All papers must be double spaced, in 12-point Times New Roman font, with 1” margins all around. sp


All papers must be double
spaced, in 12-point Times New Roman font, with 1” margins all around. specific requirements are listed in the doc.


Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on
All papers must be double spaced, in 12-point Times New Roman font, with 1” margins all around. sp
Just from $13/Page
Order Essay

Unformatted Attachment Preview

PHIL 011
Due Date: July 29 (Class 16)
Topic: For your first essay, you will choose ONE THEORY OF METAPHYSICS that responds to the mind-body problem. You
will write about 3 things:
1. You need to explain the mind-body problem in Metaphysics. How did this problem begin? What are the different
theories philosophers have given to solve the mind-body problem?
2. You will choose one theory (for example, Cartesian dualism or Physicalism or Functionalism) as being the best theory
for solving the mind-body problem. Then you need to explain why you prefer this theory over other theories.
a. What arguments are the most convincing?
b. Why are the other theories’ arguments NOT convincing?
3. Which reading you think supports your argument for this theory (such as Descartes’ Meditations, or Fodor’s MindBody Problem)?
a. For this section, you should use a reading discussed in the book to support your argument.
b. Be sure to use “ “ marks if you quote these readings and tell me the writer’s name.
Your entire
paper should be around
1370-1500 words.
answer each
That means you should
question with 350-500
Sources: to write this paper, you should use this source-•
William Lawhead, “The Philosophical Journey”
o Pages 212-260 (this includes overview of
problem, as well as theories attempting to solve
the problem)
You will find this book under “Content”
Here is a rubric I will use to grade your paper:
Needs Improvement
A clear statement of the main
conclusion of the paper.
The thesis is obvious, but there is
no single clear statement of it.
The thesis is present, but must be
uncovered or reconstructed from
the text of the paper.
There is no thesis.
Each reason for believing the
thesis is made clear, and as much
as possible, presented in single
statements. It is also clear which
premises are to be taken as given,
and which will be supported by
sub-arguments. The paper
provides sub-arguments for
controversial premises. If there
are sub-arguments, the premises
for these are clear, and made in
single statements. The premises
which are taken as given are at
least plausibly true.
The premises are all clear,
although each may not be
presented in a single statement. It
is also pretty clear which premises
are to be taken as given, and
which will be supported by subarguments. The paper provides
sub-arguments for controversial
premises. If there are subarguments, the premises for these
are clear. The premises which are
taken as given are at least
plausibly true.
The premises must be
reconstructed from the text of the
paper. It is not made clear which
premises are to be taken as given,
and which will be supported by
sub-arguments. There are no subarguments, or, if there are subarguments, the premises for these
are not made clear. The paper
does not provide sub-arguments
for controversial premises. The
plausibility of the premises which
are taken as given is questionable.
There are no premises—the paper
merely restates the thesis. Or, if
there are premises, they are much
more likely to be false than true.
The premises clearly support the
thesis, and the author is aware of
exactly the kind of support they
provide. The argument is either
valid as it stands, or, if invalid, the
thesis, based on the premises, is
likely to be or plausibly true.
The premises support the thesis,
and the author is aware of the
general kind of support they
provide. The argument is either
valid as it stands, or, if invalid, the
thesis, based on the premises, is
likely to be or plausibly true.
The premises somewhat support
the thesis, but the author is not
aware of the kind of support they
provide. The argument is invalid,
and the thesis, based on the
premises, is not likely to be or
plausibly true.
The premises do not support the
The paper considers both obvious
and unobvious counter-examples,
counter-arguments, and/or
opposing positions, and provides
original and/or thoughtful
The paper considers obvious
counter-examples, counterarguments, and/or opposing
positions, and provides responses.
The paper may consider some
obvious counter-examples,
counter-arguments, and/or
opposing positions, but some
obvious ones are missed.
Responses are non-existent or
mere claims of refutation.
No counter-examples, counterarguments, or opposing positions
are considered.
This page intentionally left blank
600 B.C
550 B.C.
500 B.C.
450 B.C.
400 B.C.
350 B.C.
300 B.C.
Pythagoras (c. 570–495 B.C.)
Lao Tzu (c. 500 B.C.)
Buddha (563–483 B.C.)
Confucius (551–479 B.C.)
Protagoras (c. 490–420 B.C.)
Herodotus (485–430 B.C.)
Cratylus (late 5th century B.C.)
Socrates (c. 470–399 B.C.)
Chuang Tzu (c. 4th century B.C.)
Plato (c. 428–348 B.C.)
Aristotle (384–322 B.C.)
Mencius (371–28
Pyrrho of Elis (c
St. Anselm (c. 1033–1109)
Pythagoras (c. 570–495 B.C.)
Great Philosophers
and Thinkers
500 B.C. through 1120 A.D.
Protagoras (c. 490–420 B.C.)
Herodotus (485–430 B.C.)
Cratylus (late 5th century B.C.)
Socrates (c. 470–399 B.C.)
Plato (c. 428–348 B.C.)
Aristotle (384–322 B.C.)
Pyrrho of Elis (c. 360–270 B.C.)
Carneades (c. 214–129 B.C.)
200 B.C.
150 B.C.
Nagarjuna (c. 150–200)
St. Anselm (c. 1033–1109)
89 B.C.)
c. 360–270 B.C.)
Hsün Tzu (298–238 B.C.)
s (c. 214–129 B.C.)
Buddha (563–483 B.C.)
Nagarjuna (c. 150–200)
Confucius (551–479 B.C.)
Lao Tzu (c. 500 B.C.)
Chuang Tzu (c. 4th century B.C.)
Mencius (371–289 B.C.)
Hsün Tzu (298–238 B.C.)
An Interactive Approach
Fifth Edition
William F. Lawhead
University of Mississippi
Law35877_fm_i-x.indd i
10/22/10 3:52 PM
Published by McGraw-Hill, a business unit of The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., 1221 Avenue of the
Americas, New York, NY 10020. Copyright © 2011 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights
reserved. Previous editions © 2009, 2006, 2003, and 2000. No part of this publication may be
reproduced or distributed in any form or by any means, or stored in a database or retrieval system,
without the prior written consent of The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., including, but not limited to,
in any network or other electronic storage or transmission, or broadcast for distance learning.
Some ancillaries, including electronic and print components, may not be available to customers outside
the United States.
This book is printed on acid-free paper.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 DOW/DOW 1 0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
ISBN 978-0-07-353587-6
MHID 0-07-353587-7
Vice President & Editor-in-Chief: Michael Ryan
Vice President EDP/Central Publishing Services: Kimberly Meriwether David
Publisher: Beth Mejia
Sponsoring Editor: Mark Georgiev
Executive Marketing Manager: Pamela S. Cooper
Developmental Editor: Meghan Campbell
Project Manager: Melissa M. Leick
Design Coordinator: Margarite Reynolds
Cover Designer: Carole Lawson
Photo Research Coordinator: Sonia Brown
Cover Credit: Jack Hollingsworth/Getty Images
Buyer: Nicole Baumgartner
Media Project Manager: Sridevi Palani
Compositor: Lachina Publishing Services
Typeface: 10/12 Adobe Garamond
Printer: R. R. Donnelley
All credits appearing on page or at the end of the book are considered to be an extension of the
copyright page.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Lawhead, William F.
The philosophical journey : an interactive approach / William F. Lawhead.
— 5th ed.
p. cm.
Includes index.
ISBN-13: 978-0-07-353587-6
ISBN-10: 0-07-353587-7
1. Philosophy—Introductions. I. Title.
BD21.L36 2010
Law35877_fm_i-x.indd ii
10/29/10 9:34 AM
Socrates once complained in the Protagoras that eloquent orators and books are alike in that
they provide massive amounts of information, “but if one asks any of them an additional
question . . . they cannot either answer or ask a question on their own account.” As I wrote
this book, my challenge was to see to what degree I could provide a counterexample to
Socrates’ claim. Of course, Socrates is correct: There is no substitute for live philosophical
conversations and debates. However, as you get acquainted with this book, you will find
that it does ask you questions and provokes you to ask questions in turn. Instead of simply
presenting information for you to passively absorb, its many exercises require your active
involvement, and some will even provide the opportunity for you to dialogue with your
friends about the philosophical issues discussed. For this reason, I chose the title The
Philosophical Journey: An Interactive Approach.
Rather than being like a slide show of landscapes you have never visited, this book is a
guided, exploratory journey in which you will have to scout the terrain yourself. I hope that
the journey will be fun, but there is also much to be done en route. This philosophy text
is as interactive as is possible within the medium of paper and ink. Students taking courses
in philosophy are often asked, “What can you do with philosophy?” After taking this
philosophical journey I have planned for you, I hope that you will realize that the really
important question is, “What can philosophy do with you?” You will certainly not agree
with everything you will read in these pages, but do anticipate the fact that engaging with
these ideas will not leave you unchanged.
This book presents philosophy by introducing the major philosophical topics, questions,
positions, and philosophers. The different chapters are independent enough that they
could be read in a different order if one so desired. However, you should start with the
overview (section 1.0) in chapter 1, which will prepare you for the journey. The remaining
five chapters then lead into each of the major areas of philosophy. The first section of each
chapter, as well as each subtopic, has the following features:
• Scouting the Territory—a scenario that raises engaging, philosophical questions.
• Charting the Terrain—a more precise presentation of the topic and its
• Choosing a Path—a presentation of the opposing alternatives to help you clarify
your own thinking on the issue.
• Conceptual Tools—an occasional feature that introduces important distinctions, definitions, or terminology as helpful tools for understanding the topic.
• What Do I Think?—a questionnaire that will help you identify your current stand
on the issue. An answer key will show you how philosophers label your own position and which answers are incompatible.
Law35877_fm_i-x.indd iii
10/22/10 3:52 PM
The opening section of each topic will be followed by sections that present and analyze
the different alternatives that can be taken on the issue. Each of these sections has the following format:
• Leading Questions—a series of questions asked from the standpoint of the position
in question that will get you thinking about the philosophy and its merits.
• Surveying the Case for . . . —a presentation of the position under consideration and
the arguments supporting it.
• A Reading from . . . —several brief readings that will provide you with practice in
analyzing philosophical passages and arguments. As always, you will be provided
with guidelines for getting the most out of the passage.
• Looking through X’s Lens—an exercise in which you will be asked to draw out
the implications of the philosopher’s position and apply the theory to novel
• Examining the Strengths and Weaknesses of X—a series of considerations and questions that will guide you in forming your own response to the position.
Throughout the book will be a number of exercises that require you to interact philosophically with the issues. These include:
• Philosophy in the Marketplace—a question, survey, or scenario that will allow you to
apply the Socratic method of doing philosophy through structured conversations
with friends outside of class.
• Thought Experiments—exercises that will give you the opportunity to make your
own philosophical discoveries and to compare your conclusions with those of the
great philosophers as well as those of your classmates.
• Stop and Think boxes—a brief pause in your reading to form some tentative conclusions about an issue.
• Spotlight on . . . —additional information that helps illuminate the topic.
(For a more detailed explanation of these unique features of The Philosophical Journey,
turn to pages 11–15.)
Both students and teachers will find that these features provide a great deal to think
about and talk about. In my attempts to make philosophy an activity and not just a course,
I began developing this approach to introducing philosophy more than 15 years ago.
The activities I have experimented with that have made it into the book have been the
ones that my students most enjoyed and that have made my task as a teacher easier. I hope
that both the students and teachers using this book will find this to be true for them as
Instructor’s Manual
Written by myself, this manual begins with an overall introduction to The Philosophical
Journey and a general discussion of how to use the sundry pedagogical features to advantage
in the classroom. This discussion is followed by a chapter-by-chapter, section-bysection series of lecture and discussion tips, including how to use some of the specific
“Thought Experiments” and other interactive activities in the text. Finally, the manual
contains a series of objective and essay test questions tailored to each chapter and section.
Carefully crafted as a true teaching tool, the various elements of this instructor’s manual
provide an excellent resource for both first-time and experienced philosophy teachers.
Law35877_fm_i-x.indd iv
10/22/10 3:52 PM
The Philosophical Journey Online Learning Center
Your students can continue their journey into philosophy online at
lawhead5e. This Online Learning Center has the following features:
• Chapter Overviews.
• Topic Links help students research philosophers and concepts from each chapter.
• A Contemporary Connections section attempts to relate philosophical concepts from
each chapter to modern dilemmas and current events.
• An Explorations section invites students to investigate philosophical questions on
their own on the Web.
• Multiple Choice, True/False, and Fill-in-the-Blank Questions help students assess their
comprehension of chapter material.
I am gratified by the responses to the first four editions of The Philosophical Journey that I
have received from professors using the book, from students who have been introduced to
philosophy through it, and from interested readers who read it for personal enrichment.
This fifth edition continues to have the distinctive, interactive features that so many have
enjoyed in the first four editions and that have been highlighted in the previous sections of
this preface.
I am happy to say that section 4.6 on Asian religions has been added back to the book
by popular request. It provides an opportunity to contrast and compare Western perspectives with some of their leading Asian counterparts. In section 2.3 empiricism is introduced
with a new discussion of “Empiricism in the Ancient World,” featuring Aristotle. Hence,
Aristotle now is spotlighted in epistemology along with his coverage in ethics, political
philosophy, and in a number of other passages. To accomodate the new material, the contemporary applications material has been trimmed out of chapters 3, 5, and 6 in an effort
to keep the book manageable. However, the two most popular of the contemporary issues
discussions, section 2.8 on scientific knowledge and section 4.7 on the relation between
religion and science, have been retained. Throughout the book several of the readings have
been trimmed and passages have been rewritten for the sake of greater clarity.
From the first rough outline to the final chapter revisions I have had the help of numerous
reviewers who read this text with an eye to its suitability for the classroom as well as its
philosophical clarity and accuracy. I appreciate the comments of the following reviewers on
the first three editions: Judy Barad, Indiana State University; Chris Blakey, College of the
Canyons; David Carlson, Madison Area Technical College; Anne DeWindt, Wayne
County Community College; Reinaldo Elugardo, University of Oklahoma; Louise Excell,
Dixie State College; Kevin Galvin, East Los Angeles College; Eric Gampel, California State
University at Chico; Garth Gillan, Southern Illinois University; Robert A. Hill, Pikes Peak
Community College; Achim Kodderman, State University of New York College; Pat Matthews, Florida State University; Brian L. Merrill, Brigham Young University–Idaho; Mark
A. Michael, Austin Peay State University; Benjamin A. Petty, Southern Methodist University; Michael Punches, Oklahoma City Community College; John F. Sallstrem, Georgia
Law35877_fm_i-x.indd v
10/22/10 3:52 PM
College; Nancy Shaffer, University of Nebraska–Omaha; Kathleen Wider, University of
Michigan, Dearborn; Gene Witmer, University of Florida; Jay Wood, Wheaton College.
The comments of the reviewers for the fifth edition helped me to make numerous
improvements to the book. These reviewers are: Michael J. Booker, Jefferson College;
Michael Boring, University of Colorado, Denver; Michael J. Cundall, Jr., Arkansas State
University; Hye-Kyung Kim, University of Wisconsin, Green Bay; Joseph Michael Pergola,
Lewis-Clark State College; Robert Reuter, Saint Joseph’s College; Alan Schwerin, Monmouth University.
I am particularly grateful to both my current and former colleagues for sharing their
expertise with me. Michael Lynch answered numerous questions on epistemology, Robert
Westmoreland on ethics and political philosophy, and Neil Manson on contemporary
design arguments. I have also had helpful conversations on philosophy of mind with Robert Barnard, on Greek philosophy with Steven Skultety, and on religion with Laurie Cozad,
Willa Johnson, and Mary Thurkill. My former student, Richard Howe, suggested helpful
improvements to chapter 4. My thanks to Ken Sufka for his course on brain science and
many hours of stimulating conversations and debates. I am particularly grateful to my dean,
Glenn Hopkins, who provided summer support for this and other projects. Finally, I want
to thank all my Mississippi Governor’s School students who interacted with me during the
summers of 1987 to 2005 and who were the first to test out many of the exercises in this
I have been fortunate to work with one of the best editorial teams in the business. Ken
King, my first editor, immediately grasped my vision for this book and energetically made
it a reality. Jon-David Hague worked on the second and third editions, and Mark Georgiev
helped me bring out both the fourth and this edition. I also appreciate the skillful work of
Meghan Campbell, managing editor, and Anne Prucha, the project manager.
Whether you are a student or a teacher, I hope that you will enjoy interacting with my
book as much as I enjoyed writing it. I would be glad to hear about your experiences with
the book and its exercises as well as any suggestions you have for future improvements. You
may write to me at Department of Philosophy and Religion, University of Mississippi,
University, MS, 38677 or e-mail me at
William F. Lawhead
Law35877_fm_i-x.indd vi
10/22/10 3:52 PM
Introduction To The Philosophical Journey
Purchase answer to see full

Basic features
  • Free title page and bibliography
  • Unlimited revisions
  • Plagiarism-free guarantee
  • Money-back guarantee
  • 24/7 support
On-demand options
  • Writer’s samples
  • Part-by-part delivery
  • Overnight delivery
  • Copies of used sources
  • Expert Proofreading
Paper format
  • 275 words per page
  • 12 pt Arial/Times New Roman
  • Double line spacing
  • Any citation style (APA, MLA, Chicago/Turabian, Harvard)

Our guarantees

Delivering a high-quality product at a reasonable price is not enough anymore.
That’s why we have developed 5 beneficial guarantees that will make your experience with our service enjoyable, easy, and safe.

Money-back guarantee

You have to be 100% sure of the quality of your product to give a money-back guarantee. This describes us perfectly. Make sure that this guarantee is totally transparent.

Read more

Zero-plagiarism guarantee

Each paper is composed from scratch, according to your instructions. It is then checked by our plagiarism-detection software. There is no gap where plagiarism could squeeze in.

Read more

Free-revision policy

Thanks to our free revisions, there is no way for you to be unsatisfied. We will work on your paper until you are completely happy with the result.

Read more

Privacy policy

Your email is safe, as we store it according to international data protection rules. Your bank details are secure, as we use only reliable payment systems.

Read more

Fair-cooperation guarantee

By sending us your money, you buy the service we provide. Check out our terms and conditions if you prefer business talks to be laid out in official language.

Read more