what are your writing sample topics?

[MorganFreemanlives]

at this stage, we are either polishing or working hard on our writing samples for this upcoming application season. i know this is a delicate topic and the last thing we want is someone stealing our writing sample ideas so feel free to be as vague or precise as you desire.

 

what is your writing sample about?or if you are still in that contemplation phase,what topics/theses are you considering?

Edited August 10, 2014 by HegelHatingHegelian

[Infinite Zest]

...feel free to be as vague or precise as you desire.

 

what is your writing sample about?

 

Philosophy

[MorganFreemanlives]

Philosophy

im inspired to steal your idea

[The Pedanticist]

I'm going to argue that Nietzsche isn't really the hardcore supporter of justified true beliefs that everyone says he is.

[sar1906]

Towards a Democratic Critique of Democracy: Thinking-in-Action with Rorty, Foucault, and Dewey

[Lutefisk!]

I'll probably submit an essay in moral psychology. 

[brettmullga]

Differences in interpreting the uses of decision theory in ethics/political philosophy. 

[kant_get_in]

I wrote about Robert Nozick's theory of utopia. I argued that it's problematic and then I attempt to redesign it. 

Is anyone interested in exchanging papers and providing comments and criticism? 

[dgswaim]

I wrote about Robert Nozick's theory of utopia. I argued that it's problematic and then I attempt to redesign it. 

Is anyone interested in exchanging papers and providing comments and criticism? 

Sounds interesting. I never really thought of Nozick's "utopia" as particularly utopian. 

[aojfifjoaisjaiosdj]

An original objection to Millianism based on the ontology of fictional objects.

[Nastasya_Filippovna]

really neat topics!My topic argues for a purely Dionysian interpretation of Nietzsche's Overman. I am so sad about cutting it down It was my senior thesis. But such is life!

[MorganFreemanlives]

really neat topics!My topic argues for a purely Dionysian interpretation of Nietzsche's Overman. I am so sad about cutting it down It was my senior thesis. But such is life!

the first thing that popped to mind was Nietzsche and his giant mustache blushing while Rousseau and Emerson  point and laugh, "i knew it! you are one of us"

 

Nietzsche is a figure i actually like.  one of the sample papers i considered was a reconciliation of Royce's  ethical philosophy of loyalty with Nietsche's conception of the Ubermesch.  basically it amounted to concluding that the Uberman cant be conceived of building self imposed rules in a vacuum and must instead be empowered by submitting to loyalties he willingly honors, but these loyalties are partly faith based a la James because in deciding which loyalties to advocate for both ourselves and to promote loyalty in others, our calculus is necessary but insufficient to deal with such either/or problem. ultimately the uberman chooses and manifests his will by picking a loyalty in conflict with others when the world cant objectively provide him the ideal object of loyalty in his unique spatio-temporal circumstance.

 

in other words, i create a a more selfish Royce and a more modest Nietzsche lol. i decided against this writing sample topic because ethics isnt one of my primary areas of interest.

 

just in case, COPYRIGHT  xD 

[MorganFreemanlives]

as for my actual topic, i will likely write on an interesting relation gordel's incompleteness theorem and Bradley's metaphysics, taking into consideration an argument used by Lucas and Penrose contra materialism. BUT im biding my time a bit too much because this is one of those topics that if handled incorrectly ,can fail miserably.

[Nastasya_Filippovna]

as for my actual topic, i will likely write on an interesting relation gordel's incompleteness theorem and Bradley's metaphysics, taking into consideration an argument used by Lucas and Penrose contra materialism. BUT im biding my time a bit too much because this is one of those topics that if handled incorrectly ,can fail miserably.

your nietzsche paper sounds fascinating! The overman is such a compelling topic, and oh, Nietzsche- he is infinitely compelling to me as well! I too am not pursuing a concentration in ethics so have no fear but the sophistication of both your papers is quite impressive! I'm quite proud of my paper, and I'm quite worried that it may not be read if I'm cut out of consideration based on GRE scores- I've read your comments on that topic and I couldn't agree more :/ I wish I too could apply overseas, but as a single parent the move wouldn't be a viable option. 

[dgswaim]

I haven't read Nietzsche since early, early on in my undergraduate studies. I never really found his stuff all that interesting or compelling (as Germans go, I prefer the idealist strain). Maybe it's time to revisit. 

[kant_get_in]

the first thing that popped to mind was Nietzsche and his giant mustache blushing while Rousseau and Emerson  point and laugh, "i knew it! you are one of us"

 

Nietzsche is a figure i actually like.  one of the sample papers i considered was a reconciliation of Royce's  ethical philosophy of loyalty with Nietsche's conception of the Ubermesch.  basically it amounted to concluding that the Uberman cant be conceived of building self imposed rules in a vacuum and must instead be empowered by submitting to loyalties he willingly honors, but these loyalties are partly faith based a la James because in deciding which loyalties to advocate for both ourselves and to promote loyalty in others, our calculus is necessary but insufficient to deal with such either/or problem. ultimately the uberman chooses and manifests his will by picking a loyalty in conflict with others when the world cant objectively provide him the ideal object of loyalty in his unique spatio-temporal circumstance.

 

in other words, i create a a more selfish Royce and a more modest Nietzsche lol. i decided against this writing sample topic because ethics isnt one of my primary areas of interest.

 

just in case, COPYRIGHT  xD 

 

I'm a little unsure about what you mean when you say that "loyalties are faith-based". Is the idea just that the Ubermensch can't determine which promise to violate when two promises are contradictory, and so the Ubermensch just picks one? 

I wonder why you think the bit that I've underlined. Surely we have criterion for deciding between contradicting loyalties (e.g. which loyalty promotes the most well-being, is most efficient, etc.). Wouldn't the Ubermensch just use something like this? 

 

This paper sounds really interesting. It strikes me as a very Kantian topic. 

Edited August 20, 2014 by kant_get_in

[MorganFreemanlives]

I'm a little unsure about what you mean when you say that "loyalties are faith-based". Is the idea just that the Ubermensch can't determine which promise to violate when two promises are contradictory, and so the Ubermensch just picks one? 

I wonder why you think the bit that I've underlined. Surely we have criterion for deciding between contradicting loyalties (e.g. which loyalty promotes the most well-being, is most efficient, etc.). Wouldn't the Ubermensch just use something like this? 

 

This paper sounds really interesting. It strikes me as a very Kantian topic. 

yes i understand the question. one approach to is to say the consequentionalist calculus should be able to tell us or at best hint at which of the conflicting loyalties to pick.but they are multiple problems for a theory of ethics like Royce's to adopt such determinants as necessary and sufficient conditions 1. royce is bizarre sort of virtue ethics where all virtues can be reduced to an instantiation to loyalty to loyalty.  2. more importantly the difference between obedience and loyalty is that loyalty is a personal dedication to a cause, and an individual must choose among a plethora of causes to dedicate himself to, many which are contraries.

 

here is where it gets interesting. on the one hand we,admit loyalties are personal but also agree that they possess the virtually universal character of being manifested in others presumably with a similar impetus for the conviction of self realization. royce will no doubt suggest that when a man meets contrary loyalties , he  must pick one if evidence is insufficient to make a meaningful choice (this often happens in our life by pragmatic demands or calculative limitations) indecision is equivalent to saying no to both and this he borrows from James' will to believe. BUT even when there is no such tug of war, the reason to support the loyalty with more cost benefit advantage must rely on a non trivial convinction of the truth of an objective scientific rational world in which the calculus can be safely grounded even if not fully conclusive, in other words, the ethical person must hold truth as one if not the greatest loyalty.

 

here is where nietsche comes in.  Royce claims that truth is such a grand cause of loyalty because its a universal manifestation of loyalty to loyalty in mankind. By extending our chronicles of truth, We are cultivating both our own loyalty to a beloved community which will carry on the torch of our progress but an equal loyalty in others whom we have affected or even inspired. This defense however is 1. a tad bit too social/religious for modern taste and 2.the line between obedience and loyalty become a bit fuzzy as far loyalty as virtue go with truth since we just implicitly admitted truth in varying degrees is a loyalty thats practically inevitable.  what Nietsche's Uberman can do here is to show how whereas some seemingly loyal people are just driven by an impulse, however natural or right it is to the society, only the uberman by realizing that his own morality is created by picking his loyalties even if they would see inevitable, to an outsider is fully moral. furthermore, his realization that loyalties which are personal but extend beyond his mere self is his ideal is i think very compatible with the will to power, which is mysteriously both a personal manifestation and a universal.

 

granted i think both royce and nietsche woudnt have liked the compromise. still to make a communitarian like royce and an individualistic nihilist like nietsche blend in somewhat without catching fire must be something.

[overoverover]

It's a piece in formal semantics—details are probably boring, but it has to do with giving a truth-conditional semantics for a small class of English sentences known as generics. 

[Infinite Zest]

It's a piece in formal semantics—details are probably boring, but it has to do with giving a truth-conditional semantics for a small class of English sentences known as generics. 

 

That sounds super interesting!

[overoverover]

That sounds super interesting!

Hah, thanks. It's a cool topic and I do love it, but it's not exactly some super sexy, deep important question! It is highly representative of (at least half) of my interests.

[Nastasya_Filippovna]

Hah, thanks. It's a cool topic and I do love it, but it's not exactly some super sexy, deep important question! It is highly representative of (at least half) of my interests.

looking at the schools you're applying to I think it's a superb choice- especially MIT and Rutgers- they are gonna eat that topic right up!! Perfect alignment for their specialities!! I love hearing everybody's topics- it's where you see how passionate people are with their philosophy and particular fields of interest!

[overoverover]

looking at the schools you're applying to I think it's a superb choice- especially MIT and Rutgers- they are gonna eat that topic right up!! Perfect alignment for their specialities!! I love hearing everybody's topics- it's where you see how passionate people are with their philosophy and particular fields of interest!

Well, the list is what it is for a reason! But thanks for the kind words. MIT really is the dream school.

[Infinite Zest]

Well, the list is what it is for a reason! But thanks for the kind words. MIT really is the dream school.

 

Yes. MIT's program looks amazing.

[overoverover]

The only real concern is that Stalnaker will retire soon. The faculty is still incredibly strong in my AOIs, though.

[aojfifjoaisjaiosdj]

My dream is MIT linguistics, which is combined with the philosophy department. 

'

Maybe I should get into the details of my honors thesis a little bit more. There's a phenomenon known as "breaking the fourth wall." I use sentences of that kind to reject every view that Millians come up with for fictional discourse.

 

I don't wanna get into the details here though, because I'm scared of plagiarism. :<

Edited August 22, 2014 by Chiki