>>16101311
I'm going to keep this concise. First of all, I can tell you're in STEM by the fact that you tried to optimize and game the system of writing a paper by giving an "academic leftist" what he wanted. Turns out, he didn't want that, because thats not what "analyze" means. Philosophy papers are not book reports, and linking philosophy to the outside world is the stuff of puff pieces on Medium or Twitter, not academic philosophy. What you should have done is picked a position and argued it using the text as given and drawing your own conclusion from it. Example, if you were writing on the Stoics: "Stoic happiness was based on their circular eschatology, and without this, would be less impactful." Read your text, defend your point, and thats that. THAT is analysis. A novel thesis and close reading, not bringing in random bullshit you think "leftists" want to read about.
I'll be honest, I think his grading is a little harsh for a 100 level course, not everyone is going to be writing good quality theses at this point and he really should have made this clear to you guys, but the fact remains that you approached this like a cynical and arrogant know-it-all and got treated appropriately.