More precisely, the claim is again that a citizen who has a disagreement with the state must either persuade it that it is wrong, or else obey it. Certain rules must be followed, and if all mandatory criteria are not met, even the best of ideas might be discarded. Writer's Block Is there a God? The essay also needs to be proofread as a rule of thumb. Notice also that textual references are given for the quotes, as well as for paraphrased passages.
Notice how, in describing the problem, I try to elucidate it, rather than just summarizing it. Socrates on the Moral Authority of the State In the Crito, Socrates makes some surprisingly strong claims about the moral authority of the state, which might even seem to be inconsistent both with another fundamental claim he makes in the Crito and with certain claims he makes in the Apology. Avoid excessive quotation! If you don't, it's plagiarism, which constitutes cheating and is a violation of the honor code. That distinction enabled me to argue for an interpretation of what Socrates is claiming about the moral authority of the state that renders this claim consistent with his other claims.
The problem is plainly stated, and then I explain clearly what I'm going to do in the paper--all in just a few sentences. Of course, you'd have to be able to give an argument for why the text should be understood in that way, despite the fact that Socrates winds up with rather glaringly conflicting claims on that reading.
Explain and illuminate the relevant ideas or arguments in your own words, as if you were trying to help a fellow student gain a deeper understanding of them. Thus, a more charitable reading would interpret the passages about the moral authority of the state as referring implicitly to cases where the state does not require one to do anything unjust, but merely to endure something or perhaps to do something that is not itself unjust, such as rendering some political service.
Time and again.
Another process which should be observed during the finalization of the essay is to make sure that the proper language was used. This is why it is so important for the writer to take the time and make sure that he had advanced his arguments properly, and that they cannot be countered. There are passages that might seem to suggest i e. Certain rules must be followed, and if all mandatory criteria are not met, even the best of ideas might be discarded. Now as mentioned above, these claims seem directly opposed to certain other claims Socrates makes. In addition to the quality of exposition, one of the central things we look for in a philosophy paper is how well the thesis in question is supported.
Proofreading of papers is a necessity. Whether or not you agree with that particular argument, you can see the difference between bringing the discussion to that level of detail and merely staying on the surface. Philosophical works need to be read slowly and with focused attention. Thus, Socrates' claim that one should never do wrong seems inconsistent with his claim that one must always obey the final orders of the state.
Indeed, this serves as the driving principle behind the rest of his argument in the Crito. It is the time to review the whole document and determine if it is up to the expected standards.
Whether or not you agree with that particular argument, you can see the difference between bringing the discussion to that level of detail and merely staying on the surface. This is perfectly consistent with Socrates' exhortation never to do anything wrong.
An example of critical evaluation of an argument would be my lecture criticizing Thomson's argument for the conclusion that abortions wouldn't violate a fetus' right to life even if it were granted to have a full right to life. You might argue that each has different strengths and weaknesses.