2nd Writing Assignment

Format:

                length: 3 pages, double spaced

                font: 11-point, Calibri

                margins: top, bottom 1”; left, right 1”

 

DO NOT quote large sections of the text.  I would prefer if you did not quote at all, but if you must, merely put the author and page number in parentheses, e.g. (Newton, pg 160).

 

DO NOT use any outside sources.  There is no need to use outside sources on a paper of this kind.  I know the language of the text and of the discussion in lecture.  If you use outside sources, it will be immediately obvious to me.  Use only your brain, the text and your notes.

 

DO NOT collaborate with other students in writing your paper.  You are, of course, allowed to discuss the material and assignment with each other.  But the act of writing must be done independently.

 

DO NOT assume that your reader is familiar with the course.  Your paper should be self-contained and written as if you were presenting the material to someone outside the course—who has had no previous exposure to it.

You are to write a single, well-structured essay, responding to the following prompt:

 

Present and discuss the three views of ordinary objects that Baker introduces, illustrating each view with original examples. 

What is the relation of constitution? Make clear what this relation is in terms of its formal properties and when it holds. Why does Baker think this relation is so important? 

Discuss the idea of the primary kind of a thing. Is each thing only just one kind of thing? (Is anything?) Give an example of constitution. In what sense is constitution a relation of unity? Why should it not be regarded as a relation of oneness? Make clear what an artifact is, distinguishing artifacts from natural objects. Discuss Baker’s view of artifacts. Are artifacts less real than natural objects? Present and critically discuss two reasons why some have thought they were. What is an organized social group according to Ritchie? What is a feature social group? Make clear how Ritchie’s social ontology is structuralist. Are such groups really in the world or are there merely sums of individuals? In what sense are social groups social? Are all such groups artifacts (are any)?