{"id":8775,"date":"2023-03-06T16:42:44","date_gmt":"2023-03-06T16:42:44","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.goodacademic.com\/blog\/questions\/discussion-of-kims-identity-theory-and-level-criticism-against-one-chosen-article\/"},"modified":"2023-03-06T16:42:44","modified_gmt":"2023-03-06T16:42:44","slug":"discussion-of-kims-identity-theory-and-level-criticism-against-one-chosen-article","status":"publish","type":"questions","link":"https:\/\/www.goodacademic.com\/blog\/questions\/discussion-of-kims-identity-theory-and-level-criticism-against-one-chosen-article\/","title":{"rendered":"Discussion of Kim’s identity theory and level criticism against one chosen article"},"content":{"rendered":"

In what follows, I first provide a short summary statement of the prompt for the first principal paper. <\/p>\n

Then I give further explanation of the prompt, tips for approaching the task of writing the paper, and more <\/div>\n
on what I expect from your final submitted draft. Please read this carefully on your own. Do not rely solely <\/div>\n
on my discussion of this prompt in class, detailed though it may be. <\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n
The task of your first principal paper is two-fold. Once you have chosen a scholarly work on which to <\/div>\n
focus, (1) you will attempt to frame the central claims and arguments of that work against the background <\/div>\n
of Kim\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s discussion of the identity theory in the fourth chapter of his textbook, and then (2) you will level <\/div>\n
one criticism of a claim or argument made by the author of the scholarly work you have chosen. <\/div>\n
Everything in this paragraph so far needs to be explained much more carefully. In particular, I will identify <\/div>\n
the scholarly works you may choose to focus on. I will explain the first task\u00e2\u20ac\u201dthat is, the task of \u00e2\u20ac\u0153framing\u00e2\u20ac\ufffd <\/div>\n
the central claims and arguments of the scholarly work you choose against the background of Kim\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s <\/div>\n
discussion of the identity theory. And I will explain what I want when I ask you to level a criticism against <\/div>\n
the scholarly work you have chosen. <\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n
You should choose just one of two possible articles. Both articles are extremely influential papers in the <\/div>\n
development of the psychoneural type identity theory of mind. They are: \u00e2\u20ac\u0153Sensations and Brain Processes\u00e2\u20ac\ufffd <\/div>\n
by J. J. C. Smart (1959), and \u00e2\u20ac\u0153Is Consciousness a Brain Process?\u00e2\u20ac\ufffd by U. T. Place (1956). While the articles <\/div>\n
by Smart and Place differ from each other in many respects, both devote at least some energy to the tasks <\/div>\n
of articulating more carefully the identity thesis (i.e., what one is claiming when one embraces the <\/div>\n
psychoneural type identity theory of mind), how one might argue in favor of that thesis, and how one <\/div>\n
might defend the thesis against arguments that can be described either as arguments against the identity <\/div>\n
thesis or arguments in favor of dualism. When reading these essays for the first time, you should work to <\/div>\n
identify the main goals and the main theses of their articles and to identify the portions of their essays that <\/div>\n
take up the tasks just mentioned. PDF copies of these essays are available on Canvas immediately following <\/div>\n
the PDF of this prompt.  <\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n
Once you have chosen either the Smart or the Place article as the scholarly work on which you will focus <\/div>\n
your attention, you will need to read (or re-read) the article with an eye toward addressing the main tasks of <\/div>\n
your principal paper (the tasks introduced above in the second paragraph from the top of this page).  <\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n
The first main task of your principal paper is framing the central claims and arguments of either Smart or <\/div>\n
Place against the background of Kim\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s discussion of the identity theory. Let me explain what I mean here. <\/div>\n
In chapter 4 of his textbook, Kim discusses the psychoneural identity theory and he does so by <\/div>\n
approaching this topic in three ways. Kim attempts to articulate the identity thesis\u00e2\u20ac\u201dthat is, he attempts to <\/div>\n
state clearly what a proponent of the identity theory is claiming. (We mean the same thing when we speak <\/div>\n
of the identity \u00e2\u20ac\u0153thesis\u00e2\u20ac\ufffd and the identity \u00e2\u20ac\u0153theory.\u00e2\u20ac\ufffd) Kim then discusses a variety of distinct arguments that <\/div>\n
have been offered in support of the identity thesis. Finally, Kim describes some prominent criticisms of the <\/div>\n
identity thesis. (And it is worth noting that in describing some of these criticisms, Kim provides further <\/div>\n
development of the thesis itself. That is, he gives us more information about what the identity thesis is <\/div>\n
claiming. For example, he tells us that the identity thesis, if true, is necessarily true.) <\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n
Given Kim\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s discussion and how it is organized, one might attempt to bring the treatment of the identity <\/div>\n
theory by either Smart or Place in line with Kim\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s discussion by (A) exploring the extent to which the <\/div>\n
identity thesis described by the article (by Smart or Place) matches the identity thesis described by Kim, <\/div>\n
and (B) explaining which of the arguments described by Kim best matches the arguments in favor of the <\/div>\n
identity thesis described by either Smart or Place. Discharging these two tasks is what I mean when I ask <\/div>\n
you to frame the central claims and arguments of either Smart or Place against the background of Kim\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s <\/div>\n
discussion. <\/div>\n
  Page 2 of 4 <\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n
However, please keep in mind the following: Tasks (A) and (B) described in the paragraph immediately <\/div>\n
above might be complicated by a number of possibilities. For example, it might turn out that the argument <\/div>\n
in favor of the identity theory offered by one of the authors will not match with any of the arguments <\/div>\n
described by Kim. If that is your determination (and you defend it well), this result is perfectly fine. For <\/div>\n
example, one might plausibly suggest that to the extent to which Place formulates an argument in favor of <\/div>\n
the identity theory, it is not clear that it fits well with any of the three or four types of arguments Kim <\/div>\n
proposes. Indeed, one might also reasonably ask whether Place actually offers any argument in favor of the <\/div>\n
identity theory. These are issues you will need to address in order to discharge task (B) above (if you chose <\/div>\n
Place\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s article; I simply used Place as an example, but the same holds for Smart\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s essay). <\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n
Let us turn now to the second main task of your principal paper. Here I want you to level one criticism <\/div>\n
against the article you have chosen. The criticism you make can take up any aspect of that article. For <\/div>\n
example, your criticism need not address anything you have discussed in the first part of your principal <\/div>\n
paper. But your criticism should have a clear and relatively narrow focus. That is, I want you to focus <\/div>\n
closely on just one claim or one argument made by the author and restrict your discussion to that single <\/div>\n
aspect of the article. I will give some examples so that you have a good idea of what I mean here. You <\/div>\n
could criticize one of Smart\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s replies to the various objections he considers in favor of dualism. You could <\/div>\n
criticize Place\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s distinction between the \u00e2\u20ac\u02dcis\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 of composition and the \u00e2\u20ac\u02dcis\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 of definition. You could argue that <\/div>\n
either Smart or Place has made a crucial mistake in his formulation of the identity thesis. Whatever <\/div>\n
criticism you make, work to ensure that you focus on a single, easily identifiable aspect of the article. It is a <\/div>\n
mistake to frame your criticism too broadly. My suspicion is that you will need fewer words to complete <\/div>\n
this second main task of your principal paper than you needed to complete the first main task. But I have <\/div>\n
no firm expectations in this respect.  <\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n
Effectively executing all parts of your principal paper will require that you undertake the right sorts of <\/div>\n
discussions in the right sort of way. Accordingly, I will next discuss various characteristics I think your final <\/div>\n
paper should have. Broadly, there are two categories of desiderata I want to discuss: general features every <\/div>\n
good philosophy paper should have and some more specific features a paper will have if it is to satisfy this <\/div>\n
particular assignment. I will begin with the latter. <\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n
In order to discharge the tasks put to you by this particular paper prompt, you will need to provide <\/div>\n
adequate explanation of the points you are making. For example, suppose you have chosen Smart\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s article <\/div>\n
and you are now undertaking the task of matching the argument Smart offers in favor of the identity thesis <\/div>\n
with one of the arguments that Kim describes. It would be wildly insufficient simply to write: \u00e2\u20ac\u0153The <\/div>\n
argument that Smart gives is what Kim calls the \u00e2\u20ac\u02dcargument from simplicity\u00e2\u20ac\u2122.\u00e2\u20ac\ufffd To discharge this task <\/div>\n
effectively, you will need to explain your claims in detail. Doing so in this case will at a minimum include (i) <\/div>\n
describing to the reader Smart\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s argument, as he presents it, (ii) describing Kim\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s version of the argument <\/div>\n
from simplicity (or the relevant variation of that argument), and (iii) providing justification for the claim <\/div>\n
that these arguments sufficiently match each other. In general, when explaining concepts, ideas, and <\/div>\n
arguments, it is worthwhile to approach the task with a certain imagined audience in mind. I typically <\/div>\n
recommend you imagine another undergraduate student to be your audience. (You may assume a little bit <\/div>\n
of philosophical background, but do not assume a close familiarity with the texts you are discussing. This is <\/div>\n
a good habit even for scholars working in professional contexts.) <\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n
More generally, you want your paper to be well organized, to lead the reader carefully through your <\/div>\n
discussion, and to ensure that the reader understands the basic conceptual components of your discussion. <\/div>\n
To this end, your completed paper will likely contain sections that accomplish the following tasks: (a) Give <\/div>\n
an introduction that explains to the reader what the paper is about (your topic), what your thesis is (that is, <\/div>\n
what you aim to accomplish), and how your paper will be organized. (b) At the appropriate stages in your <\/div>\n
paper, review for the reader the key concepts and claims that are under discussion. As I already indicated <\/div>\n
above, you should probably imagine the audience of your paper as being intelligent undergraduate <\/div>\n
  Page 3 of 4 <\/div>\n
students\u00e2\u20ac\u201dsomeone who has a healthy interest in philosophy and some general background, but who will <\/div>\n
likely not be intimately familiar with many of the terms you will be using and ideas you will be discussing. <\/div>\n
Your aim here is to demonstrate a firm grasp of the central concepts and arguments under discussion. (c) <\/div>\n
Provide an impressively clear exposition of the parts of the scholarly work you will have chosen to discuss. <\/div>\n
(Notice I say parts. I do not want a summary of the whole work. Every article contains portions that are <\/div>\n
peripheral to the main task. Your job will be to distill out the aspects of the work that bear directly on the <\/div>\n
tasks put to you by this paper prompt.) Work to provide a reconstruction of the author\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s argument in your <\/div>\n
own words. Do not rely too heavily on quotations. They interrupt the flow of good writing, and they <\/div>\n
function as a crutch. Some quotations, when used judiciously, are fine (even necessary). But you should aim <\/div>\n
to reconstruct the author\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s ideas more clearly than their original expression. (d) Present your own criticism <\/div>\n
of one aspect of the author\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s ideas or argument. Work to ensure that your own contribution is convincing <\/div>\n
and compelling. It is not essential that you actually convince me, but whatever your criticism is, ideally it <\/div>\n
will be insightful, well-argued, and accessible. (e) Give a brief conclusion. Keep it simple. It is best not to <\/div>\n
aim for a sense of gravity when wrapping things up.<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In what follows, I first provide a short summary statement of the prompt for the first principal paper.  Then I give further explanation of the prompt, tips for approaching the task of writing the paper, and more  on what I expect from your final submitted draft. Please read this carefully on your own. Do not […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":[],"disciplines":[702],"paper_types":[],"tagged":[],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.goodacademic.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/questions\/8775"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.goodacademic.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/questions"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.goodacademic.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/questions"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.goodacademic.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.goodacademic.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=8775"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.goodacademic.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/questions\/8775\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.goodacademic.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=8775"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"disciplines","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.goodacademic.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/disciplines?post=8775"},{"taxonomy":"paper_types","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.goodacademic.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/paper_types?post=8775"},{"taxonomy":"tagged","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.goodacademic.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tagged?post=8775"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}