Question description
Length: 1,750 words (+/- 10%)Your task is to write a philosophical dialogue – that is, a conversation between two or more imagined speakers (‘interlocutors’) debating a philosophical topic – on one of the topics below:“Life is not absurd because we can give our lives meaning.” [Camus’s and Nagel’s accounts of the absurd are relevant here]“Existence precedes essence” [Sartre]“Man is the being through whom nothingness comes into the world” [As discussed in Sartre’s Being and Nothingness Part One, Chapter One, V]“It is impossible to choose to do evil authentically, i.e., in good faith”“Human subjects are radically free.”“Sartre’s waiter is in bad faith.”“Other people are a fundamental threat to our freedom.”Philosophical dialogues are written like scenes from a play or movie script, with characters speaking in turn. Specify where the action takes place, and include any context (scene descriptions, stage directions etc.) the reader needs to understand what is going on.Your interlocutors can be the authors we’ve looked at this semester, or totally fictional characters, or both – it’s up to you. But you do need to demonstrate both familiarity with the arguments and an ability to construct a back-and-forth debate, with each interlocutor responding to the arguments of the other and trying to advance their position.Although this is not an essay, you will still be required to reference the ideas you cite, and you will need to reference at least three readings.Here’s some more guidance on writing a philosophical dialogue by Dr. Jonathan Lavery:The following suggestions may help anyone who opts to write a dialogue or dramatic scene for their assignment. These suggestions are generic, and they have been formulated without any particular course or assignment in mind. If there is anything inconsistent between these suggestions and the assignment instructions, please abide by the assignment instructions.Most of the criteria for a good essay apply to dialogue and drama. Key terms must be defined. Arguments must be developed logically. Evidence must be relevant. Proper punctuation and good grammar are required, etc.1. Because of the nature of the course, your dialogue must be a debate, not a mere discussion of the essay topic. As in an essay, the arguments must collect and organize evidence that either proves or refutes a controversial point. In a debate, the interlocutors use arguments to arrive at the truth of the matter. A discussion, on the other hand, merely identifies what each interlocutor happens to believe without anyone attempting to convince the other(s) that their position is true.2. In structuring your debate, bear in mind some generic patterns that it may follow:(a) Interlocutor 1 is is arguing that Interlocutor 2 ought to adopt the position of Interlocutor 1on the issue in question.(b) Interlocutor 2 is trying to refute the position that Interlocutor 1has already adopted on the issue.(c) Both interlocutors are arguing that their own position on the issue is stronger than the other’s position. Being clear about the pattern will help3. While your interlocutors are goal-directed in one of the ways specified in (2), they need not reach a resolution in their debate. That is, they may not come to any agreement by the end of the scene you write. Whether they come to a resolution will depend on the main issue on which they are debating, what they focus on in the debate, the fundamental commitments with which each one begins, and a variety of other factors. (Another factor is the size of the assignment – a shorter dialogue is less likely to yield a conclusive resolution in a debate.) There are numerous options for you to end debate, including the following: (a) Interlocutor 1succeeds completely in convincing (or refuting) Interlocutor 2 (b) Interlocutor 1is partially successful in convincing (or refuting) by gaining a concession on one significant point; (c) Interlocutor 1 and Interlocutor 2identify the crucial point on which they disagree fundamentally (or at least need to consider further in order to settle their disagreement conclusively); (d) one of the interlocutors gives up on the other because a resolution appears to be hopelessly beyond reach; (e) both interlocutors give up on each other because a resolution appears to be hopelessly beyond reach.4. Your interlocutors should be portrayed realistically, but their conduct should be governed by their role as debaters. It’s fine if they speak in an informal tone and use contractions. But they must also use the kind of terminology and display the kind oflogical sophistication that difficult theoretical issues demand. You have some space to be creative when writing a dialogue or dramatic scene, but you must not forget that this is still an academic exercise. ReadingsWicks, R 2003, ‘Introduction: time, progress and disillusionment’, Modern French philosophy: from existentialism to postmodernism, Oneworld, Oxford, pp. 1–6, retrieved 3 June 2010, .Camus, A 2004, ‘The absurd’, in GL Bowie, MW Michaels & RC Solomon(eds), Twenty questions: an introduction to philosophy, 5th edn, Thomson/Wadsworth, Belmont, California, pp. 41–5.|image version (pdf)| |text version (pdf)|Camus, A 1975, ‘The myth of Sisyphus’, in W Kaufmann(ed.), Existentialism from Dostoevsky to Sartre, rev. edn, Meridian/Penguin, New York, pp. 375–8.|image version (pdf)| |text version (pdf)|Nagel, T 1971, ‘The absurd’, Journal of Philosophy, vol. 68, no. 20, pp. 716–27.Solomon, R 2006, ‘Camus’ Myth of sisyphus and the meaning of life’, Dark feelings, grim thoughts: experience and reflection in Camus and Sartre, Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 34–59, retrieved 23 June 2010. LinkAvailable as an e-book from the Deakin catalogue.Wicks, R 2003, ‘Albert Camus, absurdist and novelist (1913–60)’, Modern French philosophy: from existentialism to postmodernism, Oneworld, Oxford, pp. 58–73, 308–10.|image version (pdf)| |text version (pdf)|Barrett, W (1958) 1990, ‘Sartre’, Irrational man: a study in existential philosophy, Anchor, New York, pp. 239–63.|image version (pdf)| |text version (pdf)|Sartre, J-P 1975, ‘Existentialism is a humanism’, in W Kaufmann (ed.), Existentialism from Dostoevsky to Sartre, rev. edn, Meridian/Penguin, New York, pp. 345–69.|image version (pdf)| |text version (pdf)|Warburton, N 2006, ‘Jean-Paul Sartre: Existentialism and humanism’, Philosophy: the classics, 3rd edn, Routledge, London, pp. 222–31.|image version (pdf)| |text version (pdf)|Barnes, H 1992, ‘Key to special terminology’, in J-P Sartre, trans. H Barnes, Being and nothingness: an essay on phenomenological ontology, Washington Square Press, New York, pp. 799–807.|image version (pdf)| |text version (pdf)|Catalano, JS 1974, ‘Commentary on Being and nothingness, Part one, Chapter one, Sections I–II & V’, A commentary on Jean-Paul Sartre’s “Being and nothingness”, Harper & Row, New York, pp. 53–8, 63–77.|image version (pdf)| |text version (pdf)|Sartre, J-P 1956, ‘Extracts from Being and nothingness, Part one, Chapter one, I–II and V’, in trans. H Barnes, Being and nothingness: an essay on phenomenological ontology, Philosophical Library, New York, pp. 34–44, 56, 58–60, 63–78.|image version (pdf)| |text version (pdf)|Bernasconi, R 2006, ‘He is playing at being a waiter in a café’, How to read Sartre, Granta, London, pp. 35–42.|image version (pdf)| |text version (pdf)|Cox, G 2006, ‘The limits of freedom—criticisms of Sartre’s theory of freedom’, Sartre: a guide for the perplexed, Continuum, London, pp. viii, 74–87.|image version (pdf)| |text version (pdf)|Priest, S (ed.) 2001, ‘Bad faith’, Jean-Paul Sartre: basic writings, Routledge, London, pp. 204–20.|image version (pdf)| |text version (pdf)|Priest, S (ed.) 2001, ‘Freedom’, Jean-Paul Sartre: basic writings, Routledge, London, pp. 177–81.|image version (pdf)| |text version (pdf)|Sartre, J-P 2004, ‘Freedom and responsibility’, in GL Bowie, MW Michaels & RC Solomon (eds), Twenty questions: an introduction to philosophy, 5th edn, Thomson/Wadsworth, Belmont, California, pp. 725–7.|image version (pdf)| |text version (pdf)|Sartre, J-P 1956, ‘The look’, in trans. H Barnes, Being and nothingness: an essay on phenomenological ontology, Philosophical Library, New York, pp. 340–3.|image version (pdf)| |text version (pdf)|Solomon, R 1972, ‘Being-for-others’, From rationalism to existentialism: the existentialists and their nineteenth century backgrounds, Harper & Row, New York, pp. 302–8, 310–3.|image version (pdf)| |text version (pdf)|de Beauvoir, S (1949) 1972, ‘Introduction’, in trans. HM Parshley (ed.), The second sex, Penguin, Harmondsworth, pp. 13–29.|image version (pdf)| |text version (pdf)|Lloyd, G 1993, ‘The struggle for transcendence’, The man of reason : male and female in Western philosophy 1993, Routledge, London, pp. 87-103. http://vista.deakin.edu.au:80/webct/ptLaunch.dowebct?tid=2523955395021&url=http://equella.deakin.edu.au/deakin/items/71494b9e-023b-7822-66b6-708b78e6371c/1/?attachment.uuid=5af885d8-0bc3-433c-9db6-603d91fe3936Foucault, M (1975) 1977, ‘Panopticism’, trans. A Sheridan, Discipline and punish: the birth of the prison, Allen Lane, London, pp. 200–9, 215–16, retrieved 21 April 2009, .Foucault, M (1975) 1977, ‘The body of the condemned’, trans. A Sheridan, Discipline and punish: the birth of the prison, Allen Lane, London, pp. 3–12, 23–4.|image version (pdf)| |text version (pdf)|Foucault, M (1975) 1977, ‘The carceral’, trans. A Sheridan, Discipline and punish: the birth of the prison, Allen Lane, London, pp. 293–308.|image version (pdf)| |text version (pdf)|Foucault, M 1984, ‘Docile bodies’, in P Rabinow (ed.), The Foucault reader, Pantheon, New York, pp. 179–87.|image version (pdf)| |text version (pdf)|Foucault, M 1984, ‘The means of correct training’, in P Rabinow (ed.), The Foucault reader, Pantheon, New York, pp. 188–205.|image version (pdf)| |text version (pdf)|Foucault, M (1976) 1990, ‘Domain’,trans. R Hurley, The will to knowledge (The history of sexuality, vol. 1), Penguin, London, pp. 103–114.|image version (pdf)| |text version (pdf)|Foucault, M 1984, ‘Preface to The history of sexuality, volume II’, in P Rabinow (ed.), The Foucault reader, Pantheon, New York, pp. 333–9.|image version (pdf)| |text version (pdf)|Foucault, M 1983, ‘The subject and power’, in HL Dreyfus & P Rabinow, Michel Foucault, beyond structuralism and hermeneutics, 2nd edn, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 208–16.|image version (pdf)| |text version (pdf)|Dreyfus, HL & Rabinow, P 1983, ‘The genealogy of the modern individual as subject’, Michel Foucault: beyond structuralism and hermeneutics, 2nd edn, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 168–78.|image version (pdf)| |text version (pdf)|Foucault, M 1983, ‘The subject and power’, in HL Dreyfus & P Rabinow, Michel Foucault, beyond structuralism and hermeneutics, 2nd edn, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 216–16.|image version (pdf)| |text version (pdf)|Patton, P 1989, ‘Taylor and Foucault on power and freedom’, Political Studies, vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 260–76.Taylor, C 1986, ‘Foucault on freedom and truth’, in DC Hoy (ed.), Foucault: a critical reader, Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 69–102.|image version (pdf)| |text version (pdf)|
