Philosophy 497
Professor: Craig DeLancey
Email: craig.delancey@oswego.edu
Paper Assignment
Future assignment: No due dates, yet, but just to begin the
discussion: your final paper can be either on Camus, or a revision
of another paper. If you revise a paper, let me know as soon as
possible, and we can start talking about how to revise it; this is
an option for people considering graduate school. For an original
paper: you will ultimately write a 10+ page long paper. But we
will do this in stages:
- First, you will send me a perfectly worded hypothesis. If
you feel that you cannot explain your paper topic in a single
sentence, send me a paragraph and put the hypothesis in bold.
- Second, you will send me a one-page summary of your paper.
I will write back suggestions on secondary material.
- Third, you will write a 7+ page draft that will have a title
but no name on it. You will give me two copies, and you will
email me your title. I will distribute these and each of you will
evaluate two paper drafts using the rubric below. I will do the
same.
- Finally, you will revise your paper and hand in a 10+ page
version.
I will post a timeline for those soon.
Please review my paper
format guidelines.
Here are some topics that people considered in the past.
- Evaluate some aspect of Sartre's (and/or Jeanson's)
criticism of Man in Revolt.
- Is it a problem that Camus does not discuss events
outside of Europe--in particular, colonialism?
- Could one justify King's form of rebellion if you believed
the universe is absurd? Or does King's form of rebellion
require a faith in a moral god or purposeful universe? Consider
chapters 2 and 4 in TRK. Consider Camus's absurdism: what might
Camus say about King's rebellion? Is it rebellion that has the
right kind of moderation (as Camus understands moderation)?
- Camus leans towards anarchism or left libertarianism. He
is a socialist, but distrustful of the state. As such, we can
predict that he would not endorse right wing libertarianism.
But does Camus give us any reason to reject a philosophy of
selfishness, or a right wing libertarianism? (Note that his
response to Max Stirner was very brief.) If you believe Camus
can make an argument against selfishness or against radical
individualism, try to reconstruct it. If you believe he can
- Camus takes it as axiomatic that state terror and
oppression is bad and should be opposed. He endorses
syndicalism -- small scale groupings where radical democracy is
practiced -- as an approach that might avoid rebellion turning
to terror or centralized power and violence. In light of this,
consider the rebellion that was Occupy Wall Street. Was the
group's approach consistent with Camus's views on syndicalism?
And would Camus believe (and do you believe) it is a failure, or
a virtue, that the group refused to centralize power, endorse a
single platform, put forward a political candidate, etc.
- Can one justify the demand for equality, if the universe
and history have no purpose? Camus believes that there is a
human nature, and that this sometimes leads us to demand
equality; but do we need something like Christianity to defend
the idea of equality? Or can we find a defense of it consistent
with his absurdism? Consider Leiter's Nietzschean criticism of
equality; what is a Camusian response?
- Is (successful) art a form of revolt, as Camus claims?
- When is rebellion justified, according to: the utilitarian,
the Kantian, the contract theorist, the virtue theorist?
Contrast Camus's view that rebellion is essential if we are to
oppose nihilism. How does Camus's view cohere with those
classical ethical views?
- We could interpret Camus as a kind of minimal virtue
theorist. For example, he believes that (1) it is unlikely we
will be able to develop an effective final ethical theory,
because the universe is absurd and so there is no single telos
to history or even human life; but (2) he does believe that
things can be better or worse for human beings, and certain
kinds of behavior are virtuous and certain others are vices.
Virtues include seeking equality (in a moderate way); vices
include murder. (This will not answer the nihilist; but it
could be used to motivate opposition to the nihilist.) What
would Camus's notion of "limits" -- by which he means, there
are limits to behaviors that we should have and should
enforce--mean for this minimalist virtue ethics?
Equivalently: what would his notion of the "meridian", by
which he seems to mean something akin to Aristotle's mean--
entail for this ethics? Consider examples of rebellion gone
astray, and how this going astray arose from failing to
respect such "limits" or the "meridian".
- We could interpret Camus as a kind of minimal virtue
theorist. For example, he believes that (1) it is unlikely we
will be able to develop an effective final ethical theory,
because the universe is absurd and so there is no single telos
to history or even human life; but (2) he does believe that
things can be better or worse for human beings, and certain
kinds of behavior are virtuous and certain others are vices.
Virtues include seeking equality (in a moderate way); vices
include murder. (This will not answer the nihilist; but it
could be used to motivate opposition to the nihilist.) What
would Camus's notion of "limits" -- by which he means, there
are limits to behaviors that we should have and should
enforce--mean for this minimalist virtue ethics?
Equivalently: what would his notion of the "meridian", by
which he seems to mean something akin to Aristotle's mean--
entail for this ethics? Consider examples of rebellion gone
astray, and how this going astray arose from failing to
respect such "limits" or the "meridian".
- What should you (you in particular, here and now) rebel
against? Give a careful Camusian defense of your position.
What dangers are implicit in such a rebellion? (This is a tough
question: you'll need to consider how you'll interpret Camus,
and apply that interpretation.)
- What is crime, according to Camus? (This will require you
to reconstruct Camus's implicit ethics, and use it to
distinguish between crime and behavior that is not criminal.)
Consider our question that we asked earlier: are MLK's illegal
actions "crimes" in Camus sense? If not, why not? Are
Stalin's legal actions "crimes" in Camus sense? If so, what
"law" do they break?
- Evaluate any rebellion that Camus does not consider, but
using Camus's implicit criteria. Was it motivated by some kind
of desire for equality? For freedom? Did it go too far? Were
the values of the rebels absurdist, or something else? Did
their values change how the rebellion developed?
- Is Camus fair or unfair to Nietzsche/Stirner/Sade/Breton?
Pick one case. Evaluate his criticisms. Use primary texts
in your evaluation.
Rubric: I will be grading the papers using the following
criteria, with roughly how many points for each category.
- Clarity of writing. Proper grammar. (5 pts)
- Proper citations. Proper bibliography. (5 pts)
- Clear thesis statement that is then actually defended
in the paper. (5 pts)
- Significance of thesis. Is it relevant to the debate, is
it something that we need to help resolve? (5 pts)
- Use of Camus's text to defend your position; close
evaluation of the actual claims or arguments Camus makes.
Same for any other philosopher cited or reasoned about. (10 pts)
- Development of an identifiable valid argument, ideally
at some point in the paper stated in "argument form"--that
is, as premises followed by the conclusion (which should be
the thesis statement. (10 pts)
- Consideration of the most likely objections to your thesis.
Answer to these objections. (5 pts)
- Fairness or accuracy of treatment. (Are you reading
the philosopher or work with sufficient charity? Is your interpretation
of the work plausible?) (5 pts)