Phil1700 Notes - Intro to Philosophy

The apology: not written by socrates and though it is presented as such ● Plato: a student of socrates, comes from a wealthy family ● Socrates, questions prominent individuals of society which causes uproar ● Socrates: uncovers that the accusations are unclear so he defends these accusations by asking them questions and showing they like to act like they know more than they did ● 1st accusation against socrates: corrupting the youth ○ He challenged religious beliefs by introducing more gods and new values ○ Socrates Response: He says he’s met demi gods so he argues how can I disbelieve in gods if I believe in their children. ○ Why he’s being accused of bringing more gods: ● 2nd accusation: persuading people, not by evidence but just by public persona/simply speaking ○ Sophistist: someone who can convincingly argue a particular viewpoint even though it is wrong ■ Ex. flat earth arguments ■ Socrates gets accused of being a sophist, which doesn’t make sense because he argues that the wisdom he holds does not make him or anyone wise. ○ Rhetoric: persuasive speech, so someone who can speak convincingly without what they argue being true or having evidence ○ Ontological argument: argument for the truth of god's existence due to predisposition ● Socrates argument of wisdom: he alludes that he isn’t wise, but rather Phaedrus Notes: socrates and listhesis sort of discuss/debate ● Arguments: hook up with people who you will benefit from socially, inability to distinguish between lust and love, and ● Example socrates doesn’t agree with listhesis: he writes his own speech and argues that he uses repetition to try and get his point across than actually getting it across ● Socrates speech: argues the original speech has good structure so he appreciates and admires the speech, but doesn’t exactly agree with the speech so he doesn’t like it completely. Thus he likes the speech and doesn’t like it. ○ Socrates says he was moved by the speech thus asks to leave it at that, but listhesis wants to know why socrates doesn’t like it ○ Rhetoric, sophistry, and philosophical thinking is apparent in this reading ● Understanding: reasons why holding knowledge about something is true; reasons of something that prove why something is true ● Knowledge: what information you hold about something: something true ● Socrates and Phaedrus agree on distinction: listhesis gave a speech arguing that there are practical social benefits of relationships than the love and passion of other relationships thus Socrates doesn’t agree with necessarily but accepts it for the sake of argument. ● Socrates is the first speech: convinced of the truth of listhesis argument but not the points/content of it. Thus, he agrees with the deliverance of the argument more so than the actual content of the argument. So he’s more focused on listhesis rhetoric argumentation than the topic. ● What is happening in the first speech: Persuasion of rhetoric/convincing using rhetoric Alfred’s eres logic: distinction between sentence, proposition, and statement ● Proposition: meaning of a sentence ○ How to get to the meaning: use a principle of verification ● Principle of verification: trying to determine whether or not a sentence is meaningful and then after if it’s true ● How we verify a sentence: you must determine whether a sentence is meaningful and to verify that is through research ● How we verify a sentence (air’s way): if there is a way to empirically verify it ● Author’s way: determine whether the sentence is meaningful and after then you can determine if it is true. Phaedrus notes continued: 1st speech: Choose the one that doesn’t love you instead that does. He argues that love is more so distinguishing between whether your choose the one who loves you or does not love you 2nd speech: socrates speaks and does so through sophistry, but he doesn’t believe the truth of the conclusion since he’s not pursuing the truth 3rd Speech: Defends why he thinks his argument is true: ● Love is madness and the question arises of what kind of madness should you pursue? ● Socrates is not advocating for mania but instead is arguing for the explanation of the nature of soul, describes the soul, questions why living things are mortal and immortal, the pursuit of truth, eight types of souls, and the fourth type of madness. ● If the character is in control it's trying to get the whole apparatus to see reality, but the horses are trying to pull it away. Thus it is the pursuit of truth ● Eight types of souls: 8th: tyrant, who has no desire to perceive the truth thus he is purely in charge of the horses reign and control, 7th: philosopher, who has gained control of the horses and has seen reality/truth and once he sees the truth he falls into madness, 6th: ● Fourth type of madness: 1st and 2nd: listhesis describes in his speech, where a person gives himself over to the madness but the 4th is where you feel the passions of the madness but doesn’t give in. Alfred’s notes continued: ● Tautology: repetition ● Verification, verifiability, criterion of verifiability: practical, in principle, strong, and weak ● How you verify: by providing a counter example if applicable and if not then it’s verified ● How to verify: visually, scientific method (literally just research) ● We say a sentence is factually significant to any given person, if, and only if, he knows how to verify the proposition which he purports to express ● Practical or Principle verification or strong verifiability or weak? ○ Ex (weakness/strength): is it tautology true? Is it true on its own virtue ○ Ex. Arsenic is poisonous: How do you verify it? ■ You’d have to give arsenic to everyone ○ Ex. All men are mortal: How do you verify it? ■ Mortality (is it tautology true? Is it true on its own virtue) ○ Ex. A body tends to expand when it is heated: How do you verify it? ■ The word “tends” causes you to think if it is strong or weak proof? ● Premises: something that is a sentence that can be verified: two kinds of sentences are meaningful or non meaningful: is it true or false? ● ● ● ● ● Evidence: Is it true or false, can you verify? Intuition: subjective experiences can prove it but it’s not a shared experience thus it is acknowledged that others may not agree with your argument Assertion: Statement: Sentence: Formal ways to look at arguments: ● Sentence: a person knows how to verify the proposition which the sentence purports to express ○ We say that a sentence is factually significant to any given person, if and only if he knows how to verify the proposition in which it purports to express ○ Proposition is a meaning of a sentence ● Statement: ● How to differentiate sentence and statement: Determined whether it’s true or false; attribute a truth factor ● Premise: a statement in an argument and it’s true or false Example: Some folks are greedy —> Premise Some folks are treacherous —-> Premise Therefore Some Folks are greedy and treacherous —-> Conclusion Is the conclusion true? No it’s not because it doesn’t follow the premises We’re saying at least one person in society is greedy and one is treacherous but not that they are both greedy and treacherous because that was never implied in the argument Example: All folks are greedy —> Premise Some folks are treacherous —-> Premise Therefore Some Folks are greedy and treacherous ● ● ● ● ● Determinism is the belief that all actions and events result from other actions, events, or situations, so people cannot in fact choose what to do Disjunctive syllogism: either I can keep my money or keep my girlfriend but I can’t keep both so I keep the money An argument is sound if it turns out that the premises are true An argument is valid if there is no counter argument Motius potent: Denying the consequent ○ Ex. cake → sweet –=> you have sweets thus you hate cake Principles of alternate possibilities ● What does it mean to have freedom of will? We have choice directed control over one's actions so if you choose to reach out and grab a bottle, you’ll be successful in doing so ● PAP: an additional alternate makes us reconsider what the meaning on freewill is ● Principle of alternate possibilities: if our actions are free or not it entails a person is morally responsible for what he has done only if he could have done otherwise ○ You’re only morally responsible for an action if there was another action you could have taken otherwise but didn’t Incompatibility of freewill and determinism ● Notion of predetermination: definition of god implies that god knows all propositions regarding the propositions at any given time thus the law of nature then god know propositions for future of the world ● “If it is raining, then I wear my coat” – “If I don’t wear my coat, then it isn’t raining.” ● Law of contraposition: if a conditional statement is true if, and only if, its contrapositive is true ○ If I deny the consequent then I have to deny the antecedent ● Determinism: for every instant of time, there is a proposition that expresses the state of the world at that instant ○ Ex. If a and b are any propositions that express the state of the world at some instants, then the conjunction of A with the laws of physics entails B. ○ So a with the law of physics leads to b ● Laws of physics: ● The Laws of physics and nature are different because of voluntary behavior. Physics is science and nature includes the psychology of people ● Disjunction = either or ● conjutice= not mutually exclusive ● Proposition of the state of the world: takes into account proposition of the worlds at different times Why should I accept some claim? ● Method 1: give a bunch of reasons ● Method 2: get a federal grant, conduct said research, polish your findings ● Method 3: debate definition of free-will, determine if it’s valid ○ Is PAP valid (version of free will)? ○ Why PAP isn’t valid: the premises do not lead to the conclusion ○ PAP prime: an agent is free if and only if Van Wagon ● If determinism is true then he could not have preformed that action ● If determinism is true then judge jones could not have raised his hand ○ A—> B ● If determinism is true, then the conjunction of PO and L entails that K didn’t raise his hand at T ○ PO stands for events that state the state of the world ○ L stands for laws of physics ■ Ex. gravity, newton's laws —> basically things that are absolutely true ○ K stands for person ○ T stands for Time ● Book 2 ○ 3 different factions ○ Individuals who are the foundation of the state: producers and they are wealthy ○ ○ ● Guardians live in communities where they live in much less wealthy areas and don’t have families. So they do propagate, but don't have families. Rulers: the best of the guardians because they don’t care about anything besides the truth. They live like hermits and eat poor food but spend all day debating the truth. Book 4 ○ If the rulers only care about the truth, Plato argues that that’s good because they only care about the republic which is good. Plato emphasizes this by saying that they’re not tempted by the vises, they only care about objective truth. ○ \ Naturalism discussion: ● Inductive arguments: making conclusions based on observations you’ve made ● Swimberg’s inductive argument: you can make observations about the universe and god accounts for them ● Scientism: there are no gods, souls, spirits ● Critique: as given in slides ● Dissuasive definitions: neutralizing a concept through definition ● Defense of cultural relativism: using words that motivate us ● Summary of utilitarianism: all action is for some end so whatever we do is for a reason therefore there should be a clear and distinct reason for guiding our actions, however, philosophers talk about general judging principles like lying ● Greatest happiness principle: holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness ● Direct consequentialism, hedonism, Michael Slote: Moral Obligations ● Consequentialism: promotes the most good, you have an obligation to help others ● Our capacity to empathize = Slote’s overall argument White’s paper and his three arguments: ● Western christianity: says humans do naturally so they ought to dominate nature ● Ecological change: the ways human interaction have altered the natural environment ● What is distinguishing western christianity from ? Singer’s ethics and animal liberation argument: ● Responsibility is shared ○ Organized actions like environmental regulations ● Argument: california wildfires —> caused by a homeless person —> is california responsible for the fire ● Debates western value and environment and other values/traditions \ ○ Should we prioritize human kind over the environment? ● Suggests: one of the ways we can change whilst thinking about future generations is because we have difficulty recognizing something that isn’t quantifiable. Moral ad: principle of alternate possibilities: Only morally obligated if you could have done otherwise Ex. i have the options to study for my test or cheat on it and not study Ex of thesis: define principle of alternate possibilities Example: compatibilism, then say why we believe it (give two reasons it’s true), and Compatibilism is a view that **** Thesis, reasons of support(do 2), Material conditional: Consequence is true on the assumption that the antecedent is true A statement is different: A statement is a proposition that can either be true or false or a statement is either meaningful or not Material conditional: logic formula —> that uses premises and consequences —> helps determine valid argument form based on the form of the argument itself A kind of proposition used in an argument: if a is true then so is b These conditionals are used in two kinds of arguments: motus potus : ex→ i the world is complex then the world has a designer so if it’s complex it must has a designer → valid argument forms Modus ponens: if a is true then b is true also a is true —> affirms antecedent Example: if I like cake then I like sweets —> affirm that you like sweets I like sweets Conclusion: therefore I like cake Valid argument: affirming the premise thus the second premise is true Modus tollens: denies the consequent A conditional statement that is used in modus ponens and modus tollens statements Socrates and the apology: 3 charges brought against him → Socrates was accused on atheism, impiety, and corrupting the youth The accusation brought said Socrates is corrupting the youth by disrespecting their elders by asking questions ● Socrates spreads out the claims → if he’s corrupting the youth then who improves the youth/no one corrupts the youth —> how can Socrates be the only one corrupting the youth? ● Accusation of atheism: they accuse him of being this by teaching different gods, however, atheists don’t teach gods they simply don’t believe in gods at all —> he says if I teach about different gods how am I an atheist—> in response to the charge he says he is teaching about gods, just other gods ● Accusation of corruption of youth: 1st understand who improves the youth and we might respond by saying the law improve them but some people don’t know the laws, however, some people lie judges do thus judges and lawyers improve the youth and there are a lot of those in society, however, there is only one socrates ● Accusation of impiety(not being faithful to the gods): 3 types of friendship (aristotle): the best kind of friendship is one of mutual care and attention, and no one would choose to live without friendship, not all friendships are important only when they’re beneficial, friendships that offer pleasure ex. One of you has a Friendship of utility: material goods, no reciprocal care and no pleasure, they have a mutual interest on a goal but not to mutually agree to aid one another because the friendship is not deep like that of friendship of joint care and attention and nor is there pleasure because they are not close friendship (you enjoying being with them but they don’t enjoy being with you) —> practical benefit Friendship of pleasure: friends that use you because they listen to you rant Friendship of joint care and attention: we both care about each other’s well-being Aristotle argues that this type of friendship is supreme Friendship is sumpremy important so much so that a person with every material good would still not choose to live without friendship Give a definition for the following keeping in mind the difference between them: a statement, a proposition, and a sentence. Define the 3 first and then say a statement is just a sentence that is either true or false and the proposition is the meaning of that sentence and a sentence is one that cannot be true or false. ● Statement: a statement that is either true or false → very clear ● Proposition: a statement that's used in the context of an argument and purports that something is the case —> expresses the meaning of a statement = proposition ○ Ex difference between statement and prop. I see the morning and evening star → so if you say you see the stars you are referring to both objects and promoting they’re the same star —> same proposition just different sentences ● Sentence: cannot be proven as true or false ○ Example of a sentence that is not a statement: how many angels can dance on the head of a pen —> no way of proving how many angles are dancing on a pen ● Thompson defense to abortion: ● Argues life starts at conception (she doesn’t believe this but chooses it for argument sake) ○ Example: an acorn is not an oak tree ● Thought experiment 1: violinist that is beloved in society and you have the blood type to save them and you have to be hooked up to him so he can use your kidneys. So people kidnap you and force you to be connected to the violinist ● Reasons for choice: (1) Mothers health (2) Financial Standing (3) whose obligations are they shared with? Hursthouse- abortion ● ● Not saying it’s right or wrong but rather we don’t have the tools to talk about it apparently An action is right if and only if Tocqueville - government ● Monarchy = tyranny —-> best form of government ○ Monarch cares about people and people(people of virtue) care about monarch (care about the populous) ○ We know the monarch cares because they lavish gifts on the population and they receipt with praise and good feelings ○ They are perfectly equal ○ Tyranny = everyone hates everyone ● Aristocracy = oligarchy —> 2nd best ○ Group of nobles ○ Aristocracy care less about the people but they still care so they left they have cake per say ○ Oligarchy = ● Timocracy = democracy —> last best ○ Everyone is the same political power ○ A moral majority = timocracy ○ Both a democratic form of government ○ Timocratic democracy V. democratic democracy ○ Differences between the two: Ayn Rand - Individual rights: ● People argue she doesn’t defend her claims ● Summary: A free society is one that protects individual freedoms and capitalism is the only political system that protects individual freedoms by protecting individual rights and those rights are moral because they guide individual actions ● A free society is one that protects individual freedoms: made up of physical and human laws, a free society means you are free to do whatever you want however this means you are not free to coerce anyone else ○ Implies murder is allowed but there is no such society, so she says you have free rights but don’t have the rights to impede on others life ○ Overall we should let society run by letting people do what they want Aquinas - Various Types of laws: ● Natural law is a manifestation of eternal law ○ Actions and behaviors of materials being governed according to laws of physics, science, gravity etc ● Natural law is rules that are measured ● Human law: ● ● Rawl’s Social Justice theory: ● ● ● We should be ignorant to our biases in order to create a equal and fair society full of good policy decisions that are void of bias Void of bias from self interest specifically ○ Because (1) future elections —> people running for office act like they aren’t for self interests ○ Because (2) swayed by voters → people running for office, who want office is based off of who voters vote for One who makes the best decisions is one who is unaware of their own ignorance ○ → make policies behind a veil of ignorance O'Neill's Free and Fair Markets: ● (1) Rawl’s hostile to welfare state capitalism ● (2) whether hostility is accurate ● (3) WSC cannot rea;ize main point values 2 principles ○ Equality and fairness, however these can’t be recognized under a WSC ● Property owning democracy: ● WSC doesn’t allow principles of liberalism like equality and fairness, but POD does ● Rawl’s defends POD, but we don’t know yet if O’Nelli supports POD or WSC ● POD → notion of redistribution and sharing distribution of natural resources (similar to communism, but it is NOT communism or socialism) therefore, it’s just unclear ● Rawl thinks POD is the best way to get fairness and equality, but O’Nellli doesn’t exactly agree with that exact version, but one close to it ● O’Nelli does NOT support WSC because he and Rawl believe WSC can’t get you equality and fairness ● Criticism of WSC—-> O'neill says WSC fails to guarantee fair value of political liberties aka fails to distribute material wealth/possessions aka there is no democracy ● Criticism of WSC —-> O’Neill says WSC does not value principle of reciprocity ● Criticism of WSC undermines equal opportunity because it cannot institutionalize the principle of reciprocity ● POD → Timocracy ● Timocracy in socrates eyes, everyone owns property so there is going to be principle of reciprocity Tolstoy: Kingdom of god is within you ● Main argument: Organized christianity and Unorganized Christianity ● So christ’s understanding and the church’s understanding of christianity ● What’s at stake: anarchism ● Tolstoy is an anarchist ● Anarchism: violence, revolt, white religious nationalist, genocide ○ Political anarchy, religious, theocratic, decolonizing anarchy ● Anarchy: a generalized critique of centralized hierarchical power/authority ○ Anarchists are skeptical of political legitimation ● Political anarchy: states are criminal organizations ● ● ● Theoretical anarchy: a critique of prevailing methods….Whatever those are: science is an essentially anarchic enterprise, this anarchism is more humanitarian and encourages progress than its law and order alternatives—-> basically says science is anarchic Applied anarchism: critiques hierarchies like racial, gendered, national, ethnic, or cultural hierarchies Anarchism is a socioeconomic political theory that opposes all systems of domination and oppression like racism, ableism, sexism, anti-LQBTQ Anarchical Fallacies Jeremy Bentham ● Historical context of the reading: Natural law, french revolution, declaration of independence ● Declaration of rights: declares we have human rights, however, it’s origin is very vague but immutable therefore they exists necessarily Devlin and the enforcement of morals ● Legality does not always equal morality ● Can law enforce morality? ○ Author makes the claim that we should be able to (devlin) ○ Since we have similar principles society should be able to enforce those principles ● No law cannot enforce morality because who is doing said enforcing and the enforcement can infringe on privacy ● Why may society not be in a position to enforce morality: because it depends on who is chosen to enforce it, also how are those people or persons being influenced (bribed, coercion)--> leads to the issue if it’s right to have those people in office? Descartes and Moore ● Cartisan foundation: a theory of epistemic justification Week 14: humanities don’t have as much as a focus in academia ● Ex. literature, history, etc are not as sought after ● Digital humanities: ● Pularm: justice is loving one’s friends and harming one’s enemies OUTLINE REQUIRED FOR POINTS ON FINAL 1. According to the ethics of care, we have special obligations to those we are near to. Many argue that this poses a problem for care ethics. If we have special obligations to those we are near to, then how do we define our obligations to those we are not near to? This may include for instance, our future generations. Do we call for restrictive policies that are bad for the economy but good for the environment and future generations? Should we purchase certain products if we know they were made with slave labor? Michael Slote in his reading Our Obligation to Help Others, defends an ethics of care that can respond to this objection. What is it? What are the premises? How does it meet the objection? Do you think that it is successful? ● Claim: answer to overall question ○ Your outline is made up of the claim’s premises ○ 1.p (because of xyz it is true that) ○ 2.p(but xyz says that leads us to believe xyz) ○ 3.p(however if xyz if true then xyz) ○ Slote reading is an example of writing a philosophy paper ○ An action is Wrong if it does not exhibit a caring (emphatic) act towards others ■ Example of a lack of care: you can stop the train (trolley effect), someone says they’ll give you money if you pull the switch to stop the train —->exhibits a lack of care to others. You only care about the money. ■ An action is right if it exhibits care ○ Outline below: ■ Claim: we have obligations to help others ■ True Premise 1: an act is right if it exhibits a caring attitude/motivation ■ True/false Premise 2: (this might present a problem because an act might show a lack of care towards others but care towards others —> so an act can show a caring attitude and uncaring attitude at the same time ● Example: trolley example you can stop the train from killing 2 people, but not all 4 people so two other people die ■ Premise 3 (this may be where all of your work is done): Ethics of care needs to be able to say how it cares about people ??? ■ CLAIM ● Then you try to determine if michael slote defends this well ● So either defend or criticize the premise ● ● ● ● ● 2. According to Lynn White, there is a medieval view of the nature of humankind, and a Christian view of the nature of humankind. What is the difference between the two? What does this difference have to do with our currently impending ecological crisis? What can we do about it? Medieval view of the nature of humankind(context): humans were custodians of the environment (they were meant to take care of the environment. —> this view we took care of our environment ○ They thought this because the degree of how we take care of our land then determines how the land takes care of us ○ Claim 1 : fields were made in support of one family, but peasants couldn’t have better machinery so they used animals to plow their fields. Therefore, it was up to those people/family to take care of that land. Because this determined if you could survive that season. ○ God’s commanding us to take care of the environment Chrisitan view of nature of humankind(context): when it was no longer the case that people didn’t have a plot of land to take care of, and instead people worked together to bring together as much resources to get as much output from the land as they could —> we’re not as responsible for the environment and instead the environment is more responsible for us. ○ With the introduction of technology into land, fewer and fewer people are needed to take care of the land. ○ Christianity changes this view by: we are no longer for the environment because ○ God gave us dominion over the land Difference between two effects of ecological crisis(context)? We are responsible for the land and we are not responsible for the land. —> this happened because we went farming for one family in hopes of generating the greatest output. This therefore changed people interpretations of the bible because What does this have to do with the environment(question 1)? Medieval view gave way to the christian view What can we do about these effects(question 2): According to white you should xyz ● 3. Peter Singer argues that much of the environmental devastation can be attributed to the western tradition. Show why Singer thinks that important influences on the western tradition are to be blamed for this devastation. Next, there are two separate arguments he gives as solutions to our current approach to the environment. What are these solutions? What ethical view / views do you think they rest on? Singer raises a number of potential objections (245). What are these objections? How does he respond to them? Do you think that his responses improve his argument, or was his argument sufficient without these responses to the potential objections? Finally, Singer offers a comprehensive treatment of value wherein he speaks of sentiment and non-sentiment creatures. What is the difference in value between sentient and non-sentient creatures? What does this difference have to do with preserving the environment? ● Bentham criticism: the declaration was written in such a way that ignored any sort of court or government progress has ever been made ○ French declaration: man has rights given to by nature (ignores that people already had rights) ○ He believes the only way at looking at rights in complex societies is to look at the legal codes and principles of those legal codes to discovery human rights of societies ○ Improving people by improving society because the framers of the french declaration says we had rights that existed outside of society ■ This is wrong because if we look at small tribes they always had rights and or a form of justice therefore natural rights have been a part of these societies. ● Anarchical fallacies: he talks about bentham's point ● Tolktovy: His view is that if we take something like principles rooted in christianity, these principles will help up to better people therefore society ○ Christianity gives us the tools to address issues of social justice that governments cannot. Therefore, we improve society by improving the people and by improving the people, we’ll improve the government ○ Claim: the kingdom of god in within you ○ Doctrine of evil: claim 1 ○ Premise his argument rests on is: ○ Religious based view, improves people ○ Ellul Willing to use the court systems to fight for rights ○ Ellul may recognize political authority when it aligns with his religious values and vice versa ○ Tolstoy rejects political law only because he’s motivated by a higher law and in most societies those laws are already in place like laws against murder 4. Explain religious anarchy. How do you think religious anarchy is different from other forms? Are there differences? Is it the same? Think of Tolstoy’s anarchical view. Think about Ellul. Think about Bentham’s response to anarchy, is it applicable to religious anarchy? For someone who believes strongly in certain values, is anarchy morally permissible? Impermissible? Why or why not? What motivates Ellul’s anarchist view? Do you think his worries are sound? Why or why not? ● Ellul: why non-religious anarchists look at religious anarchists strangely ○ Explain both types of anarchists ○ 5. O’neil considers Rawls’ attacks on welfare state capitalism. How does O’neil define these criticisms? What are the reasons O’neil attributes to Rawls? Explain the principles of justice. How do these conflict upon the welfare state? What is Rawl’s alternative to capitalism? What are some of the differences? What contribution does O’neil make? What does O’neil offer to Rawls’ capitalism alternative? Why is this addendum needed? What is important about it? According to the professor, a philosophical essay is written in the following order: Add context. Thesis/position. Then say the author's positions. and Say you’re going to counter that. Add your position saying you’re rejecting or accepting the position of the author. Context, question—>motivate/defend the question and explain why it’s important give 1-3 reasons why this question is important, response—>”this is why someone might think this” , author’s response “however the author says this response might not be a good response”, and then your response “I agree/disagree with the author’s position.” ●