Assignment

Focus on demonstrating your knowledge on philosophy. No need of outside resources. Make a clear and strong argument and explain in details. Be sure to address all the questions in the prompt.

Prompt 1:

In "Responding to Skepticism" Keith DeRose presents a general skeptical argument for the conclusion that we do not know what we ordinarily think we know.

Write a paper in which you explain the skeptical argument and why DeRose thinks that it is powerful. Then consider Moore's response to the skeptical argument as presented by DeRose. Next, explain the contextualist response to the argument as presented by DeRose. Then take a position on this issue. If you find Moore's response more plausible, then explain why, and raise and respond to at least one objection that a non-Moorian may raise. If you find contextualism more plausible, then explain why, and raise and respond to at least one objection that a non-contextualist may raise. If you find both responses to be problematic, then formulate your own position, and explain why it is better than the competitors.

Make sure to:

1.Explain skeptical argument:

P1:You can't prove it is not this situation (H)
P2: if it is this situation (H), you can't know P

Therefore, you can't be sure of P

- why it is powerful? 1.Both premises are possibly true 2. The argument itself is valid, so the conclusion must be valid 3. In a valid

A parallel argument is
P1:If H, I cannot know P
P2:I know P
Therefore, I know not H

Two arguments are mutually exclusive

What is DeRose's position?

2. Explain Moore

3. Explain/definecontextualism: eg: Kansas is flat in a certain sense, but in other context, it is not that flat (compared to some states)

4. take a side
- why this side?
- raise objection to the side you chose then respond to it. Show why even you are aware of the objection, you still choose the side you chose. Descartes's argument is an example of objection to this topic.

Prompt 2:

Read the excerpt from "My President was Black" by Ta-Nehisi Coates posted on Canvas. On p. 10 Coates writes: "(...) Obama appealed to a belief in innocence - in particular a white innocence - that ascribed the country's historical errors more to misunderstanding and the work of a small cabal than to any deliberate malevolence or widespread racism. America was good. America was great."

Write a paper in which you explain what Coates means by this, and how (if at all) what he says in the article relates to Mills' concept of "white ignorance". To do this, explain what white ignorance is, and what role race plays in white ignorance, according to Mills. Then draw your own conclusions concerning whether the concept of white ignorance (a) helps explain what Coates is saying and; (b) sheds light on the concept of knowledge. If you think that the concept of white ignorance does shed light on knowledge, then explain what we can learn about knowledge by considering ignorance. If you think that it does not, then explain why.

1. Explain/defineWhite Ignorance: related to epistemology. There is a history of depression, domination, dynamic of population. It's a cognitive handicap that preventing you from seeing the truth.Eg. Columbus first arrives America, he thought the land is empty and nobody living. This cognition is preventing Columbus from the truth which the American land already had a human population and society.

2. Explain role of race in White Ignorance

1. Racism is what causes WI.

2. WI does not confine to just white people, people with other colors can also subject to WI. And it is not evenly distributed in white population. Race is a modern concept that is genetically inherited. If you live in society with inequality, that is going to prevent you from seeing the truth.

3. Explain if the concept White Ignorance is useful in explaining Coates

-Why/why not consider Obama's popularity in white people?

4. argue whether WI is useful to explain knowledge, generally.-Why/why not

It's showing you there is something standing before seeing knowledge.If you live in a very oppressed, unequal society, you might need more justifications before you draw conclusion.

- raise objection to the side you chose then respond to it. Show why even you are aware of the objection, you still choose the side you chose.