Nature Wars: Philosophy 310/History 490

Review Paper for Consilience

RETURN TO SYLLABUS

 

Due October 30th, Thursday, in class.  Late papers will be dropped two letter grades – that is a MAXIMUM grade of a C for an “A” paper. Papers should be a minimum of 3 full typed pages. 

 

The assignment will be graded on the quality of your argument and ideas, but even the best ideas can be difficult to appreciate when hidden in poorly composed prose.  Please make sure that you proofread your paper carefully for errors and clarity – failure to do so will lower your grade.  Specific textual references are needed in making a strong analysis.  Avoid generalizations. 

 

Frisch and Wilson both offer a strong critique of the intellectual basis of the twentieth century West.

 

Frisch has outlined in his “report” the failure of human knowledge and thus of western, scientific civilization to master its world, as well as the corollary perils of hubris.  E.O. Wilson (as seen particularly in his last chapter, but also in chapter two) believes that humanity faces a series of crises, whether in dealing with genetic manipulation or the many environmental catastrophes that await us in the twenty-first century.  Wilson argues that these are crises that our existing fragmented systems of knowledge cannot solve and for which we (as a whole) are singularly unprepared.  At points, their descriptions of the problems of modern society are quite close. Compare, for instance, Frisch’s Homo faber and Wilson’s Homo proteus, or their respective descriptions of the “cosmeticization” of life and “exemptionalists.”

 

While they agree that there is a problem, and at times even appear to agree on what that problem is, they do not agree on what to do.

 

For this paper, I would like for you to consider the differences between Frisch’s and Wilson’s sense of the appropriate response to the mess we’ve (the modern world) gotten ourselves into. 

 

Specifically, I would like for you to describe (for two full pages, if you write three) how Wilson would argue for the need for hope and consilience to Frisch.  Several passages in Consilience might help you in getting a start – Wilson’s response to the critics of the enlightenment in chapter 3, his description of Natural Science in chapter 4, his call for hope in light of the skepticism about holism in chapter 5, or his call to action in chapter 12. The remaining third of your paper can be your analysis of Wilson’s position – you might detail what you think Frisch’s response to Wilson would be, for instance.  At the end of Homo Faber, can you imagine Frisch’s humbled, sick, and (perhaps) dying character agreeing with Wilson’s call for consilience and hope?  [You’ll notice that I want you to be quite sure to spend some time detailing Wilson’s perspective – don’t just jump straight to analysis/critique, before showing me that you know what you’re analyzing!]

 

As with any assignment for this class, please feel free to talk with me about this assignment, to ask questions, or try out ideas before writing the paper. I’m available both during office hours, and at other times as well if you make an appointment.