Week 3 Discussion Post:
Part I: Q&A Discussion
Part I: Q&A Discussions: You will be asked to come up with an original question based on the work of the philosophers you are studying in each week’s required readings. Think about what stood out to you in the works in question—what ideas, theories, or approaches did you find to be interesting, engaging, or perhaps intriguing or challenging? (See the list of discussion topics for the specific authors or works you may select from in framing your questions.)
Your task is then to do your best to answer your own question as incisively and thoroughly as possible in a brief essay of around 250 words (posts with fewer than 150 words will not receive any credit). The word count includes your question but not any citations. You must cite at least one source, which will be the particular essay or article from the required readings you are addressing. You are welcome to include as many other sources in your Q&A thread as you may need, but this is optional. Just be sure to cite any source from which you take ideas, arguments, or passages of language within the body of your response, including AI writing aids such as ChatGPT and Gemini. Include the citation next to the quoted or paraphrased passages of text and include the full source citation information at the end of your response (you need not do separate works cited or list of references for this assignment). Your score for this part of the assignment will be based on the relevance, sophistication, and originality of your questions, as well as the insight, understanding, and incisiveness expressed in your answers.
—————————————————————————————————————————–
https://pressbooks.online.ucf.edu/introductiontophilosophy/. (text book)
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 on from each topic area for your two Q&A discussions:
I) Q&A: Ask and answer two original questions based on the Week 3 readings; address the writings, ideas, and theories of one philosopher from each of the topic groups below for a total of two Q&A discussions. 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.
Choose one from each topic area for your two Q&A discussions:
Topic 1: “Human Morality”: Immanuel Kant, John Stuart Mill
Topic 2: “Human Existence”: Aristotle, Jean-Paul Sartre
(Please post both Q&A’s in the same thread.)
II) Critical 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.
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 in each topic discussion, which should be the particular excerpt, article, or essay from the recommended readings for this topic around which you are centering your Q&A discussion. 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: Human Morality
I) Q&A: The first topic for the Week Three discussion is the Human Nature. 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.
Compose and answer an original question based on the Week Three required readings. Your question should address the writings, ideas, and theories of one of the following philosophers:
Immanuel Kant
John Stuart Mill
To complete this discussion topic, please start a new thread to post your Q&A in the following format:
My first Week Three discussion question is:
My answer to this question is:
Topic 2: Human Existence
I) Q&A: The second topic for the Week Three discussion is Human Existence. 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.
Compose and answer an original question based on the Week Three required readings. Your question should address the writings, ideas, and theories of one of the following philosophers:
Aristotle
Jean-Paul Sartre
To complete this discussion topic, please start a new thread to post your Q&A in the following format:
My second Week Three discussion question is:
My answer to this question is:
*all required readings are above* *power points from class are attached here as well*
Chapter readings : Informal Course Textbook*: Van Cleave, Matthew, et al. Introduction to Philosophy. Chapter 4 and 5. [Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, except where otherwise noted, https://pressbooks.online.ucf.edu/introductiontophilosophy/.
*We will use an open-source introductory philosophy textbook that takes a contemporary look at the philosophical questions and problems we address in this course, putting the original philosophical readings into a relatable context. Note: You will not be tested on the contents of this text specifically (hence, “informal” textbook). The chapters in this text will assist your navigation of the original philosophical works and invite your personal perspectives and current understanding of the philosophical issues under examination.
Aristotle, The Nicomachean Ethics, Book I, Chapters 5-7, pp.15-21; Book II, Chapters 1-8, pp. 34-49.
Study Guide: “Aristotle on Happiness”, retrieved from http://www.pursuit-of-happiness.org/history-of-happiness/aristotle/
Kant, Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals, Chapter 2, pp. 14-41.
Study Guide:”A Priori Truths”: You may find the information here helpful in arriving at a deeper understanding of Kant’s ideas.
Mill, Utilitarianism, Chapter 2, pp. 4-18.
Sartre,“Existentialism Is a Humanism” (entire), pp. 1-18.
Study Guide: Summary of Sartre’s Terminology
For more about Sartre’s concept of “bad faith,” read this chapter from Jean-Paul Sartre: Basic Writings, Ed. Stephen Priest: Sartre on Bad Faith
Russell, The Problems of Philosophy: Chapters IX-XII [ Russell, Bertrand.The Problems of Philosophy, pp. 48-67]. The entire work can be found online here: Bertrand Russell, The Problems of Philosophy.
Study Guide: SparkNotes on Russell’s Problems of Philosophy: Chapter IX; Chapter X; Chapter XI; Chapter XII.
For a basic overview and more recent discussion of the philosophical ideas, problems, and issues for argumentation, see Van Cleave, Jurczak, Schneck, & Sjoquist, Introduction to Philosophy [Licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License].
For general research on any philosophical topic, theme, or major philosopher, here are two excellent online sources:
