PHILOSOPHY 263.

01 FALL 2020: FIRST PAPER ASSIGNMENT

Office: 203E West Duke Building / Office hours: Immediately after class or by appointment (email or
message me on Saki, and we can set up a Zoom meeting). Email address: d.wong@duke.edu or
dbwong@duke.edu (please take note of these exact addresses—there’s another David Wong at Duke).)
Teaching assistants: Tayfun Gur tayfun.gur@duke.edu, Botian Liu botian.liu@duke.edu.
Message or email them to set up Zoom appointments
A paper of approximately 5-6 double-spaced pages is due Friday Sept 18 (anytime). Please submit your
paper via “Assignments” on Sakai. If you have problems uploading your paper, you email your paper to
d.wong@duke.edu or dbwong@duke.edu (again be sure to use one of these addresses; if you try to pull
my address from the Duke directory, you might get the wrong David Wong). Remember to check the
box indicating your agreement to the honor code, or the paper submission will not go through.
Getting feedback on your developing ideas before the due date. You are encouraged to give me or
Botian or Tayfun notes or drafts by Sept 12 (after that we can’t guarantee feedback) so that we can
help you with the process of writing. You can send me outlines, notes, or drafts to get feedback before
your final version is due.
Acknowledgment of sources and plagiarism: to submit your paper you must indicate that you have
read and agree to the honor code. According to the Duke Community Standard, you commit plagiarism
if you do anything of the following
•Copy from sources without adequate documentation.
•Purchase a pre-written paper (either by mail or electronically).
•Let someone else write a paper for you.
•Pay someone else to write a paper for you.
If you draw from someone else’s published or unpublished work to develop your paper, cite the source
(see below for form of citation). If you are also using that person’s words in part or in whole, you must
use quotation marks or indent longer quoted passages and give the location in the relevant publication.
Presenting all or part of papers written by others as one’s own work is not acceptable and will be treated
as plagiarism. We are not expressing suspicion of any of you. It is our duty to make this clear.
Opportunity for rewrite. After you get your paper back from us with comments and grade, you will
have the option (not mandatory) to rewrite it in response to the comments. You will get a new grade
(unlikely that it will be worse, but not guaranteed to be better). You will have about 10 days to turn in a
rewrite after you receive the original paper back from me.
What your philosophy paper should look like
Introducing the reader to what your paper is about. In the opening paragraph clearly state the
question, issue, or problem you will be addressing, and give a brief preview of what you intend to
say. When drafting your paper, you may want to finish writing the introduction for last, since you
may not know precisely what you are going to say when you start writing your draft. Avoid corny or
“canned” introductions that are not directly about the subject of your paper (such as general
statements about Confucius’ place in the Chinese tradition).
Try to present the view or argument you are discussing as accurately and as sympathetically as
you can. This is even more important if you disagree with the view. That’s because it’s always
tempting to “set up” a view you disagree with by making it out to be more flawed than it really is.
Your key claims as to what the author or text says should be supported by references to the text or
article or chapter. You can either paraphrase or directly quote the relevant passages and indicate the
title of the text and the location of the relevant passage. Here’s an example: in commenting on a man
who accused his own father of stealing a sheep, Confucius said that fathers coverup for their sons and
 2

that sons coverup for their fathers (Analects 13.18). You should be referring to the translations we are
using in class, and if you are working from them, there is no need to give a more detailed citation
such as publisher and place and date of publication. In the case of essays by contemporary
commentators, you can provide references such as the following: Olberding claims that the exemplars
of the Analects “are the origin of its theoretical vision” (Olberding, “Dreaming of the Duke of Zhou:
Exemplarism and the Analects,” p. 626). The first time you refer to a work like this, include the title,
but afterwards, if there is only one item of an author’s you are using, you can just give a parenthetical
reference to the author and the page (Olberding, p. 628). If you use work that has not been assigned,
you can use parenthetical references in the main body of your essay, but also include a more complete
reference at the end of the paper, under the heading “References.” For the form a reference item
should take, consult the Chicago Manual of Style here:
https://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/tools_citationguide/citation-guide-2.html.
Acknowledging controversies in interpreting texts and authors. As we have seen, texts like the
Analects can be interpreted in different ways. So in addition to supporting your interpretation by
citations to the text, you should where relevant acknowledge alternative interpretations to the ones
you give, and defend the interpretive choices you have made (the paper topics below will indicate
where these interpretive controversies lie).
In addition, philosophy papers generally involve critical discussion in which the plausibility of that
point of view is evaluated and you defend your own point of view. We don’t look for “the right
answer." We do look for some depth of thought about why you take the side you have taken.
This requires an awareness that the issue is controversial, i.e., that it is one on which intelligent
people have taken different positions. A critical discussion is not just the expression of agreement or
disagreement, but giving reasons for your conclusion. In other words, do not just say, “I agree with
Jin Li when she says so-and-so.” Say something like, “I agree because . . .” or “for the reason that . .
.” Furthermore, you are more persuasive when you show awareness of why other people might
disagree with you and if you give them a reason to change their minds. Try to anticipate why others
might object to your view and try to give a reason why they should change their minds. In
constructing your critical discussion, you may use ideas from the readings, lectures, class discussion,
forum, or conversations with other students, citing where you got it.
You may find yourself agreeing or disagreeing with a viewpoint you discuss, but another perfectly
legitimate outcome is that you remain uncertain. Important problems, especially philosophical
ones, are too difficult and complex to admit of easy, simple, or non-ambivalent answers. If your
conclusion is that the problem admits of no definitive solution, then you can present the different
points of view that bear on the problem with as much force and cogency as you can and argue that
there is no clear winner. Perhaps your task is to persuade your audience that no easy or simple answer
is possible!
The critical model applies to evaluating possible interpretations of the original texts, especially
where there is controversy over how to interpret the texts. If you want to defend the plausibility
of your interpretation of a text, then you will certainly want to mention passages in the text that
support your interpretation and explain how they support your interpretation. But you might also
identify an alternative interpretation that might possibly be supported by the text and argue for
the greater plausibility of the one you want to defend. Does your interpretation make better sense
of what is said in the text? Does it allow you to better reconcile passages that apparently conflict?
Again, it may be perfectly appropriate to acknowledge that there is no one best interpretation of
difficult passages.
You are not expected you to make totally original arguments, but you will be expected to put
the arguments in your own words and take your own perspective on them. Where there has been
lecture, PowerPoint slides, and discussion in class or in the Sakai forum about the subject, you can
 3

show that you have thought about the points made in these places and taken them into account,
whatever your conclusion turns out to be. The best papers generally go beyond what we have
discussed in class by bringing up some new and relevant issue, by giving substantial argument of
your own for a point of view, by extending a line of reasoning or an objection stated in class, or by
bringing to bear your own experience as it might pertain to a point of view or argument. If the issue
is whether a philosophical view expressed in a text is plausible (such as the view that one should
always coverup for one’s parents), one way to discuss and criticize a view is to identify its
implications in concrete cases. In which cases does it seem to give intuitively plausible or
implausible results?

Writing style.
Good philosophy papers don’t use fancy language for the sake of fancy language. Use the
simplest, most straightforward and precise language to convey quality thinking. By the end of the
paper, your reader should clearly know how you arrived at your conclusions, and hopefully will be
more inclined towards your position. As your paper progresses, the reader should know at any given
point what you’ve done so far and what you intend to do next. You can help the reader by using
phrases such as “I will begin by presenting Olberding’s reasons for holding that. . .” or “Having stated
my understanding of Olberding’s view, I will now give two reasons why I (dis)agree with him” and
“My first reason is that . . . My second reason is that . . .”
Who the audience of your paper is. Don’t write as if the audience is the instructor or teaching
assistant of the course. Write for someone who is like you: intelligent, about your level of education,
but who has not studied the material or topic before.
Giving examples of general or abstract views. It can often be difficult to know what such views
really amount to, or what their concrete implications are. This is why one of the most useful phrases
to be found in a philosophy paper is “For example.” You can also give examples to support your
assessment of other people’s views. When these views have plausible implications, you can give
examples of these implications, and similarly for implausible implications.
Be explicit about when you are stating someone else’s view or your own view. You will be
usually doing both things: interpreting someone else and stating and arguing for your own view. The
reader should be clear on which one of the things you are doing at any given time. If you are
presenting Olberding’s view of how the Analects should be interpreted, make it clear that it is
Olberding’s view you are expressing and not necessarily your own. You can agree or disagree with
her view. Just make it clear when you are doing so.
Be concise but explain the basis of your interpretations and conclusions. It’s a matter of hitting
the right balance. Don’t ramble and repeat yourself, but you need to back up your most important
claims and explain what you mean. 5-6 pages is not that much space. Use it well. Decide what your
main points are and support them fully.
Further research? Sometimes students want to know if further research is accepted or
recommended, beyond the assigned readings. We don’t prohibit you from doing this but don’t
encourage it either. It is better to concentrate on thinking and writing well and clearly based on the
reading assignments, PowerPoint notes, and our forum and class discussions. A lot of times when
students try to incorporate outside research, they have difficulty fully incorporating or explaining the
basis of the author’s point of view, and it makes the paper more problematic.
Process suggestions.
Leave enough time. Start early and do it in stages: sketch out the general ideas and strategies of
argument; perhaps in an outline; write a draft; examine the draft for clarity and organization.
 4

You may benefit from discussion with your classmates or students outside this class besides getting
feedback from us on notes and a draft. Discussion with others outside the class can prompt you to
explain more clearly what you are saying.
Read over your draft at least twice and ask yourself the following questions: Does the paper as a
whole have a logical flow from beginning to end so that the audience can follow you and not get
confused about what you are doing? Are each of the paragraphs organized to convey a main point?
Are the individual sentences clear and plausible? Does this paper give someone who was not already
persuaded of your position some good reasons to consider adopting it?

SUGGESTED TOPICS

If you have in mind a topic of your own choosing, please confer with the instructor at least one week
before the paper is due.

Filiality, obedience and yi.

It is uncontroversial within the Confucian tradition that filiality xiao 孝 involves respect and care
for parents. But there are two questions that are controversial: a) To what extent does filiality
require unconditional obedience to parents? b) To what extent does it involve protecting them
when they have committed a crime? Choose a) or b) (but not both) to discuss for your paper.

a) Discuss the most relevant passages (e.g., 2.5, 4.18, 1.11) in the Analects that bear on the
question of unconditional obedience, and any relevant complications about interpreting or
translating the passages.
In discussing what filiality requires, you will want to consider two different
perspectives on the question: what interpretation of filiality makes most sense of what is said
about it in the Analects (you can consider the possibility that ambiguity creates a “tie” among
a plurality of interpretations); and what interpretation makes the most sense of Confucian
values as a whole, when xiao is interpreted in conjunction with ren 仁 and yi 義, and when
we are considering not just what Confucius in the Analects explicitly says about the question
of xiao and obedience but also how the answer might be affected by the importance of ren
and yi in Confucian ethics. For example, how might the meaning and importance of ren and
yi affect the answer of what it is to serve and care for one’s parents, and whether obeying
them is always to serve and care for them? Does the question of obedience depend in part on
what one’s parents ask a child to do?
Finally articulate and defend your own position on whether one should unconditionally
obey your parents.
b) In 13.18, Confucius rejects the idea that it is upright to accuse your own father of stealing a
sheep, and says that (on one common translation), “Fathers coverup for their sons 父為子隱)
and sons cover up for their fathers ((子為父隱). Uprightness lies therein.”
Those who came later in the Confucian tradition debated the implications and
justifiability of Confucius’ position. Some simply accepted that given the importance of
familial bonds to the cohesion of society, that it is right for fathers and sons to coverup for
each other (see Analects 1.2 for a statement of the foundational importance of family bonds
for social and political bonds generally). Others suggested that family members should care
for each other’s moral well-being most of all (and here ren 仁 and yi 義 as mentioned in a)
above are again relevant), and therefore should address the wrongdoing involved, especially
if it is serious, and not (or not merely) coverup up for the family member. Discuss how these
 5

different points of view might be justified as what is required by filiality, pointing to different
passages in the Analects that could be taken as supporting them.
Finally, explain and defend your own position (i.e., apart from whatever you think the
Analects says): is ever right to turn in a family member for a crime? How might someone
disagree with you? Defend your position. You may wish to consider different kinds of cases,
since your answer might depend on what it is that parents are requiring and what is at stake in
the situation.
Understanding ren 仁 in the Analects through exemplarist epistemology
Why is the nature of ren something of a mystery in the Analects, given the way it is discussed?
Why does Olberding think that attributing an exemplarist epistemology to the Analects helps to
explain why ren is discussed in the way it is? Note that you should explain what an exemplarist
epistemology is and how it contrasts with another way of trying to understand ren that does not
accord so well with the way it is discussed in the text.
Discuss how you understand what ren might be if we take it to be exemplified by
Confucius or Yan Hui (not both, pick one). You can mention some of the passages we discussed
in class and in the notes, but discuss at least two passages that we didn’t discuss in class and
explain how they might illustrate something about ren as exemplified by one of these two men.
Discuss the ways that Zilu or Guan Zhong or Zigong (pick one) might and might not
serve as an exemplar. What lesson do you draw about the method of using exemplars from the
fact that this person might serve both as an example of how not to be and as an example of how to
be? What might this imply about the nature of ren?
Apart from being a way to interpret the Analects, we can consider exemplarist
epistemology as an approach to gaining a better understanding of how we should live our own
lives. What strengths and limitations do you find in this kind of epistemology? Consider how
someone might disagree with you and defend your view.

Why is ritual so important in the Analects? What does it enable us to do?

The centrality of rituals (禮 li) is one of the most distinctive features of Confucian ethics.
Drawing from Sigurosson or Jin Li as much as you find helpful, explain what rituals are and why
they have the centrality they do for Confucians. In the course of your discussion, address the
following questions: Why does Confucius emphasize the necessity of having the right spirit or
attitude in performing ritual? Why is both important to pay attention to the patterns prescribed
for ritual activity prescribed by tradition? Why is it important to acquire your own way of
performing rituals? In answer the above questions, can you use an analogy to some other activity
such as learning to play a musical instrument, dancing or sports activity? Finally address the
question of whether the concept of ritual as having ethical importance has application to
contemporary societies.

Hall and Ames on the Confucian self

How do Hall and Ames argue that a mistaken conception of the Confucian self is assumed by the
stereotype that Confucianism subordinates the self to the group? What is that mistaken
conception? What is the right conception, according to them, and how does that explain why
Confucianism does not subordinate the self to ggroup? How do Hall and Ames deploy the
imagery of focus and field to explain the relationship between individual and group?
Hall and Ames are trying to articulate an elusive conception of the self. What difficulties
might there be in their claim that the self is “constituted” by the field and also in turn constitutes
the field? How does their claim about the constitution of the self create difficulties for their
assertion that the self can be creative? Might these difficulties require revision of Hall and Ames’
 6

conception of the self, or can it be defended as is? Consider the answers that might be given on
these questions and defend your own answers.