Divide your paper into two parts, and label them “Part A” and “Part B.”
Part A should be your explanation of the specific text cited in the prompt. It will be evaluated on how well you explain Berkeley’s position in an intuitive way (concrete illustrations often help). Close paraphrases are safe but often don’t make clear what is going on. To do well on this part, you must ground your interpretation in the text, but you should also take us beyond the text, explaining its main idea, pointing out possible ambiguities and difficulties, etc. The text is difficult, and it is sometimes not clear exactly what Berkeley’s argument is. You should do your best to make clear what you think the argument is and why you think this. (Please be sure to keep Part A limited to the task at hand—in particular, don’t take it as an invitation to tell us everything you know about Berkeley.)
In Part B you should critically analyze what Berkeley is saying. How compelling is his argument? Is the argument unsatisfying in some way? Why? How might someone argue against his position?
Give equal attention (not necessarily equal space) to both parts. To do well on the paper, you will need to have both a good, clear explanation of what Berkeley is saying and an original, interesting analysis of his discussion.
1. In the Third Dialogue, Hylas objects that it follows from immaterialism that two different perceivers never perceive the same thing (Adams, p. 79, near bottom). Explain clearly Hylas’s objection and Philonous’s response to it (the exchange continues through the top of p. 81). Is the response satisfactory? Why or why not?
Hi: I’ve provided all the info for the paper in the paper details, including a specific outline for the pape. I also attached a copy of 3 pages that should be read in order to write this essay I also attahced the paper insturction by the prof.. Thanks in
Paper details:
In the Third Dialogue, Hylas objects that it follows from immaterialism that two different perceivers never perceive the same thing (Adams, p. 79, near bottom). Explain clearly Hylas’s objection and Philonous’s response to it (the exchange continues through the top of p. 81). Is the response satisfactory? Why or why not?
The outline for this paper should be:
Part A(go over the text):
1. Define immaterialism
2. Brief objection( 2 perceivers)
Paragraph 1: Hylas’ objection
* what is? what is the objection, what’s the reply
* He could mean X, he could mean Y ( Interpretive)
Paragraph: Philonous reply:
* THE DEBATE COMES FROM THE TEXT.
Part B( new objection against either or):
* 1Objection[ to P on behalf of H or the other way around] ( going beyond the debate somehow—“thats how P ended the debate, but how could H ended the report otherwise)— you could extend the debate draw on Dialogue 1.
* 2.Reply: to Hylas on behalf of Philous or the other way around.
* 3. Evaluate: who is on stronger ground?
MAKE SURE TO FURTHER THIS DEBATE IN PART B.
Attached:
– pages 69-71 in the dialogue from which the essay should be written.
