Format: 8.5″x11″ pages, 1″ margins, Times New Roman font, double spaced lines, i

Format: 8.5″x11″ pages, 1″ margins, Times New Roman font, double spaced lines, indented the first line of each paragraph. Substantial errors in spelling or grammar will result in a reduction of grade. Student name and page number may be placed in a header within the margins, but this is not required (since Canvas will tell me who each paper was submitted by). Professor name, course name, date, etc. need not be included.
File should be in .doc or .docx (Microsoft Word) format. Note that as students of Florida Tech you have access to Microsoft Office, including via a web browser, so this should not present any difficulty. Submit the final version here, via Canvas.
Content: Your final paper should examine an issue of philosophical import in some depth. This may be done in a variety of ways, but the paradigmatic example would be to discuss what one philosopher says about the issue, discuss how another philosopher disagrees, and finally offer your own evaluation of these two differing views–for example, by synthesizing them, denying them both, or arguing that one is more plausible than the other for whatever reason. Fortunately, you have a rough draft of precisely that paper already written, so the best way to complete this assignment will be to go back to your three short papers, edit them in accordance with the feedback you’ve been given, add an introduction, conclusion, and transition paragraphs, and polish it until it shines. The final product should be about 2000 words.
The issue you examine may be a metaphysical claim, a value claim, or an epistemological claim, but it should be one of those! Your paper should cite few sources–obviously you should cite the original or translated work of any philosopher you discuss, but beyond that you should not use more than three or four other sources. Your bibliography should not be included in your word count. I do not have a citation format preference beyond “consistent.”
Your paper will be graded across five areas:
Did you identify a specific argument about metaphysics, values, or epistemology? (0-10 points)
Did you clearly and accurately explain the positions on this matter of two historically important philosophers? (0-30 points)
Did you provide your own conclusion on the matter, backed by careful reasoning and evidence and grounded in the thoughts of the philosophers you’ve cited? (0-20 points)
Did you cite the original text(s) of those philosophers, along with no more than four other academically appropriate sources, in a consistent and recognized citation style (e.g. APA, MLA, Chicago)? (0-20 points)
Is your paper grammatically correct, proofread, formatted as instructed, and otherwise linguistically coherent? (0-20 points)
The feedback for the three previous papers is as follows:
First paper: This is a competent summary of many things Plato believed concerning various virtues. But the assignment prompt is to focus on just ONE thing Plato claimed–not many things. Consequently, you never really engage with Plato, explaining why he might believe these things, why we might believe him, or what any one of these things really means. You need to substantially increase your focus and depth.
Did you identify a specific argument about metaphysics, values, or epistemology from a philosopher of the appropriate time period? 12/20 Did you clearly and accurately summarize that argument? 30/40 Did you cite the original text(s) in which that argument was made, along with no more than two other academically appropriate sources? 17/20 Is your paper grammatically correct, proofread, formatted as instructed, and otherwise linguistically coherent? 18/20
Second paper: This is a good start. You would still benefit from increased focus–early on you seem to suggest that Aristotle thinks happiness requires virtues, but then you suggest that Aristotle thinks happiness requires achievement. Which is it? Or if it is both, how are they connected? You have a lot of loose strands so your argument does not totally cohere, though the strands you have are good! My larger concern is with your citations. Although you cite two appropriate sources (one ancient, one modern) you do not quote either source directly. Consequently it seems a bit of an open question as to how much you are actually interpreting Aristotle, as opposed to merely parroting claims you’ve seen elsewhere. Try to quote more directly, and interpret those quotes.
Did you identify a specific argument about metaphysics, values, or epistemology from a philosopher of the appropriate time period? 18/20 Did you clearly and accurately summarize that argument? 34/40 Did you cite the original text(s) in which that argument was made, along with no more than two other academically appropriate sources? 16/20 Is your paper grammatically correct, proofread, formatted as instructed, and otherwise linguistically coherent? 18/20
Third paper: Good job situating your view in relation to Plato and Aristotle.
Did you identify a specific argument about metaphysics, values, or epistemology? 20/20 Did you clearly explain your argument and tie it to the work of two historically important philosophers? 40/40 Did you cite the original text(s) of those philosophers, along with no more than two other academically appropriate sources? 19/20 Is your paper grammatically correct, proofread, formatted as instructed, and otherwise linguistically coherent? 19/20