Second, read Deaton’s “How to Study Philosophy” and “Fundamentals of Critical Thinking,” as well as Dolbow and Deaton’s “If They Only Knew,” and watch the lectures below. While you’re watching, take notes as you would in an in-person class. Note that all course readings are available here on the course site in PDF (click “Modules to the left). All lecture videos will be inside the weekly reflection directions like this (see below). And I’ll usually (though not always) also provide additional lecture notes, also found under Modules.
Once you’ve done all that, reflect a bit. Try organizing your ideas in your own words, following the guidance from “How to Study Philosophy.”
Then start a new thread and answer the following prompts by typing directly (or pasting your text directly) into your post (no attachments unless specifically requested by me in writing, though this first week you can attach an image of your diagrammed argument — see below). Be sure to label each section of your response with its corresponding number (see below). Don’t include any of these instructions or prompt details in your post (these do not count toward the word-count expectations articulated in the syllabus). And ensure you’ve submitted by the due date noted in the syllabus (usually by Wednesday at midnight), when the ability to post will end.
Paragraph 1: Summarize Deaton’s “How to Study Philosophy.” Explain his tips in your own words, being sure to include key terms, as well as points you found especially interesting.
Paragraph 2: Share what from “The Fundamentals of Critical Thinking” you found most interesting and why.
Paragraph 3 (there are four sub-parts): Using the instructions found in “Fundamentals of Critical Thinking,” summarize, condense and enumerate the claims included within, diagram and then analyze what you take to be the primary argument in the “If They Only Knew” reading.
Be sure to include not only an informal summary of the argument in your own words, but a condensed version where the premises and conclusion are numbered (a “formalized” version of the primary argument), a diagram of how the premises are intended to logically work together to support the conclusion, and finally your analysis of the argument. Please review “Fundamentals of Critical Thinking” and the associated lecture vid to see how to do all of this.
Your post will look something like this:
Part 1: “Deaton explains in ‘How to Study Philosophy’ that academic philosophy is… He argues that philosophers are very much like scientists except… One good strategy for studying philosophy he recommends is… Another is…”
Part 2: “The idea/tip/point that stood out most to me from “The Fundamentals of Critical Thinking” was… I found it especially interesting because…”
Part 3:
3a: [Argument informally summarized in your words]
3b: [Argument condensed and claims formalized into their simplest, most straightforward form, with claims placed within [brackets] and assigned numbers as explained in “The Fundamentals of Critical Thinking”]
3c: [A diagram of the argument (using the numbers you assigned the premises and conclusion in step 3b) which can be typed out as in the following example (the “V”s beneath premises are arrows representing how premises support intermediate conclusions, and ultimately the final conclusion), or you can simply draw your diagram on a piece of paper and insert a picture of it in your post:]
(1 + 2) (4 + 5) [<–these numbers correspond to the numbers you assigned premises in step 2c]
V V
3 6 [<–these numbers represent intermediate conclusions which become premises]
V
7 [<–this would be the argument’s ultimate conclusion]
NOTE THAT YOUR DIAGRAM WON’T NECESSARILY LOOK LIKE THIS — THIS IS ONLY AN EXAMPLE — PLEASE FORMALIZE THE ARGUMENT THE BEST YOU CAN AND DIAGRAM IT HOW YOU THINK BEST
3d: [Your analysis of the argument — Are the premises credible? Do they work together to logically support the conclusion as the authors claim? If so, how strong is the argument? If not, how weak is it? Were any reasoning fallacies committed? Please explain.]
Anticipated Question: How do I “enumerate premises” to “formalize” and analyze arguments?
Answer: Read my “Fundamentals of Critical Thinking” and watch the vid below to find out (Are the argument’s premises credible? Does its internal logic work? Are any reasoning fallacies being committed?). Keep in mind that philosophers analyze arguments differently from how an attorney, politician, interest group advocate, tv or internet personality might. For one, “argument” is a technical term used in a special sense (read the readings to learn what sense, please). We’re also interested in what’s objectively true, not what happens to align with our preconceived biases, political affiliations, or even what might be personally beneficial. The expectation is that you’ll analyze the argument in an honest, respectful, disinterested fashion — no politically-motivated sophistry or emotional ploys, please.
Last, for this and all assignments in this class, please submit your original work. One benefit of doing philosophy is that it will seriously sharpen and expand your reasoning skill. This is one of the primary benefits of attending college. But that benefit only occurs if you tackle the readings and assignments directly. You’ll find that I’m not a tough grader on these reflections. So long as you show that you’ve read, you answer all aspects of the prompts, follow the directions, and meet the word count expectations, you’ll get full credit (please see the syllabus for the full details). Building your mental stamina, the ability to concentrate and think through stuff for yourself, is part of the point of college. Embrace that challenge now. It will serve you well in your other classes, in your post-college career, and throughout your life. Welcome and have fun — you got this.