Papers should be at least 4 but no more than 6 (double-spaced, size 12 font, 1" margins) pages.The grading criteria...

• Papers should be at least 4 but no more than 6 (double-spaced, size 12 font, 1" margins) pages.
• The grading criteria and style requirements are in my "Writing a Philosophy 101 Paper," on my website, and these criteria and requirements will be used to assess your papers.

Using ONLY the textbook (and the philosophers' own words, NOT Cottingham's summaries OR my website, OR any other websites, books, or sources -- unless specifically instructed to do so in the topic), and citing page numbers after every sentence quoted or paraphrased to explain the philosophers' view (not including explanations of a quotation), and relevant readings (and authors we've covered to date, when necessary), choose ONE (1) of these topics and compose an essay that answers the following questions. If you use Dr. Y's website to explain something or argue in favor or against a philosopher, be sure to give your own examples of the principle(s) involved, and have a works cited page with the link to the precise page, so you avoid plagiarizing.

THE TOPICS

1.     PLATO:  Based on Article II.1 (and other readings of Plato from our reading list, if applicable) explain carefully what Plato is getting at with his Cave Allegory (pp. 73-75).  Do this as follows:  First, after having an Introduction (see Hints below), and then answering the following questions, in separate paragraphs:

(1)   What do the objects at each level in the Divided Line Analogy (see pp. 72-73; Level 4:  the images, shadows and reflections of sensible (physical) objects; Level 3:  sensible objects; Level 2:  Mathematical (and Scientific, Logical) Objects; and Level 1: Forms) correspond to, as far as the experiences of the prisoners (and released prisoners) of the Cave Allegory are concerned?  In other words, if I'm at level 4 in the Divided Line Analogy, where am I – in or out of the Cave – and what am I looking at and thinking about what reality and knowledge are (and then do the same for all for levels)? [Note: Make sure you cite the text in the Cave Allegory for all the levels, showing how he phrases each of the levels, and then explaining them.]

(2)   What does Plato say are the possible bad consequences of ascending from the cave, seeing the sun, and/or returning to the cave (that is, at any point in the process Plato describes), according to the released prisoner's perspective?  Give at least two textual examples of different bad consequences. [Note: Do NOT only mention the two times he mentions eyes hurting, because they're the same.]

(3)   What does Plato say is good or beneficial about ascending from the cave? [Note: This is a general question about what is good about leaving the cave.]

(4)   What does Plato say that you learn or come to know when you experience the “idea of good” (The Good) in his Cave Allegory?

(5)   Lastly, assuming Plato is correct about his metaphysics and epistemology [in other words, you do not have to debate whether Forms exist at all, or how someone can know when they know, etc.], would you wish to ascend from the Cave to see/know the Good, and why or why not? Have this argument in a separate paragraph, arguing that you'd like to escape from the Cave or stay in the Cave. THEN, in the next paragraphs, be sure to raise and respond to at least two strong objections against your view, ordered in separate paragraphs as follows:  Objection 1, Reply 1 (to OBJ 1), OBJ2, and Reply 2 (to OBJ 2). For instance, if you think exiting the Cave is a good idea, consider what a fellow prisoner might object to your doing so, and respond to at least two of those objections; if you would not exit the Cave, consider what a person who has seen the Good would argue against your position, and respond to at least two of those objections.

>> Have a Conclusion (see Hints below).
 HINTS (The only thing to change below is that, for the SOCRATES topic, you have to explain the first argument, then give your reaction in the next paragraph, explain the second argument, your reaction, and then follow the instructions from the "ANSWER EVERY QUESTION" section forward):

You should have your paper organized in general by paragraphs, as follows:

• INTRODUCTION – Include a list of terms or arguments you will explain [e.g., "I will explain X, Y, and Z (concepts) or A, B, C arguments"], mention what stance you'll be arguing -- in favor or against the philosopher, and lastly, mention that you'll raise and respond to two objections against your view[e.g., "I will defend X's view and respond to two objections to my view"] [NOTE: For the Socratestopic, you'll need to give three stances in the Intro: On the two arguments you explain near the beginning AND on whether you'll argue for your escaping or staying in prison].
• ANSWER EVERY EXPLANATORY-TYPE QUESTION (in separate paragraphs, as instructed in the topic).  BE SURE TO USE PAGE NUMBERS TO SHOW WHERE THE PHILOSOPHER SAYS WHAT YOU SAY THAT THEY SAY.  For instance, "Descartes posits an evil demon that is systematically deceiving him about the external world (24)." Or: 'Descartes states, "X, Y, Z" (22).'  You should not ONLY paraphrase the philosopher, since you will not be giving an exact account in the philosopher's words.  On the other hand, you should not ONLY give direct quotations, since you need to also explain the quotation, so I can know that you understand what the philosopher is saying.  Do both.  And when you explain a philosopher's quotation you just quoted, you do not need to have a page number at the end of the sentence. Lastly, quote the philosopher FIRST, and then EXPLAIN it.
  

• GIVE YOUR VIEW – Is the argument/view a sound/good one?  Give your opinion in the form of an argument here. If you are arguing IN FAVOR of the philosopher you're covering, you should address whatever objections you had against the philosopher (at least briefly), or your paper will be incomplete or inconsistent, both of which are not good!  IF you defend the philosopher's view, you must defend the whole view on the subject topic; do NOT state that you like certain parts of the person's view, but not the whole view. IF you are against the view, you need to mention at least one major reason why the view is implausible.  NOTE:  In these topics, for this part of the paper ("Your View"), I am not asking if you agree with the philosopher's conclusion (because you have to agree with basically every premise or point they argue to reach that conclusion); I am not asking if you disagree with their opponent as your main motivation for defending this view (you may be unsure about whether each side is right); I am not asking if this view appeals to you in some way, or if you are psychologically fond of it, or if you would LIKE for it to be true;  I AM asking if this view is philosophically defensible against ALL major OBJs, to your knowledge.
• OBJECTION TO YOUR VIEW – In its own paragraph, give your opponent (either your own objection or another philosopher who doesn't agree with "your author" or the author him/herself if you are arguing that his/her view is implausible) a whole paragraph to voice his or her concerns about your view [NOTE: If you are AGAINST a philosopher's view in the "YOUR VIEW" paragraph above (especially for the Kant and Mill topics), then HERE, in the OBJ paragraph, you need to try to DEFEND the view as being correct or plausible. THEN, in the REPLY paragraph, next, you should give a reason or some reasons as to why this defense of the philosopher's view is still not sufficient or satisfactory, so the view is still implausible.]
• YOUR (OR YOUR PHILOSOPHER'S IMAGINED) REPLY TO THE OBJECTION YOU JUST RAISED – In the next paragraph, answer the objection to the best of your ability.  If you cannot answer the objection in the draft, switch sides and argue opposite to what you originally said (I'll have no way of knowing what side you were on originally).  Pick the most plausible side as you see it and defend that side of the argument.
• SECOND OBJECTION TO YOUR VIEW (next paragraph).
• REPLY TO THE SECOND OBJECTION (next paragraph).
• CONCLUSION – List EVERY issue or argument you explained, the view(s) you defended, and summarize briefly your objections and replies (or at least mention that you raised and responded to two objections), and perhaps say something about future implications of your view (or the issue).