Plato, Edited With Notes by John Burnet-Euthyphro, Apology of Socrates, And Crito (1977)
PAPER Introduction to Philosophy. The Paper Reading: “The Apology.” Thesis: “The purpose of...
-
Upload
gerald-casey -
Category
Documents
-
view
212 -
download
0
Transcript of PAPER Introduction to Philosophy. The Paper Reading: “The Apology.” Thesis: “The purpose of...
PAPER
Introduction to Philosophy
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
DraftsPlagiarism
Writing the Introduction
5 points125 words or less.Content
Thesis Summary Statement Position Statement Argument Statement Minimal Background
Writing the Summary
45 points350 words+Objective: summarize the text
Clearly Concisely Accurately In your own words.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Writing the Argument
45 Points500 + wordsPosition 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?
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
Writing the Conclusion
5 points125 words or less.Content
Thesis Summary Statement Position Statement Argument Statement Final Relevant Remark
Checklist & Comment Sheet
ChecklistComment CodesGrade+5