It can not consist when you look at the simple report of the views, nor in only report associated with the viewpoints of this philosophers we discuss. You need to protect the claims you create. You need to provide reasons why you should think them.
So that you can not simply state:
My view is the fact that P. i really believe this because.
we realize that the after considerations. offer a convincing argument for P.
Descartes says that Q; nonetheless, the after thought-experiment will show that Q is certainly not true.
Descartes says that Q. I find this claim plausible, when it comes to reasons that are following.
- Criticize that argument; or show that one arguments for the thesis are no good
- Protect the argument or thesis against somebody else’s criticism
- Offer reasons to trust the thesis
- Offer counter-examples to your thesis
- Contrast the skills and weaknesses of two opposing views about the thesis
- Offer examples that really help explain the thesis, or that assist to really make the thesis more plausible
- Argue that one philosophers are invested in the thesis by their other views, though they cannot emerge and explicitly endorse the thesis
- Discuss just exactly just what consequences the thesis could have, if it had been real
- Revise the thesis, into the light of some objection