English 258 Essay
Write a 4 page (four full pages, bare minimum:
not 3.5, not 3.75, not 3.99 pages),
thesis-driven essay addressing one of the following questions.
For any of the following options, research
and cite at least two academic, peer-reviewed sources and contextualize with a
course reading.
More guidelines below list of questions.
How do we create a just, happy society that balances a
diverse society's competing needs, desires and values?
Voltaire vs. Rousseau: in the aggregate, have the fruits of scientific thinking overall improved or detracted from human happiness? How does your perspective on this question inform how we should use science in the future?
Voltaire ends Candide with a vision of his utopia; compare
your vision to his.
In your opinion, why haven’t we achieved the kind of equality
envisioned by Enlightenment thinkers?
What could be done to address the
tragic legacy of
American slavery and/or our historical abuse of Native American sovereignty?
Rousseau argues that love is an innate, instinctual, human
quality. Is he right? If so, why do people suck? Address the question of
theodicy via contemporary insights from contemporary psychological and
sociological theory.
Is property indeed the source of human suffering? Rousseau’s
argument of a “noble savage” implies that traditional, hunter-gatherer cultures
without or with less private property were more equitable and peaceful. Is this
true?
On the surface Marx’s solution to human
suffering seems perfectly logical and in keeping with longstanding moral
traditions: we should all simply share wealth equitably to alleviate, if not
end, much human suffering. So why did communism so consistently fail?
Basing their theories off of Locke’s tabula
rasa, Rousseau et al argue that human character is
entirely or largely a function of social conditioning, but this perspective has
been largely challenged by current neuro-psychology. What is the evidence
supporting the Rousseauean perspective and what supporting the argument for
innate character?
Current psychological theory has
recently pushed back hard against Locke’s assumption that intelligence is
strictly a function of experience, and now many believe that intelligence is a
function of innate genetic cognitive differences. If the new theory is correct,
how might this affect our foundational cultural assumption that we are all
“created equal”? First look into the new research on innate vs. conditioned
intelligence and then address the possible ramifications.
Was Mary Wollstonecraft’s Lockean-Roussouean-feminist
argument correct; are all apparent cognitive gender differences strictly a
function of social conditioning? Based on current cross-cultural anthropological
and neurological research, how similar or different are men’s and women’s minds?
Enlightenment philosophers argued science can essentially
save humanity from suffering, but clearly we now see science can also create its
own set of problems, most obviously in the case of global warming. Address the
paradox: can we apply scientific, technological solutions to solve global
warming? If so, what are those solutions? If not, examine other humane
solutions.
On the surface, the issue of global
warming pits the two key advances we’ve studied against one another: advances in
science/technology and advances in human freedo; in order to curb the excesses
of science (excess carbon) we would seemingly need to curb human freedom
(legislating drastically curbed use of fossil fuels). Examine how we might
address this apparent conflict between two sets of competing Western values.
Modernism: Suicide rates in the United States are at what
appears to be an all time high, yet by and large we are basking in full fruition
of the Enlightenment; technology has drastically reduced physical human
suffering, child mortality rates have been radically reduced, we live nearly
twice as long, we are much less likely to die from war or starvation, and the
vast majority of Westerners enjoy the liberty to vote, access to courts…in
short, compared to nearly the entire course of human history, we have it much
“better”. So why aren’t we happy?
Theodicy? Does the world suck? The
current American zeitgeist is that things are really, really horrible right now?
Are they, in fact, much worse, or even mildly worse, than throughout much human
history? From an factual perspective, how bad is it out there compared
to the living before the Enlightenment? Consider
this question not only in terms of the quality of your own life but in relation
to various and diverse groups.
Essay Guidelines:
Format:
Use standard MLA format, Times New Roman or similar 12 pt font and standard
punctuation. Double space, 1” margins, page numbers and staple.
Edit
to college level writing standards. Poorly edited papers will be docked
accordingly.
Cite: For all questions referring you to the readings, cite
page numbers (MLA Style) from our text or line numbers if using another text (in
which case, include a Works Cited page). You are not just citing quotes
but any references to the text. This is important.
Quoting And Citing Sources:
Quote and cite frequently and wherever possible. You are not expected to quote frequently from films used in class -- although you can often find transcriptions online or at the library -- but you must quote our other relevant sources. Remember always that you must also cite more than just quotes; you must cite any ideas that are not your own. Review your English 102 notes or look online if you've forgotten the guidelines about what to quote and cite when.