Write a 2500-3000-word, argumentative, thesis-driven essay on one of the followi

Write a 2500-3000-word, argumentative, thesis-driven essay on one of the followi

Write a 2500-3000-word, argumentative, thesis-driven essay on one of the following topics on the philosophy of Plato and Aristotle. Writing a good philosophy paper usually requires significant time and effort. This task is manageable if you write the paper in stages. I propose the following timetable.
Start working on an outline or a draft today or within the next few days. The sooner, the better.
Submit a draft by 11:59 PM on 11/28 on Canvas so I can assign you a peer-reviewer on 11/29. Aim to develop your answers as much as possible. Also, note that I’d be happy to look at an outline or a précis of your paper during office hours, but I cannot read drafts if you’d like me to grade your paper blindly. Failure to participate in the peer-review session will result in a 5-point deduction.
Revise your draft in light of your peer’s feedback and submit it by 11:59 PM on 12/06. You may use your one-day extension; no permission or notification is required. Canvas will automatically timestamp your submission, and I will track whether you’ve used your extension.
I strongly discourage you from consulting any external sources in crafting your paper, as this is not a research paper but an argumentative and interpretative one. If you must, clarify precisely how you have used them. Your paper should be anonymized and typewritten using a legible font and font size. Any citation format (APA/MLA/Chicago, etc.) is acceptable as long as it is used consistently throughout. You need not give your paper a title; it suffices to indicate which prompt you are responding to.
Topics:
1. Plato on Knowledge and the Forms
In the dialogue Meno, we encounter an argument that purports to show the impossibility of inquiry and knowledge more broadly. (i) Restate this argument and explain why Socrates considers Meno’s argument an eristic argument. Socrates defends the possibility of knowledge in the Meno by offering a demonstration to show that “the whole inquiry of learning is recollection” (81d5). In a later dialogue, Phaedo, he reinforces this hypothesis with the argument from recollection for the immortality of the soul. (ii) Explain this argument. In your answer, articulate why Plato believes that learning is recollection, knowledge is of Forms, and specify what the Forms are, exactly. (iii) Evaluate Plato’s theory of Forms in the framework of his theory of knowledge (epistemology). Consider what roles the Forms play in Plato’s epistemology and assess how effectively they perform these roles.

2. Solving the Parmenidean Puzzle: Platonic and Aristotelian Approaches
Nearly every Greek philosopher after Parmenides endeavors to solve Parmenides’ puzzle of coming to be, which leads him to the rejection of all perceptual changes. (i) What is Plato’s account of change? Be sure to include details about how Plato explains perceptual changes while maintaining that some things, as Parmenides affirms, are eternal and unalterable. (ii) What is Aristotle’s analysis of change? Be sure to identify the constituents of Aristotle’s account and illustrate what roles these constituents play in the account by providing examples. (iii) Evaluate both Plato’s and Aristotle’s theories. Is one more plausible than the other as a response to Parmenides’ assault on the phenomenon of change?

3. Aristotelian Virtue Ethics
In Nicomachean Ethics (EN) II.4, Aristotle introduces conditions that determine whether a virtuous action was also done virtuously. (i) Explain the difference between an action that is merely virtuous and an action that is done virtuously. (ii) What kind of thing is virtue, according to Aristotle? What are the criteria for the possession of moral virtue? How do these conditions help us to distinguish an action that is merely virtuous from one done virtuously? Provide examples to illuminate how these conditions may or may not be satisfied. (iii) Aristotle also asserts the following about these conditions. “These are not reckoned as conditions of the possession of the arts, except the bare knowledge; but as a condition of the possession of the excellences, knowledge has little or no weight, while the other conditions count not for a little but for everything” (EN II.4 1105b1-4). Explain what Aristotle means and evaluate his position
4. Justice under Attack
In the first book of Republic, Socrates encounters a formidable opponent in the shape of the sophist Thrasymachus, who brazenly criticizes conventional views of justice. (i) What is Thrasymachus’ theory of justice in Republic I? In your answer, distinguish between Thrasymachus’s anti-conventionalist and immoralist positions and state at least one of his arguments for each. (ii) Explain Glaucon and Adeimantus’ developments of Thrasymachus’ defense of immoralism in Republic II. (iii) Sketch Socrates’ response to Thrasymachus’ theory. Is Socrates’ defense of justice against the immoralist persuasive?

× How can I help you?