It can not comprise into the simple report of one’s views, nor in only report regarding the viewpoints associated with the philosophers we discuss. You need to protect the claims you will be making. You must provide reasons why you should think them.
Which means you can not simply state:
My view is the fact that P. i really believe this because.
we realize that the after considerations. give an argument that is convincing P.
Descartes says that Q; but, the after thought-experiment will show that Q isn’t real.
Descartes says that Q. I find this claim plausible, when it comes to after reasons.
- Criticize that argument; or show that certain arguments for the thesis are not any 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 views that are opposing the thesis
- Provide examples that really help explain the thesis, or that assist to make the thesis more plausible
- Argue that one philosophers are devoted to the thesis by their other views, though they just do not turn out and explicitly endorse the thesis
- Discuss just exactly what consequences the thesis could have, if it had been real
- Revise the thesis, into the light of some objection