Assignment #2: Final Essay
If you wish to receive written feedback on your final essay, you must opt in (request this at
the top of your first page)
Overview
This is the second part of a two-part assignment. Students have already completed and
received feedback on part one, the scaffolding assignment. At this stage you will incorporate
this feedback in order to write a complete argumentative essay, responding to one of the
essay prompts below.
Your final paper must include:
(i) A revised introduction, thesis statement, and roadmap sentence, based on the feedback
from your TAs on the scaffolding assignment. If you have questions about how to integrate
TA feedback, consider speaking to them during office hours or asking for a meeting.
(ii) A revised explication section on the author whose position is discussed in your chosen
question. Again, this should integrate feedback from your TAs on assignment 1.
(iii) An argumentative section, in which you defend for your own position by developing
the two supporting reasons outlined in your introduction/thesis statement. In your
argumentative section you must consider and respond to at least one objection to your
argument.
Instructions
1. Revised Introduction, Thesis, and Roadmap
Provide a refined introduction that incorporates the work completed in Assignment 1, as well
as TA feedback on this work. The most critical element here is your revised thesis statement
and (two) supporting reasons, as these provide the essential framing for your whole paper.
Common mistakes in thesis writing involve:
• Circular argumentation, where supporting reasons merely restate the conclusion
rather than giving substantive grounds to adopt it
• Merely restating the author’s own reasoning, without adding to or developing it
• Simply stating an opposed view which fails to engage with the author’s reasoning
for their own conclusions
If you are struggling to develop independent reasons for the conclusion you want to defend, it
may help to consider the strongest objection to your view you can come up with, and then
construct your supporting reasons as a response, explaining why that objection is incorrect.
In the course readings, for example, many of the authors reach opposed conclusions, and can
therefore be seen as offering objections to one another. Considering and refuting the strongest
objections to your view is a great way to get clear on your own reasons for holding the
view that you do. By contrast, an essay which does not address the reasoning offered by
opposing views will fail to be persuasive, because it provides no reason to hold your own
view rather than an opposing view.
As with the scaffolding assignment, your introduction should end with a roadmap sentence
that indicates the structure of your essay. This is where you lay out your plan for your paper.
It might have the form of something like this: “First I will explicate Nozick’s reasons for…
then I will explain why he thinks… then I will consider an objection to Nozick’s view drawn
from Cottingham. Finally, I argue Cottingham’s objections are inadequate for two reasons,
namely…”
I recommend including answers to the specific prompts within the essay question directly in
your roadmap sentence. For example, if the question asks you to explain a concept from the
reading, it’s a good idea to include right in your roadmap sentence at what stage of your
explication you will do this. This will help ensure you fully answer the essay question.
2. Explication of the Author’s Position
In your own words, explain the relevant position of the philosopher or author central to your
chosen question. Make sure to address all of the specific parts of your chosen question, as this
will be needed to fully explain the author’s position.
Keep in mind: your task in this section is to explicate, not evaluate or critique. It is critical to
identify the core reasons the author invokes in defense of their own position as getting
these clear is necessary for raising an objection which makes contact with the author’s
position.
Your explanation must be supported with evidence drawn directly from the assigned course
texts. You may paraphrase or use direct quotations, but make sure you cite and explain any
quotations thoroughly; do not assume these can be self-explanatory. Once again, be sure to
integrate TA feedback on your explication in assignment 1.
3. Defend Your Own Position
In this section, you must defend your own position. If you are agreeing with the philosopher
in question, it may help to begin this section by presenting an opposing argument to their
view (one that you come up with, or one drawn from one of the course texts), and then
focusing your argumentation on refuting that objection. If you are arguing against the
philosopher in question, this is where you present your own arguments as to why their
reasoning is incorrect. Strong argumentative essays will consider possibly replies on behalf of
the opposing view and refute them. Whether you are defending or objecting to the author’s
view, you must also consider and address at least one objection to your own position.
Sources:
This is not a research paper. Please use only the course texts for this assignment.
You may consult the lecture slides for guidance, but you must base your interpretation
of authors in question in the texts themselves. Do not cite the course slides.
Formatting Requirements:
Length: 6-7 pages (double-spaced)
Font: TA preference
Citations: Use proper citation format (MLA, Chicago, or APA - consistent throughout)
Evaluation Criteria:
Directness and clarity of introduction:
• Intro provides sufficient context,
• Avoids unnecessary details/premature explication
Precision and defensibility of thesis statement:
• Student’s position is both clearly stated and plausible
• Supporting reasons are clear, and lead to the stated conclusion
Coherence of roadmap:
• Roadmap provides clear outline for the essay
• Offers natural argumentative sequence for defense of the stated thesis
Accuracy, clarity and depth of explication:
• The author’s position is developed charitably, and to a sufficient level of detail
• Explication is clear enough to make the author’s position plausible to someone
without prior knowledge of the course texts
• Avoids objecting to the author's position before fully developing it
• Appropriate text-based use of evidence
Argumentation:
• Student’s position is well-defended
• Student’s reasoning goes beyond merely restating the arguments provided in the
course texts
• Student’s reasoning effectively engages with the reasoning found in course texts
• Student considers a well-developed objection to their own position
Writing quality (grammar, organization, citations)
• Writing is clear and readable
• Essay is well organized
• Citations are accurate and provided where necessary
Topic List:
1. John Cottingham argues that our confrontation with the totality of existence, “is the
essence of the philosophical impulse that defines our humanity” and moreover that we
“cannot cease to raise, at least as a question, the idea of a transcendent source of that
totality” or in other words, a transcendent God (p.3). How does he defend this claim? Do
you agree or disagree? Make sure to explain Cottingham’s 4 dimensions of
incompleteness, and why he thinks our longing for transcendence is difficult to explain if
that longing has no divine counterpart. Consider a possible objection to Cottingham’s
view on behalf of Nozick or Camus (pick one). Is this objection persuasive? Why or why
not? Explain your reasoning.
2. Schopenhauer argues that “unless suffering is the direct and immediate object of life, our
existence must entirely fail of its aim” (p.43). What is his reasoning for this view, and is
it convincing? Why in particular does he think human life is rife with suffering? Be sure
to explain his claims that Evil has a positive rather than a negative character, and that
pleasure is outweighed by pain. Consider how either Tolstoy or Camus (pick one) might
respond to Schopenhauer’s argument. Can either provide the basis for a life more
worthwhile than Schopenhauer admits? Explain your reasoning.
3. Robert Nozick argues that a purpose given to us by God (assuming he exists) could not
be the basis for meaning. What is his argument? Do you agree or disagree? Be sure to
explain the constraints Nozick identifies which must be met in order that God’s purpose
for us succeed in being a source of meaning, and explain his “philosophical fable”
(p.200). Consider how Cottingham or Tolstoy (pick one) might respond to Nozick’s
arguments. Does Nozick’s address their main claims? Are you persuaded by his view?
Why or why not?
4. Camus advocates lucid acknowledgement of life’s absurdity, or what he calls living
“without appeal” (p.72). What does he mean by this, and do you find it a compelling
answer to the problem of meaning? Make sure to explain what constitutes absurdity for
Camus, and what he means by absurd freedom. Consider how Cottingham or Tolstoy
(pick one) might respond to Camus’ arguments. How might Camus’ reply? Is this reply
persuasive? Explain your reasoning.
Due Date: Dec 3rd