I have just asked for my first-ever extension on a paper. I have finals on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday, and the paper is due Wednesday... Oh yeah, and it's a philosophy paper. If anyone wants to help me out, here is the prompt
( Read more... )
Intro: Putnam wrote a book, entitled Reason, Truth, and History. This book has many pages. The pages talk about many things. In chapter three of his book, Putnam defends a middle ground between what he calls Metaphysical Realism and relativism.
Body: Metaphysical realism is not really real. It is really mind-boggling because it seems to be real, but it's really not.
Relativism sounds a lot like the physics term "relativity", but it is not. Unless you wanted it to be, then maybe it could. That is relativism.
Putman makes several strong arguments as to his point, but they are wrong because I said so.
Conclusion: In conclusion, Putnam's view is incorrect even though he makes strong points that can bench quite a bit. Furthermore, because I said so, that makes it even more wrong. I hope you have enjoyed reading my paper and give me my A, byotch!
Thank you for those lovely suggestions, Michelle. It kind of sounds like the lit essay template I came up with in high school... Actually, I think my essay might sound something like that (without the explanations of MR and relativism). But fortunately, my professor granted the extension until Friday (!) and now all I have to worry about for the next few hours is statistics. Which reminds me... is it wise to learn all the material *during* the open-book exam? What the fuck is a two-way ANOVA anyway? One way wasn't good enough? Greedy statistical bastards.
Comments 3
Reply
Putnam wrote a book, entitled Reason, Truth, and History. This book has many pages. The pages talk about many things. In chapter three of his book, Putnam defends a middle ground between what he calls Metaphysical Realism and relativism.
Body:
Metaphysical realism is not really real. It is really mind-boggling because it seems to be real, but it's really not.
Relativism sounds a lot like the physics term "relativity", but it is not. Unless you wanted it to be, then maybe it could. That is relativism.
Putman makes several strong arguments as to his point, but they are wrong because I said so.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, Putnam's view is incorrect even though he makes strong points that can bench quite a bit. Furthermore, because I said so, that makes it even more wrong. I hope you have enjoyed reading my paper and give me my A, byotch!
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment