Does the Platonic Worldview successfully respond to the three pre-Socratic Questions

Assignment 1: Guided Essay
Due Date: Week 06 – Thursday, October 13th in class.

to one of the questions. Think of it as trying to convince the reader of your
position by laying out the evidence/arguments that have convinced you, while
also explaining the relevant concepts/theories. The reader should not be left
asking questions or unclear about anything you mention.
Instructions: In 4 pages maximum (1.5 space, 100 margins, 12 pt. font), choose one of the
following questions to answer. Below the questions is a discussion of the basic
structure your paper may take. You don’t have to follow this structure, but
it’s recommended—if you include all of the components mentioned you’ll be
well on your way to a good argumentative paper.
Special Note: DO NOT put your name on the paper. Just your student number.
Topic Questions (choose one):
1. Does the Platonic Worldview successfully respond to the three pre-Socratic Questions?
2. Is pre-Socratic thought fundamentally di↵erent than older (prehistoric or Near East Bronze
Age) thought? Should we consider either to be scientific?
3. Was Plato’s Challenge successfully met by any models of the universe proposed by ancient
astronomers? (Consider at least two of: Plato’s own Two-Sphere model, Eudoxus’ NestedSphere model, Aristotle’s extended Nested-Sphere model, Babylonian Predictive Astronomy)
See the next pages for guidance to writing e↵ective papers, the grading rubric I’ll use
to mark them, a chart detailing the annotations I’ll make when marking and what
they mean, and some general advice!
1
Six Elements of an E↵ective Argumentative Paper
The specifics will vary slightly depending which question you choose to answer, but the fundamentals of a good, concise argumentative paper are surprisingly stable across many topics.
1. Thesis Statement: It’s easiest to begin an academic paper, legal brief, sales pitch, business
plan, etc. with the Thesis—the primary idea or conclusion of which you are trying to convince
the reader. Again: The first sentence of your paper can be your thesis statement.
E.g., In this paper I will argue that the Platonic Worldview successfully responds to the three
pre-Socratic Questions. Or: In this paper. . . are unsuccessful at responding. . .
Your thesis may be more complex: Plato can successfully respond to some, but not all, of
the Questions, for example. For topics 2 or 3, things will be much the same: In this paper I
will argue that pre-Socratic thought is continuous with the investigations and ideas that came
before, and that both should be considered scientific. Or: In this paper I will argue that the
Two-Sphere model of the heavens successfully meets Plato’s Challenge, while neither Eudxous
nor Aristotle’s Nested-Sphere models do.
The key here is to just tell the reader exactly what you are trying to convince them of right
o↵ the bat—this isn’t a mystery novel!
2. Opening Paragraph Outline: The next part of your opening paragraph (after the thesis)
should be a short summary of the path your paper will take: First I’ll do this, then explain
that, then present this argument, then we’ll see how this idea connects to that one. . . etc.
This is called Signposting, you can do it throughout the paper. Don’t leave the reader
guessing or confused at any point in your paper!
3. Explain Basic Concepts: Each topic has some basic terms/ideas that are relevant to every
part of the paper, and must be understood before the rest makes any sense. For topic 1 this
is giving the reader context about pre-Socratic thought. For topic 2 this is historical context, a
working definition of ‘science’, and perhaps the concept of a scientific worldview. For topic 3
this is Plato’s Challenge. In this section of the paper you will explain to the reader how you
intend to use these concepts in the paper: their definitions, purpose, motivation, context, etc.
4. Evidence & Arguments: The body of your paper involves laying out the evidence for your
thesis, and arguing that this evidence makes your thesis more plausible than the alternatives.
These points come in a wide variety of forms. One might be as simple as showing that the
practices/theory of some person/group meet the definition of a key concept you established
in section 3 above. Thus, this is a reason to accept your conclusion. Similarly, there might
be some basic facts or quotations that show explicitly that your interpretation of an issue
is correct. For example, if you’re arguing that the Two-Sphere Model doesn’t meet Plato’s
Challenge, then simply explaining the model, pointing out it has nothing to say about retrograde motion (a very prominent heavenly phenomena!) is pretty good evidence you’re correct.
But make sure to tell the reader exactly why this fact shows what you think it shows.
A more complex but often e↵ective argument is to show that contrary theses are less plausible
than yours. For example, the idea that ancient Babylonians had no science could be shown
less plausible by pointing out they did astronomy. Thus, your thesis that Near East Bronze
Age cultures were scientific gets a boost by showing the alternative is problematic.
2
If you wanted to argue that Near East Bronze Age cultures shouldn’t be considered scientific
(or that the Two-Sphere Model does meet Plato’s Challenge), you can still write that paper—
but you’re going to have to deal with this point! Bringing us to another way of arguing:
considering and dealing with counterexamples. Bring up a point someone trying to show you
are wrong would make, then explain why that’s not such a deal-breaker after all. This makes
your case much stronger because it anticipates problems the reader might have, puts them
out in the open, and solves them (so your position is still good!)
5. Considering Structure: You’re going to need to decide how to best present all of this
information and your evidence/arguments to the reader. Sections 1, 2, 3, and 6 can go in
that order. The di”cult part is laying out all the material in section 4 in a coherent way.
Remember that signposting is very helpful. Speak directly to the reader (“I will do this”,
“this helps my argument because”, etc.) and never be afraid to use the first person—it makes
your writing clearer.
Always keep in mind that you’re really doing two things: (i) Explaining the material to the
reader; and (ii) Arguing that your thesis is the most plausible way to interpret that material.
This suggests at least two di↵erent ways to set up the body of the paper. You could explain
everything first (all the Models for topic 3, all the theories/ideas you’ll discuss for 2, all the
Questions for 1) and then refer back to those explanations as you present your arguments. The
second way is to make each argument/point at the same time that you explain the material.
So for example, you could explain the first pre-Socratic Question, and then immediately
explain Plato’s answer and your reasons why it is/isn’t e↵ective, and then move on to the
second Question.
However you present the material, always keep in mind that you’re doing both things. This
is why an editing step is so important!
6. End the Paper: End the paper in a simple manner once everything is explained and all
of your evidence/arguments have been laid out. No need to dwell. Example for topic 2: In
this paper I have provided evidence to show that [one or more of the Models] were successful/unsuccessful/partially in meeting Plato’s Challenge based upon [summary of your reasons].
Great! But this isn’t the end of your work! You absolutely NEED to edit your paper. Take a
day away, then go back and read it. Read it out loud too! You’ll catch all kinds of awkward
phrasings and confusing passages. Then give it to a trusted but ignorant (of the material!)
friend or family member to look at. If they can’t explain your argument to you (without your
prompting or help!) then the paper isn’t clear enough and needs a bit more work.
3
Grading Rubric
Below is the rubric I will consult when grading your paper, along with the Symbols Chart on the
next page. Keep these in mind when outlining, writing, and editing!
1. Exposition /20
(a) Clear formulation of the problems, concepts, arguments, and objections discussed
(b) Objectivity (6= neutrality)
(c) Demonstrates understanding of key concepts—necessary concepts thoroughly explained
(d) Explanations are thorough enough to allow an intelligent but uninformed reader to follow
the argument and judge the plausibility of the thesis
(e) Clarity and style of writing

(b) Arguments rely upon textual analysis, but also demonstrate creativity and thought
(c) Logical flow of arguments between paragraphs
(d) Evaluations/Judgements supported by evidence appropriate to the point being argued
(e) Strong objections to the thesis are considered, with plausible replies
3. Organization /10
(a) Paper is organized into intro, explanations of key concepts, topic/argument/evidencespecific paragraphs, conclusion (or something similarly coherent)
(b) Paper clearly communicates the structure of the arguments, and doesn’t leave the reader
confused—i.e., there are no non-sequiturs and the paper “signposts” the discussion
(c) Lack of unnecessary repetitions and irrelevant subject matter
(d) All key concepts mentioned are clearly explained, with examples where appropriate
(e) Prose is clear without awkward/unintelligible constructions—i.e., evidence of editing

(b) Citations exist and allow the reader easy reference of sources
(c) Pleasing to the eye, suggesting that time/e↵ort has been invested into the paper
(d) Lack of significant or excessive spelling/grammar errors
(e) Paper has a title and student number, but no name on the paper and no title page