Milestone map
Milestone map
3 milestones
Develop an original philosophical argument on a genuine philosophical question
5 weeks
Select a genuine philosophical question where reasonable positions differ — moral realism, personal identity, free will, epistemic justification, or the nature of consciousness. Develop an original argument: state your thesis, construct it with explicit premises and conclusion, demonstrate familiarity with at least two named philosophers or traditions, and explain how your argument differs from or improves on existing positions. The argument must be yours — not a restatement of any named position.
Proof required
Original philosophical argument document (800+ words) stating the thesis, constructing the argument in explicit form (premises and conclusion), demonstrating familiarity with at least two named philosophers or traditions, and explaining how the argument differs from or improves on existing positions.
What gets checked
- Thesis is specific enough to be argued for — not a general position statement
- At least two named philosophers or traditions are substantively engaged — not just mentioned
- Argument is demonstrably original — not a restatement of any single named position
Common mistakes
- Selecting a question without genuine philosophical difficulty — must involve real reasonable disagreement
- Summarising existing positions without advancing an original argument
- A compromise between two named views rather than a genuinely original contribution
Powstik Guide
An 800-word original argument on a genuine philosophical question.
Steps
- State your thesis in one sentence.
- Lay out premises explicitly.
- Test it against a counter-example.
- Say what would change your mind.
Template
Thesis: Premises: Counter-example and reply: What would change my mind:
What gets sent back
- Under 800 words.
- Sources uncited.
- Hypothetical instead of real.
Resources
Foundationstart here
Depthgo deeper
What a verifier looks for
- Review argument structure — confirm premises and conclusion are explicitly stated
- Check engagement with named philosophers — confirm at least two are substantively engaged
- Assess originality — ask candidate to explain how their argument differs from the most similar existing position
You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.
Develop responses to serious objections using the principle of charity
3 weeks
Work through at least three serious objections — at least one named objection from the philosophical literature and at least two anticipated from careful reading of the M1 argument. For each: state it in its strongest form (principle of charity), explain why it seems compelling, and respond. At least one response must modify or qualify the argument — a perfect argument with no changes after objection review is unlikely to be genuine philosophy.
Proof required
Objection-response document (500+ words) presenting at least three serious objections in their strongest form, including at least one named from the philosophical literature, with reasoning for why each is compelling and a specific response — including at least one argument modification or qualification.
What gets checked
- At least three objections are in their strongest form — not straw men
- At least one is a named objection from the philosophical literature with citation
- At least one argument modification or qualification is made in response to a compelling objection
Common mistakes
- Objections weaker than the argument — presenting objections the argument already handles easily
- Responses that reject every objection without modification
- Named objection without citation of the source
Powstik Guide
Your argument, answering three serious objections.
Steps
- Find one named objection in the literature and cite it.
- Write two objections from a careful reread.
- State each at its strongest.
- Respond, and change your argument at least once.
Template
| Objection | Source | Why it's compelling | My response | |-----------|--------|---------------------|-------------| Modification I'm making:
What gets sent back
- Objections weaker than your argument.
- Every objection rejected with no change.
- A named objection with no citation.
Resources
Foundationstart here
Depthgo deeper
What a verifier looks for
- Review objections — confirm at least three are in their strongest form
- Check the named objection — confirm it is from the philosophical literature with citation
- Verify at least one argument modification is documented
You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.
Engage in a real Socratic dialogue with a philosophy-trained interlocutor
1 week
Engage in a real Socratic dialogue with a qualified interlocutor — a philosophy academic, trained philosophy tutor, or someone who has demonstrated sustained serious engagement with philosophical reasoning. The Socratic method requires: the interlocutor asks questions to expose assumptions and surface contradictions, does not state their own view or argue, questions only. The dialogue must be real and unscripted. Document the dialogue or have the interlocutor attest to it. This is the Level 3 ADVERSARIAL VERIFICATION requirement for this outcome — a real interlocutor is constitutionally required, not optional.
Proof required
Socratic dialogue record (300+ words) covering: interlocutor credentials (philosophy academic, trained tutor, or demonstrated philosophical interlocutor), at least five Socratic questions with candidate's real-time responses, the key assumption or contradiction exposed by the dialogue, and any argument modifications committed to.
What gets checked
- Interlocutor is a philosophy academic, trained tutor, or demonstrated philosophical interlocutor
- At least five Socratic questions and real-time responses are documented
- At least one key assumption or contradiction exposed by the dialogue is identified
Common mistakes
- Interlocutor states their own position rather than questioning — Socratic dialogue is questioning only, not debate
- Pre-arranged questions the candidate saw in advance — the dialogue must be genuinely unscripted
- No key assumption or contradiction identified — if nothing was exposed, the dialogue was not rigorous enough
Powstik Guide
A real, unscripted Socratic dialogue and its record.
Steps
- Find a philosophy academic, tutor or experienced interlocutor.
- Ask them to question only, not argue their own view.
- Don't see their questions in advance.
- Record the session, with permission.
- Name the assumption or contradiction it exposed.
Template
Interlocutor (credentials): | Question | My answer | |----------|-----------| (at least five) Assumption or contradiction exposed: Change to my argument:
What gets sent back
- An interlocutor who debates instead of questions.
- Questions seen in advance.
- Nothing exposed by the dialogue.
Resources
Foundationstart here
Depthgo deeper
What a verifier looks for
- Confirm interlocutor is a philosophy academic, trained tutor, or demonstrated philosophical interlocutor
- Review Socratic questions — confirm they are questions (not assertions) and at least five with real-time responses
- Check that at least one exposed assumption or contradiction is documented
You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.