I am supposed to be discussing humes ( philo's) objections to the arguement from design, as presented by cleanthes.
Is hume (philo's) objection compelling.
Philo leaves his objections aside until subconclusion 1 of cleanthes arguement.
I think philo could have raised objections earlier on, objections to premise one and two, but philo does not.
Now can i include in the tma analysis of philo's objections the fact that he did not step in earlier to object, based on philosophical reasoning...
Or can i only write about the quality of philo's actual stated arguements?
By not stepping in earlier, philo allows cleantges to develope another premise, sub conclusion and conclusion that are based on unchallenged premise one and two.
I am very mindful now if Simon Reeds advice in comments on another of my posts.
' we are not here in a222 to do any of our own philosophy, just to show we can construct a philosophical arguement correctly, and stick to the module materials'
Without wise words from Simon, i might have wasted 800 words of tma2 and got a poor mark.
I will mention my thoughts about philo letting premise one and two too easily, very briefly, as a further example of what might have made philo's objections truely compelling. However 1000 words need to be invested on what philo does say...
I only know what I was getting wrong - don't be shy to check what I've said against your tutor's advice, the learning outcomes and the rubric!