UNIT 1: Early Philosophy & Logic
Mr. A. Wittmann - Earl Haig S.S.
Mr. A. Wittmann - Earl Haig S.S.
A1. Exploring: explore topics related to philosophy, and formulate questions to guide their research;
A2. Investigating: create research plans, and locate and select information relevant to their chosen topics, using appropriate philosophical research and inquiry methods;
A3. Processing Information: assess, record, analyse, and synthesize information gathered through research and inquiry;
A4. Communicating and Reflecting: communicate the results of their research and inquiry clearly and effectively, and reflect on and evaluate their research, inquiry, and communication skills.
B1. Nature of Philosophy: demonstrate an understanding of the main areas of philosophy, periods of philosophical development, and the differences between philosophy and other areas of inquiry;
B2. Philosophical Reasoning: demonstrate an understanding of philosophical reasoning and critical thinking skills, including skills required to identify and avoid common fallacies of reasoning, and demonstrate the ability to apply these skills in various contexts.
Lecture: Why Study Philosophy?
Lecture: Why Not to Study Philosophy?
Lecture: The Nature of Philosophy
HW Reading: Potter, "It's Not about You." You Are Here: A Portable History of the Universe, p.106-140
Answer the 15 questions at the end of the reading
How does philosophy promote autonomous thinking?
Why Study Philosophy?
Reasons Not to Study Phillosophy
Nature of Philosophy
Potter, "It's Not about You."
Lecture: Logic Syllogisms
Lecture: The Pre-Socratics
Seminar: Philosophical Issues
Seminar: Is Human Nature Irrational
Reading: Russell, The Problem with Philosophy, p.69-71
Reading: Velasquez, The First Philosophers, p.39-41
Contrast the theories of Heraclitus and Parmenides. Which do you agree with and why?
Logic Syllogisms
The Pre-Socratics
Russell, The Problem with Philosophy
Velasquez, The First Philosophers
Virtually every activity and every profession raises philosophical issues. Science, psychology, the practice of law and medicine, and even taxation all involve questions that more or less directly force us to address philosophical issues. Mark Woodhouse invites us to consider the following examples:
1. A neurophysiologist, while establishing correlations between certain brain functions and the feeling of pain, begins to wonder whether the “mind” is distinct from the brain.
2. A nuclear physicist, having determined that matter is mostly empty space containing colorless energy transformations, begins to wonder to what extent the solid, extended, colored world we perceive corresponds to what actually exists and which world is more “real.”
3. A behavioral psychologist, having increasing success in predicting human behavior, questions whether any human actions can be called “free.”
4.Supreme Court justices, when framing a law to distinguish obscene and non-obscene art forms, are drawn into questions about the nature and function of art.
5. An IRS director, in determining which (religious) organizations should be exempted from tax, is forced to define what counts as a “religion” or “religious group.”
And, as Woodhouse also suggests, philosophical questions are continually raised in our everyday life and conversations. Consider, for example, the following statements, which all involve philosophical issues: Sociology is not a science. Drugs reveal new levels of reality. History never repeats itself. Every religion has the same core of truth. We should all be left free to do our own thing, as long as we don’t hurt anyone else. All truth depends on your point of view. The most important thing you can do is find out who you are. This could all be a dream.
QUESTIONS:
1. Are there any areas of life that do not involve philosophical issues?
2. What are your views on the issues that Woodhouse lists? Can you give any good reasons to support your views on these issues, or is it all “just a matter of opinion”?
______________________________________________
Source: Mark D. Woodhouse, A Preface to Philosophy (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1984), 1–2, 26–27. Used by permission.
Many social psychologists who have studied the choices and behaviors of people have concluded that humans do not behave rationally. For example, Max Bazerman, in his book Judgment in Managerial Decision Making, cites numerous studies that show that humans rely on irrational beliefs and rules of thumb when making important decisions. For instance, people rely on a nonexistent “law of averages” that they believe influences the risks they take. People believe they can control purely chance events. People regularly underestimate the risk of dying in familiar but highly risky activities such as driving, smoking, or eating fried foods, and overestimate the risks of unlikely but memorable events such as dying in a plane crash or being attacked by a grizzly bear in a national park. Robert Cialdini notes in his book, Influence, that he found people’s choices can be manipulated by appealing to six non-rational norms or rules that we generally follow:
Reciprocity: I should do this for you because you did something for me.
Commitment and Consistency: I should do this because it is consistent with something I already committed myself to doing.
Liking: I should do this because I know and like you.
Authority. I should do this because an authority says I should.
Scarcity. I should do this because there’s only a few chances left and I won’t get a chance later.
QUESTIONS
1. Suppose that the social psychologists are right in claiming that human beings behave irrationally. Does this show that human nature itself is not rational? Why or why not?
2. Many advertisers, sellers, and promoters believe that Cialdini is right and that his theory provides the key for manipulating people into buying their products or doing what they want. Is there anything wrong with giving people the knowledge about human nature that will enable them to manipulate others?
____________________________
Bazerman, Max, and Don A. Moore. Judgment in Managerial Decision Making. 8th ed. John Wiley & Sons, 2013.
Lecture: Sources & Bias
Introduce Annotated Bibliography Assignment
Work period
Sources & Bias Lecture
Lecture: Socrates & the Sophists
Lecture: Plato & Aristotle
Seminar: Breaking the Law for the Sake of Justice
Seminar: Groupthink
Seminar: Society and the Bomb
Seminar: Sanctuary and the Law
Viewing: Genius of the Ancient World - Socrates
Reading: Velasquez, (selections from) Philosophy, ed. 11
Compare and contrast Plato's and Aristotle's theories of knowledge. Which do you agree with and why?
Socrates & the Sophists
Plato & Aristotle
Velasquez, (selections from Philosophy)
Greek Sources in Arabic and Islamic Philosophy
Aristotelianism in Islamic philosophy
Platonism in Islamic philosophy
Genius of the Ancient World - Socrates
On March 2, 2009, more than 2,500 demonstrators illegally forced their way onto the property of a Washington, D.C., coal-burning power plant and shut it down by blockading its entrances. Only two weeks earlier scientists had reported that global warming was melting the ice sheets on Greenland and the Antarctic faster than expected, thereby raising sea levels and initiating changes in ocean currents that would have “a dramatic impact on the global climate system.” The demonstrators were protesting the use of coal by power plants, which generates 40 percent of the greenhouse gases heating the planet. In a letter to the public they wrote, “There are moments in a nation’s—and a planet’s—history when it may be necessary for some to break the law in order to bear witness to an evil, bring it to wider attention, and push for its correction. We think such a time has arrived.”
These were not the first Americans to deliberately break the law to protest something they felt was morally wrong. During the 1960s, thousands of black people illegally sat in “white-only” sections of restaurants, theaters, buses, and other segregated businesses to protest unjust segregation laws, and thousands of blacks and whites engaged in civil disobedience to protest state laws that kept blacks from exercising their constitutional rights to vote and to attend the same public schools as whites. During the 1970s, tens of thousands of people broke the law to protest the U.S. war in Vietnam, occupying government property, refusing to pay taxes that would support the war, and trespassing on the private property of companies that made military weapons. In the 1990s, thousands broke the law to protest the Gulf War, and in 2003, thousands more did so to protest the war in Iraq. When arrested, protesters have inevitably said that their actions are a matter of conscience and that they are obligated to obey their conscience rather than the law.
QUESTIONS:
1. Is it morally wrong to break the law in the situations described here? Is it wrong when a demonstrator breaks only those specific laws the demonstrator believes are unjust?
2. How would Socrates respond to the civil disobedience of these various groups of protesters? Who is right, Socrates or the demonstrators?
_____________________________________________
Source: Open letter by Bill McKibben and Wendell Berry, released December 12, 2008, and posted at www.yesmagazine.org/article. asp ID=3347.
The psychologist Irving Janis coined the term groupthink to refer to the tendency of cohesive groups to get increasingly out of touch with reality. Janis studied how numerous political leaders and their close advisors made decisions that were spectacularly out of touch with reality, including (1) the Japanese decision to attack the United States at Pearl Harbor, (2) President Truman’s decision to escalate the Korean War, (3) President Kennedy’s deci- sion to invade Cuba at the Bay of Pigs, (4) President Johnson’s decision to escalate the Vietnam War, and (5) President Nixon’s decision to launch a cover-up of the Watergate break-in. Janis found that “the social pressures that develop in cohesive groups,” particularly the desire “to preserve friendly intra-group relations,” lead such groups to develop an “us-versus-them” mentality that gradually distorts their ability to evaluate their situation realistically. Symptoms of such groupthink include an “illusion of the group’s invulnerability”; a “belief in the inherent morality of the group” and its activities; “collective rationalization” that discounts any outside information that might conflict with the group’s assumptions; “stereotypes” of outsiders and critics as weak, stupid, or evil; “direct pressure on dissenters” within the group; “self-censorship” that leads each member to discount his or her own doubts about the group’s beliefs and assumptions; the “illusion of unanimity” within the group; and the emergence of “self-appointed mind-guards” who protect the group from any contrary outside information that might shatter their comfortable assumptions.
QUESTIONS
1. What aspects of Plato’s Myth of the Cave can be interpreted as groupthink?
2. Do you see any of the symptoms of groupthink in any groups within our society, an entire nation or society, the entire human race?
___________________________________________________________________________
Source: I. L. Janis, Victims of Groupthink (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1972).
The decision to drop the nuclear bomb that killed tens of thousands of the civilian inhabitants of the city of Hiroshima on August 6, 1945, was made while the United States was at war with Japan. Henry L. Stimson, the American Secretary of War at the time, later explained that he advised President Truman to drop the bomb on the basis of utilitarian reasoning:
I felt that to extract a genuine surrender from the [Japanese] Emperor and his military advisers, they must be administered a tremendous shock which would carry convincing proof of our power to destroy the Empire. Such an effective shock would save many times the number of lives, both American and Japanese, that it would cost. . . . Our enemy, Japan, . . . had the strength to cost us a million more [lives]. . . . Additional large losses might be expected among our allies and . . . enemy casualties would be much larger than our own . . . . My chief purpose was to end the war in victory with the least possible cost in lives. . . . The face of war is the face of death; death
is an inevitable part of every order that a wartime leader gives. The decision to use the atomic bomb was a decision that brought death to over a hundred thousand Japanese. . . . But this deliberate, premeditated destruction was our least abhorrent choice.
Objecting to this kind of utilitarian justification for killing the inhabitants of cities with nuclear weapons, philosopher-theologian John C. Ford wrote the following:
[Is] it permissible, in order to win a just war, to wipe out such an area with death or grave in- jury, resulting indiscriminately, to the majority of its ten million inhabitants? In my opinion the answer must be in the negative. . . . [It] is never permitted to kill directly noncombatants in wartime. Why? Because they are innocent. That is, they are innocent of the violent and destructive action of war, or of any close participation in the violent and destructive action of war.
QUESTIONS:
1. Is killing the innocent always wrong, no matter what the consequences?
2. Would you side with Stimson or Ford about the morality of dropping the bomb?
____________________________________________
Source: Henry L. Stimson, “The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb,” Harpers (February 1947), 101–102, 106–107; John C. Ford, “The Hydrogen Bombing of Cities,” Theology Digest (Winter 1957).
In January 1985, sixteen people, including two Roman Catholic priests, a Presbyterian minister, and three nuns, were charged with illegally smuggling and sheltering Central American refugees in the United States. The refugees were people fleeing from torture and virtually certain death in their own war-torn countries. The sixteen people charged with illegally helping the refugees argued that giving sanctuary to the refugees was a matter of conscience and that they were obligated to obey their conscience rather than the law. Several newspapers carried the story.
Tucson, Arizona- In direct defiance of immigration statutes, the Rev. John Fife and his combat riots in the sanctuary movement help transport Central American refugees across the Mexican border into the United States. They find food and shelter for them, often in churches, and then transport their wards through relays to cities such as Chicago, Los Angeles, Cincinnati and Seattle.
Two hundred churches publicly have declared their status as sanctuaries, and the pastors, priests, rabbis and lay workers who have joined the movement speak freely about their work... "When you hear about the fear and the violence and the torture these people face at home, you have little choice but to help," said Jill Levis of Christ Church Presbyterian in Burlington, VT. "The Bible says that God takes sides and he tells us to take the side of the needy. We are acting out our faith," said Peggy Hutchison, who was charged in the same federal indictment as Fife and fourteen other sanctuary workers. "We believe very strongly in what we are doing." Fife said, "You have to help the refugees or else you lose your soul."
Ruth Anne Myers, district director in Arizona for the Immigration and Naturalization Service, insists that "the government's position is simply that ti is against the law to smuggle, harbor or transport aliens into the United States. The law doesn't say if good people are doing it, it's OK, or if the people doing it think the law is wrong, it's OK," Myers added. "It's like the bombing of abortion clinics. These are people who take the law into their own hands for religious reasons."
Sanctuary activists argue that it is too difficult for most Central Americans to prove to the satisfaction of the INS that they will be murdered or tortured if they return home. All of the Arizona activists facing trial have said they will not suspend their sanctuary activity as long as they are free. Twenty-five un-indicted co-conspirators, from places such as Seattle, Germantown, Pa., and Rochester, N.Y., have said they will continue their work and plan to refuse to testify against their indicted friends. Even fi al the charged activists are jailed, Fife said, the movement will not stop. "They can put Jim and I away for years, and sanctuary will go like gang busters," he said. "No one runs this movement. It runs by itself, on faith."
QUESTIONS:
1. Is it wrong for the workers in the sanctuary movement to break the law? Is it wrong to refuse to testify against sanctuary workers who have broken the law? Is it wrong to continue to break the law once the courts have reached a decision on the sanctuary cases?
2. How would Socrates respond to the sanctuary movement workers? Would vou agree with Socrates?
____________________________________________
Source: "Answering to a Higher Obligation,"San JoseMercury News, January 1, 1985, p. .1
Lecture: Indian Philosophy: Hinduism & Buddhism
Lecture: Chinese Philosophy: Daoism & Confucius
Seminar: Evidence of the Soul
Seminar: Is Selflessness Real
Seminar: Albert Ellis and Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy
Seminar: Embryonic Stem Cell Research
Viewing: Genius of the Ancient World - The Buddha
Viewing: Genius of the Ancient World - Confucius
Reading: Paramananda, The Upanishads, p.1-33
Reading: Buddha, Dhammapada, p.1-30
Reading: Lao-Tzu, Tao Te Ching, p.1-37
Reading: Confucius, Analects, p.1-13
Was Buddhism a completely different ethical perspective from Confucius? How?
Indian Philosophy: Hinduism & Buddhism
Chinese Philosophy: Daoism & Confucius
Paramananda, The Upanishads
Buddha, Dhammapada
Lao-Tzu, Tao Te Ching
Confucius, Analects
Genius of the Ancient World - The Buddha
Genius of the Ancient World - Confucius
For several years the American Society for Psychical Research has been carefully conducting the research called for in the will of an obscure seventy year-old Arizona miner named James Kidd, who died in 1946. The old miner left a will that read:
Phoenix Arizona
Jan 2nd 1946 this is my first and only will and is dated the second day in January 1946. I have no heir’s, have not been married in my life, an after all my funeral expenses have been paid and $100. one hundred dollars to some preacher of the gospal [sic] to say farewell at my grave sell all my property which is all in cash and stocks with E. F. Hutton Co. Phoenix some in safety box, and have this balance money to go in a research or some scientific proof of a soul of the human body which leaves at death I think in time their can be a Photograph of soul leaving the human at death,
James Kidd
The E. F. Hutton stocks were worth more than $200,000 or about $2.2 million today. Several groups came forward to claim the money, asserting that they would carry out the research stipulated in Kidd’s will. Superior Court Judge Robert Myers, before whom the will was read, was faced with the task of trying to determine which group should get the money. After ten years of deliberations, the estate was awarded to the American Society for Psychical Research. A few years later the ASPR announced early results of its search for the soul:
Six out-of-body (OBE) projects have been conducted. An OBE “fly-in” and an attempt to correlate OBEs and apparitions both sup- ported the OBE hypothesis, but other interpretations (e.g. ESP) are possible. Perceptual experiments with OBEs and psychophysiological studies of subjects gave similar results: evidence in harmony with OBE hypothesis but other explanations possible. Instrumental recordings (i.e. photos) and a test of mediums gave negative results. Deathbed studies of apparitions, visions, hallucinations, etc. (reported by attending doctors and nurses) supported the conclusion that “some of the dying patients indeed appeared to be already experiencing glimpses of ecsomatic existence.” But again, other interpretations can’t be ruled out; so these results “should not be taken as a final balance of evidence for or against survival.” Masses of data are still being processed.
QUESTIONS:
1. What kind of evidence could disprove the existence of a nonmaterial soul? What kind could prove the existence of a soul?
2. How would you have decided who was to receive the money if you were in the position of Judge Robert Myers?
___________________________________________
Source: ASPR Newsletter, July 1976.
Several contemporary biologists have argued that apparently selfless human behavior is actually a kind of selfish activity that our genes impel us to carry out. For example, Desmond Morris suggests that when a man rushes into a burning house to save his daughter—or if an old friend or even a complete stranger rescues the child—he is actually saving an organism that contains or, in the case of the friend or stranger, may contain his own genes. We have developed these protective behaviors so that our genes can survive and be passed on to future generations. Thus, helping behaviors are genetically selfish: They are mechanisms that our genes have evolved to ensure their own survival.
The man who risks death to save his small daughter from a fire is in reality saving his own genes in their new body-package. And in saving his genes, his act becomes biologically selfish, rather than altruistic.
But supposing the man leaping into the fire is trying to save, not his daughter, but an old friend? How can this be selfish? The answer here lies in the ancient history of mankind. For more than a million years, man was a simple tribal being. . . . [T]he chances were that every member of your own tribe was a relative of some kind. . . . [In saving your old friend] you would be helping copies of your own genes. . . . Again . . . genetic selfishness.
[Moreover, when man] was tribal, . . . any inborn urge to help his fellow men would have meant automatically that he was helping gene-sharing relatives. . . . But with the urban explosion, man rapidly found himself in huge communities, surrounded by strangers, and with no time for his genetic constitution to alter to fit the startlingly new circumstances. So his altruism inevitably spread to include [complete strangers].
QUESTIONS:
1. What do theories of evolution, such as that proposed by Desmond Morris, imply about our human nature?
2. Could all human behavior be explained in terms of genes?
_______________________________________
Source: Desmond Morris, Manwatching, A Field Guide to Human Behavior (New York: Harry N. Abrams, 1977), 153–154.
Dr. Albert Ellis is a well-known clinical psychologist who has developed a form of therapy based on the idea that neurotic symptoms and psychological problems spring from an irrational philosophy: irrational beliefs that are the result of “philosophical conditioning.” According to Ellis, our emotions and behaviors are the result of the beliefs and assumptions we have about ourselves, other people, and the world in general. It is what people believe about the situations they face—not the situations themselves—that determines how they feel and behave. According to Ellis, this idea was first stated by Epictetus, a Roman stoic philosopher who, in the first century CE, said that people are disturbed not by things but by the views they take of them. To eliminate the disturbance, we need merely change our views. In his book The Essence of Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy (1994), Ellis states that although many irrational beliefs exist, there are three main ones:
1. “I must do well and get approval, or I am worthless.”
2. “You must treat me reasonably, considerately, and lovingly, or else you’re no good.”
3. “Life must be fair, easy, and hassle-free, or else it’s awful.”
If a person is to be happy, he or she must change these irrational philosophical beliefs, which are the source of anxiety, depression, hopelessness, resentment, hostility, and violence. The person can change these irrational ideas by asking questions: “Is there any evidence for this belief?” “What is the evidence against this belief?” “What is the worst that can happen if I give up this belief?” “What is the best that can happen?” We can be happy only when the irrational beliefs that underlie our neuroses and other psychological problems are replaced by a more rational philosophy.
QUESTIONS:
1. Do you agree that a person’s philosophical assumptions can have the significant psychological impacts that Ellis’s theory claims? If Ellis is right, what are the implications for philosophy?
2. Consider Ellis’s three main irrational beliefs and determine whether they belong to the field of epistemology, metaphysics, or ethics.
________________________
Source: Dryden, W., David, D., & Ellis, A. (2010). Rational emotive behavior therapy. In K. S. Dobson (Ed.), Handbook of Cognitive-Behavioral Therapies (pp. 226–276). Guilford Press.
Human embryonic stem cells are cells taken from several-day-old embryos and are capable of turning into virtually any type of human cell, from blood cells to muscle, skin, brain, stomach, heart, pancreatic, or liver cells. Stem cells are perfect for replacing the diseased or injured tissues of patients with spinal cord injury, stroke, burns, heart disease, diabetes, osteoarthritis, and rheumatoid arthritis. Scientists believe that if stem cells from aborted embryos are implanted into the brains of patients suffering from Alzheimer’s (which causes memory loss) or Parkinson’s disease (which causes tremors, rigidity, and eventually complete paralysis), the embryo’s cells could take over the functions the patient’s own brain cells can no longer perform, and the patient could recover fully or partially. Researchers believe that stem cells from aborted embryos can be transplanted into the pancreatic tissues of diabetics, into the brain tissues of patients with Huntington’s disease, into the spines of patients with multiple sclerosis, into the livers of patients with Hurler’s syndrome, or into the tissues of patients suffering from more than 155 genetic disorders and could produce full or partial cures of these crippling illnesses. Some researchers have suggested that injecting stem cells into muscle or skin can enhance these tissues, raising the possibility that athletes could take embryonic stem cell injections to improve their performance or that embryonic cells could be used for cosmetic purposes.
Opponents of abortion have argued that to use, or conduct research on, stem cells is morally wrong because acquiring embryonic stem cells involves aborting or destroying the embryo, which they believe is a human being. In 1995, Congress imposed a ban prohibiting spending federal funds on “research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death.” After his election, President George W. Bush was lobbied by patient groups, scientific organizations, and the biotechnology industry to lift this ban. Anti-abortion groups urged him not to do so. On August 9, 2001, Bush announced that he would allow federal funding for such research but only on stem cells already in existence, not on any stem cells acquired through future destruction of embryos. Bush’s decision left both supporters and opponents of stem cell research unhappy. But on March 9, 2009, newly elected President Barack Obama reversed the Bush policy. Declaring that the previous administration had “forced what I believe is a false choice between sound science and moral values,” Obama lifted the ban on using federal funds for stem cell research regardless of the source of the stem cells. Although many scientists celebrated the new policy, opponents of abortion saw it as a defeat for morality on a basic question of human life.
QUESTIONS:
1. In your view, is it moral to transplant or conduct research on the cells of aborted embryos? Would it be moral to abort an embryo intentionally to pro- vide researchers with stem cells? Would it be moral to use stem cells to improve athletic performance or for cosmetic purposes?
2. In your judgment, is a ban on the use of federal funds for embryonic stem cell research immoral? Was Bush’s 2001 decision immoral? Was Obama’s 2009 decision moral?
___________________________________________
Source: American Association for the Advancement of Science, “AAAS Policy Brief: Stem Cell Research,” http://www.aaas.org/spp/cstc/briefs/ stemcells (accessed March 3, 2004); Claudia Kalb, “A New Stem Cell Era,” Newsweek, online edition, March 9, 2009, http://www.newsweek .com/id/188454 (accessed May 28, 2009).
Viewing: The Matrix (1999)
Culminating Evaluation: Unit 1 Test
Brightspace online test
Available from the beginning of class to the end of class
1 attempt for each question, so be careful
25 multiple choice questions, 1 mark each
May be, but not only, based on the following...
Define autonomy
Plato’s Myth of the Cave
Group think
3 types of thinking
3 areas of philosophy
Socrates
Euthyphro
Apology
Crito
Plato’s Forms
Thales
Parmenides
Heraclitus
Zeno
Aristotle’s 4 Causes
Anthropomorphism
Upanishads
Brahman
Atman
Buddha
Karma
Dharma
Daoism
Confucius
Vedas
Choose and answer one of the Unit 1 review questions in 200-300 words, 10 marks
(Incomplete 0)
Incomplete response, with inconsistent structure of intro, body & conclusion
Uncommunicated response, using very little philosophical language & style, with some formatting issues
(Needs Improvement 5)
Weak organization of response, with some structure of intro, body & conclusion
Unclearly communicated response, using some philosophical language & style, with some formatting issues
(Satisfactory 6 or 7)
Somewhat organization of response, including clear structure & some evidence of previous thought & inquiry
Somewhat organization of response, including clear structure intro, body & conclusion
(Good 8 or 9)
Logical organization of response, including clear structure & clear evidence of previous thought & inquiry
Clearly communicated response, using philosophical language & style
(Excellent 9.5 or 10)
Skillful organization of response, including clear & strong structure & strong evidence of previous thought & inquiry
Skillful organization of response, including clear & strong structure intro, body & conclusion
Answer following provided question, in 200-300 words, 10 marks
How is the “matrix” like Plato’s Cave, and how is Neo like Plato’s released prisoner?
(Incomplete 0)
Incomplete response, with inconsistent structure and no evidence of previous thought & inquiry
(Needs Improvement 5)
Weak organization of response, with some structure & little evidence of previous thought & inquiry
(Satisfactory 6 or 7)
Somewhat organization of response, including clear structure & some evidence of previous thought & inquiry
(Good 8 or 9)
Logical organization of response, including clear structure & clear evidence of previous thought & inquiry
(Excellent 9.5 or 10)
Skillful organization of response, including clear & strong structure & strong evidence of previous thought & inquiry