Essentially, the assignment is to state an objection to an author's position and imagine the author's reply. The point is to investigate the strengths and weaknesses of the author's position, to bring imagination into the construction and critique of arguments, and to get a sense of when progress is made in philosophy —that is, when objections refute positions and when positions answer objections.

1. Sources. Give complete bibliographic citations for the objection and for the position to which it objects.
2. Critic's objection. State the objection in a few concise sentences of your own words. State it as an objection; don't leave your reader to infer the objection from the positive statement of some alternative position.
3. Critic's argument. Reconstruct and explicate the critic's argument for the objection. Make the argument directly support the objection in Section 2.
4. Author's defense. Creatively imagine the likely reply of the philosopher whose position has been criticized. Make the philosopher respond directly to what you had the critic say in Sections 2 and 3.
5. Critic's reply. Creatively imagine the critic's reply to the author's defense. Make the critic's reply directly responsive to what you had the author say in Section 4.
6. Number the sections of your paper 1-5 (and/or label them, "Critic's objection" etc.). This will make sure that your reader can find them and that you don't accidentally conflate them.

By default, the original author should be a philosopher we read together in class and the critic should either be a philosopher from our syllabus or one you found in library research. However, if you want to play the critic yourself and elaborate one of your own original objections to one of our historical texts, then let's talk. I may be willing to make the substitution in your case.

Submit two copies. I will grade and return one, and put the other on reserve in the library for the rest of the class to read.

See my generic hand-out for details on paper mechanics, lateness, rewrites, and the option of having me grade your paper on tape.

Optional additions

• Supplement either side or both with your own thinking. But make it clear (in Sections 2, 3, and 5) where the historical critic ends and you begin, or (in Section 4) where the criticized author ends and you begin.
• Offer more than one objection (same author, same critic). If you do so, number them so that they are easy to find. For example, number the separate objections 2.A, 2.B, 2.C, etc., the arguments 3.A, 3.B, 3.C, etc., and so on with the replies and replies to the replies.
• Start to adjudicate the dispute. Who is more likely right and why? Or, more modestly, whose position holds more promise or is more fruitful for this inquiry? Who has dealt more deeply and fairly with the issues?
• What questions would you want answered before you could adjudicate the dispute?