Blog posts are an opportunity to apply the course material to a real-world issue of your choice. This will require you to rely on your background knowledge of a topic, do some research, or examine your own experiences and observations, while drawing out the relevance of philosophy for addressing the concerns of others. (For examples of similar kinds of projects, see http://phil197-phenomenology.weebly.com.) 

Blog posts are normally about 1000-1500 words in length. Be sure to include an image and a seductive title, select the appropriate category, and ensure that comments will be allowed.

Since these Blog Posts will be publicly accessible, you may choose to use your initials or an alias instead of your name. If you use an alias, just let me know privately which alias you have chosen. 

TWO POSSIBLE STRATEGIES FOR YOUR BLOG POSTS

There are two basic strategies that can work well for these blog posts.

Strategy 1 – Use philosophy to help solve a real-world problem

The first is to use a philosophical view that we have discussed in class to shed light on a puzzling aspect of a real-world issue. Here is how you might structure a post that uses this first strategy: 

  • Introduction – Give an overview of the central ideas of each of the main parts of your post. Make an effort to catch the reader’s attention and highlight what is interesting about your post.
  • Part 1 – What is puzzling about the issue you have selected? Articulate your question in a clear and concise manner, and explain the background information that is necessary for the reader to understand the issue and why it matters. 
  • Part 2 – Articulate the author’s view and their central reason(s) for believing that their view is correct. Quote judiciously from the text, and use a well-chosen example (either from the text or your own experience or imagination) to illustrate, clarify, and/or dramatize the author’s view. 
  • Part 3 – Explain how the author’s view might shed light on the puzzling aspect of the issue you have chosen. Identify the practical implications of your argument for the individuals involved, and consider how someone might object to your line of thought. 

Here is an example of an introduction for a post that uses Strategy 1:

  • How (and why) to fight without anger. While anger is not uncommon within intimate relationships, it can severely damage the bond between two people. Would an intimate relationship be better, all things considered, if the individuals involved never got angry with one another? Is it even possible to work through significant conflicts without anger? I argue that Solomon’s analysis of anger suggests that it would, in fact, be better to avoid anger, even in the midst of conflict. Solomon holds that anger is often used as a strategy for gaining social superiority; this implies that anger typically involves contempt (“looking down on” the person one is angry with), and it is well known that contempt is highly corrosive to relationships. This gives us reason to think that when we are addressing conflicts, it would be better to rely on other emotions that do not involve contempt, such as sadness and fear. After examining a fascinating example of this sort of anger-free approach to conflict resolution, I consider how a defender of anger might evaluate the merit of this anger-free approach. 

Strategy 2 – Use a real-world issue to help solve a philosophical problem

The other strategy that I recommend is to use your examination of a real-world issue to shed light on a puzzling philosophical question related to the course material. Here is how you might structure a post that uses this second strategy: 

  • Introduction – Give an overview of the central ideas of each of the main parts of your post. Make an effort to catch the reader’s attention and highlight what is interesting about your post.
  • Part 1 – What is puzzling about the philosophical issue that you have selected? Articulate your question in a clear and concise manner, and explain the background information that is necessary for the reader to understand the issue and why it matters. 
  • Part 2 – Articulate the author’s view and their central reason(s) for believing that their view is correct. Quote judiciously from the text, and use a well-chosen example (either from the text or your own experience or imagination) to illustrate, clarify, and/or dramatize the author’s view. 
  • Part 3 – Explain how the real-world situation you have selected challenges, supports, clarifies, or complicates the author’s view, and consider how the author might object to your line of thought. 

Here is an example of an introduction for a post that uses Strategy 2:

  • The dark side of comedy. What is the ethical value of laughter? Some philosophers have been skeptical of laughter, arguing that it is driven by an antisocial delight in others’ misfortune. Others argue that it is ethically neutral, because it is driven by the simple desire to relieve tension. In contrast, Solomon asserts that laughter is actually conducive to social solidarity, and so it has an important place in our ethical lives. I argue that although Solomon’s analysis improves on the alternative views of laughter, his account is challenged when we consider the Netflix comedy special, Nanette. In this stand-up performance, the comedian Hannah Gadsby presents a compelling case that laughter is structurally incapable of creating genuine social solidarity for certain classes of people—namely, for those who are most marginalized and vulnerable in our society. This suggests that while laughter may support virtue in many cases, laughter is indeed ethically suspicious in precisely those areas that are most important for shaping the ethical landscapes in which we live. 

Caveat

These are just suggestions. Feel free to invent alternative approaches, and please feel encouraged to bounce ideas off of me before committing them to the blog.  

Commenting on your classmates’ Blog Posts

Please comment on your classmates’ blog posts! Please make an effort to make your comments specific and substantive and to demonstrate care for the issue being discussed — and for the author of the post.