These are intended less as direct essay-prompts and more as ways of getting you to think of how to produce your own topic. Of course, you can still just choose to answer any of the questions as they stand, or feel free to add to them. What I am looking for is a coherent argument; a clear presentation of a position or set of positions in Plato, along with a critical assessment of their credibility and effectiveness. Essays should be roughly 4-6 double spaced pages in length (1000-1500 words). Please submit as an attachment to an email message, preferably in Word so that I can attach comments. A useful and generally reliable online resource is the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy.
1. Why does Socrates insist on the importance of definition? Is he right to suppose that one must be able to define anything in order to be able to investigate any of its properties? How does his attitude towards definition change with Plato’s own philosophical development through the dialogues?
2. What for Plato is the difference between knowledge and ‘mere’ true belief? How does the distinction function in regard to Socratic intellectualism (the idea that correct moral action is simply a matter of knowledge of what it is right to do)? Are the views on the relationship between the two expressed in Republic V compatible with the earlier accounts?
3. Can anyone ever knowingly act wrongly? Or against their best interests? What is the proper analysis of weakness of the will? How does Plato’s development of tripartition theory in Republic IV affect his account?
4. What are Plato’s arguments for the immortality of the soul? How compelling are they? If they aren’t sufficient to show that the soul is immortal, what (if anything) do they show?
5. Does Socrates succeed in answering Glaucon’s challenge at the beginning of Republic Book 2? How does he try to construct an argument to show that it is in the interests of the just person to be just, no matter what the consequences?
6. What are Plato’s Forms supposed to do? What indeed are they? How does he seek to argue for their existence?
Very Basic Advice for writing Philosophy Papers and Exams.
My exams as you know consist of short essay answers. For a short essay answering a question of the sort I set, you first need to consider all parts of the question, and how they relate to each other. One very common shortcoming is that people only address one part of it. Then you need lay out clearly and concisely the philosophical position or positions you’ve been asked to discuss, preferably with reference to actual sections of text. Then you need to critically assess it. This will involve asking (and answering) questions like (although not necessarily limited to) the following: What are the arguments or considerations adduced in support of the position? Do they in fact adequately support it? How might one object to any of the considerations (e.g. are the premises of the argument false, or at least unconvincing)? How, if at all, might one improve or repair the argument? Even if the argument doesn’t establish what the author takes it to establish, does it do any other useful work?
A paper is simply an extended essay – so you should go into more detail and explore the issues more thoroughly. I allow a lot of latitude in paper topics, but you should think in these general terms. A fruitful strategy is often to take the ‘compare and contrast’ approach in the case of two different authors’ approaches to an issue, and sometimes also one and the same author’s approaches at different times. It’s also perfectly OK to compare with other philosophers, and indeed with your own views (provided that they are argued for, and not simply asserted).
In general, people often manage the exposition part pretty well, but fall short on the criticism and analysis. The latter is an essential component of a really good answer a philosophical test question.
I hope this is of some help.
