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:
  1. 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.
  2. Second, you will send me a one-page summary of your paper. I will write back suggestions on secondary material.
  3. 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.
  4. 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)