PHIL421Spring2013WritingAssignments

PHIL 421-001

Spring 2013

Writing Assignments

PHIL 421 has been designated a Writing Intensive course. Further information on WI courses is here. At the bottom of this page there are links to other helpful resources.

Written work for this course consists of two short papers (or one short paper and one in-class presentation) plus two longer ones.

The short papers (or one short paper and one presentation) each account for 15% of your grade. The "long" papers each account for 30% of your grade.

General instructions for the two short papers or short paper plus presentation

Most weeks, I will assign either an exegesis (a passage of text to explicate) or a question or both. Twice during the semester, you will select one of these passages to explicate OR one question to answer. Due dates and topics will be posted below.

In other words, some weeks you will explicate one passage or answer one question, and some weeks you will do neither. (If you choose to do
more than 2 short papers, or more than one short paper and a presentation, I will count the 2 highest grades.)

Guidelines for the short papers and presentations:

(a) Each of the short papers you write should be about 4-5 pages in length.

They are intended to help you grapple with the texts assigned for the dates on which the papers/presentations are due. Therefore they will be due before the class session on those texts starts.
Please submit the papers in .doc, .docx, .rtf, or .pdf format.

(b) If you elect to do an in-class presentation,

it should be on the topic assigned for the short paper due that day OR on a topic approved at least one week in advance by the instructor;
it should be no more than fifteen minutes in length; and
notes or a written version must be submitted on the day of the presentation.

General Instructions for the two "long" papers

1. The first is to be 7-10 pages in length. It will be due on March 7.

(a) It must be on a topic pertaining to the Nicomachean Ethics and must use that text (plus others, including secondary sources).
(b) Students must submit a research question and a preliminary annotated bibliography for each “long” paper. For the first "long" paper, these are due on February 11. Papers whose research questions and preliminary annotated bibliographies were not checked by the instructor will not be accepted. (The bibliography or works cited list that accompanies the final version of your paper should NOT be annotated.)
(c) Students are encouraged to show a draft of each "long" paper to the instructor for comments before submitting the completed paper. If you wish to submit a draft, you must do so by February 25.

2. The second is to be 8-10 pages in length. It is due on May 10.

(a) It must be on a topic pertaining to the Politics and must use that text (plus others, including secondary sources; you can also include Nicomachean Ethics if you wish).
(b) Students must submit a research question and a preliminary annotated bibliography for this paper by April 8. Papers whose research questions and preliminary annotated bibliographies were not checked by the instructor will not be accepted. (The bibliography or works cited list that accompanies the final version of your paper should NOT be annotated.)
(c) If you wish to submit a draft of this paper for comments, you must do so by April 26.

Guidelines for the "long" papers:
1. Each paper must use at least one primary source (a work or works by Aristotle, and optionally a work or works of original philosophy by another author) and at least 2 modern secondary sources (works on Aristotle, and optionally a work or works on another philosopher).

One of the primary sources MUST be the work(s) assigned for that paper: the Nicomachean Ethics for the first "long" paper; and the Politics for the second. That is, you may use other works of Aristotle in addition to the one(s) assigned for that paper, but you must use the ones assigned for that paper for substantial parts of your paper.
At least half of the secondary sources you use should have been written within the last forty years.^[1]
In addition to these primary and secondary sources, you are welcome to use works by other philosophers, and commentaries on those works.
In some cases, it may be appropriate in addition to use works outside of philosophy.
The paper must use a standard citation style (Chicago A, Chicago B, and MLA are the ones most commonly used in philosophy), and must use it consistently. Here is a GMU Libraries link to online versions of these style guides.
Please submit the papers in .doc, .docx, .rtf, or .pdf format.

2. The paper must not simply report what Aristotle and the secondary sources say; it must also analyze this information, draw some conclusions, and support those conclusions with argument and textual evidence.

Arguments and assertions presented in the primary and secondary sources must be analyzed and assessed. (That is, it’s not enough to say that a famous commentator said something; one needs also to consider whether what the commentator says is justified as an account of what Aristotle was doing.)
No more than 20% of the paper may consist of quotations.

3. When you quote a source (Aristotle or anyone else), please indicate the title, author, and page or line number (Bekker number). You can use either a footnote, an endnote, or a parenthetical reference for each such quotation.

[1] This provision should not be taken to imply that I think, or that you should think, that what is newer is better, or that nothing old is good - far from it. Many older secondary sources are very valuable today. However, newer work responds to older work, evaluates it, tests and confirms or rebuts it, tries to fill in gaps it left, and generally tries to improve upon it if possible. Therefore if you limit yourself to older secondary sources you may miss important criticisms and improvements, or important attempts to apply ancient works to today’s situations. Or you may find that a recent work criticizes an older one in a way that is unfounded, and you will do well to show what it is that vindicates the older view.

Assignments to be used for short papers or presentations

Due February 4

Option One

Type of paper: Exegesis of text. The passage to work on: Nicomachean Ethics Book Two, Chapter 6.

Briefly trace and summarize the arguments or sequences of ideas presented. What are the starting points, the basic assumptions and hypotheses and definitions from which the arguments begin? Are there any unstated assumptions? Are there any stated but (as yet) uninvestigated and unsupported assumptions or hypotheses? Explain. Does Aristotle say anything here that appears to conflict with other things he has said so far? If so, how if at all could such conflicts be resolved? Are there any equivocations or ambiguities that compromise (or have the potential to compromise) the arguments? Explain.

You may certainly quote the text, but when you do so you must explain what you think the quotations mean and imply. It is not necessary to use any sources other than the class text; your arguments are what are important. This paper should be approximately 4-5 pages long (typed, double-spaced, 12-point font, one-inch margins). It is due in Blackboard by the beginning of class on February 4.

Option Two

Type of paper: Exegesis of text. The passage to work on: Nicomachean Ethics Book Two, Chapter 4.

Briefly trace the arguments or sequences of ideas presented. What are the main points that the passage aims at establishing or explaining? What are the starting points, the basic assumptions and hypotheses and definitions from which the argument begins? Does the argument rely on ideas or conclusions reached in earlier passages? Are there any unstated assumptions? Are there any stated but (as yet) uninvestigated and unsupported assumptions or hypotheses or assertions? Does Aristotle say anything here that appears to conflict with other things he has said so far? If so, how if at all could such conflicts be resolved? Also, does Aristotle make any statements in this passage that seem irrelevant or unrelated to the main point of the passage? Explain.

Be sure that part of your paper addresses the following: For Aristotle, is the virtuous person one who enjoys doing good things (or at least, one who does not find doing such things burdensome or unpleasant)? Or is his/her virtuous character derived from doing things he or she would rather not do? Or is the relationship something else? See also Chapter 3 for background.

You may certainly quote the text, but when you do so you must explain what you think the quotations mean and imply. It is not necessary to use any sources other than the class text; your arguments are what are important. This paper should be approximately 4-5 pages long (typed, double-spaced, 12-point font, one-inch margins). It is due in Blackboard by the beginning of class on February 4.

Due February 11

Concerning Book Four, Chapter Three: What is a “high-minded” person? Compare and contrast “high-mindedness” with “having an accurate opinion of yourself”: are those who have an accurate opinion of themselves always high-minded? Do the high-minded (in the Aristotelian sense) always have an accurate opinion of themselves? Compare and contrast also what we call “self-esteem” with “high-mindedness.” (Also, indicate what you take ‘self-esteem’ to mean.) Aristotle says that the high-minded person thinks him/herself worthy of honor (1123b20); yet he has also suggested that high-mindedness is an aretē, that happiness seems to be activity of soul in accordance with aretē, and that happiness could NOT consist in honor alone (Book One, Ch. 5). If the high-minded person is not acting just for the sake of honor, for what sake is he/she acting? And what then is the importance of honor in his/her life?

Are there any unstated assumptions? Are there any stated but (as yet) uninvestigated and unsupported assumptions or hypotheses? Explain. Does Aristotle say anything here that appears to conflict with other things he has said so far? If so, how if at all could such conflicts be resolved? Are there any equivocations or ambiguities that compromise (or have the potential to compromise) the arguments? Explain.

If you think that “high-mindedness” should not be considered an excellence, or if you think it should, you are welcome to discuss this. But make sure you respond to the rest of the question first.

You may certainly quote the text, but when you do so you must explain what you think the quotations mean and imply. It is not necessary to use any sources other than the class text; your arguments are what are important. This paper should be approximately 4-5 pages long (typed, double-spaced, 12-point font, one-inch margins). It is due in Blackboard by the beginning of class on Feb. 11.

Due February 18

(Reminder: You do not have to do this particular paper. You need to do any two short papers (or one short paper plus one presentation), plus both of the longer papers, over the course of the semester.)

Type of paper: Exegesis/Analysis of Text
The passage to work on: 1129b12 (paragraph beginning, “Since a law-breaker is, as we saw, unjust and a law-abiding man just,...” in Book Five Ch. 1), through the end of NE Book Five Ch. 2.

What does Aristotle mean in saying that in one sense justice is “complete virtue/excellence” and that in another sense justice is only one part of virtue? (Your translator sometimes expresses this also by saying that one “kind” of justice comprises all of virtue and another “kind” is only a part of virtue.) Why do you think Aristotle needs (or thinks he needs) to make this distinction? Express Aristotle’s argument or train of reasoning in your own words. Show what role this point plays in the Book as a whole: why, in the context of this work, is Aristotle addressing this particular issue? (You do not need to read the entire Nicomachean Ethics to answer this. You do, however, need to have read all of Books One through Five.) What are his starting points, the basic assumptions and hypotheses and definitions from which his argument begins? Are there any unstated assumptions? Are there any stated but (as yet) uninvestigated and unsupported assumptions or hypotheses? Does Aristotle say anything here that appears to conflict with other things he has said so far? If so, how if at all could such conflicts be resolved? Also, does Aristotle make any statements in this passage that seem irrelevant or unrelated to the main point of the passage?

You may certainly quote the text, but when you do so you must explain what you think the quotations mean and imply. It is not necessary to use any sources other than the class text; your arguments are what are important. This paper should be approximately 4-5 pages long (typed, double-spaced, 12-point font, one-inch margins). It is due in Blackboard by the beginning of class on Feb. 18.

Due February 25

Type of paper: Exegesis/Analysis of Text

The passage to work on: Nicomachean Ethics Book Six Chapter 12.

Express Aristotle’s argument or train of reasoning in your own words. Identify what point he seems to be making, or what question or problem he seems to be addressing. Be sure to address the distinctions Aristotle makes between “practical wisdom” (phronesis) and “theoretical wisdom” (sophia), and between practical wisdom and cleverness. (Be aware that although the English translation makes it sound as if “practical wisdom” and “theoretical wisdom” are two varieties of one thing (“wisdom”), in Greek the words phronesis and sophia do not have a common root.) Show what role this point plays in Book Six as a whole: why, in the context of this work, is Aristotle addressing this particular issue? (You do not need to read the entire Nicomachean Ethics to answer this. You do, however, need to read all of Books One through Six.)

What are Aristotle's starting points, the basic assumptions and hypotheses and definitions from which his argument begins? Are there any unstated assumptions? Are there any stated but (as yet) uninvestigated and unsupported assumptions or hypotheses? Does Aristotle say anything here that appears to conflict with other things he has said so far? If so, how if at all could such conflicts be resolved? Also, does Aristotle make any statements in this passage that seem irrelevant or unrelated to the main point of the passage?

You may certainly quote the text, but when you do so you must explain what you think the quotations mean and imply. Do NOT use any sources other than the class text. This paper should be approximately 4-5 pages long (typed, double-spaced, 12-point font, one-inch margins). It is due in Blackboard by the beginning of class on February 25.

Due March 4

Note: Option One and Option Two are prompts for two different papers. Do not combine them into one paper.

Option One

Type of paper: Exegesis and analysis of text
The passage to work on: Nicomachean Ethics Book Seven, Chapter 9

Be sure to discuss what Aristotle means by the terms translated respectively as ‘morally strong’ and ‘morally weak.’ Be sure to include discussion of how being ‘morally strong’ resembles, and how it differs from, being [what your text translates as] ‘self-controlled.’ (Your paper should not be limited to these things, but must include them.)

Express Aristotle’s argument or train of reasoning in your own words. Identify what point he seems to be making, or what question or problem he seems to be addressing. Show what role this point plays in Book Seven as a whole: why, in the context of this work, is Aristotle addressing this particular issue? Is ‘moral weakness’ connected with ignorance? If so, how (and in what, or of what, is the ‘morally weak’ person ignorant)? Is ‘moral weakness’ compatible with phronesis (‘practical wisdom’)? Can they coexist in the same person with respect to the same things at the same time? Why or why not? (You do not need to read the entire Nicomachean Ethics to answer this. You do, however, need to read all of Books One through Seven.)

Option Two

Type of paper: Analysis
The passage to work on: Nicomachean Ethics Book Seven

Compare and contrast ‘moral weakness’ (akrasia), ‘brutishness,’ and ‘self-indulgence,’ as discussed in Book Seven.

What are Aristotle's starting points, the basic assumptions and hypotheses and definitions from which his argument begins? Are there any unstated assumptions? Does Aristotle say anything here that appears to conflict with other things he has said so far? If so, how if at all could such conflicts be resolved?

Due March 18

Note: Option One and Option Two are prompts for two different papers. Do not combine them into one paper.

Option One

Type of paper: Exegesis/Analysis of Text

The passage to work on: Nicomachean Ethics Book Eight, Chapter 11

Be sure to discuss what Aristotle seems to mean when he says that “each of these constitutions [i.e., political systems] exhibits friendship (philia) to the same extent that it exhibits [a notion of] what is just.” (Your paper should not be limited to these things, but must include them.)

Express Aristotle’s argument or train of reasoning in your own words. Identify what point he seems to be making, or what question or problem he seems to be addressing. Show what role this point plays in Book Eight as a whole: why, in the context of this work, is Aristotle addressing this particular issue? (You do not need to read the entire Nicomachean Ethics to answer this. You do, however, need to read all of Books One through Eight.) What are his starting points, the basic assumptions and hypotheses and definitions from which his argument begins? Are there any unstated assumptions? Are there any stated but (as yet) uninvestigated and unsupported assumptions or hypotheses? Does Aristotle say anything here that appears to conflict with other things he has said so far? If so, how if at all could such conflicts be resolved? Also, does Aristotle make any statements in this passage that seem irrelevant or unrelated to the main point of the passage?

Please check the glossary in your text (or the Greek lexicon tool at http://www.perseus.tufts.edu) for the meanings of philia before writing.

Option Two

Type of paper: Analysis

The passage to work on:What does Aristotle mean in Book Eight, Chapter 1 when he says that “when people are friends, they have no need of justice (dikaiosune, the characteristic of being just), but when they are just, they need friendship (philia) in addition” (1155a25)?

Show what role this point plays in Book Eight as a whole: why, in the context of this work, is Aristotle addressing this particular issue? (You do not need to read the entire Nicomachean Ethics to answer this. You do, however, need to read all of Books One through Eight.) What are his starting points, the basic assumptions and hypotheses and definitions from which his argument begins?

Please check the glossary in your text (or the Greek lexicon tool at http://www.perseus.tufts.edu) for the meanings of philia before writing.

Due March 25

Note: Option One and Option Two are prompts for two different papers. Do not combine them into one paper.

Option One

Type of paper: Exegesis/analysis of text
The passage to work on: Nicomachean Ethics Book Ten, Chapter 5.

Be sure to discuss what Aristotle seems to mean when he says that “in all matters of this sort we consider that to be real and true which appears so to a good man. If this is right, as it seems to be, and if virtue/excellence and the good man, insofar as he is good, are the measure of each thing, then what seem to him to be pleasures are pleasures and what he enjoys is pleasant.” For background on this statement, see Ch. 3, 1173b20-25: the analogy with health.

Express Aristotle’s argument or train of reasoning in your own words. Show what role this point plays in Book Ten as a whole: why, in the context of this work, is Aristotle addressing this particular issue? What are his starting points, the basic assumptions and hypotheses and definitions from which his argument begins? Are there any unstated assumptions? Are there any stated but (as yet) uninvestigated and unsupported assumptions or hypotheses? Does Aristotle say anything here that appears to conflict with other things he has said so far? If so, how if at all could such conflicts be resolved? Also, does Aristotle make any statements in this passage that seem irrelevant or unrelated to the main point of the passage?

Option Two

Type of paper: Exegesis/analysis of text
The passage to work on: Nicomachean Ethics Book Ten, Chapter 7.

Express Aristotle’s argument or train of reasoning in your own words.Show what role the points made in this chapter play in Book Ten as a whole: why, in the context of this work, is Aristotle addressing this particular issue? What are his starting points, the basic assumptions and hypotheses and definitions from which his argument begins? Are there any unstated assumptions? Are there any stated but (as yet) uninvestigated and unsupported assumptions or hypotheses? Does Aristotle say anything here that appears to conflict with other things he has said so far? If so, how if at all could such conflicts be resolved? Also, does Aristotle make any statements in this passage that seem irrelevant or unrelated to the main point of the passage?

Due April 1

(Reminder: You do not have to do this particular paper. You need to do any two short papers (or one paper plus an in-class presentation), plus the two longer papers, over the course of the semester.)

Assignment type: Exegesis of text
The passage to work on: Politics Book One, 1252a24 - 1253a38 (Chapter 2 if you’re using the edition ordered for the class).

Be sure to discuss what Aristotle seems to mean when he says that “The city-state (polis) is prior in nature to the household and to each of us individually, since a whole is necessarily prior to its parts.” You’ll need to say how being “prior in nature” is conceptually different from being earlier historically.

Express Aristotle’s argument or train of reasoning in your own words. Show what role this point plays in Book One as a whole: why, in the context of this work, is Aristotle addressing this particular issue? (You do not need to read the entire Politics to answer this. You do, however, need to have read all of Book One.) What are his starting points, the basic assumptions and hypotheses and definitions from which his argument begins? Are there any unstated assumptions? Are there any stated but (as yet) uninvestigated and unsupported assumptions or hypotheses? Does Aristotle say anything here that appears to conflict with other things he has said so far? If so, how if at all could such conflicts be resolved? Also, does Aristotle make any statements in this passage that seem irrelevant or unrelated to the main point of the passage? You may certainly quote the text, but when you do so you must explain what you think the quotations mean and imply. Do NOT use any sources other than the class text. This paper should be approximately 4-5 pages long (typed, double-spaced, 12-point font, one-inch margins). It is due in Blackboard by the beginning of class on April 1.

Due April 8

(Reminder: You do not have to do this particular paper. You need to do any two short papers (or one paper plus an in-class presentation), plus the two longer papers, over the course of the semester.)

Type of paper: Exegesis of text
The passage to work on: Politics Book Three, 1280a6 - 1281a10 (Chapter 9 if you’re using the Reeve translation).

Express Aristotle’s argument or train of reasoning in your own words. Show what role this point plays in Book Three as a whole: why, in the context of this work, is Aristotle addressing this particular issue? (You do not need to read the entire Politics to answer this. You do, however, need to have read all of Books One through Three.) What are his starting points, the basic assumptions and hypotheses and definitions from which his argument begins? Are there any unstated assumptions? Are there any stated but (as yet) uninvestigated and unsupported assumptions or hypotheses? Does Aristotle say anything here that appears to conflict with other things he has said so far? If so, how if at all could such conflicts be resolved? Also, does Aristotle make any statements in this passage that seem irrelevant or unrelated to the main point of the passage? You may certainly quote the text, but when you do so you must explain what you think the quotations mean and imply. Do NOT use any sources other than the class text. This paper should be approximately 4-5 pages long (typed, double-spaced, 12-point font, one-inch margins). It is due in Blackboard by the beginning of class on April 8.

Due April 15

What are the differences between the “best [kind of] constitution for most city-states and most human beings” of Chapter 11, and aristocracy, “polity,” oligarchy, and democracy? What reasons does Aristotle give for considering this constitution the “best [under the prevailing circumstances],” when he had argued earlier that “the best [constitution] must of necessity be the one managed by the best people. This is the sort of constitution in which there happens to be either one particular person or a whole family or a number of people whose virtue is superior to that of all the rest, and where the latter are capable of being ruled and the former of ruling with a view to the most choiceworthy life” (1288a30-35) ? That is, he argues at 1288a30-35 for the superiority of a political structure that could be a monarchy or an aristocracy, but then argues from 1295a25 to1296b10 for the appropriateness and excellence of a structure that is neither of these. Is he saying that several different things are all best under the same conditions, or that each is best under different conditions, or that one (or more) is a sort of ideal and the others fit different real situations, or something else? Explain.(You do not need to read the entire Politics to answer this. You do, however, need to have read all of Books One through Four.)

Due April 22

(Reminder: You do not have to do this particular paper. You need to do any two short papers (or one paper plus an in-class presentation), plus the two longer papers, over the course of the semester.)

Type of paper: Exegesis of text
The passage to work on: Politics Book Six, 1318b5-1319b20 (Chapter 4 in the Reeve translation).

Be sure to discuss what Aristotle seems to mean when he says that “The first or best kind of people is the farming kind” (1318b5-10). What is “best” about living as a farmer, such that that way of living is appropriate for participation in a democratic polis? Express Aristotle’s argument or train of reasoning in your own words. Show what role this point plays in Book Six as a whole: why, in the context of this work, is Aristotle addressing this particular issue? (You do not need to read the entire Politics to answer this. You do, however, need to have read all of Books One through Six.) What are his starting points, the basic assumptions and hypotheses and definitions from which his argument begins? Are there any unstated assumptions? Are there any stated but (as yet) uninvestigated and unsupported assumptions or hypotheses? Does Aristotle say anything here that appears to conflict with other things he has said so far? If so, how if at all could such conflicts be resolved? Also, does Aristotle make any statements in this passage that seem irrelevant or unrelated to the main point of the passage?

Due April 29

(Reminder: You do not have to do this particular paper. You need to do any two short papers (or one paper plus an in-class presentation), plus the two longer papers, over the course of the semester.)

Note: Option One and Option Two are prompts for two different papers. Do not combine them into one paper. If you wish to work on both of them, you can submit two distinct papers on or before April 29; or you can submit one paper on either Option One or Option Two; or you can submit no short papers that week.

Option One

Type of paper: Exegesis of text
The passage to work on: Politics Book Seven, 1324a5-1325b30 (Chapters 2-3 if you're using the Reeve translation).

Be sure to discuss what Aristotle seems to mean when he says that “It is clear, therefore, that all military practices are to be regarded as noble (kalos), not when they are pursued as the highest end of all, but only when they are pursued for the sake of the highest end” (1325a5-6). What seems to be the reasoning behind this conclusion? Express Aristotle’s argument or train of reasoning in your own words. Show what role this point plays in Book Seven as a whole: why, in the context of this work, is Aristotle addressing this particular issue? (You do not need to read the entire Politics to answer this. You do, however, need to have read all of Books One through Seven.) What are his starting points, the basic assumptions and hypotheses and definitions from which his argument begins? Are there any unstated assumptions? Are there any stated but (as yet) uninvestigated and unsupported assumptions or hypotheses? Does Aristotle say anything here that appears to conflict with other things he has said so far? If so, how if at all could such conflicts be resolved? Also, does Aristotle make any statements in this passage that seem irrelevant or unrelated to the main point of the passage?

Option Two

Type of paper: Exegesis of text
The passage to work on: Politics Book Seven, 1332b12-1334b27 (Chapters 14 and 15 in the Reeve translation).

Be sure to discuss what Aristotle seems to mean when he says “For they will be most in need of philosophy, temperance, and justice the more they live at leisure amidst an abundance of such goods” (1334a32-34). Express Aristotle’s argument or train of reasoning in your own words. Show what role this point plays in Book Seven as a whole: why, in the context of this work, is Aristotle addressing this particular issue? (You do not need to read the entire Politics to answer this. You do, however, need to have read all of Books One through Seven.) What are his starting points, the basic assumptions and hypotheses and definitions from which his argument begins? Are there any unstated assumptions? Are there any stated but (as yet) uninvestigated and unsupported assumptions or hypotheses? Does Aristotle say anything here that appears to conflict with other things he has said so far? If so, how if at all could such conflicts be resolved? Also, does Aristotle make any statements in this passage that seem irrelevant or unrelated to the main point of the passage?

Due May 6

(Reminder: You do not have to do this particular paper. You need to do any two short papers (or one paper plus an in-class presentation), plus the two longer papers, over the course of the semester.)

Note: Option One and Option Two are prompts for two different papers. Do not combine them into one paper. If you wish to work on both of them, you can submit two distinct papers on or before May 6; or you can submit one paper on either Option One or Option Two; or you can submit no short papers that week.

Option One

Type of paper: Exegesis of text
The passage to work on: Politics Book Eight, 1337a10-1337b20 (Chapters 1-2 in the Reeve translation).

Aristotle says at 1337b15-20, “...what one does for one’s own sake, for the sake of friends, or on account of virtue is not unfree, but someone who does the same thing for others would often be held to be acting like a hired laborer or a slave.” He is arguing here that it is important to learn things, and to learn to do things, for one’s own sake, for the sake of friends, and on account of virtue (i.e. for the sake of the noble). Yet he has also said (1337a25-30) that “one should not consider any citizen as belonging to himself alone, but as all belonging to the polis, since each is a part of the polis.” Is this necessarily an inconsistency? If not, how can the two statements be harmonized? Explain. Show what role this point plays in the Book as a whole: why, in the context of this work, is Aristotle addressing this particular issue? What are his starting points, the basic assumptions and hypotheses and definitions from which his argument begins? Are there any unstated assumptions? Are there any stated but (as yet) uninvestigated and unsupported assumptions or hypotheses? Does Aristotle say anything here that appears to conflict with other things he has said so far? If so, how if at all could such conflicts be resolved? Also, does Aristotle make any statements in this passage that seem irrelevant or unrelated to the main point of the passage?

Option Two

Type of paper: Exegesis of text
The passage to work on: Politics Book Eight, 1337b20-1338b5 (Chapter 3 in the Reeve translation).

Be sure to discuss what Aristotle seems to mean when he says “It is completely inappropriate for magnanimous and free people to be always asking what use something is.” Express Aristotle’s argument or train of reasoning in your own words. Show what role this point plays in the Book as a whole: why, in the context of this work, is Aristotle addressing this particular issue? What are his starting points, the basic assumptions and hypotheses and definitions from which his argument begins? Are there any unstated assumptions? Are there any stated but (as yet) uninvestigated and unsupported assumptions or hypotheses? Does Aristotle say anything here that appears to conflict with other things he has said so far? If so, how if at all could such conflicts be resolved? Also, does Aristotle make any statements in this passage that seem irrelevant or unrelated to the main point of the passage?

What is a research question?

A research question is a question you intend to explore and to answer in your paper.
Your question must not be one that can be answered simply by appeal to histories or encyclopedias.
Your answer must be something for which you can (and do) argue in the paper, providing textual evidence as well as explicit reasoning. It may be necessary also to show reasons why alternative answers are inadequate or incorrect.

What is a preliminary annotated bibliography?

A preliminary annotated bibliography lists books, book chapters, articles, and other sources that you think you will use in your paper.
For each entry (book, chapter, article, etc.), write one or two sentences explaining what this source has to do with your question, and (if you're using several similar ones) why you've chosen it (what differentiates each of several similar works, for example).
It is fine if the final version of your paper uses only some of the items in the preliminary bibliography, and uses some that did not appear in the preliminary bibliography. However, there should be some overlap between the two.
The bibliography or works cited list that accompanies the final version of your paper should NOT be annotated. That is, it should just list the sources you used, with their publication data.

The Writing Guide for Philosophy, composed by GMU Philosophy Faculty with assistance from Writing Fellows, is here. Be sure to check the "Helpful Links" section for information on citing ancient texts.

A nice set of slides on the writing process, composed by Writing Fellow Angela Panayotopulos, is here.

Back to PHIL 421-001 Spring 2013 main page