Philosophy Extra Credit Projects If you wish, you can do two extra credit assignments this term, one small and one large project. Each small project will end up as a 3-5 page paper: 1 page (or less) summary of what you read/watched), 1-2 pages answering a few questions, and 1-2 pages reaction to the philosophical themes of the book/movie. Larger projects are more of same, but the themes for that project carries over into different genres (therefore, you will have more to read watch) and are more difficult or complex (again giving you a little more work to do). Each little project will be worth (about) 2 points, while the larger projects are worth 5. With partial credit, doing both projects well can (and will) shift you a whole letter grade! But note that they are graded just like reaction papers, so if you do one, please be sure to put a lot of energy into it, and come see me if you are having problems with it! Small Projects Philosophy and the Divine , director Aronofsky. A radically different view of God is pushed by this film – I added this one to the list as a “neutral” choice for anyone that wants to work a little more with Philosophy of Religion. Sit back and enjoy the ride (it’s a wild, weird movie) and then let me know if you think that any of the articles we’ve read can handle this kind of understand of the Divine, and what exactly is Aronofsky saying about God. “The Screw Tape Letters,” C.S. Lewis. This book is also a somewhat neutral choice, since Lewis went from a devout believer to an atheist, and back again (however, he’s obviously returned to his faith when he writes this). What is Lewis really saying about God (or the Devil) and the nature of Evil? How responsible are we as (merely) human? “Twilight of the Idols,” Nietzsche. A book for the non-believers, or those still sitting on the fence. If you’re a Nine-Inch-Nails fan, this is close as it comes to mandatory reading since Nietzsche was the first to publicly declare, “God is Dead.” I really want to know what you make of Nietzsche’s subtitle for the text (“How to Philosophize with a Hammer”), what Nietzsche himself meant by it, and what he thinks God really is. This one is a little longer and harder project, so come see me if you want to work on it – you may need a little help throughout the project. Philosophy and life “Fight Club,” Palahniuk. A great book, followed by a great movie that totally changes the message that Palahniuk is trying to push. Who is Tyler Durden (not literally – that’s for your summary) in the psychological, philosophical sense? Is self improvement really masturbation (what does that even mean)? Did Fight Club, Project Mayhem really work? (Again, make sure you read the book!) “The Stranger,” Camus. A classic existential work, Camus really moves towards a new meaning for Life and a radical definition of responsibility. I really want to know what you ...

1. Philosophy Extra Credit Projects
If you wish, you can do two extra credit assignments this term,
one small and one
large project. Each small project will end up as a 3-5 page
paper: 1 page (or less)
summary of what you read/watched), 1-2 pages answering a few
questions, and 1-2 pages
reaction to the philosophical themes of the book/movie. Larger
projects are more of
same, but the themes for that project carries over into different
genres (therefore, you will
have more to read watch) and are more difficult or complex
(again giving you a little
more work to do).
Each little project will be worth (about) 2 points, while the
larger projects are
worth 5. With partial credit, doing both projects well can (and
will) shift you a whole
letter grade! But note that they are graded just like reaction
papers, so if you do one,
please be sure to put a lot of energy into it, and come see me if

2. you are having problems
with it!
Small Projects
Philosophy and the Divine
pushed by this film – I added
this one to the list as a “neutral” choice for anyone that wants to
work a little more with
Philosophy of Religion. Sit back and enjoy the ride (it’s a wild,
weird movie) and then
let me know if you think that any of the articles we’ve read can
handle this kind of
understand of the Divine, and what exactly is Aronofsky saying
about God.
“The Screw Tape Letters,” C.S. Lewis. This book is also a
somewhat neutral choice,
since Lewis went from a devout believer to an atheist, and back
again (however, he’s
obviously returned to his faith when he writes this). What is
Lewis really saying about
God (or the Devil) and the nature of Evil? How responsible are
we as (merely) human?

3. “Twilight of the Idols,” Nietzsche. A book for the non-
believers, or those still sitting on
the fence. If you’re a Nine-Inch-Nails fan, this is close as it
comes to mandatory reading
since Nietzsche was the first to publicly declare, “God is Dead.”
I really want to know
what you make of Nietzsche’s subtitle for the text (“How to
Philosophize with a
Hammer”), what Nietzsche himself meant by it, and what he
thinks God really is. This
one is a little longer and harder project, so come see me if you
want to work on it – you
may need a little help throughout the project.
Philosophy and life
“Fight Club,” Palahniuk. A great book, followed by a great
movie that totally changes
the message that Palahniuk is trying to push. Who is Tyler
Durden (not literally – that’s
for your summary) in the psychological, philosophical sense?
Is self improvement really
masturbation (what does that even mean)? Did Fight Club,
Project Mayhem really work?

4. (Again, make sure you read the book!)
“The Stranger,” Camus. A classic existential work, Camus
really moves towards a new
meaning for Life and a radical definition of responsibility. I
really want to know what
you think about both, and tell me if life is really “all that bad”
and if carrying such a
burden of existential responsibility is necessary.
Ethics
Questions, ch 36 + 3 readings from “Harry Potter and
Philosophy:” chapter 9 (Is
Ambition a Virtue, Why the Slytherins Belong at Hogwarts),
chapter 2 (Dursley
Duplicity), and chapter 1 (The Courageous Harry Potter). The
subtitle of “Harry Potter
and Philosophy” is “What if Aristotle ran Hogwarts,” which is
why you need to read
chapter 36 along with this, and works with Aristotelian Ethics.
How accurate do you
think articles are to the Harry Potter books, and do they work
well with what Aristotle is

5. trying to do? What is the relationship between Evil (or being
evil) and ethics?
Questions, ch 41 + 2 readings from “Harry Potter and
Philosophy:” chapter 4 (Herminone
and the Women of Hogwarts), and Chapter 8 (Kreacher’s
Lament). These chapters are
(hopefully) fun extensions of the ethics section that focus on
feminist theory. How
accurate do you think articles are to the Harry Potter books, and
do they do a good job of
demonstrating feminist ethics? What are feminist ethics all
about, and how are they
different from “masculine theories?”
Questions, ch 40 + 3 readings from “The Matrix and
Philosophy:” chapter 11 (Cypher’s
Choice, Is Ignorance Bliss?), chapter 13 (Notes from the
Underground), and chapter 14
(Popping a Bitter Pill). This is more existentialism; however,
this time centered on
ethics. What is Nihilism, and is it really all that dangerous? Is
ignorance bliss? Can
there really be an existential ethics?

6. The Life of David Gale, director Parker. A movie about the life
(and death) of a
philosophy professor (so you know it has to be good) that will
beat you over the head
with all of its ties to “The Apology.” Is David Gale the new
Socrates? How well does
this movie mirror “The Apology?” Do David’s motives make
him a martyr, an idiot, or a
hypocrite?
Political Philosophy
Walden Two, B.F. Skinner. A really neat, quick read about a
possible utopian society.
Skinner’s theory isn’t quite communist, but it does through in a
healthy dash of
psychology and social engineering into the mix. Is Skinner
crazy, or is he onto
something? Is he really a Marxist or does he side with Dewey
and Mill more than
anyone else?
Fahrenheit 451, Ray Bradbury. Agreat, and classic, distopian
novel. Why does

7. everything go downhill for society according to Bradbury is it
because of the politics, the
citizens, or the art they choose to destroy (and what they let
survive)? Or are all 3 tied
together?!?
Return to Modesty, Wendy Shalit. Shalit, a conservative
feminist, offers her suggestion
as to why society has gone wrong and thinks that it’s largely the
fault of sexual politics
and liberality. Is she crazy? Is she right? How can she offer
the claims that she is
making?
Big Projects
American Beauty, director Mendes. As an opening warning,
most people end up loving
or hating this choice. Mendes brutally attacks “Middle
America” or what Russell called
the “practical man.” The movie really is not easy to digest or
deal with, but in the end,

8. what do you think their real message is? What is he trying to
say about Middle America,
“the Moral Majority,” and/or “family values?” Who are the real
bad guys? Are they
right? Is the movie really pessimistic, or does American Beauty
offer (suggest) some
chance of redemption?
Introduction to Philosophy
Reaction Paper #2
Term Paper
I cannot accept any assignment after the due date. I’m sorry that
I cannot compromise on
this, but I have worked to give the longest possible time to work
on them. You can, of course,
turn it in early, or give me an early copy to read (and comment

9. on).
Your paper should be from 5-7 pages long, and a lot of original
work. I don’t want you to
spend time summarizing the articles, arguments at all! I’ve read
it, and I know you’ve worked
through it before (how else could you write it)! I want you to
start from that point in your work,
and try to write about what the author(s) are trying to prove and
what you think about their work.
The rest depends on what type of paper you’d like to do, but try
to take the two (or more)
arguments/articles and show very clearly how they’re related,
and why they work together so
well. Take a hard stand and come down strong – if they’re
things that keep you from doing that,
then that’s o.k. just be sure to say exactly what they are. While
they’re larger papers, they do not
have to be super formal (remember, it is still me
reading/grading them) but this is your last stand
of sorts – make sure that the grammar and spelling all works out
well (it is a serious paper, so I
can’t let you get away with silly mistakes everywhere) and that
you take the time to be crystal
clear. You do not have to take the time to go over every

10. argument someone makes (that would
take a book, even for the short articles) but do tell me exactly
why you think certain things are
important, what they mean, and what you think they are doing
to help your case.
If none of this helps, makes sense, or scares you, let me know.
I’ll be happy to help with
any part of your paper (even picking something to write on) or
going over one of the articles.
Option #1:
Throughout the term, we have discussed several authors that
have tried to condone a particular
view of the word “rights”. Who do you think is correct?
What do you think rights are? Where do our rights “come from”
and why do we have political
rights? Why is it wrong to violate someone’s rights? Should
different cultures, governments have
different sets of rights for its people?
Remember, the focus of your paper is to answer 2 questions: 1)
what the word “right” means, 2)
an explanation of your answer. You do not need to review the
assignments we covered in class, unless
you share the same thoughts as one of our authors. You are not
graded on your ability to summarize
what others have said, but rather your ability to present a solid,
thoroughly explained philosophical
argument.

11. Option #2:
Throughout the term, we have discussed two authors that have
that discussed tastes. How do
you feel about their efforts?
Do you think beauty is in the eye of the beholder, or do you
think some tastes (and opinions) are
better or more legitimate than others? What would make a
person’s opinion better? How could all
opinions be equal, especially is someone is more informed or
more experienced?
Remember, the focus of your paper is to answer 2 questions: 1)
how we can compare the
quality of two opinions over a work of art, 2) an explanation of
your answer. You do not need to review
the assignments we covered in class, unless you share the same
thoughts as one of our authors. You are
not graded on your ability to summarize what others have said,
but rather your ability to present a solid,
thoroughly explained philosophical argument.
Option #3:
Throughout the term, we have discussed three authors that have
that tried to define the word
“truth”. How do you feel about their efforts?
Do you think that there can only be one “version of the truth”?
Do you think that there can only

12. be one truth, and it is simply impossible for a statement to
actually be true to one person and (the exact
same statement) false to another? Does truth have to have some
connection to “facts”?
Remember, the focus of your paper is to answer 2 questions: 1)
how can we correctly
understand what the word “truth” means, 2) an explanation of
your answer. You do not need to review
the assignments we covered in class, unless you share the same
thoughts as one of our authors. You are
not graded on your ability to summarize what others have said,
but rather your ability to present a solid,
thoroughly explained philosophical argument.
Option #4:
Throughout the term, we have discussed three authors that have
that debated the existence of
souls and the human mind. How do you feel about their efforts?
Do you think souls exist? If so, what are? How should we talk
about souls? What do they do?
Can you prove that we have a soul? Is it possible to overcome
the “mind body problem”?
Do you think there are no such things as souls? If so, how do
you understand the term soul?
What would we use to replace the concept of a soul? Is there
any real difference between talking about
“souls” and “minds” or “consciousness”?
Remember, the focus of your paper is to answer 2 questions: 1)
do people have souls?, 2) an

13. explanation of your answer. You do not need to review the
assignments we covered in class, unless you
share the same thoughts as one of our authors. You are not
graded on your ability to summarize what
others have said, but rather your ability to present a solid,
thoroughly explained philosophical argument.