This week’s prompt: Using standard form, outline Descartes’s skeptical argument using God or an evil demon in your initial post. In responses to others, consider either 1) how to make the improve your peer’s interpretation or 2) how one might object to Descartes’s skepticism.
Each week we will have discussions, in which we will practice our philosophical skills. In these discussions, we will be learning how read philosophy and reconstruct arguments.
Remember, when we inquire we use reason and logic while being respectful of others. Take other’s criticisms seriously and consider if you might revise your interpretation of Descartes or your own beliefs. We are trying to get closer to the truth here. By interpreting Descartes, we are bringing him into our discussion on the limitations of our own knowledge.
In your responses to other students, inquiring requires going beyond expressing agreement–there isn’t much critical thinking there at all really. Try to call each other into thinking more deeply about the topic. Having a discussion with only one type of response (express agreement) would be like playing a sport with only one move (say, quarterback runs the ball). That’s not going to make for an interesting game.
You need to know more ‘reasoning moves.’ Here is a list to help you. As you respond, name the reasoning move you are making. You can say “I am putting forth a hypothesis and providing a reason for it.” The first four are ones we will be spending a lot of time on in this course. Here is my list:
Offer a hypothesis (a possible answer to the question.).
Provide a reason/argument (you can even put it in standard form!).
Offer an objection/criticism (not used nearly enough, but the bread and butter response in philosophy!).
Offer a reply (let’s get some solid back-and-forth discussion going!).
Ask a clarifying question (be sure to follow up after they reply!).
Draw a distinction (and say why the distinction matters!).
Redirect to a passage in the text (and explain why this passage is important.).
Offer a definition (note that even definitions can be contestable).
Think philosophically requires thinking deeply.
