Metaphysics Exam
Metaphysics is, at its core, the study of reality. It is ironic then that there is nothing farther from reality than the charades that go on in our classroom. People wax philosophical about topics that they know nothing about, if only because they know that by speaking often, they are likely to raise their participation grade. People pretend to read books and offer comments on them, while they no doubt were out partying the night before (and not at a book fair, I am tempted to add.) In their journals, students like to write about whatever topics they think will please you, once again secure in their knowledge that this will lead to easy grades. In short, most of our schooling is nothing more than deceiving the right people into thinking that we know the right stuff. There isn’t anything necessarily wrong with this, I suppose. The problem comes when you give an assignment like this one, wherein we are forced to truly evaluate our performance. I suspect this is what prompted your “tears on computer” comment. Normally, when you call somebody’s bluff (as this essay does), they will lose control. I am far from normal, however, and as such have decided to take an entirely different approach with this paper. Rather than say any one particular grade that I should receive for the metaphysics unit, I have decided to prove two points which show the illegitimacy of your very prompt. First, it really doesn’t matter what grade you give me on this paper, and I can defend this using metaphysical proofs. Second, you aren’t a deity, and as such you aren’t truly capable of selecting a grade for me (although if you ARE a god, I apologize, and respectfully suggest a change of vocation.)
Aristotle said that ideas can’t be formed through sensation. This alone will prevent you from truthfully determining my grade. Ordinarily, you would do this through watching me in class, hearing my comments, reading my journal, etc. But aren’t these things nothing more than sensations? Furthermore, according to Aristotle, something need not be sensed in order to exist. Perhaps there is a whole different layer to my thinking (emphasis on “perhaps”) that you are not able to see, because there are not sufficient avenues of communication between us. My thoughts exist, but they aren’t sensed by you and don’t find themselves evaluated as part of my grade, thus making the grade less valid. As an example, there are times I won’t raise my hand during a class discussion because I feel that the conversation is bordering on the absurd and I don’t wish to be a party to it. Should that then lower my grade? Aristotle had another reason for saying that reality is more than what meets the eye, and it was that sense can’t lead to fact, so you can’t use it to build rules. Once again, your false impression of my abilities leaves you unable to arrive at a true conclusion, and it is lamentable that you are forced to even try.
John Locke felt that ideas of relationship were one of the classes of complex ideas, one without any further irreducible elements. Due to its highly subjective nature, there is nothing more “irreducible” than the grade I will receive for the metaphysics unit. In this case, the relationship is between myself and other students, of this year or of years past. Perhaps subconsciously, you will evaluate my abilities within the framework of theirs. If I were in a class that were somewhat less talkative, I, with my very same frequency of comments, would appear downright loquacious. Should the scheduling gods then be the ones who determine my philosophy grade? This is not to say, however, that I am any more capable of grading Marc than you are. Without a basis for comparison, any attempt I make at grading myself will be nothing but a shot in the dark.
Immanuel Kant said that there is a duality of human nature. Specifically, we need rules of behavior, but since we have reason we can act according to our own perception of rules. Let’s look at these two conflicting points separately. We have behavioral rules in our classroom, of course, and our academic requirements could even be considered rules of their own. We need these requirements (such as the paper that explains this assignment) in order to know how to operate. Anyone who is taking Honors Philosophy clearly has well-developed reasoning abilities and has probably learned to bend (or implode) the rules, according to her perceptions, in order to meet her own goals. This doesn’t bode well for determining a true grade. I don’t believe that a person should be blamed (via their report card) for not doing something that they have seen does not really need to be done. The greatest example, to be perfectly honest, is the reading of The Republic. I dutifully read book one, with the greatest intentions of continuing to read the rest of the required parts. After the first day of discussion, however, I quickly perceived that your skillfully-delivered backgrounds to the questions would give me more than enough information to participate in the class discussion. Reading the book simply wasn’t necessary, and I’m sure that the majority of the class came to this realization as well. Because of this dual nature of humans, I am conflicted. While reading the book certainly was assumed to be a part of the coursework, it is never specifically noted in the grades that we receive. Even by admitting this to you, do I leave myself open to a lowered score because I took advantage of a good situation?
Another Kantian belief was that morality should not be judged by outcome, as we can only control our individual will. Let us say that morality in our case is my learning during the unit; thus, my learning cannot be judged by the outcome (whatever arbitrary grade you might come up with.) No matter how you feel, what more could I possibly do? I came to class every day, paid attention, took notes, spoke where appropriate, gave thought to what you told us to, and presented an overview of Greek metaphysics. I controlled what I could. If our perceptions of my grade don’t match (perhaps for one of the reasons given in previous paragraphs), my grade will be lowered and I essentially will be judged on the outcome of actions that are beyond my jurisdiction.
According to B.F. Skinner, a person is a bundle of behaviors controlled by their environment. In order to change somebody’s behavior, you must change his or her surroundings, perhaps through a process such as operant conditioning. Working under the assumption that the underlying goal of education is to change people from random and unorganized to directed and focused, it would appear that some sort of operant conditioning is needed. Your grading of this paper acts as just that. Unfortunately, this can backfire. Besides being impossible for you to give me an accurate grade, I propose that it would be injurious for you to do so. Suppose you gave me a 100. While I would be more than satisfied, you would really be doing me a disservice, as perfection (with which I am quite familiar) tends to breed contempt, and, in this case, laziness. My grade in the next marking period would likely suffer, because I would become complacent and satisfied. On the other hand, if you gave me a 50 (thinking that this would spur me on to greater accomplishments in the future), it is more likely, knowing my own character, that I would become spiteful and would stop working in your class altogether. Similarly, I could make equal cases for any grade between the two, where any final decision on my educational worth would ultimately prove futile.
Hegel believed in two types of history: original and reflective, written during and after a period, respectively. Original history is usually more factual and critical, whereas reflective history has been given the necessary time to be re-shaped and re-sorted as necessary. I make the analogy between history and my grade. Original history is something far more objective and less dependent on interpretation, like a math test. Reflective history, which you happen to practice by trade, is what this class is all about. When determining my grade, you reflect on what I have done in my history. Unfortunately, this view can change depending on your mood or one of any other factors that change on an hour-by-hour basis. Reflective history is an impractical and biased way to look at something, and further serves to prove that choosing a metaphysics grade based on the few pieces of evidence available to you is a fruitless endeavor.
According to the Trilemma Argument, if two of three arguments contradict, the third choice must be right. The “Three L” argument regarding the true nature of Jesus is the most widely known example of this. In order to illustrate (literally) my point further, I have created the following Trilemma Argument case:
Now let’s pretend that I, even after trying hard, don’t do well in class. That means I’m stupid, a contradiction in itself. If I don’t do well in class AND I don’t try hard, it means I’m a slacker. I spend too much time after school for that to be true. Since two of the three options have been eliminated, that must mean I’m smart, and you MUST agree with me. If you don’t, however, you are only further showing the inadequacy of trying to grade me for my metaphysics knowledge.
When it comes right down to it, I am much like Thoreau, as far as being against the artificial morality (and scholarship) of society. I do the best that I can in each class, and try to adapt what I learn to what I am actually going through in my life, but often the way in which teachers grade their students does not recognize this fact. Because of this, it really doesn’t matter what grade you give me. I will have gained the same amount of knowledge. This “after the fact” recognition serves me very little. Although I find it hard to argue against the idea of giving grades, the highly subjective nature of this class must make it difficult for you to arrive at any definitive conclusion. For this reason, I humbly recommend that you follow the path of least resistance and give me a “B.”
EPILOGUE
The very fact that I chose to answer your question in the way I have chosen, and have used metaphysical proofs to back it up, serves to show that I “have a working knowledge of the field.” Even during the course of dismantling your question, I have given various clues as to why I deserve the grade I am giving myself (I have done this as a back-up against your notoriously fickle nature. Sir.) I specifically shied away from using Plato, the most “obvious” philosopher, in my arguments because I wanted to show that I had paid rapt attention to the presentations, which my body language sometimes tends to conceal. I fully understand that you may make the case that my saying you can’t grade me doesn’t truly fulfill the assignment. I most enthusiastically disagree.