I just submitted my first written coursework since - oh, I don't know, 1974? - for my PhilOfMind course at Tufts. The format was a dialogue between three philosophers on a particular topic. The choices were limited: I couldn't simply pick any philosophers and any topic. I chose Fodor, Millikan and Paul Churchland on mental representations.
I started off routinely - read the lit, capture what each participant had to say on the topic, figure out a sub-topical flow that I could use to organize their ideas. And then I read some exchanges (Fodor & Pylyshyn vs. Smolensky on systematicity in connectionist models) that I thought would be a great way of contrasting Fodor and Churchland. A priori language of thought, symbolic, and pristine on the one hand; distributed representations, activation vectors, fuzzy combinations on the other. There were only two problems: I couldn't see a role for Millikan in the debate, and at least 80% of the dialogue would be fictitious: there wasn't a lot of material I could directly quote.
Which to do? Safe but pedestrian, or edgy but speculative and incomplete? In the end, I played it safe - but I think I'll write up the other one anyway, just for my own satisfaction.
Posted by geoff2 at March 29, 2005 03:11 PMI'd submit the "less safe" one as well, and just let the professor know you're trying on a few approaches and would appreciate feedback. It'll only make you a stronger writer, after all.
Posted by: Chris A at March 29, 2005 04:09 PM