# Comparative Philosophy — steal this assignment
_EL3vate 2026 · Day 8 · Part 04 of 15 · build 3dfcaff_

## Try it Tuesday (90 minutes)
90 minutes, primary text in hand. Assign a two-page primary-source excerpt (for example, Analects 13.18 and Mengzi 7A35) to read in the first 20 minutes. Then students run the tradition-interlocutor prompt, instructing the AI to argue a case from within that tradition. For 40 minutes they interrogate it, keeping a three-column failure log: the AI's claim, the exact line from the source, and one sentence on what the AI flattened. Last 30 minutes: students share the single clearest instance where the model swapped a generic Western-liberal move — autonomy, individual rights, cost-benefit — for the tradition's actual commitment. No fabrication; the failure log is the graded artifact, and a student who did not read the excerpt cannot produce one.

## The assignment
**Make it (Laser cut · engrave).** A physical apparatus that forces a commitment: engraved tiles for competing ethical frameworks that students must physically arrange and rank against a case, or a switchboard where the abstract choice becomes a lever you actually have to pull in front of people.

**Build it (AI chat · no code).** An interlocutor instructed to argue from one specific tradition. The assignment is adversarial: students interrogate it against primary sources and document every place it substitutes a generic Western liberal position for the tradition it claims to hold. A student who has not read the text cannot do this.

## 5-week plan
- **Wk 1.** Choose two traditions and one shared case. Students read the primary sources first. The AI stays closed.
- **Wk 2.** Students build their interlocutor prompt and run it. They keep a failure log: quote from the AI, quote from the source, one sentence on what got lost. By the end of the week the log has named the distinction the machine could not hold — design the engraved apparatus around that distinction while the log is fresh.
- **Wk 3.** Cut file due the first day of this week: what distinction between the two traditions can only be shown by arranging objects in space? While it is cut and engraved, students begin the argument that pairs the apparatus with the failure log.
- **Wk 4.** Finish the written argument and rehearse presenting the apparatus alongside the log. The engraved pieces come back this week.
- **Wk 5.** Present the artifact and the failure log together. The claim being assessed: here is what the machine could not hold, and here is why it matters.

## What this replaces
- **Replaces:** The comparative seminar paper contrasting two ethical traditions on a case.
- **What is lost:** The extended written synthesis and the student's own sustained argument.
- **What is gained:** Students read the primary source adversarially, with a concrete opponent to catch, instead of paraphrasing secondary summaries; the assignment makes fidelity to the text the graded skill.

## Where AI is bad at this
Asked to argue from within a non-Western tradition, the model collapses it into liberal individualism — recasting Confucian role-ethics as personal autonomy, Buddhist non-self as self-care, ubuntu as networking — because the training distribution is saturated with the Western frame. It produces fluent, respectful-sounding prose that quietly substitutes the tradition's metaphysics with the one it defaults to.

## Rubric
| Criterion | Weight | What it assesses |
|---|---|---|
| Textual fidelity of the catch | 35% | Each flagged departure is anchored to a specific line of the primary source, not to a general impression of the tradition. |
| Precision of the flattening | 25% | Names what specifically was substituted — which Western concept displaced which indigenous one — not merely that the AI was biased. |
| Comprehension on its own terms | 25% | Demonstrates the student can state the tradition's commitment as it actually holds it. |
| Restraint against over-claiming | 15% | Distinguishes a genuine flattening from a defensible interpretive choice; does not cry foul at every simplification. |

## Starter prompt
> You are going to argue a case from within a single philosophical tradition, and I am going to check your work. Adopt the position of [name the tradition, e.g. classical Confucian ethics] as it is actually articulated in its primary texts, not a modern popularization. The case is: [describe it]. Argue the position fully. Do not hedge, do not present multiple perspectives, and do not add a balanced summary at the end. When I quote a primary source back at you that contradicts what you said, address the contradiction directly rather than conceding everything.

## Budget & logistics
- **Instructor prep:** 2 hours
- **Class time:** 90 minutes
- **Per-student cost:** $0 for the Tuesday version; roughly $5–10 per student in laser stock **[unverified]** for engraved framework tiles in the five-week build.
- **Fabrication file due:** First day of Week 3, in a five-week plan — the engraved apparatus can only be designed once the week-2 failure log has named the distinction the machine could not hold, so the design happens at the close of week 2 and the cut file goes in the moment week 3 opens. PACE quotes 7–10 business days (up to 14 calendar days), which clears with the week-5 presentation exactly 14 days out.
- **Calendar dependency:** The AI and reading need no lead time. This plan is five weeks, not four, and the deadline sits at the start of week 3 rather than the end of it — both deliberately. The apparatus cannot be designed before the week-2 failure log exists, which rules out the start-of-week-2 deadline every other fabrication assignment here uses; and an end-of-week-3 file would leave only 8 calendar days before a week-5 presentation, which the up-to-14-calendar-day cut turnaround does not fit. Start of week 3 to a week-5 session is 14 days, which does.

## Three sizes
- **One session:** The 90-minute read-then-interrogate session producing one failure log; no fabrication.
- **5 weeks:** The seeded plan runs five weeks, not four, because the apparatus cannot be designed until the failure log exists. Week 1, read the primary sources with the AI closed. Week 2, build and run the interlocutor and keep the failure log; by Friday it has named the distinction the machine could not hold, so the apparatus gets designed around it. Week 3, cut file in on day one, and start the argument while the pieces are engraved. Week 4, finish the written argument and rehearse presenting it; the engraved pieces return. Week 5, present artifact and log together. The extra week is the cut turnaround, not padding.
- **One semester:** Sustained comparison across three traditions and three cases, each with its own failure log, culminating in an engraved decision apparatus and a written account of what the machine structurally could not hold.

---
_PACE · Shidler College of Business · University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa · pace.shidler.hawaii.edu/maker_
_All fifteen assignments, the demos and every handout: https://el3vate.vercel.app_