Please read the guidelines for completing this assignment here: 

Also, please remember to review the rubric for this assignment both before you complete your work and once again before submitting to make sure you have done your best to fulfill all of the evaluation criteria. 

Each week, you are asked to engage in an interactive discussion forum that involves two types of tasks: argumentative discussions and peer critiques. For the first part, ask and answer two original questions that are tied closely to each week’s content (reading assignments). The second part of the assignment asks you to post two peer critiques in reply to your classmates’ Q&A discussions. So, over the four weeks of class, you will be completing a total of eight (8) Q&A discussions and eight (8) peer critiques.

Part I:  Q&A Discussion (two each week)

Part II: Peer Critique (two each week)

For the Week Two Discussion Forum:

I) Q&A: Ask and answer two original questions based on the Week Two readings; address the writings, ideas, and theories of one philosopher from each of the following groups for a total of two Q&A discussions:

Topic 1: “The Empiricists”: John Locke, George Berkeley, David Hume

Topic 2: “Contemporary Theories of Consciousness”: Thomas Nagel, John Searle, Frank Jackson

Bring in current events and/or a creative angle to make the assignment interesting to yourself! This will also give your essay an obvious stamp of originality. For example, you could ask, simply, “What did Locke, Berkeley, and Hume say about sensory perception?” Or you could be more creative by asking something to the effect of, “What would these three great Philosophers argue about over beers at the pub?”

It needs to be abundantly clear that you are doing all your own work in this course. Do not rely on outside sources for content as you write, nor for sample questions, ideas, inspiration, outlines, or thesis topics! Think for yourself. You are capable!

II) Critical Comments: For the second part of this discussion, find two peer Q&A discussions that you would like to address, and reply to each with a peer critique: an analysis and evaluation of the peer author’s account of the issue they identify, focusing on any argumentation or explanatory analyses they present in support of a particular position on the issue in question.

No special format is required for your critical comments. Please take the time to review these helpful guidelines:.

Remember that your goal here is not simply to agree or disagree with the peer author’s answer to their question, nor is it your main task to share thoughts that the author’s post brings to mind from your own experience or reaction to the reading materials (although such peer comments may be part of your critique); what you should be attempting here is an analysis and evaluation of the entire Q&A discussion. 

• Did they clearly identify an important issue related to the topic under discussion?
• Did they state and defend their own position on the issue?
• Did they identify an important philosophical problem and describe a particular way of understanding and solving it? 
• Did they do an analysis of a particular philosopher’s approach to a philosophical topic or issue and compare or contrast it with alternative approaches? 
• Was their attempt at analysis or argumentation successful? Or did it fall short in some way? 
• Were crucial components of the question left unanswered? Was supporting evidence relevant, credible, and complete?
• Did the discussion overall provide a satisfactory answer or solution to an interesting or important philosophical question or problem?

Most students find it very challenging to critically evaluate either their own work or that of their peers, so you may find this to be the most difficult part of this assignment. But don’t neglect or minimize the importance of this exercise in critical thinking!

Additionally, you may wish to comment on someone else’s critique of a Q&A thread. This is highly encouraged and will enhance your learning experience in this assignment. Word-count requirements for each Q&A are loosely set at a minimum 250 words; a Q&A post of fewer than 150 words will receive no credit. Critiques should be around 100-150 words; any critique of fewer than 70 words will receive no credit. The overall goal of both parts of this assignment is to ignite a genuine philosophical discussion that both interests and challenges you. 

Your posts must be in accordance with the 

I) Q&A: The first topic for the Week Two discussion is the philosophy of the Empiricists. The word-count requirement for each Q&A is loosely set at a minimum of 250 words; however, a Q&A post of fewer than 150 words will receive no credit. 

Compose and answer an original question based on the Week Two required readings. Your question should address the writings, ideas, and theories of oneof the following philosophers:

John Locke

George Berkeley

David Hume

To complete this discussion topic, please start a new thread to post your Q&A in the following format:

My first Week Two discussion question is: 

My answer to this question is:

II) Critical Comments: Find a Q&A post that you would like to critique. Remember that you are asked to analyze & evaluate the peer author’s Q&A, which goes beyond simply registering comments of approval or agreement/disagreement. Critiques should be around 100-150 words; any critique of fewer than 70 words will receive no credit.

If a Q&A post already has a comment, please move on to a different peer Q&A. The overall goal of both parts of this assignment is to (a) ignite a genuine philosophical discussion that both interests and challenges you and (b) to build and enhance peer engagement and interaction.