Each week, you are asked to engage in an interactive discussion forum that involves two types of tasks: argumentative discussions and peer critiques.
For the first part, ask and answer two original questions that center around each week’s content. The quality* of the questions you ask here is all-important for a successful handling of this discussion assignment.
The second part of the assignment asks you to post two peer critiques (total) in reply to your classmates’ Q&A discussions. Consider your peers’ two Q&A discussions as a single post, but focus your critique on just one Q&A from each of the two peer authors you review.
Part I: Q&A Discussion (two each week)
Part II: Peer Critique (two each week)
*Here are the characteristics of a high-quality question in this context:
A good question is:
Original: It avoids tired or trite questions and surface-level inquiries. It pushes beyond the surface of the issue or area of inquiry and finds unique and interesting angles to issues.
Focused: Clear aim toward a philosophically significant knowledge claim; no ambiguity and discourages “easy way out” “both-sides” answers (the “middle-grounders” who like to straddle the fence rather than taking a stand).
Rich: Don’t skim the surface. Unpack the complexities, challenge assumptions, and explore the intricacies.
Thought-provoking: Spark debate, encourage diverse perspectives and leave room for further exploration.
Choose one from each topic area for your two Q&A discussions:
I) Q&A: Ask and answer two original questions that mention or refer to required reading assignments. Address the writings, ideas, and theories of the philosophers and philosophical questions covered each week in your questions, citing and centering on a different philosopher in each of your two Q&As). As noted in the forum guidelines, the quality of the questions you decide to ask here is all-important for a successful handling of this discussion assignment. (Please post both Q&A’s in the same thread.)
II) Critical [Peer] Comments: For the second part of this discussion, find two peer Q&A discussions that you would like to address and reply to each with a peer critique: this should be an analysis and evaluation of the peer author’s account of the issue they identify, focusing on any argumentation or explanatory analyses they present in support of a particular position on the issue in question. Be sure to name and acknowledge your peer as the author or owner of the argument in the Q&A discussion you critique (the good and the bad, the weak as well as the strong elements of their reasoning and presentation).
No special format is required for your critical comments. Please take the time to review these helpful guidelines: Writing a Critique of Another Person’s Argument. Remember that your goal here is not simply to agree or disagree with the peer author’s answer to their question, nor is it your main task to share thoughts that the author’s post brings to mind from your own experience or reaction to the reading materials (although such comments may be part of your critique); what you should be attempting here is an analysis and evaluation of the entire Q&A discussion.
Did the peer author clearly identify an important issue related to the topic under discussion?
Did they state and defend their own position on the issue?
Did they identify an important philosophical problem and describe a particular way of understanding and solving it?
Did they do an analysis of a particular philosopher’s approach to a philosophical topic or issue and compare or contrast it with alternative approaches?
Was their attempt at analysis or argumentation successful? Or did it fall short in some way?
Were crucial components of the question left unanswered? Was supporting evidence relevant, credible, and complete?
Did the discussion overall provide a satisfactory answer or solution to an interesting or important philosophical question or problem?
Most students find it very challenging to critically evaluate either their own work or that of their peers, so you may find this to be the most difficult part of this assignment. But don’t neglect or minimize the importance of this exercise in critical thinking!
Word count requirements for each Q&A are loosely set at a minimum of 250 words for a total minimum word of 500 words; a Q&A post of fewer than 150 words will receive no credit. Peer Critiques should be around 100-150 words each; any critique of fewer than 70 words will receive no credit.
Also, you must cite at least ONE source from the course readings in each topic discussion, the particular excerpt, article, or essay from each week’s required readings. You are welcome to bring in as many other sources as you may need, but this is optional. The overall goal of both parts of this assignment is to ignite a genuine philosophical discussion that both interests and challenges you.
Topic 1: Ancient Greece: The Philosophy of Plato and Socrates
I) Q&A: The first topic for the Week 1 discussion is the philosophy of Plato and Socrates. The word-count requirement for each Q&A is loosely set at a minimum of 250 words; however, a Q&A post of fewer than 150 words will receive no credit.
To complete this discussion topic, please start a new thread to post your Topic 1 Q&A in the following format:
My Week 1 Topic 1 discussion question is:
My answer to this question is:
You2 minutes ago
Topic 2: Rationalism & the Philosophy of Descartes
I) Q&A: The second topic for the Week 1 discussion is the philosophy of Descartes [Meditations I & II]. The word-count requirement for each Q&A is loosely set at a minimum of 250 words; however, a Q&A post of fewer than 150 words will receive no credit.
To complete this discussion topic, please remain in the same thread your started for Week 1 Q&A and post your Topic 2 Q&A in the same format:
My Week 1 Topic 2 discussion question is:
My answer to this question is:
II) Critical Comments: Find a Q&A post that you would like to critique. Remember that you are asked to analyze & evaluate the peer author’s Q&A, which goes beyond simply registering comments of approval, agreement, or disagreement. Critiques should be around 100-150 words; any critique of fewer than 70 words will receive no credit.
