For the argument analysis essay, you will submit a 2-3 page essay analyzing the various arguments put forward by Rene Descartes and Princess Elisabeth in their Correspondence. Given the aim of the project, to demonstrate your ability to analyzing arguments, you should focus on the arguments in the text and not on external sources.
This text presents an example of two people using arguments to respond to one another in a philosophical dispute. Your analysis should cover the various stages of the arguments as they develop.
A pdf copy of the reading is provided below. To understand the context of Princess Elisabeth’s critique of Descartes’ view, I have attached a short video.
To present your analysis, your paper should include:
An introductory section, in which you explain the philosophical controversy to which the argument you will analyze pertains, define any technical terms, and briefly describe the overall structure and content of the paper.
An expository section, in which you present and explain the motivation behind the argument that you are going to analyze. Note well: even if you ultimately disagree with the argument under discussion, you should present it in the most sympathetic way possible and explain why the reasoning behind the argument might be attractive. Presenting the argument with the premises enumerated is best practice.
A critical section, in which you raise and discuss one or more objections to the argument. This will take the form of challenging the truth of one or more premises of the argument under discussion. You should say what an opponent of the argument can most plausibly object to. Then you should assess the opponents objection by agreeing or disagreeing and saying why. You should say whether you think the objection is decisive against the argument, and you should say why you take the position that you take.
A conclusion, in which you review the main points of your paper and emphasize the most important insight to be gained from the discussion.
Remember, there are three possible grades: failed, passing, and fully-satisfactory.
Here are my grading criteria, in order of importance:
Was the analysis insightful?
Was the exposition clear and precise?
Was the paper well structured?
Was the paper well edited, having few if any grammar, punctuation, and spelling errors?
It is possible to get a fully-satisfactory for a paper that is amazing on the first criterion but that falls a little short on the rest, but it is also possible to get a fully-satisfactory for a paper that is perfect on the latter three criteria, but which contains an analysis that has obvious objections. This is an introductory level course, and my expectations for your analysis are calibrated to that fact. I want to see that you have given serious consideration to the argument and that you are not committing a straw man fallacy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man). Use instead the steel man method (https://lifehacker.com/utilize-the-steel-man-tactic-to-argue-more-effectivel-1632402742). Your paper should demonstrate the philosophical virtue of seriously attempting to address the underlying logic and motivations of your opponents view by sensitively considering how your opponent might respond to what you say.
This is important: You should not think of me as the audience for your paper, although of course I will be the one reading it. As you write you should be thinking of an intelligent peer who is not in our course as your audience. So, if you introduce technical terms they must be defined, for example. If youre thinking of me as your audience you will tend to gloss over details, but part of what Im looking for is whether you can clearly and precisely explain philosophical distinctions and arguments; so the details matter.
This is not a research paper. The only text you need to conduct the analysis is the one provided. Since this assignment is intended to demonstrate your ability to analyze and argument, do not use outside sources to aid in your analysis.
This is not an expressive paper. Theres nothing wrong with a clever turn of phrase or extended metaphor, but in general you should prioritize clarity and concision over ornate language. Be more prosaic than poetic.
It is a very good idea to meet with me during office hours, by zoom, or on the phone to either talk through your ideas or go over a draft of your paper. Likewise, it is an excellent idea to bring a draft to the writing center.
Here are two links to websites giving general advice on writing philosophy papers: Pryors Guidelines (http://www.jimpryor.net/teaching/guidelines/writing.html), Kinds Guidelines (http://www1.cmc.edu/pages/faculty/AKind/Intro01s/writing.htm). These may be helpful, but nothing in these links should override what I have said explicitly in this prompt.
VIDEOS AND READING BELOW
Last Completed Projects
| topic title | academic level | Writer | delivered |
|---|