Philosophy paper

For the argument analysis essay, you will submit a 2-3 page essay analyzing the various arguments put forward by Rene Descartes and Princess Elisabeth in their Correspondence. Given the aim of the project, to demonstrate your ability to analyzing arguments, you should focus on the arguments in the text and not on external sources. This text presents an example of two people using arguments to respond to one another in a philosophical dispute. Your analysis should cover the various stages of the arguments as they develop. A pdf copy of the reading is provided below. To understand the context of Princess Elisabeth's critique of Descartes' view, I have attached a short video. To present your analysis, your paper should include: An introductory section, in which you explain the philosophical controversy to which the argument you will analyze pertains, define any technical terms, and briefly describe the overall structure and content of the paper. An expository section, in which you present and explain the motivation behind the argument that you are going to analyze. Note well: even if you ultimately disagree with the argument under discussion, you should present it in the most sympathetic way possible and explain why the reasoning behind the argument might be attractive. Presenting the argument with the premises enumerated is best practice. A critical section, in which you raise and discuss one or more objections to the argument. This will take the form of challenging the truth of one or more premises of the argument under discussion. You should say what an opponent of the argument can most plausibly object to. Then you should assess the opponent’s objection by agreeing or disagreeing and saying why. You should say whether you think the objection is decisive against the argument, and you should say why you take the position that you take. A conclusion, in which you review the main points of your paper and emphasize the most important insight to be gained from the discussion. Remember, there are three possible grades: failed, passing, and fully-satisfactory. Here are my grading criteria, in order of importance: Was the analysis insightful? Was the exposition clear and precise? Was the paper well structured? Was the paper well edited, having few if any grammar, punctuation, and spelling errors? It is possible to get a fully-satisfactory for a paper that is amazing on the first criterion but that falls a little short on the rest, but it is also possible to get a fully-satisfactory for a paper that is perfect on the latter three criteria, but which contains an analysis that has obvious objections. This is an introductory level course, and my expectations for your analysis are calibrated to that fact. I want to see that you have given serious consideration to the argument and that you are not committing a straw man fallacy ([login to view URL]). Use instead the steel man method ([login to view URL]). Your paper should demonstrate the philosophical virtue of seriously attempting to address the underlying logic and motivations of your opponent’s view by sensitively considering how your opponent might respond to what you say. This is important: You should not think of me as the audience for your paper, although of course I will be the one reading it. As you write you should be thinking of an intelligent peer who is not in our course as your audience. So, if you introduce technical terms they must be defined, for example. If you’re thinking of me as your audience you will tend to gloss over details, but part of what I’m looking for is whether you can clearly and precisely explain philosophical distinctions and arguments; so the details matter. This is not a research paper. The only text you need to conduct the analysis is the one provided.