Introduction to Philosophy - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

javan
introduction to philosophy n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Introduction to Philosophy PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Introduction to Philosophy

play fullscreen
1 / 19
Download Presentation
Introduction to Philosophy
85 Views
Download Presentation

Introduction to Philosophy

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. Introduction to Philosophy Paper

  2. The Paper • Reading: “The Apology.” • Thesis: “The purpose of this paper is to summarize and critically evaluate Socrates’ Horse Trainer Analogy and Unintentional Argument.” • Issue: Do Socrates’ two arguments refute the charge that he is a wrongdoer who corrupts the youth? • Label the 4 sections • Introduction • Summary • Argument • Conclusion • Drafts • Plagiarism

  3. Writing the Introduction • 5 points • 125 words or less. • Content • Thesis • Summary Statement • Position Statement • Argument Statement • Minimal Background

  4. Writing the Summary • 45 points • 350 words+ • Objective: summarize the text • Clearly • Concisely • Accurately • In your own words.

  5. Writing the Summary • Outline • Charges • A doer of evil who corrupts the youth • Does not believe in the gods of the state but has his own divinities • The Corrupter of the Youth • Socrates will prove Meletus is • A doer of evil • Pretending to be earnest • Is eager to bring men to trial • Questioning Meletus • Meletus claims to think a great deal about the youth • Socrates asks Meletus to tell the judges who improves the youth • Every Athenian, except the sole corrupter Socrates, improves the youth

  6. Writing the Summary • Socrates’ Horse Trainer Analogy • One is able to do the horses good • The trainer does the horses good • Others injure the horses • This is true of horses and any animals • The youth would be happy with one corrupter and everyone else improving them • Meletus shows he has never thought about the young.

  7. Writing the Summary • The Unintentional Argument • Meletus Agrees • It is better to live among good citizens than bad • The good do their neighbors good, the evil do evil • No one would rather be injured than benefited • No on likes to be injured • Meletus accused Socrates of intentionally corrupting the youth. • Meletus admitted the good do good and the evil do evil • Socrates knows that if he corrupts a man he has to live with, he is likely to be harmed • Socrates either does not corrupt or corrupts unintentionally. • Either way Meletus is lying • If his offense is unintentional, Meletus should have corrected him • Meletus has no care about the matter.

  8. Grading the Summary • Excellent Summary (A) (41-45 points) • Clearly and concisely presents all the key points in your own words. • Clearly shows the connections between the key points. • Presents the summary as a coherent whole. • Clearly presents the arguments in the text and shows their structure and relation to the whole. • Is extremely well organized. • Good Summary (B) (36-40 points) • Does most if what an excellent summary does, but has some flaws that prevent it from being excellent. • Adequate summary (C) (32-35 points) • Presents all the key points. • Is adequately clear and organized. • Does not achieve the quality of a good summary, but does not have any major flaws.

  9. Grading the Summary • Poor Summary (D) (27-31 points) • Leaves out some key points. • Leaves out some key arguments. • Is unclear and /or presented in a disorganized manner. • Has a few major flaws or numerous minor flaws. • Failing summary (F) (0-26 points) • Leaves out most key points. • Is very unclear and/or disorganized. • Has many major flaws.

  10. Writing the Argument • 45 Points • 500 + words • Position Statement • Does the HTA (Horse Trainer Analogy) succeed as an analogy? • Does the HTA refute the original charge? • Does the HTA refute the modified charge? • Does the UA succeed as an argument? • Does the UA refute the original charge? • Does the UA refute the modified charge?

  11. Writing the Argument • Assessing the HTA • Form • Premise 1: X has properties P, Q, and R. • Premise 2: Y has properties P, Q, and R. • Premise 3: X has property Z as well. • Conclusion: Y has property Z. • Assessment • The number of properties X & Y have in common. • The relevance of the shared properties to Z. • Whether X & Y have relevant dissimilarities.

  12. Writing the Argument • Assessing the HTA • Form • Premise 1: X has properties P, Q, and R. • Premise 2: Y has properties P, Q, and R. • Premise 3: X has property Z as well. • Conclusion: Y has property Z. • Assessment • The number of properties X & Y have in common. • The relevance of the shared properties to Z. • Whether X & Y have relevant dissimilarities.

  13. Writing the Argument • Does the HTA respond to the charge? • Original Charge: Socrates corrupts the youth. • Modified Charge: Socrates is the sole corrupter of the youth.

  14. Writing the Argument • Assessing the UA • Assessing the premises • Key premise: “if he corrupts a man he has to live with, it is very likely he will be harmed by him.” • Assessing the premises using an argument from example. • Historical examples for/against • Assessing the premises using an argument from analogy • Dog analogy • Assessing the reasoning • Do the premises support the conclusion? • Overall Assessment (premises & reasoning)

  15. Writing the Argument • Does the UA respond to the charge? • Original Charge: Socrates corrupts the youth. • Modified Charge: Socrates is an intentional corrupter of the youth.

  16. Grading the Argument • Excellent Argument Section (A) (41-45 points) • Clearly and concisely presents your position on the issue. • Presents effective and well-developed arguments. • Presents the argument section of the work as a coherent whole. • Clearly presents how the arguments impact on the overall issue. • Is extremely well organized. • Good Argument Section (B) (36-40 points) • Does most of what an excellent argument does, but has some minor flaws. • Adequate Argument Section (C) (32-35 points) • States your position. • Presents basic arguments that are relevant. • Does not achieve the quality of a good argument section but does not have any major flaws. • Adequate Argument Section (C) (32-35 points) • States your position. • Presents basic arguments that are relevant. • Does not achieve the quality of a good argument section but does not have any major flaws.

  17. Grading the Argument • Poor Argument Section (D) (27-31 points) • Does not clearly present your position. • Presents weak or poor arguments. • Contains some fallacies. • Is poorly organized. • Is incomplete. • Has some other major flaws or has numerous other minor flaws. • Failing Argument Section (F) (0-26 points) • Contains very poor arguments. • Contains fallacies. • Is unclear. • Is poorly presented. • Is very poorly organized. • Is incomplete. • Has many other major flaws.

  18. Writing the Conclusion • 5 points • 125 words or less. • Content • Thesis • Summary Statement • Position Statement • Argument Statement • Final Relevant Remark

  19. Checklist & Comment Sheet Checklist Comment Codes Grade +5