Doubt, Uncertainty and the Examined Life

Doubt has always been fundamental to philosophy. Plato says that the unexamined life is not worth living. The skeptics counseled doubt as a way of life. For Descartes doubt presents a method for moving closer to certainty. For Marxists the dominant ideas of any time are those of the dominant class and need to be mistrusted. Feminist epistemologists (Bordo, for instance) see the drive to certainty as an attempt to transcend the pain of living in an uncertain world. For the Deconstructionists, language itself eludes clear, fixed meaning.

In their book In Praise of Doubt, Peter Berger and Anton Zijderveld describe how "Modernity pluralizes" (7). Modern people tend to have contact with people unlike themselves, either in cities, through educational institutions or via mass media. The result is what they call "cognitive contamination," according to which people's thinking is influenced by exposure to other views, which may render their "previously taken-for-granted view of reality...shaky" (10-11). (Indeed, as we reflect on the recent election we can see the role that doubt played in the results---doubt about government, the veracity of the press, doubt even of the American political process.)  This situation necessitates that the individual consciously reflect on more and more fundamental beliefs, which tends to direct people toward relativism or fanaticism, or both alternately.  We need, they conclude, to doubt, but not everything and not too much.

It seems that doubt and uncertainty cannot be avoided. Write a paper in which you explore doubt and set out your position, however, uncertain, on what the role of doubt and uncertainty ought to be in life and knowledge. Many of you probably began the course as relativists for reasons that Berger and Zijderveld explain. Are you still a relativist now? If so, how do you respond to the arguments against relativism made in the book? How should doubt be used? How is it mis-applied? Can we learn to live with uncertainty? Engage with In Praise of Doubt for your response, but also engage substantially with at least two other relevant philosophies from the semester.

Requirements:

Produce a tightly reasoned, well written, error free, properly documented philosophical essay of at least 1250 words (roughly 5 double-spaced pages). Consult the text book's appendix, "How to Write a Philosophy Paper" for guidance, but see note below*. In addition, please follow these guidelines:

• Provide title that is relevant to your view.
• Discuss In Praise of Doubt and at least two other philosophies from the course.
• Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt. Standard Margins. Double-spaced.
• Cite your references to course material with parenthetical author/ page references, as needed (MLA citation style). Note that you must cite individual authors, not editors of text to properly identify your sources.
• Provide full bibliography and MLA standards (You will need to learn how to site articles within anthologies).
• Use quotations properly according to MLA standards (i.e. avoid plagiarism).

The one failing of the book's guide to writing a philosophy paper is that it does not encourage you to use textual evidence to support your claims about a philosopher's view. I ask that you do this when possible. So, for example, if it is important to your argument that Socrates believes that he is a benefit to the state of Athens, quote the passage where he says that he is a "gadfly, given to the state by God" (71). You don't need to substantiate every claim, but with critical claims try to do it. Even though you are creating your own position on a philosophical issue, you must also implicitly provide an interpretation of the philosophers that you are drawing from for your understanding of the issue.

Criteria for Grading:

1. Writing

-Thesis and argumentative structure

• Thesis is a response to a question worth asking (relevant to prompt)
• Thesis indicates complex understanding of topic
• Argument is easy to follow and supports thesis

-Effectiveness

• Writing is nearly error free-no typos, misspellings, grammar mistakes, etc.
• Writing is clear, readable and appropriate
• Paper is properly documented-uses sources appropriately and gives works cited
• Philosophy

-Avoids poor logic and logical fallacies

-Elaborates relevant philosophical issues and concepts

-Shows understanding of topic through history

-Accurately interprets work of relevant philosophers

-Considers objections to view put forward.