Phi 110
Fall 2015
(Site navigation is not working.)
Phi 110 F15
Requirements: second paper (default due date: Thurs. 10/22)

Write an essay (of roughly 1200-1500 words) on a topic arising from one of the texts since Plato. Although this a little longer than your first paper, I’m asking for a similar format except that I ask in addition that you explicitly discuss the relative strength of the two views you consider. That is, your essay should include

an exposition of one aspect of the views of someone you’ve read since Plato

a possible objection to these views

a reply to this objection, and

your evaluation of the relative strength of the two sides.

As in the first paper, the views mentioned in the first element should appear in a short passage or of a few related brief passages. Each of the next two elements could also take the form of an exposition of something in your reading but might be something you to add to what you have read. Be sure that you make the final element, the evaluation of the two sides, a significant part of the paper: it should definitely be more than a brief closing comment.

The point of this last component is to get you to step back from the debate to indicate your sense of the strengths of each side. That may be harder to do if you find yourself on one of the two sides. If you support the original views and the reply to the objection, you should think what is the weakest (or least strong) aspect of this reply. It might help to do this if you imagine how an opponent could best respond to it. On the other hand, if you support the objection, you could respond to the reply yourself, adding a discussion of how confident you feel about this response. In either case, you should do your best to show that you see how the dispute might look from the other side.

My advice on finding a topic remains the same. Think back to ideas or issues that you found in the reading, or that came up in discussion about the reading, that were interesting and that you would like to think about further. And be careful to keep the topic you choose fairly narrow since this is still a fairly short paper and your should aim at depth of thought and clarity of writing rather than breadth of coverage.

Also be careful in your exposition of something someone has written to think through what is said and design an account of it to suit the topic you are addressing and the space you have available. An attempt to merely follow the order of the text you are discussing (either by paraphrase or summary) will rarely work well.

As before, while I’d be happy to accept your assignment on paper, it is more convenient for me to receive work electronically; and, since I haven’t set up the course Canvas site for assignments, that means using e-mail—my address is helmang@wabash.edu.