Introduction
Over the course of the semester, you will be reading and assessing philosophical arguments.
In this commentary, you will articulate Descartes’s position and Reconstruct his Argument (hence the ‘RA’ abbreviation). We have already been practicing through the PowerPoints and discussion board. Now it is your time to try on your own. (In later assignments, you will also add your own objection to that argument (O), and how the author should reply to your objection (R). That’s why we call it a RAOR Commentary).
See here for an example grade-A commentary. For this week, just focus on the first two paragraphs of the grade-A-commentary example, outlining the position and the argument. You may use this example as a template.
Unit Learning Outcomes
(ULO 1) Develop the skills to do close, active reading of philosophical texts. (CLO 1, 3)
(ULO 2) Practice reconstructing arguments by putting them in standard form. (CLO 1, 3)
Directions
Reread the last 2 pages of Meditation II, where Descartes answers the question: what can be known better: the physical or the mental?
Outline Descartes’s answer to this question in 1-2 sentences.
Explain any key concepts from the reading (in this case, what Descartes means by ‘physical’ and ‘mental.’)
Reconstruct Descartes’s argument in standard form.
Format
You may choose any citation style as long as you are clear and consistent.
Paraphrase, do not copy, the original text. if you use more than six words in a row that are pulled directly from one of the readings, then you must use quotations marks and proper citation.
The RA should be between 200 and 300 words. If it is a little longer, that is OK.
Longer Explanation:
These assignments form the backbone of philosophical work by teaching you how to understand and engage with the arguments that philosophers make. A fully developed RAOR will include the reconstruction of an argument (RA), an objection to that argument (O), and a reply to your objection (R) made on the author’s behalf. We will build up to that full structure, by first working on reconstructing an argument, then on reconstructing an argument and raising an objection, and finally on the entire RAOR format.
To begin, please be sure to look over the example of a grade-A commentary that is linked on the RAOR assignments. That example will help guide you as you are constructing your own RAOR submissions.
Second, make sure that your reconstructed argument is an argument. An argument is a reasoned train of thought from premises to a conclusion, where the premises provide justification for accepting the conclusion. A series of claims that simply state your conclusion is not an argument. A list of proposals isn’t an argument. In reconstructing an author’s argument we must aim to be charitable: we want to reconstruct the argument so that it is as strong as it plausibly can be. This means we must avoid reconstructing a straw man argument, one that is very easy to demolish.
Next week, you will be taught to raise objections to the arguments you reconstruct. Doing so will help you understand the justificatory structure of the argument, and to begin to probe its weaknesses. An objection is an explicit criticism of a specific premise or premises in the argument you’ve reconstructed. Rhetorical questions are not objections to premises, nor are dogmatic assertions that a premise is false. Instead, your objection should itself give some reason to think the premise or premises in question is false.
Eventually, you will be asked to reply to the objection you raised. Your reply should be framed from the point of view of someone who accepts the original argument. That reply should give some reason for thinking that the objection does not completely undercut the original argument.
By combining argument reconstruction, objection, and reply into one assignment, RAORs allow you to develop the skillset needed to engage critically with philosophical positions for and against different sides of various issues.
Evaluation
You will be evaluated based on your ability to:
Identify the authors’ thesis.
Articulate the authors’ reason(s) for holding that thesis.
Correctly identifying the thesis only puts one in the ‘D’ category. Articulating the author’s reasons, in addition to correctly identifying the author’s thesis, will put you in the C/B/A category. Whether you receive a C, B, or A depends upon how ACCURATE and CLEAR your summary of the reasons are. If they are neither very clear nor very accurate, you will earn a C. If they are clear or accurate (but not both), then you will earn a B. If they are both clear and accurate, then you will earn an A.
Your instructor will leave you feedback.
