Give both sides in a university essay?

hottake
daft

#1

yo lads
essay is 'critically evaluate [insert philosopher here]'
so far i’ve done some criticisms, but do I need to have the defences to these in?
cheers

i know you love me really,
Pinkybrain


#2

Yeah


#3



how about you critically evaluate defences up there^


#4

Do I look like your tutor?


#5

You should have the defences, and then the counter arguments to those, and then the counter arguments to those and then the counter arguments to those and then the counter arguments to those and then the counter arguments to those and then the counter arguments to those and then the counter arguments to those and then the counter arguments to those


#6

yes (and if you don’t think they’re valid criticisms explain why). Go for one or two lines of inquiry and dig into the arguments on both sides, depth is more important than breadth


#7

Yeah otherwise you look like some student punk who thinks he’s better than some real time philospoher


#8

Just write it from your personal perspective without using any references


#9



counter arguments


#10

[quote=“Aggpass, post:6, topic:8197, full:true”]depth is more important than breadth
[/quote]
:eggplant::eggplant::eggplant:


#11

Also look for stuff outside of the ‘classic’ criticisms that have been analysed repeatedly for centuries by people cleverer than you


#12

Tell us the philosopher and we’ll tell you what to think.


#13

Was it Kierkegaard? Or Dick Van Patten?


#14

Karl Pilikington


#15

Don’t really know what philosophy essays entail but my English essay strategy was: take your personal opinion on the subject, put forward a cohesive argument to justify your POV including some of the main critical points and some compelling less obvious ones, acknowledge the other side’s arguments/criticisms of these points/the subject, then either find sources/reasons to compellingly defend your POV from the criticisms, or deflect them with even more reasons why you’re right.


#16

#17

the cunting thing is only 2000 words long and I’m writing it exceedingly poorly. Fucking wilt Chaimberlan can fuck right off.

for real tho, helpful thread :smiley:


#18

John Rawls (he’s a good lad)


#19

at that word count especially, really focus your argument, no way you can tackle more than a couple of points properly in that distance. depth not breadth etc.


#20

doing 2 critics of him, then some people who’d have him reformed, but it just doesn’t leave me sapce to do anything else
agh
back to drawing board