Please write a “Socratic” dialogue of around 1,000 words. Here is the prompt (do

Please write a “Socratic” dialogue of around 1,000 words. Here is the prompt (do not plug this prompt into ChatGPT or any other AI service if you want a passing grade):
PROMPT: Two friends find themselves in a life-or-death situation. They’d like to survive, but there might be a limit to what they will do to see another day on earth. Although they are buddies, they have quite different metaphysical views (that means they have different views about the fundamental nature of reality!). One has views similar to Plato; the other has views similar to Epicurus. Will they disagree about what they can (or must) do to survive? Will they disagree about what it means to live or to die? Will one convince the other to come around to their point of view? Will their friendship survive the ordeal? That’s for you to determine!
BASIC GUIDELINES: Your dialogue should show your understanding of the difference between idealism and materialism, as discussed in Modules 5 and 6. Your dialogue should be approached in the spirit of Socratic Method described by Farnsworth (reading 6). This means that the friends are trying to understand each other’s points of view, trying to get them to consider their own views more carefully, and using various techniques to do so (See Farnsworth). You do not need to do any additional research, beyond the assigned readings. You also do not need to quote directly from Plato or Epicurus (though if you do, please give the citation). Since you might come up with an original scenario where the names Plato and Epicurus are not spoken, please indicate your understanding of this unit’s ideas through the use of footnotes or endnotes (see example below*). So, when your characters say something “Epicurus-like” or something “Plato-like” (or something “materialist” or something “idealist”) please point that out in a footnote.
ADVICE: Keep in mind that 1,000 words is really not all that long (consider that the Laches is at least 7,000 words and Apology is closer to 10,000!), so there is only so much philosophical work you can do in such a short dialogue. You do not need to cover multiple sub-topics. Just come up with a single “scene” — about 5 minutes of conversation — that allows the characters to discuss their metaphysical differences. The “story” can be incomplete, and the life-or-death situation does not need to be resolved.
Formal Requirements
1,000+ words
In dialogue form, in response to the prompt
Including at least THREE notes that show connections to assigned readings 6, 9, 10, 11
* Here’s an example of what I mean by asking you to use footnotes or endnotes (this example uses courage instead of material from the metaphysics unit):
A section of dialogue with numbered notes
Cora: You say courage is a virtue, and that virtues require wisdom. So, you think that bear over there was wise when she protected her cubs from us?
Donatello: Not exactly – I mean, she was just following her instincts.
Cora: But you said her action was courageous. So, either she was courageous and wise, or she lacks wisdom and also lacks courage. Are these our options? (1)
Donatello: Or maybe courage isn’t the kind of thing that requires wisdom — maybe I was wrong about that.(2)
The footnotes
(1) Here I am trying to use a version of questioning and focusing on consistency, as described by Farnsworth (see p. 26-27).
(2) This section of the dialogue is borrowing from Plato’s Laches, where Nicias declares that non-human animals are not courageous and Laches disagrees. (See Laches, p. 15 of the pdf). I’ve changed how those ideas are presented, to show the implications for the concept of courage.
Basic rubric for Dialogue (110 points possible, so 10 bonus points are possible):
20 – Shows understanding of materialist metaphysics, as given to us by Epicurus.
20 – Shows understanding of idealist metaphysics, as given to us by Plato.
20 – Uses footnotes effectively to indicate connections between the dialogue and the assigned readings.
20 – Shows at least a starting grasp of some of the techniques of Socratic Method (as articulated by Farnsworth).
20 – Is philosophically engaging and thoughtful, beyond just fulfilling the assignment.
10 – Is free from careless errors.