|
Haha so here's a first attempt at a philosophy paper, trying out dialogue style but apparently it does nor work, according to my professor, who expressed worries and concerns in his email.
Anyways here is the half written work, if any of you have anything witty to say go ahead, if anyone's a philosophy major please speak up and help me out as it is due tomorrow.
A philosophical chat over a cup of coffee and gummy-worms
Persons of the dialogue: Evan, Arque.
Ev: Salute to you good man Arque, you look ill-rested and sporting baggy eyes.
Arq: Aye Evan, the philosophy class really puts strains on my mind. It strains me just to think about it, but that is the fun of it. Speaking of philosophy, where were you in class?
Ev: Shame, for I missed my alarm this morning. Would you care for a cup of coffee and share with me the mental sustenance you’ve gained in today’s class?
Arq: Surely.
Evan and Arque arrived at a coffee shop, they both grabbed a cup of coffee, and Arque, being the fine gentleman, purchased a cup of gummy-worms to share.
Ev: So, fill me in, what fun did I miss? Last time we were discussing the implications of Protagoras’ claim that man is the measure.
Arq: We are still amidst Protagoras’ doctrine, only this time, we talked about an “exquisite” feature that is implied by his idea.
Ev: I’m intrigued! Please go on.
Arq: Last time, do you recall, that Protagoras stated “Man is the measure of all things”, and that “as each thing appears to me, so it is for me”?
Ev: I certainly do.
Arq: Do you also agree that if something is to me, then it is also true for me?
Ev: I could not doubt that.
Arq: Then it follows that if something appears to me, it is to me, and therefore it is true?
Ev: Agreed.
Arq: Now let us suppose I do not agree with Protagoras’ doctrine that “Man is the measure of all things”, am I justified to say that Protagoras’ doctrine appears false to me, and that Protagoras’ claim is in fact false, to me?
Ev: That is a perfectly legal claim.
Arq: Then Protagoras, maintaining man is the measure, has to agree to my measurement upon his statement?
Ev: He is forced to accept your measurement by the virtue of his own statement. And by doing so, he is accepting the fallacy of his own statement!
Arq: That is precisely how Socrates disputed Protagoras’ doctrine, he did so by twisting Protagoras’ claim against Protagoras.
Ev: Very cleverly counter by Socrates! But we shall not let him off easy shall we Arque? As philosophers we must attempt to refute Socrates’ claims and try to construct a counter.
Arq: We are definitely obliged to do so, how do you suppose we start?
Ev: Well, in mathematics it is a common practice to construct contradictions, that is we assume what Socrates said is correct, and see if Socrates’ claim suggests anything absurd.
A period of silence ensues, as the two young philosophers sat with furrowed eyebrows, quietly sipping their coffee and chewing on the sour worms.
Again, any suggestions on how to draft a philosophy paper is welcome.
 
|
8748 Posts
a philosophy paper should have no filler. it should be absolutely straight to the point the whole way through. it'd be super helpful if you'd write the prompt / assignment instructions.
|
I actually liked it even though I'm not in philosophy, or in college.
|
I have a question. If people like you and other people who post their essays/work on forums like this to have them peer reviewed, and your teacher requires to use turnitin.com, won't it show like 100% plagiarism and direct to this page? There is no name put on the work so the teacher can assume you copied it from a forum or something... I dunno, thats just always something i wondered...
|
United States24493 Posts
This reminds me of some papers by famous philosophers... and I hate how they are written as dialog where 95% of the dialog by one of the participants is unneeded... although I acknowledge that this style was set long before you chose to use it.
|
On February 19 2008 10:57 GrayArea wrote:
I have a question. If people like you and other people who post their essays/work on forums like this to have them peer reviewed, and your teacher requires to use turnitin.com, won't it show like 100% plagiarism and direct to this page? There is no name put on the work so the teacher can assume you copied it from a forum or something... I dunno, thats just always something i wondered...
Keep it on topic please, but fyi we don't use turnitin or anything like that.
As for nony here's the prompt:
Socrates claims that Protagoras' doctrine has a most "exquisite" feature. Since Protagoras "admits ... that the contraty opition about his own opinion (namely, that it is false) must be true" the doctrine will be "disputed by everyone, " (even Protagoras) and so Socrates, everyone, even Protagoras, must dispute his own doctrine. Is Socrates right about this? Why or why not?
The prompt is referring to this particular passage in Theatitus:
Soc. Why, suppose that you determine in your own mind something to be true, and declare your opinion to me; let us assume, as he argues, that this is true to you. Now, if so, you must either say that the rest of us are not the judges of this opinion or judgment of yours, or that we judge you always to have a true opinion: But are there not thousands upon thousands who, whenever you form a judgment, take up arms against you and are of an opposite judgment and opinion, deeming that you judge falsely?
Theod. Yes, indeed, Socrates, thousands and tens of thousands, as Homer says, who give me a world of trouble.
Soc. Well, but are we to assert that what you think is true to you and false to the ten thousand others?
Theod. No other inference seems to be possible.
Soc. And how about Protagoras himself? If neither he nor the multitude thought, as indeed they do not think, that man is the measure of all things, must it not follow that the truth of which Protagoras wrote would be true to no one? But if you suppose that he himself thought this, and that the multitude does not agree with him, you must begin by allowing that in whatever proportion the many are more than one, in that proportion his truth is more untrue than true.
Theod. That would follow if the truth is supposed to vary with individual opinion.
Soc. And the best of the joke is, that he acknowledges the truth of their opinion who believe his own opinion to be false; for he admits that the opinions of all men are true.
Theod. Certainly.
Soc. And does he not allow that his own opinion is false, if he admits that the opinion of those who think him false is true?
Theod. Of course.
Soc. Whereas the other side do not admit that they speak falsely?
Theod. They do not.
Soc. And he, as may be inferred from his writings, agrees that this opinion is also true.
Theod. Clearly.
Soc. Then all mankind, beginning with Protagoras, will contend, or rather, I should say that he will allow, when he concedes that his adversary has a true opinion-Protagoras, I say, will himself allow that neither a dog nor any ordinary man is the measure of anything which he has not learned-am I not right?
Theod. Yes.
Soc. And the truth of Protagoras being doubted by all, will be true neither to himself to any one else?
Theod. I think, Socrates, that we are running my old friend too hard.
|
United States22883 Posts
Well, Plato used dialogs to argue philosophy, but using two separate opinions (as in the portion you quoted above.) To go about with your coffee shop theme, they'd have to take different viewpoints and one person would be proven wrong.
Personally I'd go with the straight up analysis, just the way you'd write an english paper. Look at their logic in terms of premises and conclusions, declare and explain the premises and one by one attack the parts you think are weak, thereby undoing the conclusion.
Nony is right. Lots of philosophers are extremely long winded and annoying, but as Cicero said, "If I had had more time, I would have written you a shorter letter"
Also, I haven't read that dialog before, but if I were a betting man my money would be on Socrates every time. 
|
8748 Posts
i forgot which guidelines the philosophy department at my school recommended, but there seem to be quite a few that look okay from first glance that i just googled:
http://www.mit.edu/~yablo/writing.html
http://www.uwm.edu/~cbagnoli/paperguidelines.html
http://www.jimpryor.net/teaching/guidelines/writing.html
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~writing/materials/student/humanities/philosophy.shtml
basically, i think you should completely throw out your dialogue idea. i would never dream of doing that unless the professor specifically asked for it. many many famous philosophical works have structures that'll get you F's in philosophy classes.
so basically, your paper is just your evaluation of one view that a philosopher held. in your paper, you need to explain why that philosopher held that view by reconstructing his reasoning in your own words. if you agree with his view, then you provide your original reasoning to provide further support to what he already established. if you don't agree with his view, then you give reasoning why some part of his reasoning is messed up. during all of this, don't be afraid to make up an example to illustrate any of the reasoning going on.
most kids are gonna fuck up on just extracting the philosopher's view properly. make sure that when you're explaining what socrates means by the statement in the prompt, you don't add anything or take anything away. you gotta explain it so that your rewording means exactly the same thing. that's the most important part of the paper, really. your original reasoning doesn't have to be some amazing shit cuz a professor can't reserve A's for groundbreaking and truly original ideas. the important thing about your original reasoning is that it truly addresses the issue and doesn't betray socrates' meaning in any way.
|
yeah I've already thrown out the dialogue idea, it was a good try though haha.
Now I'm just taking Socrates' argument apart in bits and trying to justify/unjustify each part. Is that a better job?
|
United States22883 Posts
On February 19 2008 13:31 evanthebouncy! wrote:
yeah I've already thrown out the dialogue idea, it was a good try though haha.
Now I'm just taking Socrates' argument apart in bits and trying to justify/unjustify each part. Is that a better job? That's a better format, but whether you do a good job or not is totally up to you.
|
Okay I've finished and I turned it in to Moses (the philosophy building) today so wee~
Here's the work:
On Socrates’ Method in Proving Protagoras wrong (Prompt 2): An Attack
Socrates asserted in the book Theaetetus that Protagoras’ claim that “Man is the measure of all things”, also known as the measuring doctrine, has an exquisite feature, and ultimately concludes that Protagoras’ measuring doctrine cannot be true for anyone at all. This paper will attempt to argue that Socrates’ argument is inconsistent by showing Socrates cannot safely assume the truth of the premises in which is argument is built on.
To properly evaluate Socrates’ argument, we should first analyze it. I reasoned that Socrates’ final claim “[the measuring doctrine, MD] is disputed by everyone, even Protagoras himself” is based on several deductions that are based on 3 premises. I will enumerate the premises and attempt to deduce as how I interpret Socrates would deduce, so that we understand Socrates’ argument in detail. The 3 premises are:
1) Protagoras claims that “man is the measure of all things”, the measuring doctrine proposed by himself, is true for all man.
2) There exists a person, Px, who claims a claim, Cx, which states that Protagoras’ doctrine is false.
3) Person Px claims that Cx is true.
Socrates, taking these 3 premises to be true for all cases, constructs his arguments from them. Here is how I interpret Socrates’ construction:
Since Protagoras maintains 1), he will agree that Px is the measurement of all things. Since 3) is a measure of Px on Cx, Protagoras will agree that 3) is true. So far we have:
a) Protagoras agrees to the truthfulness of 3).
Since we know 3) is a statement claiming the truth of Cx, Protagoras, by a), has to claim the truth of Cx just as how Px claims it. So then we can write:
b) Protagoras agrees to the truthfulness of Cx.
From b), Socrates can conclude that since Protagoras agrees to the truthfulness of Cx, he agrees to the full content of Cx, which states that the MD is false. By admitting that MD is false, Protagoras is forced to make the following claim:
c) Man is not the measure of all things
Since c) is inconsistent with the original statement of MD, which states man is the measure of all things, Socrates can claim:
d) “It [the MD] will be disputed … beginning with Protagoras” (171b)
And Socrates immediately follows d) with his final claim:
e) “Since it is disputed by everyone, the Truth of Protagoras is not true for anyone at all, not even for himself”. (171c)
Having explored Socrates argument, let us try to show why Socrates’ argument is invalid. I reason since an argument is composed of premises and deductions, by showing either one of them to be false will render the argument invalid. I will focus on nullifying one of the Socrates 3 premises here. Since Socrates assumed in his argument that all 3 arguments are true, we will try to attempt to show at least one of them is false.
Premise 1) States that Protagoras thinks that MD is true for all man. If we attempt 1) to be false, Socrates’ argument is valid already, for Socrates wishes to show c), which states the exact opposite of 1). To prove Socrates’ argument wrong, we have to take 1) to be true.
There are 2 interpretations for 1) that I can conceive, which maintain 1) is true:
1a) Protagoras thinks that “Man is the measure of all things, but man may at times measures incorrectly” is true.
1b) Protagoras thinks that “Man is the measure of all things, and his measurements are always true” is true.
It is unlikely that Socrates uses the interpretation of 1a). Since Socrates is in a discussion of knowledge, which is “always of what is, and unerring”, as Socrates puts it, then Protagoras’ statement that “Man is the measure of all things”, a statement about knowledge, must be always true and unerring as well.
Which lead us to believe that Socrates chooses 1b) as his interpretation. We can justify 1b) is indeed Socrates’ interpretation for 1) because in Socrates’ reasoning leading up to a) from 1) and 3), he has assumed that every measurements of a man are true. Further proof that 1b) is indeed Socrates’ choice of interpretation on 1) can be found in (152a) in which Socrates’ states “It[Knowledge is Perception]’s what Protagoras used to maintain[The MD]…” It is interesting to note that this statement implies:
f) If a man has perception of something, he has the measure of the same thing.
Statement f) states that perception is measure, and in the context of “knowledge is perception”, Protagoras’ statement that “Man is the measure of all things” restates as:
g) “Man has the knowledge of all things”
So far we have shown that by adopting 1b) as the interpretation to premise 1), Socrates agrees to statement g).
Statement g) has a most exquisite feature. Let us suppose there are two men, A and B, and let us suppose these two claims:
h) A thinks X is true.
If we insist that h) is true for A, then B, having the knowledge of all things, in particular, having the knowledge that g) is true, will have to accept that A has the knowledge of all things. If B accepts A to have knowledge of all things, B has to accept that h) is true. That is, in another word:
i) B thinks h) is true.
Therefore, B, by agreeing h), we reach the conclusion:
j) B thinks X is true also.
If h) implies j), then it is worth to restate the deduction process as:
k) What is true for one person must be true for another person.
In conclusion, we’ve established that Socrates interprets 1) as 1b), and we deduced that by adopting the interpretation of 1b), Socrates has to agree to g). By agreeing to g), Socrates will have to agree that k) is true. So in short:
l) By interpreting 1) as 1b), k) must be true.
Let us go back to the premises. If 1), which states that Protagoras thinks that MD, is true, and if Socrates chooses to interpret 1) as 1b) then k) is true by l). Therefore, 2) must be false (No such man could ever exist) because k) implies that if MD is true for Protagoras, MD must be true for any other man, even the man in 2).
Therefore by agreeing to premise 1), Socrates cannot assume premise 2) to be true by k), which he did. Therefore we’ve demonstrated that Socrates’ argument is invalid because he has falsely assumed that all 3 premises are true to start with.
Extra thoughts on the essay: When attempted to demonstrate that Socrates’ deduction is inconsistent, I find it very difficult because Socrates did not make any original claims himself, staying true to his words “I am barren of theories”. Consequently I cannot contradict his claims as false. As a result I resorted to show that his interpretation on the first premise is inconsistent, and this strategy, for better or worse, carries some merit.
|
hehe socrates style dialogue 
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
