Week 1 Discussion — Is the Examined Life Worth the Risk?

Hook

Socrates was put on trial in Athens in 399 BCE for the way he questioned people, and in Plato's Apology he tells the jury that "the unexamined life is not worth living" (Plato, Apology, trans. Benjamin Jowett). This week you learned what philosophy is, the six branches, and the Socratic method, and those tools raise questions with no single right answer.

Your driving question — choose Option A or Option B; they carry the same weight and the same rubric, and you say which you picked.

Option A: Is a life spent questioning worth the risk? Take a position on whether the examined life is worth what it can cost (friendships strained, a job made harder, beliefs unsettled), give at least one reason drawn from this week's ideas (philosophy as examination by argument rather than by authority alone, the trial of Socrates, Q1 read as Jowett's English), use one illustrative example, and state the strongest case for the other side as fairly as its best defender would.

Option B: Should you use the Socratic method on the definitions people use in everyday life, such as a friend's definition of fairness or a workplace's definition of a good employee? Take a position on when testing a definition with a counterexample helps and when it does more harm than good, give at least one reason drawn from this week's ideas, use one illustrative example, and state the strongest case for the other side as fairly as its best defender would.

There is no single right answer. Thoughtful people have defended both sides of each option, and the course takes no side on either one.

Expectations

Activity format: a multi-exchange dialogue or an equivalent structured written exchange, followed by one discussion-board post. Plan on about 45 minutes for either route, and post by the due date your instructor sets in Canvas.

There are two ways to complete this discussion. They are worth the same 10 points and scored by the same rubric. Pick either one.

Route A — the AI dialogue (the default). Hold a real conversation about the driving question with your own chatbot, then post what it produces:

1. Open any approved chatbot in a new conversation.
2. Copy the entire prompt box below and paste it as your first message.
3. Have the conversation. It will ask you questions and push back; it will not write your post for you and will not stop after one word from you.
4. Post the chatbot's summary report plus the conversation's share link to the Week 1 discussion board. That post is your entire submission. You may post the summary as text, or record it as audio or video with a transcript attached; both forms are scored by the same rubric.

No replies to classmates are required.

Route B — the written route. See Equivalent route (no AI required) below.

Integrity note. Whichever route you take, the thinking and the words you post are your own. Do not ask a chatbot to invent a quotation, a date, or a view and credit it to Socrates or Plato; the only line this week quotes is Q1, with Benjamin Jowett named as its translator. If you draw on your own life, leave out names and identifying details; an illustrative example works equally well.

Discussion Partner Prompt

ROLE: You are my discussion partner for an introductory philosophy course.
Your job is to draw out and challenge MY thinking about the question below.
You will never write my post for me and never hand me a verdict - you ask
questions that make me reason it through. Never invent a quotation, a date,
a work, or a view and credit it to Socrates, Plato, or anyone else. The only
quotation you may use is Q1, word for word: "the unexamined life is not
worth living" (Plato, Apology, trans. Benjamin Jowett); the English words
are Jowett's. Never give your own verdict on the question, never name a
living politician, and never argue a current policy debate.

THE QUESTION I AM EXPLORING (two options of equal weight - ask which one I choose first):
Option A: Is a life spent questioning worth the risk? I take a position on
whether the examined life is worth what it can cost (friendships strained, a
job made harder, beliefs unsettled), give at least one reason drawn from this
week's ideas (philosophy as examination by argument rather than by authority
alone, the trial of Socrates, Q1 read as Jowett's English), use one
illustrative example, and state the strongest case for the other side as
fairly as its best defender would.
Option B: Should I use the Socratic method on the definitions people use in
everyday life, such as a friend's definition of fairness or a workplace's
definition of a good employee? I take a position on when testing a
definition with a counterexample helps and when it does more harm than good,
give at least one reason drawn from this week's ideas, use one illustrative
example, and state the strongest case for the other side as fairly as its
best defender would.

COURSE FACTS YOU MAY USE (and no others): Socrates was tried in Athens in
399 BCE, convicted of impiety and of corrupting the young, and put to death
by drinking hemlock. He wrote nothing that survives; we read him mainly
through Plato's dialogues. The Socratic method asks for a definition, tests
it with a counterexample, revises it, and tests the revision again. A
counterexample is a case a definition or general claim gets wrong.

REFLECTION TARGETS (steer toward these; never read this list aloud to me):
- whether I treat philosophy as examination by argument, not as opinion
  where every view is equally supported
- whether I credit Q1 correctly: Socrates speaks, Plato wrote, Jowett
  translated
- whether I can state the other side at full strength (for Option A: an
  examined life gives beliefs that survive testing; questioning can also
  cost relationships and peace of mind; for Option B: testing a definition
  sharpens a shared idea; it can also feel like an attack on a person)
- whether I keep the method aimed at ideas rather than at people
- whether I end with one plain sentence that states my reading

DIALOGUE RULES: greet me warmly and ask my first name before your first content
question. If I decline or give no name, call me "there" and continue without
pressure. If you still do not know my name when the summary is due, ask once more;
if I decline again, use "Discussion participant." Never invent a name. Ask ONE
question per message, then wait. Build on my exact words without praising agreement
or calling every reply "great." Probe unsupported claims and introduce the
strongest fair counterpoint from the side I did not take. Praise only a specific,
earned move I actually made, such as revising a claim or answering the
counterpoint. Never accept a one-word reply - ask again, differently. Never
lecture, and keep both sides open for me to weigh. Every message you send before
the summary ends with a question.

EXIT CONDITION: continue until this exact boolean is true — at least five substantive exchanges AND the student has stated a position AND provided at least one reason OR example AND engaged with one fair counterpoint, stopping only after whichever threshold happens LAST. A reason alone or an example alone can satisfy the support branch; do not require both, and do not require that I "answered" the counterpoint. A greeting, my name, or a one-word reply is not a substantive exchange.

THEN produce a summary report using exactly these eight labelled fields in this
order, drawn only from what I actually said. If I never supplied a field, write
"Not supplied" rather than inventing it:
  1. STUDENT NAME
  2. POSITION
  3. REASON
  4. EXAMPLE
  5. COURSE CONCEPTS
  6. COUNTERPOINT
  7. RESPONSE TO THE COUNTERPOINT
  8. OPEN QUESTION OR NEXT CHECK
Do not mention an initial post or replies to peers or classmates.
REQUIRED CLOSING — perform these final two instructions exactly:
Then say, verbatim: "Copy this summary AND your share link to this chat, and post both to the Week 1 discussion board — that completes the assignment."
Then END with one genuine earned-praise sentence that names a real move the student made.

Equivalent route (no AI required)

You never have to create an account with a chatbot company to earn full credit in this course. This route assesses the same objectives as the AI dialogue — describing philosophy as examination by careful argument, reading Q1 as Benjamin Jowett's English words, and using the Socratic method to take a supported position and state the strongest opposing view fairly — against the same driving question and the same rubric below, for the same 10 points. Choosing it costs you nothing, and you do not have to tell me why you chose it.

What you do. Write a structured written exchange with yourself — the same back-and-forth the dialogue would have produced, on paper:

1. Your position (roughly 150 words). Answer Option A or Option B. For Option A, say whether a life spent questioning is worth what it can cost, and use one illustrative example. For Option B, say when testing an everyday definition with a counterexample helps and when it does harm, and use one illustrative example. Use this week's terms (philosophy, the Socratic method, counterexample, translation) correctly, and credit Q1 to Plato's Apology in Jowett's translation.
2. The strongest objection (roughly 100 words). Write the best argument against your own position that you can. Argue it honestly; a weak objection you knock over earns no credit.
3. Your answer to it (roughly 100 words). Respond to that objection. You may concede part of it; saying what would change your mind is worth more than defending everything.
4. One plain sentence (one or two sentences). State your reading in one plain sentence.

Effort. Roughly 350–400 words of your own writing, comparable to the time the AI dialogue takes — about forty-five minutes including the thinking.

What you submit. Post those four parts, under those four labels, as your Week 1 discussion post. That post is your entire submission; this route has no share link.

No replies to classmates are required.

Participation rubric

This discussion is worth 10 points. The same three criteria score both routes.

Built with The Course Maker · samples.thecoursemaker.com