Topic: In the Symposium, Plato develops an incredibly vivid and intense metaphysical conception of love. Specifically, he connects love to his doctrine of Intelligible Forms, and describes love as eternal, as outside of time: “love is wanting to possess the good forever” (206b). Explain this argument, and state a more “human,” less metaphysical conception of love that could plausibly rival Plato’s.
Write a three-paragraph essay that (a) reconstructs a philosophical argument from one of our readings this semester (see paper topics below), and (b) presents a cogent critique/objection of that argument. In order to complete these objectives, follow the guidelines explained below as precisely as possible.
Paragraph 1: Introduction. After briefly stating the theme or topic of the paper, here you will present a thesis statement that specifies (a) the philosophical argument you will be discussing as well as (b) the critique of that argument you will be making. Your thesis statement shows that your argument makes a consistent overall point. An adequate thesis statement might take the following form: Against philosopher P’s argument that X, I will raise the objection Y. The introduction MUST, receive full credit, including a thesis statement. 10 points.
Paragraph 2: Reconstruction. In this section, you will explain a philosophical argument from one of the paper topics below. Your task is to summarize a philosophical view in your own words while, at the same time, also providing ample textual evidence and citations for your discussion. Thus, while it is essential for success in this section that you provide textual support for your explanation of a philosopher’s view, it is not enough that you simply quote the philosopher. You must also explain the view in your own words, demonstrating your understanding of their position. Here your overall task is to show you understand the philosophical position and that you can explain the reasoning of another philosopher.
Paragraph 3: Objection. Here you will object to the philosopher’s argument. After you’ve shown that you understand what this philosopher is claiming, now it is your turn to present one objection to or critique of that argument. Recall that an objection is either (a) a challenge to the truth of a premise, or (b) a challenge to the overall inference from premises to conclusion. In other words, this is an objection to the philosopher’s reasoning. Your objection must be connected to the argument given by the philosopher as you have previously reconstructed their claims. Here you show you understand how to argue against another point of view. After the second paragraph where you showed you can understand another argument, now you are showing you can effectively argue against someone else. This paragraph should include one well-developed objection. Present a real problem with the philosopher’s argument! What flaws are in their reasoning? In what way is their conclusion not well-supported?. Here you are showing your critical thinking skills. Do not do any additional research for this paper.
