The Essays
Nameer’s piece considers the following question: What needs to be the case in order for metaphysics to be possible? Nameer identifies two collections of conditions, one on the nature of mind, and the other on the nature of reality itself, which he then argues must be met in order for the world to be intelligible to minds like ours. Mike Miller, the director of undergraduate studies, noted that the committee was exceedingly impressed with the sophistication of the view elaborated in the paper and the subtlety of the argumentation offered in its favor.
DeKock’s “Do External Goods Contribute to Eudaimonia?” identifies a tension in Aristotle’s account of well-being, or eudaimonia. In particular, the author argues that the role that Aristotle attributes to external goods in completing eudaimonia is problematic. Instead, he advocates for the Stoic view, which DeKock argues avoids the problematic dependence on external goods. The committee admired the ambitiousness of DeKock’s project and the promise it demonstrated.
Honorable mentions for the Hypatia Award went to essays by Feiyang Andrew Xu (“The Role of Consciousness in Free Will”) and Chi Zhang (“Skepticism and Dogmatism of Induction”). For the Spinoza Award, honorable mentions went to David Meng (“Conscientious Objection and the Ethics of Refusing Care”) and Benjamin Carr (“Nomological Danglers: A Critical Evaluation of J. J. C. Smart’s Identity Theory”).
The Competition
Miller described the general quality of the submitted essays as good, noting that many were “ambitious” and “creative.”
The Undergraduate Essay Awards in the Department of Philosophy were inaugurated last year thanks to the generous funding provided by Anita Angelini, who made the donation (and another that supports the annual Aristotle Contest, a high school philosophy writing competition) in part in memory of her late husband, Filippo. He cultivated a lifelong love of ideas and “spirit of inquiry” in their Calgary home, which the pair also passed down to their son, Luc. After pursuing a bachelor’s Honours degree in Philosophy at the University of British Colombia, Luc Angelini is now in the middle of his master’s at Oxford’s St. Cross College, with an eye to a PhD later, and/or maybe law school. His enthusiasm and training made him an excellent member of the adjudicating committees for both prizes. Not only did the occasion leave him “impressed and delighted by great writers and clearly talented students who appreciated philosophy as much as I did as an undergrad” but also “rather hopeful” about the discipline’s future, something he had sometimes worried about before.
To learn a bit more about the two winning essayists, we asked each of them a few questions below.
Zifan Nameer
Why did you choose this particular essay for the competition and which parts you are proudest of/found most challenging?
I chose this essay because it felt like the culmination of my undergraduate development, and it was my first try at doing systematic philosophy. The most challenging part was that there was virtually no contemporary literature on “how is metaphysics metaphysically possible”; beyond Professor [Nick] Stang’s work and what I could extract from primary texts of Aristotle, Kant, etc., a lot of time was spent just staring at a blank page and simply trying to think. The further challenge was showing that there is even a real, unaddressed question to be asked that’s worth answering. Although still “rhapsodic,” what I’m most proud of is the general structure I gave to the question and the consequent conditions I developed. Getting to ask, “what is the light of metaphysics?” in the paper was also one of the highlights.
What does it mean to you to have been awarded the essay prize?
I genuinely didn’t expect the paper to stand out at all, so it’s incredibly reassuring that the professors here thought highly of it, especially given the excellent work that I know my peers produce. It was also deeply affirming to see the hard work pay off.
Any writing/time-management tips you have for fellow student philosophy writers?
Beyond the usual advice (start early, ask questions, etc.), you need to find a system that fits your work style, which takes some experimentation. What surprisingly worked for me was waking up super early, setting strict daily writing quotas, and constantly outlining and revising. Most importantly, just start writing. Begin with a minimal outline and let it evolve as you write. For time management, strictly schedule distraction-free working hours around your classes and other responsibilities. Of course, do prioritize sleep, nutrition, and overall health. Aside from keeping you sane, it will do wonders for the quality of your work.
What else do you enjoy beyond philosophy, both academically and outside of school?
Academically, only philosophy has my heart. Outside of school, I try to balance the deep philosophical work with completely opposite activities that let me turn my mind off: some casual powerlifting, gaming, watching stupid TV shows, and, recently, going to concerts.
Why did you choose Philosophy as part of your degree program?
I’ve been gripped by philosophical questions since I was 12, but it wasn’t until Grade 12 that I realized the kinds of questions I kept returning to were actually part of a discipline called philosophy. After enrolling at U of T, and especially after taking PHL210, I couldn’t consider pursuing anything else. The amazing faculty here also played an enormous role.
What are you most excited about in philosophy at the moment?
There’s been a lot of recent work on arguments from persistent deep disagreement and the lack of convergence or accepted methods in philosophy, which together generate a kind of skepticism about the very possibility of philosophy. The worry is that philosophy can’t successfully do what one, or at least what I as a first-year undergrad, thought I was setting out to do when I chose this field. What excites me most is whether, and how, that problem in its most general form can be solved, and I’m increasingly convinced that the resources for doing so lie in the post-Kantian German idealists.
Matthew DeKock
Why did you choose this particular essay for the competition and which parts you are proudest of/found most challenging?
The reason I chose this essay in particular is because it is the one where I enjoyed the process of writing the most. Reading Aristotle and Cicero (as well as the secondary literature concerning external goods) was fascinating, and I came away feeling like I had something to add to the discussion between the two authors–that being a critique of Aristotle’s position on the matter. The thing I am proudest of regarding this essay was that I learned a little bit of Greek to try and read the relevant parts of the original Nicomachean Ethics so I could better distinguish between Eudaimonia and makariotes. It was very rewarding to do so, probably because the most challenging part of this essay was fully putting together the distinction between Aristotle’s use of the two terms.
What does it mean to you to have been awarded the essay prize?
I’m honestly amazed I won, and it’s a huge confidence booster in my writing for sure. It also feels like a sign that the work I have been putting into my degree is beginning to pay off and that I’m on track to my goals of going to graduate school for philosophy and eventually becoming an academic.
Any writing/time-management tips you have for fellow student philosophy writers?
I personally find that the most difficult part of writing philosophy is the research for it. Reading dense texts can be difficult, and I find it easiest just to set a block of time aside, set an alarm (maybe half an hour later), and take a break when it goes off. It’s better to read a little on a regular schedule than really struggle to read a lot and let it burn you out for days. Also, one thing I do that most of my friends don’t is preparatory readings for classes. Just the entry in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy or one of the A Very Short Intro to ___ books can make course flow and learning so much smoother, because you already have an introduction to the topic at hand.
What else do you enjoy beyond philosophy, both academically and outside of school?
Outside of philosophy I play the violin, play baseball, and read a lot of fantasy books. During the term I find it difficult to keep most of those up, but I take the chances I can get! Sports and working out especially are nice things to do to take your mind off the abstract thought that goes into philosophy and do something more grounded. I also like to meditate a lot; it helps a ton with the stress associated with being a U of T student. As for what I do outside of philosophy academically, I am a philosophy specialist, so I don’t really take many classes that aren’t in philosophy–the electives I take also tend to be philosophy- (or sometimes literature-) related.
Why did you choose Philosophy as part of your degree program?
I showed up to U of T from the United States, completely intent on majoring in Sociology since I had enjoyed a course on it at my high school. I even joined the Sociology Student Union as an executive. I happened to take PHL101Y1 (taught by Professor Jim John, who’s great) as an elective, and by the time the second semester of last year rolled around, I realized I was in the wrong major, and that Philosophy was really what I wanted to do (I decided this when I read Kant for the first time). Taking PHL245H1 with Professor Alex Koo has also been great and definitely affirmed my decision to go into Philosophy.
What are you most excited about in philosophy at the moment?
I managed to get into PHL325H1 (Early Analytic Philosophy) during course enrollment, which as a second-year is great. It’s taught by Cheryl Misak this year, which I am looking forward to, since I had a great time reading her book Cambridge Pragmatism. I’m also excited to read her new book Oxford Pragmatism once I finish reading through the Nicomachean Ethics again. I’m not a pragmatist myself (I tend to think that truth is a sort of correspondence relation between propositions and reality), but I find the enterprise appealing, and I’m glad I get to take a course with her this early in my degree.
SHARE
