PHL 107: Plato paper assignment

PHL 107-B Prof. Stephens Spring 2009

Paper Assignment on Apology & Crito

Due date: Monday, February 23, at 10:30 a.m. (in class)

Be sure to follow all the guidelines in How to Write Philosophy Papers.

Cover page: Print...

a creative and apt TITLE for your paper,
the NUMBER OF WORDS of the BODY of your paper (not counting the words on the cover page, which is page zero, or on any works cited page),
YOUR name,
the title, number, and section of this course,
the name of the INSTRUCTOR (correctly spelled), and
the DATE your paper is actually turned in.

Length: 1100 to 1400 words. Papers fewer than 1100 are unacceptable. 1400 words is a suggested maximum, which you can exceed if you need to.

Margins: One inch (1") top, bottom, left, right.

Print: Dark, clean, easy-to-read font, pitch size 11 or 12.

Pages: The cover page should be considered page zero. After that page, number each page sequentially in Arabic numerals: 1, 2, etc.

Titles: All titles of works (dialogues, books, etc.) must be italicized. Do NOT underline any words in your paper.

Line spacing: Double space between lines EXCEPT for all direct quotations that are longer than three (3) lines.

Direct quotations:
Sentences in your paper which you copy verbatim from some other published source (e.g. a book) must be set inside double quotation marks (“...”). All quotations longer than three (3) lines must be SINGLE spaced and set in indented, block paragraphs without quotation marks. (The single spaced, indented format serves the function of quotation marks.) Every direct quotation must be immediately followed by the proper FULL CITATION.

Citations/references:
Every idea or statement that comes from another text that you include in your paper MUST have a reference. For example, if you want to write “In his defense, Socrates says that hardly anything his accusers said in their prosecuting speech was true,” then you would include immediately after this sentence the Stephanus number reference which, in this case, would be “(Apology 17a).”
A FULL CITATION includes the source from which the quotation is taken (e.g. Plato, Five Dialogues, translated by G.M.A. Grube, revised by John M. Cooper, Hackett Publishing Co., 2002), the page number within that source, and the Stephanus number if the quotation is from a Platonic dialogue. It looks tidier to have full citations in endnotes. Limit citations within the body of your text to Stephanus number references and page numbers.

Structure:
    In your introductory paragraph, first state the problem you intend to address, then clearly state the THESIS which you will argue for. The thesis is the main idea that you are trying to persuade the reader is true. It is the conclusion of the overall argument of your essay.
    In the body of your paper present solid evidence, i.e. carefully interpreted quotations and reasoned substantiation for all controversial assertions you make in the paper. Imagine you are trying to convince someone who is sceptical about your thesis. What considerations lend support to your thesis? What objections to your thesis could an intelligent person raise?
    In the concluding paragraph, try to objectively assess the overall sucess of the arguments you have given. DON’T write something inane like “Thus, I have conclusively proven my thesis,” or “So there really is no certain answer to this question.” Don’t simply repeat your thesis. Rather, describe the culmination of your inquiry.

TOPIC

In the Apology (29c-d) Socrates says he would refuse to obey the Athenian court if they were to acquit him on the condition that he cease philosophizing. In the Crito, on the other hand, Socrates repeatedly insists on complete obedience to the city of Athens and its laws. Present your own interpretation of these two apparently opposed positions. Is it a real contradiction for Socrates to refuse to escape from prison in the Crito and thus willingly submit himself to execution, while in the Apology insisting that it is his duty to continue to philosophize despite the disapproval of the Athenian law court? Or is this a merely apparent conflict that can be resolved and read as consistent? Carefully examine the relevant texts of both dialogues and develop your own position on this problem. Give arguments to support the interpretation that you think (not feel!) is best. Also consider what someone could say who disagreed with your claims. Describe in your paper possible objections to your reasoning an intelligent person could raise, and then respond intelligently to those counter-arguments.