PHIL 603-001
Spring 2012
Writing Assignments
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.
(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 8-10 pages in length. It will be due on March 5.
(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 13. (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 27.
2. The second is to be 10-15 pages in length. It is due on May 14.
(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 16. (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
May 2.
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.
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.
Assignments to be used for
short papers or presentations
Due January 30
(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.)
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 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 by the
beginning of class on January 30.
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 by the beginning of class on January
30.
Due February 6
(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 and analysis of text.
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 by the beginning of class on
Feb. 6.
Due February 13
(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 by the beginning of class on Feb. 13.
Due March 26
(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 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 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 class on March 26.
Due April 2
(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 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 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 class on April 2.
Due April 12
(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 Four, 1293a35-1296b10 (Chapters 7-11 in the Reeve
translation).
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.)
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/Courses 9.1 on
April 12.
Due April 16
(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, that 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 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 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?
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/Courses 9.1 on
April 16.
Due April 23
(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 23; 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 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 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?
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/Courses 9.1 on April 23.
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 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 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?
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/Courses 9.1 on
April 23.
Due April 30
(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 30; 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?
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/Courses 9.1 on April 30.
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?
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/Courses 9.1 on
April 30.
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.
Back to PHIL 603-001 Spring 2012 main page