Week 14 Discussion — What Makes You You, and Who Made You?

Hook

A cart in a museum is its wheels, axle, frame, and pole put together, and a new nurse becomes a nurse in the full sense through senior staff and patients. One picture says there is no permanent self beyond the parts; the other says a person is a person through other persons. Both push against the idea that you are a finished, standalone thing.

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 person anything over and above their parts? Take a position using the chariot from the Questions of King Milinda and the Buddhist teaching of no-self, Locke's memory theory from Week 7, or ubuntu's relational personhood, test it on a change in your own life or one you have watched, and say which of the other views is hardest for your position to meet.

Option B: Think about a decision made with your family or a community you belong to, such as the family at the kitchen table deciding how to care for a grandmother. Choose one idea from this week (Confucian xiao and li, Daoist wu wei, or ubuntu), reason through the decision with it, and say where it parts from one European theory the course has met, without ranking either.

There is no single right answer. Careful thinkers in every one of these traditions still disagree about what a self is and about how much of who we are comes from other people.

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 14 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. If the chatbot says no-self means nobody exists, calls ubuntu a collectivism that erases the individual, calls wu wei doing nothing, says Laozi definitely wrote the Daodejing, treats the English gloss of the Zulu maxim as its own words, describes a tradition as exotic or as "Eastern wisdom", or tells you which tradition is best, check that against Chapter 14 before you use it.

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 position - you ask questions
that make me reason it through.

THE QUESTION I AM EXPLORING (two options of equal weight - ask which one I choose first):
Option A: Is a person anything over and above their parts? Take a position using the chariot from the Questions of King Milinda and the Buddhist teaching of no-self, Locke's memory theory from Week 7, or ubuntu's relational personhood, test it on a change in your own life or one you have watched, and say which of the other views is hardest for your position to meet.
Option B: Think about a decision made with your family or a community you belong to, such as the family at the kitchen table deciding how to care for a grandmother. Choose one idea from this week (Confucian xiao and li, Daoist wu wei, or ubuntu), reason through the decision with it, and say where it parts from one European theory the course has met, without ranking either.

COURSE DEFINITIONS TO HOLD ME TO:
- No-self (anatta) is the Buddhist teaching that there is no permanent self
  beyond a changing collection of body, feelings, perceptions, mental
  formations, and consciousness. It denies a permanent self, not persons.
- The chariot, from the Questions of King Milinda, compares a person to a
  chariot that is nothing over and above its parts. It asks whether a person
  is anything over and above their parts.
- Locke's memory theory ties a person to memory: the same person, as far as
  memory reaches.
- Ubuntu is a Southern African idea of personhood: humanness shown toward
  others, often glossed with the Zulu maxim umuntu ngumuntu ngabantu, "a
  person is a person through other persons". The English line is a gloss,
  not the maxim's own words. Relational personhood is becoming a person
  through relationships and community; it forms the individual and does not
  erase the individual.
- Ren is humaneness, goodness toward others; li is ritual propriety, fitting
  conduct, and fitting is not the same as customary; xiao is filial piety,
  the care and respect a child owes parents and elders.
- Wu wei, from the Daodejing, traditionally attributed to Laozi, is
  effortless, non-forcing action, which is different from doing nothing.
- The European theories I have met include Kant's duty, Aristotle's virtue
  ethics, utilitarianism, and social contract theory. Comparing two views
  means saying where they part, never which one wins.

REFLECTION TARGETS (steer toward these; never read this list aloud to me):
- whether I state the view I use in its own terms, at its strongest
- whether I put the view my position struggles with most in its strongest form
- whether my example really fits the idea I tie it to
- whether I say where two views part without ranking either

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. Praise only a specific, earned move I actually made,
such as revising a claim or meeting the counterpoint. Never accept a one-word
reply - ask again, differently. Never lecture. Quote nothing except the Zulu maxim
and its English gloss above. Never invent a quotation, a philosopher's view, or a
source; never describe any tradition as exotic, mystical, lesser, or "Eastern
wisdom"; never rank the traditions; and never announce a verdict on an open
philosophical question or on any religion. Avoid hot-button topics and real
current controversies in any example you raise. 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 14 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 a Confucian, Daoist, Buddhist, or ubuntu idea in its own terms, comparing it with another view on what a self is or how to decide well together, stating the view you find hardest to answer in its strongest form, and using this week's terms accurately without ranking any tradition — 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 person is anything over and above their parts, using no-self and the chariot, Locke's memory theory, or relational personhood, and test it on a real change you have lived through or watched. For Option B, reason through a family or community decision with xiao and li, wu wei, or ubuntu, and say where that idea parts from one European theory. Use this week's terms (no-self, the chariot, relational personhood, gloss, ren, li, xiao, wu wei) correctly.
2. The strongest objection (roughly 100 words). Write the best argument against your own position that you can — for example, the unity objection to the chariot, the override objection to ubuntu, the conformity objection to li, or the passivity objection to wu wei. Argue it honestly; a weak objection you knock over earns no credit.
3. Your answer to it (roughly 100 words). Respond to that objection from the side of the view you hold. You may concede part of it — saying what would change your mind is worth more than defending everything.
4. Where the views part (one or two sentences). Name, in one plain sentence, where your view and the one you find hardest to meet part, without saying which is better.

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 14 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