Ortega We know a lot of things that we do not realize we know.

Ortega We know a lot of things that we do not realize we know. (He gives material you can use for this in chapters 2, 3, and 4, including specific examples you can use, for example when he explores what we mean, but don’t usually realize we mean, by ou
The second paper is on Ortega, The topic is “We know more that we realized we knew”.
Book to be used is Some Lessons in Metaphysics, ISBN# 9780393005141. Information for the paper must come from chapters 2, 3 and 4 of the book. Essay it must be 4-5 double-spaced pages long.
(Again, don’t “fulfill” the requirements with, e.g., extra-wide margins or extra-large font.) And, again, it needs three parts, as follows.
The first part is a short introductory paragraph that states a point Ortega makes, and that states whether you will agree or disagree. The point can be any point he makes, as long as he gives a number of reasons why it’s true (since, as you will see below, the first half of the paper is made up of his reasons or evidence for this point). The point need not be a quote. This first paragraph will look something like this: “I agree (or disagree) with Ortega when he says that the moon is made of little mice.” You must either agree OR disagree, but not both. And you must state his point as a full sentence, so that your reader knows exactly what the point is. If you say, “I agree with Ortega about the moon,” that doesn’t help your reader, as Ortega may say many different things about the moon, some of them not involving mice at all.
The second part takes up the first half of the paper, and consists in Ortega’s reasons why his point is true — his evidence or back-up or support for his point. The reasons can come from anywhere in the book — the same few pages, or from various places spread through the book — as long as they’re reasons or evidence for that same point, and as long as there are enough of them to fill half the paper. Even if you disagree, you must still give his evidence in his part, giving him a fair hearing, just as in a law-court where both disagreeing parties get to speak. You must explain his reasons in your own words. You may use a few short quotes with the page numbers in brackets after the quote, though these should also be explained in your words.
The third part is your own reasons why his point is true if you agree, or why his point is false if you disagree. If you agree, your reasons must be different from his. I would recommend that you forget about his reasons, and imagine you are explaining to a 10 year old child with a big vocabulary why she should believe you. The grading will be based on just two things: the quantity and quality of the reasons, and how well the reasons stay focused on the single main point. Anything else (e.g., background information about the philosopher, good reasoning supporting other true points) does not contribute to the paper.