now that your're working on the first draft of the paper, some useful ideas

now that you'll submit your first drafts keep these ideas in mind:

1- do research your topic. the more you know about your topic the better. don't presume you know the issue, there are tons of developments to be found by authorities and specialists on the subject. the more you find, the more your palette of options. it's better to have more stuff to pick from than have less or none.

your argument is as good as the independent sources you bring.

2- do not misrepresent or oversimplify your counter. your paper is as good as your counter's presentation. it's the counter that makes your discussion worthy of analysis.

3- READ OUTLOUD. keep revising and tweaking your thesis. revising your title, etc.

4- make your sentences short and to the point. avoid unnecessary rambling.

5- don't go in tangents! keep focus with two arguments! if there's a point that is not relevant, shorten it or delete it.

6- make the sentences like pointers in the ongoing discussion. just in case, here are some examples of starters for sentences:

"X argues that"
"X's argument is that"
"X states"
"X asserts"
"X denies"
"X contends"
"X rejects"
"X claims"
"X concludes"
"X contradicts"
"X assumes"

7- your conclusion is a short one:

"I hope I have proved (demonstrated) that..."
"Even if ____(my position)____ could still elaborated some more, I believe I have demonstrated that..." 
"I hope i have shown that..."

how much happiness?

check this interesting article in the NYTimes.

The danger — particularly for a society as rich as ours — is making pleasure the central focus in the pursuit of a happy life. This is done explicitly in some versions of utilitarian ethics, which regard happiness as simply the maximal accumulation of pleasurable experiences. But pleasures themselves often induce a desire for their repetition and intensification, and without moderation from a reflective mind, they can marginalize the work that lies at the core of true happiness.

i bring up the subject because how it relates with the broader issue of morality.

reporting animal cruelty is now cosidered "terrorism"

read this article in the new york times.

exploring the roots of animal cruelty is important in our discussion of ethics. this week, i'll publish a post for comment touching upon this difficult topic.

2010 catena malbec, picasso's les demoiselles d'avignon and the nature of aesthetic judgments (post for comment)

atRifF

hi kids. last friday, we had an interesting discussion. judgments are "statements about." there are many different kinds of judgments: scientific, moral, aesthetic, etc. let's revise what they do.

1- scientific judgments are about the nature of reality.

2- moral judgments refer to the nature of actions.

3- aesthetic judgments are about the nature taste.

we briefly touched upon 2 & 3.

i wanted to stress the salience of these judgments by talking about food. then about art. le't take a look a these two statements: 1- "i hate this wine." 2- "this wine tastes awful." 

the difference between the two is that 1- is a subjective judgment. one is talking about one's experience. with 2- there is a difference. one is making a judgment about s state of affairs, i.e, the juice.

suppose john doesn't know much about wine and makes a judgment of type 2- about this wine, a moderately-priced malbec from argentina. this is an excellent wine for the price (what i mean is comparing price and taste). this is the consensus of people that understand wine.

& what's in the taste? when you sip the juice you get nuanced complexity of spice, tobacco and plum, all balanced with a finish of soft, supple tannins and good length.

so, how are we to treat john's 2- kind of judgment? let's say that john is wrong. he doesn't know enough about wines to make that call (remember that in 2- he's talking about the juice).

what john is doing is committing a fallacy of taking his subjective reaction to the juice as an objective property of the juice.  but they are not the same. much less coming from a person that's not educated in wine tasting.

the same goes with art. talking about art is not that simple. for example, suppose paul has no knowledge of modern art. he visits MoMA and looks at picasso's famous 1907 painting les demoiselles d'avignon. john says: "this painting by picasso sucks!"

pablo picasso's demoiselles d'avignon, 1907

again, there's a difference between,

a- "i hate this painting"
b- "this painting by picasso sucks"

ok, let's agree that catena malbec 2010 can be experienced in a substantially different manner than picasso's painting. nonetheless, there is a way to apply a similar criteria to the one used above.

a- is totally ok.
b- is more problematic.

consensus: the reason is that one has to understand cubism to properly critique it. this is not your regular realist rendition of a 1907 paris whorehouse. paul doesn't understand the conventions of modern art. he doesn't know, for instance that picasso has deliberately changed the way artists depict, thus becoming a catalyst for modern twentieth-century art.  the general consensus of art historians, critics, artists is that this is a landmark.

actual properties: to examine demoiselles d'avignon properly one has to wear cubist glasses. why? because there is a shift in perspective here. picasso is not painting "as a realist". he had already left that behind, as in this: 

yo, picasso, 1901

the young painter was absorbing influences. the piece above has a kind of spanish impressionist flavor.  the painting from 1907 is breaking with all that.  

so, it's not only about consensus. we need an additional "harder" criteria. which is why i talked a little bit about the painting's properties.  

of course, there is always the question, what if art historians are wrong? could they not be?

yes, they could. but it's more difficult to disregard the consensus' weight than paul's uninformed claim. don't you think?


(to be continued)

What's next with the paper?

I've been discussing the development of the paper with each class:

These are general observations:

1- Thesis: "In this paper I'll defend the idea that" "In this paper I will argue in favor of..."
2- Avoid long wordy paragraphs that go nowhere. Go straight to the point.
3- Don't try to overreach yourself. It's better to discuss a couple of points than pretend to cover the entire subject matter.
4- Avoid sounding bombastic, "I will analyze" instead of "I will logically analyze."

I'd like to have two-and-a-half pages, this Thursday (for T,R 9:50am class), Friday (for MWF 11-1:50am class) and next Tuesday for (T 5:40pm class). 

This should include, revised title, revised introduction, your position, your opponent's position and about one or two paragraphs into the discussion. 

The paper is to be sent to my email address: atriff@mdc.edu

Please, in addition to your name, specify class & time. for example:

Philosophy Paper, John Doe, Phi 2010 MWF 11am

Format: Times New Roman, 12 point font. Double spaced. Spell and Grammar checked