20th Century Analytic Philosophy:

Paper topics

1. Just how does Rorty see his own view as capturing what is good in both Quine and Sellars and as leaving out what each missed from the others position. Do you think that his reading of Quine and Sellars is fair?

2. What conception of truth, rationality and justification must one accept if one adopts Rorty's "epistemological behaviorism"? Explain why you think that such conceptions are, or are not, defensible.

3. Why does Putnam think that we couldn't be 'brains in a vat'? What significance does he think that this claim has, and do you find his defense of it plausible?

4. Just what is the difference between "internal" and "metaphysical" realism. Which of the two do you find more plausible and why?

5. Putnam claims Kant as a type of 'internal realist'. Do you find his assimilation of Kant's position to his own plausible?

6. When Putnam claims that truth should be understood in terms of idealized rational acceptability, just what is he saying? Do we have any notion of what 'idealized rational acceptability' is other than our notion of truth? If so, just what is this notion? If not, how would Putnam respond to the charge that his account is circular?

7. Just why does Putnam think that we can't draw a firm fact/value distinction? Do you think that Rorty would share his views on this topic? Explain your own views on the issue as well.

8. Just what does Putnam have in common with Rorty and/or Goodman? Just what are the differences? Which of the three philosophers strikes you as having the most plausible view and why?

9. Write a critical review of a recent journal article on Putnam, Rorty or Goodman (preferably one dealing with topics covered in the books we've been reading).