The purpose of this paper is to take our core discussion regarding intellect, context, and toolbox questions, and use it to understand an idea we think we know.
Generally, as per the unreason of the masses reading, we claim that we believe or follow something, but we don't have a decent explanation WHY we make that claim. In fact, most often, it's a position we inherited from our social circles, and we can't actually answer anything about it, besides the talking points we have heard from others.
We get serious understanding by doing research, then asking questions, and doing more research to answer those questions. Once you have some answers and core positions, you have to dissect them and figure out what's actually going on.
Essentially, you're picking an issue that ties into something we're doing in class, and are then doing research and asking all the questions from the Actionable Thought articles, to really get a handle on how all those ideas come together. The research needs to be academic research, the answers must be official answers - not just something you think you heard that one time.
The paper, except for the final part, is not supposed to have your opinion mentioned. You're only interested in reason, not emotion. That's why you have to use official sources, and you have to ask the toolbox and context questions. You may feel that you already have an answer to some of these questions, but the answer needs to be an official one, and it needs to be explained only on the basis of reason.
That way, others can understand these ideas, even if they don't agree with them.
At the end of the process, you're supposed to understand what the idea really is, what are its strengths and weaknesses, and what it means to hold that position. Whetheryou still have the same position or not, at the end of the research, is not important. What matters is that you are now operating with total understanding of the issue. If you still agree, then you agree intellectually and can defend your position. If you now disagree, then you disagree intellectually, and can defend that position. Either way, you win.
1. Pick a theme - one of the ones we're covering in class. Not the overview ones, but a specific theme.
a. For example, you can pick a specific ethical dilemma, or some idea of human nature, or organization of society, etc. But you need to pick a super concrete idea. You can't give me general concept - like "society." You need to give me something like, "is popular democracy a good way to structure society."
b. Phrase it as a yes/no question because:
2. Pick a position on that theme, and make sure that position is one that you claim is correct.
a. Present this as an answer to the question you develop in point 1.
b. Tell me where your position comes from - for example, "Yes to democracy, because of the performance of the American democratic system."
3. Dissect the theme and position entirely: all the context, all the questions, all the quantity (if it is a quantifiable kind of issue), all the metaphysics, etc.
a. You want to present the full context of the idea and the claims that make it possible.
b. Lay out the assumptions, principles, relations, values, context, etc. of the system you're using for the theme,
i. For example, US democracy uses the idea of popular representation as a form of government, voting generally available to all citizens, freedoms of the constitution as the highest forms of good, context is freedom from British monarchy, etc.
c. Then lay out the way the specific positionyou're interested in fits into the larger context.
i. In the previous step, you give the larger context and background. In this step, you present the theme and your own position as a specific part of that larger system
d. Then describe what are the implications of the position. Implications are the secondary outcomes of an idea. In terms of the toolbox, implications are the answer to the questions - "if this is true, what else must be true/can't be true?" For example:
i. If democracy is the best, then what does that mean for societies that are not democracies? What about democracies that are different than our democracy?
ii. What are the metrics for measuring "the best?"
iii. Are we obligated to export democracy, or help it out in places where it doesn't exist yet?
iv. How much harm can we cause, if that harm lets us build democracy?
e. Describe whether the implications contradict the idea at any point.
i. The in-class example we used were the three equations, (x=3, y=7, x=y) that made sense on their own, but not together.
ii. If there are contradictions, can these be worked out?
1. Often, if we change the language from absolute to contextual, many problems get resolved.
iii. If so, how? If not, why not?
4. Conclusion: this is the only part of the paper where you're allowed to present your personal opinion. Tell us what the experience of this research has given you - do you still have the same ideas? How are they stronger/weaker? Did they get more nuanced? How so?
For the proposal, you will submit 3 sentences.
i. What's the specific theme you want to work on.
ii. The theme as a yes/no question
iii. The perspective you'll be using to explore the theme (e.g. functionality of American democracy, or Lutheran Christian take on Abortion).
Here's a sample (you can't use this as your paper topic):
I. The theme of my research paper is on what kinds of sibling rivalries are acceptable for the society.
II. Specifically, I am interested in the question: "should it be permissible to kill your siblings?"
III. I will be answering this question in the positive, using the Old Testament (Hebrew Bible).