Philosophy Essay Writing

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
The Basics of Logical Argument Two Kinds of Argument The Deductive argument: true premises guarantee a true conclusion. e.g. All men are mortal. Socrates.
Advertisements

Academic writing i June 12th Academic writing i June 12th 2012.
Essay Writing in Philosophy
‘The only serious philosophical question is whether to commit suicide or not…’ Albert Camus 7 November 1913 – 4 January 1960 ‘The Myth of Sisyphus’ What.
1.The argument makes it likely that there are lots of worldmakers. Strength: Man made things often require many creators. For example a house needs many.
LECTURE 19 THE COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT CONTINUED. THE QUANTUM MECHANICAL OBJECTION DEPENDS UPON A PARTICULAR INTERPRETATION WE MIGHT REASONABLY SUSPEND.
© 2009 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved.1 Chapters1 & 2.
Repairing Arguments. Need to repair arguments  We can and must rewrite many arguments by adding an unstated premise or even an unstated conclusion.
Ontological Argument (Ontological is from the Greek word for being, named by Kant) Learning Objectives To know the specification content To know the meaning.
UOP CRT 205 Week 7 Assignment Argument Evaluation Check this A+ tutorial guideline at
Writing Skills.
Acknowledging the Opposition
OA: Faith and Reason What difference does the argument make
Intuition and deduction thesis (rationalism)
Extent to which Challenges to Religious Experience are Valid, including CF Davis
Donovan – Overview Philosophy A2.
c) Strengths and weaknesses of Cosmological Arguments:
The Final Exam.
AO2 Questions Evaluating the Teleological Argument
Errors in Reasoning.
The Ontological Argument: An Introduction
Which of these two arguments is clearer? Why?
RM Hare - The Parable of the Paranoid Lunatic
Remember these terms? Analytic/ synthetic A priori/ a posteriori
Literature Term Tuesday
A: What would Anselm say. B: What would Gaunilo say
Explore the use of inductive reasoning in the cosmological argument
The analogy of the Arrow
The In-Class Critical Essay
Recap Key-Terms Cognitivism Non-Cognitivism Realism Anti-Realism
Do Religious Experiences prove God exists? Discuss in pairs.
Meta-Ethics Objectives:
Introduction to aesthetics
2) Who was Gaunilo writing on behalf?
In pairs, write a list of all the reasons people believe in God.
On your whiteboard (1): 1. What is innate knowledge? 2. What were Plato’s arguments for innate knowledge? 3. Was he right? Explain your answer.
THE ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT.
The Ontological Argument Aim: To explore the attributes of God.
Assessment of NEA Assessment Objective Mark
‘Assess the credibility of the design argument for the existence of God’ (12 marks) The design argument for the existence of God is largely based upon.
Recap So Far: Direct Realism
The In-Class Critical Essay
A model for argumentative writing
Describe this object: Does it help describe it further by saying it exists?
What keywords / terms have we used so far
Essay Writing – What makes a good philosophy essay?
Recap – Kant Weaknesses
Intro Order and Purpose Outline opinion Not convincing Idea
Problems with the 4 causes & Prime Mover
The Big Picture Deductive arguments - origins of the ontological argument Deductive proofs; the concept of ‘a priori’. St Anselm - God as the greatest.
What is an ARGUMENT? An argument is a reasoned, logical way of demonstrating that the writer’s position, belief, or conclusion is valid. Arguments seek.
Introduction to Philosophy Lecture 3a Evaluating an argument
The discursive essay.
What is good / bad about this answer?
What makes these things different?
THE ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT.
Clarify and explain the key ideas. A’priori Deductive
Clarify and explain the key ideas. A’priori Deductive
Arguments, arguments, and more arguments
Philosophy and Logic Section 4.3
Recap task Think of fifteen key terms associated with analogy Choose nine and add to the bingo grid Play bingo.
Assess the weaknesses of the cosmological argument. (12 marks)
Analyzing and Evaluating Arguments
Intuitionism Explore and Evaluate the strengths and problems of Intuitionism as ethical language.
‘Assess the credibility of the cosmological argument’ (12 marks)
How to Think Logically.
ID1050– Quantitative & Qualitative Reasoning
Clarify the key ideas Logic Definition Premises Outline opinion Flawed
Introductions / Conclusions
Answering A level Questions.
Presentation transcript:

Philosophy Essay Writing A few reminders before your gradebook assessment…

You already know the key things…

To improve, think about the weight of the arguments. You can do this as you analyse the arguments themselves, as well as in the conclusion. Think of some weighty words and phrases…

Judging the weight of criticisms -things to consider… How strong is the criticism? Does it work? Which bit of the argument is it attacking? One premise? The whole thing? Does it refute the argument completely? Or just make it weaker/ harder to accept? If it raises questions with the argument, how easily can the proponent of the argument answer them? If there is a response to the criticism, how successful is it? Does the argument now work but in a weaker form?

Language to use in evaluations… Make sure your conclusion is the right strength for your argument. There is a big difference between arguing that something is the case, and that it may be the case. Eg. After arguing that Anselm’s ontological argument is flawed, don’t conclude “therefore, God doesn’t exist”. All you have proved is that Anselm’s argument hasn’t proved that God does exist. Remember that having a clear position does NOT mean 100% agreement or 100% disagreement with the claim. Your conclusion can be that elements of the question are true but not others. Your answer can be “it depends”, as long as you state exactly what it depends on.

Bad ways of evaluating arguments… There are lots of criticisms of this argument, therefore it must be wrong. This philosopher never responded to the criticism, therefore his argument has failed. The arguments for this view are very complicated, therefore it can’t be true. I don’t think this argument is very convincing, therefore it must be wrong. This philosopher believed in God, therefore his argument must be wrong.

Better ways of evaluating arguments… Although this philosopher can respond to these criticisms, in doing so he has significantly weakened his argument. In order to accept this view, we must also accept unreasonable consequences such as… Although the premises seem individually plausible, the logic of the argument is flawed, meaning that they don’t give sufficient support for the conclusion. As X has shown, this philosopher cannot overcome the weakness in premise 2, so this argument remains unconvincing. While he may be able to overcome problems 1,2 and 3, the crucial weakness in this argument is … We can accept this conclusion, as long as we can also accept …