Basic assignment: Write a 6-9 page (typed, double-spaced) paper explaining and supporting your position on some issue that arises from our reading to this point
Some guidelines:
Your paper should contain your thoughts and opinions, not just Plato’s or Parmenides’ or Julia Annas’s. Tell me what you think, not just what other people have said.
At the same time, I do want you to address thoughts of one or more of the philosophers we have studied: your topic should be reasonably related to something one of them said, and your paper should take some care to show that you have understood what they said. Give references to the texts to support your interpretation of the philosopher’s views.
Be sure that the question or issue your paper is addressing is clear and well focused.
Be sure that you have provided a clear statement of your position on that issue (or your answer to that question).
In addition to explaining what you think, your paper should contain reasons why you take the position you do. Your main job is to explain why a reasonable person should agree with the opinion or position you are expressing.
Whatever your position is, there will be other points of view on the issue or topic you are discussing. (This is philosophy!) So, include in your paper at least one (more would be better) objection to your view and a reply to that objection. How might someone who disagreed with you criticize your argument? And how can you respond to that criticism?
You are not required (or encouraged) to consult any other sources besides those already assigned for class reading. If you do use any other sources, give them credit for whatever you take from them: list them in a bibliography at the end of your paper and give specific references for any ideas you have borrowed. (Use the standard numbering system for your references to Plato’s texts.)
Please consult the paper writing guides listed (and linked) on the class web page for much more advice.
Some possible topics:
Several of the so-called Pre-Socratic philosophers proposed fundamental principles (arche) to explain the natural world. Which of them do you find most plausible? Why?
Parmenides argued (according to a common interpretation) that Being is one, unchanging, eternal and that change is therefore illusory. Explain and discuss.
Socrates’ argument (in the Apology) that death is a blessing.
Whether Socrates’ successfully refuted the charges against him or whether he was guilty of corrupting the youth.
Socrates’ argument (in the Crito) that it would be wrong for him to escape from prison.
Whether Socrates’ argument in the Crito shows that it is always wrong to disobey the law.
Socrates’ argument in the Meno that knowledge must be recollection.
One or more of Socrates’ reasons for claiming that the soul survives death.
Socrates’ view that we should care more about the state of our souls than about our bodies or wealth or success.
Whether the unexamined life is worth living.
Whether Socrates (as presented by Plato) provides a good model of a philosophical life or of philosophical inquiry.
Plato’s theory of forms. Is he right to suppose that we need to posit separate abstract entities to account for our knowledge of general concepts?
Plato’s account of justice in the Republic. Is it correct? Helpful?