Write a paper (c. 5 pp. or 1500 words) on one of the topics below. The topics as stated as designed to remind you of parts of Russell’s discussion: don’t assume you must address anything mentioned in a given topic. Indeed, the more narrowly focused your paper is the better.

In evaluating your papers, I will consider both your understanding of Russell and your own thinking regarding the issues his book raises, so be sure to give ample attention to presenting your own thinking. An important aspect of the latter is your success in discussing both sides of any issue you consider.

• Explain one of the arguments Russell offers for the claim that we have immediate sensory experience only of sense data, not of external objects. How might someone object to this argument? Would such an objection be sound?

• Discuss the way Russell argues for the existence of matter and his assessment of the strength of the parts of this argument. Why might someone find this sort of argument unpersuasive (or unnecessary)?

• Consider Russell’s account of our knowledge of the nature of physical objects, either what he thinks we do know or his criticisms of idealist claims to know more than this about the nature of the causes of our sensations.

• What is knowledge of objects by description and how is it related to knowledge by acquaintance according to Russell? Provide your own example of an object Russell would take to be known by description and assess the accuracy of his analysis of this knowledge.

• What role does the principle of induction play in our knowledge (according to Russell), and why does he think we must base our knowledge on such a general principle? Describe a case of knowledge (your own example) where you think Russell would take the principle of induction to be involved and consider an alternative account of this case.

• What does Russell take to be the source of synthetic a priori knowledge? How does his view differ from Kant’s and what is his objection to Kant’s position? With which of the two do you find yourself in closest agreement?

• Discuss Russell’s reasons for distinguishing two sorts of self-evidence. Is the distinction he offers a sound one and does it meet his initial motivation for it? What doubts might someone have about it?

• Compare Russell’s account of false belief with the view that the contents of false beliefs have a kind of reality (i.e., the view he rejects on the middle of p. 125). Which view do you find most adequate and why?

• How does Russell define the limits of philosophy and why does he specify them in this way? How might someone object, how well does philosophy as you see it fit within these limits?

• A topic of your own, cleared with me in advance. Your alternative need not be an entirely different topic; it could be a modification of one of those above. The multiple questions I’ve given in most cases are intended to suggest one way of pursuing a topic and do not represent the only legitimate approach to it.