do option 1 or 2

OPTION 1:

Choose any two of the philosophers that we read in Unit 2. Recap each philosopher’s main view about consciousness/the self/personal identity. Explain at least one difference between the two philosophers’ views and state which view you prefer. Then, offer an argument (i.e., evidence) against the view that you reject.

If you need to re-familiarize yourself with the central issues on personal identity, I suggest that you review the following (20-minute) podcast: The Self and Personal Identity. Additional information regarding personal identity can also be found here: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/identity-personal/

• Start with making a careful summary of two of the philosophers we read in Unit 2. What were their main concepts and definitions, what were their distinctions? How did they imagine that the self was different from the brain or different from the mind? Restate their theory and include “direct quotes”, specific references from their work.
• Explain carefully how these views compare and contrast. Be sure to identify and explain at least one difference between the philosophers’ views. How do they define a key concept or make a major distinction differently?
• State which view you prefer.
• Offer an argument against the view that you reject.

OPTION 2:

Listen to the following radio program from Radiolab, entitled “Who Am I?” Please note that the program is about 60 minutes in length; however, it is also broken down into several smaller segments.

• “Who Am I?” Full Program – https://www.wnyc.org/radio/#/ondemand/91496
  • “Where is That Part That is Me?” (Segment I – 27 minutes) – https://www.wnyc.org/radio/#/ondemand/91497
  • “The Story of Me” (Segment II – 21 minutes) – https://www.wnyc.org/radio/#/ondemand/91498
  • “I Haven’t Been Myself Lately” (Segment III – 8 minutes) – https://www.wnyc.org/radio/#/ondemand/91499

As you listen, take note of the themes, topics, or ideas that interest you and that you can explicitly connect to items from this unit. For your writing assignment, write a paper that has a clear thesis and evidently uses concepts and readings from the course–thus far–to examine claims presented in the Radiolab program.

• Start with making a careful summary of two of the philosophers we had in Unit 2. What were their main concepts and definitions, what were their distinctions? How did they imagine that the self was different from the brain or different from the mind? Restate their theory and include “direct quotes”, specific references from their work.
• Summarize a particular position that you heard during the podcast that is different from at least one of the philosophers that you summarized. What did the podcast say, what was their view?
• Explain carefully how these views compare and contrast. How do they define a key concept or make a major distinction differently?
• Which view would you agree with the most, and why?

Formatting:

• The body of the essay must be 5-6 pages (1250-1500 words) in length
• 1 inch margins
• 12 point, Times New Roman font
• Title Page
• Words Cited Page – cite all quotations/paraphrases used by naming the author of the work, the tile and the chapter/section that you are citing from.
• Properly use MLA in-text citations for paraphrasing and direct quoting (Purdue OWL MLA Formatting and Style Guide – https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/747/01/). Here is an example essay with MLA citations.

Writing Tips:

Tips for proper citations for the readings and Podcast:

• For all your sources, you should do “direct quotes” with parentheses citations in the paper, and full Works Cited information on the last page.
• For Podcasts: There might not a publication date, but there can be information about when you accessed the podcast/viewed it/listened to it. (The example citations below from the Purdue OWL site could be dates when these podcasts were heard and viewed by the student, for example.)
• I would follow the format at the Purdue OWL site below for the Works Cited, and then in the text of the paper, use a parenthesis with the time, as in “the podcast says x.” (Bell and Philips, 2:19) for two minutes and nineteen seconds. It’s always a good idea to listen to the podcast, pause it, and take notes with times!
• If you aren’t sure how to do citations for our online readings, that is alright, check this Purdue OWL site for that information as well, there are all different kinds of sources listed on the left side menu:
  https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/747/01/ . Scroll all the way down to the bottom of the page and locate the following information:

For all podcasts, provide as much information as possible; not all of the following information will be available. Possible addition identifiers may include Producer, Director, etc.

Audio Podcast:

Bell, T., & Phillips, T. (2008, May 6). A solar flare. Science @ NASA Podcast. Podcast retrieved from http://science.nasa.gov/podcast.htm

Video Podcast:

Scott, D. (Producer). (2007, January 5). The community college classroom [Episode 7]. Adventures in Education. Podcast retrieved from http://www.adveeducation.com

Additional tips:

John C. Bean, in his book Engaging Ideas (2011) cites three ways that students tend to avoid a thesis or write in spite of the ones they have developed. TAKE CARE NOT TO COMMIT ANY OF THE FOLLOWING MISTAKES IN YOUR WRITING OF THIS PAPER

1. “And Then” Writing – “And Then” writing is essentially chronological, narrating a person’s life or series of events. Students often do this when they are asked to analyze text(s). They, instead, just tell you what happened, event by event. Or, you might see this in a literature review in which a student just summarizes the articles in the order in which they are read.
2. “All About” Writing – “All About” writing strives to say EVERYTHING about a topic or issue. The paper may be somewhat organized because the student has addressed things topically but s/he has also failed to produce a thesis or position that guides the paper. The topics are, then, not reasons for the thesis. The structure is inappropriate and ineffective in a thesis-governed paper.
3. “Data Dump” Writing – “Data Dumps” on the other hand have no apparent structure. There is little transition or cohesion between the things that are stated and discussed. The student has no guiding thesis, no guiding idea, and so s/he goes to Google and grabs it all. These are often the most likely to be plagiarized because the student is just cutting and pasting from websites (and occasionally books or journals). It is incomprehensible and unoriginal.