore the notion ‘sense-data’ in both Moore and Russell, compare and discuss their views.
a. Bertrand Russell, The Philosophy of Logical Atomism (1918), London: Routledge, 2010, ch.7-
8, pp. 92-125.
b. G. E. Moore, “Proof of an External World” (1939), in Selected Writings, ed. Thomas Baldwin,
London: Routledge, 1993, pp. 147-170.
c. Bertrand Russell, The Problems of Philosophy, first four chapters.
d. Adam Morton, A Guide Through the Theory of Knowledge, ch 2.

5. Evaluate arguments for and against Moore’s ‘indefinable good’. How did this thesis affect
discussions in meta-ethics for the next 50 years?
a. G. E. Moore, “The Subject Matter of Ethics” in Principia Ethica (1903), revised ed., Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1993, ch.1, pp. 53-88.
b. Peter T. Geach, "Good and evil", Analysis 17, no. 2 (1956): 33-42.
c. R. M. Hare, "Geach: Good and evil", Analysis 17, no. 5 (1957): 103-111.

6. What is Quine’s conception of beliefs? Do you think there is absolute certainty or immutable
beliefs? Discuss.
a. W V O Quine, “Two Dogmas of Empiricism” in From A Logical Point of View, Cambridge Mass.:
Harvard University Press, 1980, pp.20-46.
b. Paul Grice and Peter F. Strawson, “In Defence of a Dogma”, The Philosophical Review, 1956,
65: 141-158.
c. Charles Sanders Peirce, “The Fixation of Belief”, Philosophy after Darwin: Classic and
Contemporary Readings (1877): 39-48.
d. A J Ayer, “The A Priori”, in Language, Truth and Logic. Also, in Paul Moser ed., A Priori
Knowledge.
e. Paul Boghossian, “Analyticity”, Nous 1996.

7. In what sense, if any, is Kuhn revolutionary in his idea about scientific revolutions? Do you
agree with him that science is just one of the paradigms for knowledge?
a. Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2nd
ed., 1970, ch.9-10.
b. Thomas Kuhn, Essential Tensions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1977, ch.9.
c. Karl Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery, ch.1-2.
 d. Alexander Bird, "Thomas Kuhn", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2018
Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL =
https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2018/entries/thomas-kuhn/
e. Thomas Nickles, "Scientific Revolutions", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter
2017 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL =
https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2017/entries/scientific-revolutions/.

8. Is Kripke’s thesis of necessary a posteriori and contingent a priori convincing? Evaluate its
significance and reasons for and against it.
a. Saul Kripke, Naming and Necessity, Preface and Lecture 3.
b. Scott Soames, Philosophical Analyses in the Twentieth Century, Vol. 2, The Age of Meaning,
Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2003, ch.15-16.
c. David Chalmers, The Conscious Mind, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996, ch.2 sec 4-5, ch.4
sec 2.
d. Frank Jackson, From Metaphysics to Ethics, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998, ch.3.

9. What is ‘analysis’ in philosophy? Explain with examples some methods used in analytic
philosophy. Do you consider that analysis brings progress to philosophy and why?
a. Michael Beaney, ‘Conceptions of Analysis in Analytic Philosophy’, Supplement to ‘Analysis’,
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2018 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL =
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/analysis/s6.html.
b. Jeffrey King, ‘What Is a Philosophical Analysis?’ Philosophical Studies: An International Journal
for Philosophy in the Analytic Tradition, Vol. 90, No. 2 (May, 1998), pp. 155-179

10.What in your view is philosophy, a science, an art, therapy, or even nonsense? Critically discuss
different conceptions of philosophy from two analytic philosophers introduced in this course
and give your own opinion.
a. W V O Quine, “Epistemology Naturalised” in Ontological Relativity and Other Essays, New
York: Columbia University Press, 1969.
b. Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logical-Philosophicus (1924), translated by Pears and
McGuiness, London: Routledge, 2001. Particularly: 3.324, 4.003, 4.0031, 4.111-4.115, 5.641,
6.53-7
c. Ludwig Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations (1958), 4th ed. Oxford: Blackwell, 2009. E.g
sections 38, 66, 109-113, 119, 123-133, 194, 254-5, 434-436, 593