Building on the kind of work you did on the midterm essay, this final essay asks you to analyze not a single argument, but to stage a debate. In other words, having tried your hand at rigorously analyzing one position on a particular issue or question, I’m now asking you to consider how two philosophers might engage in a debate on an issue they both address.
As in the midterm, I want you to focus on getting the arguments you’re covering right.
Again, I want you to focus on exegesis: identifying motivations for and significance of a topic, understanding the thesis being offered, and analyzing the argument offered in support of that thesis. For each perspective, I want you to focus on a specific text, rather than trying to summarize the philosopher’s view on the issue across all of their work.
In this assignment I want you to go further, however, by not just offering two different perspectives on a philosophical issue. I want you to offer some sense of reflection on the differing positions.
Some examples of how you might intelligently reflect on an issue where there is a disagreement:
1. What are the similarities in the approaches to the issue? What are the differences? What might be an insightful way to think about these differences and similarities when it comes to thinking about the issue at stake?
2. Are they two schools of thought at least focusing on the same aspects of the issue at stake, or are they focusing on different aspects of an issue in order to make their claims?
3. Do you think it’s possible for a conversation to take place between the two schools of thought, and, if so, what might they have to say to one another?
4. If the focus of each philosopher differs from the other, does one seem more productive to getting to an answer? If so, why?
5. Does the language or terms used by the debating schools seem consistent? If so, what might that tell us about how the ancients dealt with this issue? If not, what might the shift in language signify?
6. Might we understand the disagreement between the two schools/thinkers because of broader differences in their philosophical outlooks on other important issues? If so, how?
7. Is there something that’s missing from both accounts that seems crucial to you? And if so, why do you think it might have been left out?
8. Does one of the sides seem more persuasive to you? If so, how would you articulate this philosophically?
The paper should be written in 12-point Times New Roman font or equivalent (one that has the same dimensions, takes up the same space as TNR), double-spaced, with one inch margins all around. The template offered in our classes is meant to guide you through that process, but I am open to different ways of dissecting and analyzing an argument if you would prefer. The assignment’s ultimate purpose is, again, to assess your engagement with the ideas of the course, as well as your writing skills.
Review of requirements
1. 8-10 double spaced pages in TNR 12-size font with one-inch margins all around.
2. Choice of single claim for each philosopher and its meaning or significance in philosophical text covered.
3. Exegesis of the argument made in favor of said claim, including different ‘steps’, for each text covered.
4. Intelligent reflection on the debate of choice.
5. Adequate use of textual support. (Use quotations to justify your interpretation), and cite them fully and properly.
6. Writing in clear, straightforward English.
Grading Rubric
Format
For full credit: paper follows guidelines laid out in item #1 above exactly. (8 full pages at least, right font, right margins, double-spaced, etc.)
Proper organization
Sequence of ideas is logically ordered and flows naturally, sections and paragraphs are well organized, paper has a strong introduction, a strong conclusion, and a sensible body section.
Clarity
For full credit: paper is written in unburden some language that is clear, concise, and specific. Language helps the reader grasp the philosophical issues in simple and accessible terms. No unnecessary tangents happen.
Choice of Theses
For full credit: student shows understanding of the respective theses, and of their significance and implications for philosophers and everyone else.
Analysis of Argumentative Structures
For full credit: student provides a correct reconstruction of the chain of reasoning that the philosopher offered in support of their claim, or through which the claim becomes evident. In cases where linear arguments are not offered, the coherence of reasons given is explained. Student points out any possible logical flaws in the argumentation.
Reflective Comparison
For full credit: student provides a meaningful response to the debate that they’ve reconstructed. The response demonstrates that they’ve really understood the stakes of the debate and the two positions discussed. It also shows that the student has taken the time to really reflect on these issues in a philosophically sophisticated way.
Use of Textual Support
For full credit: Student uses quotations to support their interpretation of what claim is being made and of how the argument unfolds. Each quotation is properly elaborated and interpreted in a way that advances the interpretation of the philosopher’s main claim and supporting argument. References are properly formatted.
