Hi Toby â sorry if this is an annoyingly specific (or not!) question, but do you have a sense of whether the following would meet the bar for âdeep engagementâ?:
One of the chapters contains a pretty short subsection thatâs quite load-bearing for the thesis of the chapter. (So in particular, the subsection doesnât give an extensive argument for that load-bearing claim.)
The essay replies at length to that subsection. Since the subsection doesnât contain an extensive argument, though, most of the essayâs content is:
(1) a reply to anticipated defenses of the subsectionâs claim, and/âor
(2) discussion of some surrounding philosophical context (outside the chapter) the subsectionâs claim relies on.
ETA: Or this?:
(Edited) One of the chapters gives some counterarguments to a class of critiques of longtermism, but similar counterarguments are given in various other writings.
(Edited) The essayâs purpose is largely to reply to those counterarguments. But the framing of those counterarguments in the chapter per se isnât essential, and the essay also focuses on some other key points that are more tangential to the chapter.
Hey Anthony. Very reasonable question! Replying at length to a sub-section from one of the essays would definitely constitute deep engagement. The second idea is less obviously related to the collection, but I did say that you could write on a âtheme from across the collectionâ so it would likely qualify. If you want to be extra sure Iâm happy to look at a plan or something.
The motivation with the quick take is mostly to underline that this isnât an essay competition about longtermism, itâs an essay competition about a specific book about longtermism. You clealry get that, so Iâm not concerned :)
Hi Toby â sorry if this is an annoyingly specific (or not!) question, but do you have a sense of whether the following would meet the bar for âdeep engagementâ?:
One of the chapters contains a pretty short subsection thatâs quite load-bearing for the thesis of the chapter. (So in particular, the subsection doesnât give an extensive argument for that load-bearing claim.)
The essay replies at length to that subsection. Since the subsection doesnât contain an extensive argument, though, most of the essayâs content is:
(1) a reply to anticipated defenses of the subsectionâs claim, and/âor
(2) discussion of some surrounding philosophical context (outside the chapter) the subsectionâs claim relies on.
ETA: Or this?:
(Edited) One of the chapters gives some counterarguments to a class of critiques of longtermism, but similar counterarguments are given in various other writings.
(Edited) The essayâs purpose is largely to reply to those counterarguments. But the framing of those counterarguments in the chapter per se isnât essential, and the essay also focuses on some other key points that are more tangential to the chapter.
Hey Anthony. Very reasonable question! Replying at length to a sub-section from one of the essays would definitely constitute deep engagement. The second idea is less obviously related to the collection, but I did say that you could write on a âtheme from across the collectionâ so it would likely qualify. If you want to be extra sure Iâm happy to look at a plan or something.
The motivation with the quick take is mostly to underline that this isnât an essay competition about longtermism, itâs an essay competition about a specific book about longtermism. You clealry get that, so Iâm not concerned :)