1 / 19

Introduction to Philosophy

Introduction to Philosophy. Paper. The Paper. Reading: “The Apology.” Thesis : “The purpose of this paper is to summarize and critically evaluate Socrates’ Horse Trainer Analogy and Unintentional Argument.”

javan
Download Presentation

Introduction to Philosophy

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

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

More Related