Philosophy 151

The Human Person
Philosophy 151
Section A

Summer II - 2008

2-3 pages

due date:

Wednesday, 2 July 2002

description of assignment:

This assignment involves giving a summary of an argument given by a philosopher in his text. Thus, you will be writing about what someone else has written. The purpose is turn a longer or more complex piece of philosophical writing into a more concise or clearer expression of its meaning, doing so with both quotations and your own explanations.

Even if the original argumentative passage was wandering, thick, or abstruse, your own summary should be clear and to the point. The purpose is not, at this point, to interact critically with the argument, but to report the conclusion reached in the argument and the reasons that back it up.

Here are some further guidelines:

• Begin by analyzing the argument, identifying the conclusion and the premises.


• Put the argument back together, this time clearly and succinctly, organizing the information for clarity.


• Clearly report the claim or claims that are defended, using phrases like "the author argues that . . . " to label the statement's role in the argument.


• Then, one by one, report the reasons offered in defense of the claim and any other essential supporting information.


• Feel free to use your own examples to illustrate the points that the author makes, especially if the author does not provide any.


• Be sure to frame each claim and each reason with sign posting phrases ("the reason is that," "because," "To support this claim, he notes that . . .") that clearly identify the role each statement plays in the argument as a whole.


• Be sure to include all the main points contained in the argumentative passage that you are discussing.


• Leave out all extraneous material that does not advance the argument, for instance, a tangential aside the author makes about a topic he plans to deal with later.


• Paraphrase the language used by the author into your own words or make sure you explain any direct quotes that are not clear.


• Be sure to introduce technical terms explicitly, by means of a definition or examples. Don't just start using them without explanation.


• Make sure that your sentences cannot be misconstrued because of ambiguity or vagueness. The point is to be more clear than the original text.

Reread your essay sentence by sentence, asking yourself if each sentence says exactly what you want it to say. If you are not happy with a particular sentence or passage that you have written, ask yourself why it bothers you. It could be that you don't really understand what you were trying to say. If this is the case, you need to think some more before writing. It really helps the rereading process if you can allow some time between writing and re-reading -- in other words, start working on your assignments well before the deadline!

criteria for evaluation:

The following kinds of criteria will be used in evaluating and grading your essay:

• Is it an accurate representation of the original argument, capturing what was argued and giving it a fair interpretation?


• Does it clearly state the essential content of the argument?


• Does it make proper use of citations, quoting material accurately, in a proper form, and only when helpful and relevant?


• Is there evidence that effort was put into writing the essay in terms of adequately meeting requirement, clarity, and technical care (e.g., avoiding spelling and grammatical errors)?


• Does the essay show that you understand what the author has argued?

In order to get an "A" on this essay, you will have to do well in all of these areas.

possible topics:

The following is a list of the kinds of topics you might want to address, all drawn from what we have been reading in Plato and Aristotle. You are not limited to the topics listed here, but ask me first if you would like to write about a topic not on this list A sign-up sheet will be sent around in order to limit the number of students who address each topic.

[1] Explain Plato's allegory of the cave. What does it express about Plato's views of both knowledge and reality?

[2] What are the three parts of the sould according to Plato? How do they interelate? What is necessary for a truly happy life in Plato's view?

[3] In his book De Anima, Aristotle explains his theory of the soul. Choose some aspect of Aristotle's account and explain it, e.g., the definition of a soul, his theory of perception, etc.

[4] Looking at Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics, outline his argument that there is one highest good for human life (I.1-2). Be sure to explain all the steps and provide some examples to illustrate his distinctions.

[5] Discuss Aristotle's expositions of the nature and parts of the human soul (I.7 and I.13). How does he use this discussion to explain the human function and its relation to happiness?

[6] Aristotle discusses how happiness is achieved and virtue is acquired (I.9 and II.1). Explain his views.

[7] Explain Aristotle's final definition of virtue (II.6). Give a brief explanation of each part of that definition based on other relevant texts, as well as keeping the bigger picture in focus.

[8] Explain Aristotle's argument regarding which actions are voluntary, involuntary, and non-voluntary and why (III.1). What is the difference between these categories and what is his final definition for voluntary actions?

[9] According to Aristotle, decision is a particular kind of voluntary action involving deliberation. Explain his views here (III.2).

[10] What does Aristotle mean by "incontinence" (akrasia) and how does it relate to and contrast with continence, virtue, and vice? Why is incontinence a puzzle for him, given his view of the will? How does he solve this puzzle?

[11] What are the different kinds of friendship that Aristotle lists (VIII.3)? Explain the differences between them and various possibilities that arise in them.

[12] Aristotle argues that friends are a necessary part of a fully happy life (IX.9). Why are friends necessary and what do they provide as part of a good life?

[13] In Book X, Aristotle returns to the question of happiness, suggesting that the life of study is the happiest (X.7-8). What are his reasons for saying this? How does this fit with the rest of his Ethics? Discuss this in relationship with his discussion of knowledge in the Metaphysics and of the understanding in De Anima.