PHL100 – Introduction to Philosophy
Introduction to Philosophy
Hello, dear friend, you can consult us at any time if you have any questions, add WeChat: THEend8_
PHL100 – Introduction to Philosophy
Grade weight: 12.5%
Instructions:
Write a paper of no more than 1500 words in response to the following prompt:
In the Apology, Socrates proudly reminds the jurors of his refusal to obey the Thirty
Tyrants’ command to arrest Leon of Salamis. Also in the Apology, he declares that, were
the court to impose a gag order forbidding him from practicing philosophy, he would
disobey it. Are these positions consistent with Socrates’ position in the Crito that he is
morally obligated to obey the laws of Athens? Explain and defend your answer.
Submission Instructions:
Submit your assignment on Quercus (the assignment will be entitled “First Paper” on the
course webpage, under the “Assignments” tab). Your submission must be either a Word
document or a PDF (you are responsible for ensuring that this is the case).
Further Instructions:
- This essay requires you to take a position on a question and to defend that position. It
doesn’t matter what position you take on the question—what matters is that it’s clear
what your answer is, and that you make a compelling argument in support of it. In
order to do this well, you will need to spend a substantial portion of the paper
(probably around half of it, give or take) outlining and explaining Socrates’ relevant
claims and arguments from the Apology and Crito. In other words, you should not
assume that your reader already knows what the essay prompt is getting at. You
should imagine that your audience is an intelligent undergraduate much like yourself,
but one who hasn’t read either dialogue. Your job is thus in part to present Socrates’
arguments in an accessible manner, and only after you’ve done this can you start
developing an argument one way or the other on the question posed by the essay
prompt.
o Among other things, this means you’ll need to explain how Socrates defends
(in the Apology) his refusal to arrest Leon of Salamis/his refusal to obey a
hypothetical gag order, as well as his argument against disobeying the law in
the Crito.
PHL100 – Introduction to Philosophy | Summer 2023 | Michael Kirley
2
- What I’m looking for in these papers is for you to demonstrate your understanding of
the material, and for you to make a philosophical argument of your own. Both your
explanation/exegesis of the text and your development of your own argument will
determine the grade you receive on this assignment.
- Regardless of what position you take on the question posed, you should
consider/respond to an objection to your view—this is part of how you develop a
compelling argument. So, for example, if you think that there is a contradiction
between what Socrates says in the two dialogues, you should, after explaining why
you think this, consider what someone who takes the opposite view might say, and
then explain what’s wrong with their reply. On the other hand, if you think that
Socrates doesn’t contradict himself between the two dialogues, you should, after
explaining how to reconcile his apparently contradictory claims, consider what
someone who takes the opposite view might say in response to your proposal, and
then show what is wrong with their reply. Since you only have 1500 words, we’re not
expecting you make a bulletproof argument or to address every possible objection. It's
enough to consider just one objection to your view (ideally the strongest one you can
think of) and to show that you have something you can say in response to it.
- Strive for clarity in your writing. A simple and direct style (with fairly short sentences
and paragraphs) is generally best. Avoid jargon and unnecessarily fancy language.
When you do need to use a technical term, make sure that you start by explaining
what it means/how you’re going to be using it.
- You do not need to use secondary sources for this paper. In fact, I strongly
recommend against them, since when students use them this tends to obscure their
own contributions. We want to see your engagement with the text, not the thoughts of
some Plato scholar.
- Whenever you use material from the text—whether in the form of a quotation or
paraphrase—you should include a textual reference. The standard way to do this for
Plato’s works is by using the Stephanus numbers/letters in the margins (this is also
how I’ve cited the text in the lecture notes). You should also include the name of the
dialogue you’re referring to if it would otherwise be ambiguous. Aside from this, it
doesn’t matter to me what bibliographic style you use—MLA, APA, Chicago, or
whatever—and it doesn’t matter whether you use in-text citations or footnotes, as
long as you are consistent.
- You are permitted to use the pronoun ‘I’. In fact, most philosophy papers written
these days use the first-person pronoun. The only thing to be careful of is that you
don’t slip into writing your personal reflections on the text. You should still be giving
arguments and offering reasons in support of your claims. In particular, don’t say
things like “I personally believe that human rights are important, which means that I
PHL100 – Introduction to Philosophy | Summer 2023 | Michael Kirley
3
can’t accept Socrates’ view in the Crito about when one is morally obligated to
follow the law.” These kinds of sentences don’t tell the reader anything at all about
what is wrong with Socrates’ reasoning; they only describe your own psychology and
unwillingness to accept his conclusions. That isn’t going to persuade anyone who
doesn’t already agree with you!
Some things to avoid:
o Merely summarizing the text. While you will need to rely on the text in
engaging with Socrates’ views, you should avoid simply quoting from it at
length or simply paraphrasing it line-by-line. If something in the text isn’t
relevant to the question you’re trying to answer, you generally shouldn’t
mention it. Plato’s writing isn’t always clear, so part of your task is to distill
the appropriate arguments from the text, excising all irrelevant information,
and to then present them to your reader.
o Simply asserting your opinion without argument/writing a personal reflection.
It isn’t enough simply to say that you think Socrates contradicts himself
between the Apology and the Crito. You need to explain what the
contradiction is (if you think there is one), and you need to prove that it’s a
real issue (rather than something that could easily be resolved). Relatedly, it’s
not enough to assert your own deep personal convictions—when you make a
claim, you need to offer support for it that any reasonable reader can
appreciate (i.e., you shouldn’t appeal to your own private feelings on the
matter).
o Objecting to arguments on psychological grounds. You shouldn’t be
dismissing Socrates’ claims on the grounds that, for example, they simply
reflect his own personal biases. Rather, you should be engaging with Socrates’
arguments. If you disagree with a claim or conclusion that Socrates endorses,
you need to identify what is wrong with his argument for that claim or
conclusion (and you can only do that if you first present his argument!).
o Not answering the question. In order to do well on this paper, you need to
respond to the actual question asked, so make sure you have a clear idea of
what the essay prompt is talking about before you start writing. And when you
do start writing, don’t just dive into your own argument. Start by explaining
what Socrates says in the Apology/Crito in connection with the issue at
hand—lay out his claims and arguments—and explain how these claims
appear to be in tension with each other. Only start making your own argument
after you’ve done this.