University of Toronto
PHL232H1: Ancient Philosophy II – Plato and Aristotle
Assignment 2: Conceptual Analysis and Historiographical Position Paper
Institution: University of Toronto
Department: Philosophy
Course Level: Second-Year Undergraduate (200-level)
Assessment Type: Major Essay (Analytical Position Paper) + Structured Discussion Tutorials
Weight: 35% (Essay 30% | Tutorial Portfolio 5%)
Length: 1,750–2,000 words (6–8 pages)
Citation Style: MLA 9th Edition
Assessment Overview
This assignment reflects the standard analytic position-paper model used in Ancient Philosophy courses across North American and UK research universities. The task differs from comparative virtue essays or Allegory-based prompts. It focuses instead on a single conceptual problem drawn from the core themes: knowledge, causation, political authority, or moral psychology. Students must reconstruct an argument from a primary text and then defend or reject it using contemporary scholarship.
Course leaders implementing this brief should maintain the following structure: precise conceptual question, mandatory textual reconstruction, engagement with one modern scholarly debate, and an explicit argumentative stance.
Assignment Question (Choose One)
- Moral Psychology and Weakness of Will: Does Aristotle successfully solve the problem of akrasia in Nicomachean Ethics Book VII, or does his account presuppose the Socratic claim that knowledge rules action?
- Causation and Explanation: Are Aristotle’s four causes presented in Physics and Metaphysics compatible with scientific explanation, or are they primarily metaphysical principles?
- Political Expertise: In Plato’s Statesman, is political rule properly understood as a form of technē? Evaluate the analogy between statesmanship and craft knowledge.
Students must defend a clear position. Neutral exposition is insufficient.
Required Structure
I. Argument Reconstruction (Approx. 600–800 words)
- Reconstruct the philosopher’s argument step by step.
- Clarify key Greek terms where relevant, such as akrasia, technē, or aitia.
- Cite primary texts using standard book and section numbering.
II. Critical Evaluation (Approx. 700–900 words)
- Identify an internal tension, ambiguity, or contested assumption.
- Engage at least two peer-reviewed scholarly sources published between 2018 and 2026.
- Defend your position with sustained reasoning.
III. Implications Section (Approx. 300 words)
- Briefly assess the philosophical or historical significance of your conclusion.
- Situate the issue within broader ancient debates.
Tutorial Discussion Portfolio (Weeks 4–7)
Students submit four short tutorial position posts.
Length: 300–350 words each.
Post Structure
- State a concise thesis responding to that week’s conceptual problem.
- Quote one primary passage.
- Identify one interpretive difficulty.
- Respond to one peer by challenging an assumption rather than agreeing.
Unlike reflective discussion boards, these posts function as mini position papers and are graded for analytical precision.
Marking Rubric (Essay – 30%)
| Criteria | A (80–100) | B (70–79) | C (60–69) | D/F (<60) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Argument Reconstruction (25%) | Accurate, rigorous, logically sequenced reconstruction. | Generally accurate with minor gaps. | Partial or compressed reconstruction. | Misrepresentation of argument. |
| Philosophical Analysis (30%) | Independent, sustained critical reasoning. | Clear evaluative reasoning. | Limited depth or repetition. | Descriptive summary only. |
| Use of Scholarship (20%) | Critical engagement with current research. | Competent integration. | Minimal integration. | Sources absent or misused. |
| Conceptual Precision (15%) | Terminology used with clarity and discipline accuracy. | Mostly precise. | Occasional confusion. | Conceptual inaccuracies. |
| Organization and MLA (10%) | Clear structure and correct citation. | Minor formatting errors. | Noticeable citation issues. | Formatting inconsistent. |
Marking Rubric (Tutorial Portfolio – 5%)
- Argument clarity (40%)
- Textual engagement (30%)
- Quality of peer critique (20%)
- Professional presentation (10%)
Aristotle’s treatment of akrasia attempts to preserve the Socratic insight that knowledge governs action while avoiding the paradox that genuine knowledge could ever be overridden. In Book VII of Nicomachean Ethics, he distinguishes between possessing knowledge and actively exercising it, arguing that the akratic agent acts against what he knows in a qualified sense rather than in full rational awareness. The distinction allows Aristotle to reject strict moral intellectualism without collapsing into irrationalism. Recent scholarship emphasizes that his solution depends on a layered psychology in which perception and appetite interfere with practical reasoning, yet do not eliminate it (Leunissen 2022, https://doi.org/10.1111/phc3.12813). The debate remains central to contemporary philosophy of action because it anticipates modern distinctions between dispositional belief and occurrent judgment.
Works Cited
Leunissen, M. 2022, ‘Aristotle’s Practical Philosophy’, Philosophy Compass, 17(3). Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/phc3.12813
Moss, J. 2019, ‘Aristotle on Practical Truth’, Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy, 56, pp. 1–34. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198845569.003.0001
Castagnoli, L. 2021, Aristotle’s Dialectic, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108883078
Lane, M. 2018, ‘Technē and Political Expertise in Plato’s Statesman’, Political Theory, 46(6), pp. 819–843. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0090591717731084
