PHIL 681-001

Spring 2011

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,

General Instructions for the two "long" papers

1. The first is to be 8-10 pages in length. It will be due on March 7.
(a) It must be on a topic pertaining to the Phaedo and/ or Gorgias 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 14. (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 28.

2. The second is to be 10-15 pages in length. It is due on May 16. 
(a) It must be on a topic pertaining to the Menexenus, Statesman, and/or Timaeus and must use that text (plus others, including secondary sources).
(b) Students must submit a research question and a preliminary annotated bibliography for this paper by April 11. (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 Plato, and optionally a work or works of original philosophy by another author) and at least 2 modern secondary sources (works on Plato, and optionally a work or works on another philosopher).

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

3. When you quote a source (Plato or anyone else), please indicate the title, author, and page or line 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 January 31

(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 of text.   The passage to work on: Phaedo 72e-77b.

        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 any character 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 class on January 31.

Due February 7

Option One
(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: Response/analysis of primary and secondary source materials

    In "Socrates' Last Words," Crooks proposes that Plato's
deeper purpose throughout the Phaedo, it seems to me, consists in representing Socrates as an alternative to what we might call Pythagorean eclecticism - the mixture of hard-headed science, metaphysics, and mysticism which he (i.e. Plato) himself appears to have regarded as conceptually promising but methodologically ungrounded. (121)
Crooks does not elaborate on what it is, in the speeches of the Pythagorean characters*, that shows a lack of methodological grounding in their thought and education.
        What evidence do you see of methodological weaknesses in the Pythagorean characters' statements and questions? In wht if any ways do you think that the Socrates character (or any other hint by Plato in this dialogue) provides an "alternative" to any methodological lacks and uncritical thinking shown by the Pythagoreans? Explain, using specific examples from the dialogue.
* Pythagorean characters in the dialogue include Simmias, Cebes, Echecrates, and Phaedo.

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 4-6 pages long (typed, double-spaced, 12-point font, one-inch margins). It is due in class on February 7.

Option Two
(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: Response/analysis of primary and secondary source materials. If you choose this paper option, answer both part (a) and part (b).

        In "Antifoundationalism and Plato's Phaedo," Stern holds that
[Socrates' "final attempted proof" of the immortality of the soul] begins from the notion that the Ideas** are the sole causes of the world. This final proof - Socrates' last argument - is a test of this notion ... [T]he test is failed. (204-205)
Stern suggests that there is evidence of this failure beyond what he presents in the article.
(a) Do you think that there is indeed further evidence of this failure in the dialogue? If so, what is it? If not, explain why you think there is no evidence in the dialogue, OR no further evidence in the dialogue beyond what Stern has presented. Be sure to discuss specific passages of the dialogue.
(b) Does your reponse to part (a), whatever it is, support Stern's conclusion that the dialogue offers the possibility of a "basis [for] moral and political preferences" (212) that is neither arbitrary nor grounded in "reductive dogmatism" (212)? Explain.
** With the term 'Ideas,' Stern refers to what is translated in your text as 'the Good itself,' 'the Equal itself,' 'the Big,' 'the Small,' etc. - all of the intelligible things that sensible and particular things supposedly "strive to be like" (74d), the intelligible "realities" that Socrates proposes make sensible things what they are (100c). 'Idea' translates the Greek words idea and eidos in Plato, words equally often translated as 'Form.'

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 4-6 pages long (typed, double-spaced, 12-point font, one-inch margins). It is due in class on February 7.


Due February 14

(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 argument analysis.  The passage to focus on: Gorgias 466e - 481c.

        In the Gorgias, Socrates argues that everyone wishes or desires the good; that everyone does what he/she does for the sake of the good; that if someone does something wrong or unjust in the erroneous belief that this is good, that person lacks capability or power (dunamis); that no one desires to act unjustly (=no one desires to do wrong): 466a-499a; 509e.
        He ties this to the idea that it is better to suffer a wrong (to have someone wrong you or commit injustice against you) than to do wrong (to wrong someone or to commit injustice against someone) (468-469). He does not make the nature of the connection explicit, however. What if anything do you think connects them implicitly in Socrates' arguments? If you think nothing connects them, why do you think Socrates suggests in this context that they are connected? Be sure to mention the role that power or capability (dunamis) plays in the connection.

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 class on February 14.

Due February 21

(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 argument analysis.

        In the Gorgias, what are the differences between the position that Polus defends and the position that Callicles defends? (If you find that one or both of them change their position, identify the change.) Both Callicles and Polus claim to be supporting the position that Gorgias had presented, in the sense of defending the value of the practice and teaching of rhetorikē (oratory, rhetoric). But does each of them actually support what Gorgias had said, or undermine it, or both? Explain. Be sure to discuss specific passages of the Gorgias.

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 class on February 21.

Due February 28

(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: Response/analysis of primary and secondary source materials.

         In "The Enemies of Socrates," Blanchard asserts that Socrates offended against the sophistic leanings of the Athenians. Discuss evidence of this that appears in the Gorgias: not evidence of hostility between Socrates and specific teachers of rhetoric, but evidence of Socrates challenging those features of Athenian society and politics that made learning rhetoric from sophists seem like a good idea to many.
         Roochnik, in "Socrates' Rhetorical Attack on Rhetoric," argues that Socrates in fact employs rhetorical techniques (some of them involving equivocation and other logically suspect moves) to challenge the advocates of rhetoric. Is Roochnik accurate in this position, and if so, how does Socrates in the Gorgias challenge the Athenians' attraction to learning those very techniques? (That is, wouldn't seeing Polus getting confused by Socrates suggest to a lover of persuasion that he or she should just learn Socrates' techniques, although Socrates says that learning the techniques of persuasion isn't in itself a good thing?) If you think Roochnik is wrong, 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 class on February 28.

Due March 7

(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: Response/analysis of primary and secondary source materials.

        In "The Challenge of Plato's Menexenus," Collins and Stauffer discuss several earlier analyses of the Menexenus, including Salkever's "Socrates' Aspasian Oration: The Play of Philosophy and Politics in Plato's Menexenus." Collins and Stauffer charge (page 95) that Salkever seems to conflate "a 'Socratic politics' with Socratic philosophizing."
        Do you find this charge accurate? That is, does Salkever conflate what he calls "Socratic politics" with what Collins and Stauffer call "Socratic philosophizing"? Does Salkever instead bring these two things together in a way that is not conflation? In any case, do you find that Salkever is justified in the connection he makes between these things? Is Collins' and Stauffer's account of the relationship justified (instead of, or in addition to, Salkever's)? Use the text of the Menexenus to support your conclusions.

You may certainly quote the texts, 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 class on March 7.

Due March 21

(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 argument analysis.  The passage to focus on: Statesman 267c - 275b.

        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.
        Be sure to cover at least the following issues: What is the substance of the Eleatic Stranger's criticism at 267c-d of his and Young Socrates' earlier arguments? That is, what is the insufficiency or lack he has identified? How if at all does the myth the Stranger tells address the problems he says it addresses? Does it show what he says it shows (275b)? 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 class on March 21.

Due April 4

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 April 4; or you can submit one paper on either Option One or Option Two; or you can submit no short papers that week.

Option One
(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: Response/analysis of primary and secondary source materials

        In "Plato's Myth of the Reversed Cosmos" (Review of Metaphysics 33 [1979]: 59-85), page 63, Stanley Rosen notes that in the Statesman the Eleatic Stranger (='Eleatic Visitor,' in your translation) "assimilates human beings into herd-animals." Rosen remarks that "one cannot issue commands suitable for producing excellent citizens" if one makes that assimilation. Gerald Mara understands this as the somewhat broader view that "one cannot speak of creating excellent citizens if one assimilates humans to herd-animals," and disagrees with that broader view, "Constitutions, Virtue, and Philosophy in Plato's Statesman and Republic" (Polity 13 [1981]: 355-382), page 362.
        What if any arguments does Rosen provide for his position? Are they, or is the position, supported by the dialogue? What if any arguments does Mara provide for his position or against Rosen's? Are these supported by the text? Explain.
        Do you find Rosen's, Mara's, or neither account of the larger significance of the Stranger's assimilation of humans to herd-animals convincing? 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 class on April 4.

Option Two
(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: Response/analysis of primary and secondary source materials

         In "The Rule of Wisdom and the Rule of Law in Plato's Statesman" (American Political Science Review 91 [1997]: 264-275), page 267, Paul Stern discusses Statesman 292c-293c, a passage in which the Eleatic Stranger (Eleatic Visitor) and young Socrates discuss the knowledge of "political science," of a techne of rule, that they have supposed a king to need to possess if he is to be fit to rule. Young Socrates avers that only a tiny minority of people will possess this knowledge (292e-293a). Stern asks, "if there is such a vast discrepancy between the one or few who possess and the many who lack this knowledge, how can knowledge alone suffice for rule?"
        What does Stern mean - what connection does he make between the fact that only a few are supposed to have knowledge of how to rule, and the apparent need for rulers to possess something in addition to knowledge (or, in addition to the techne-type knowledge the Stranger and Young Socrates have ascribed to rulers so far) in order to be able to rule? Is the connection he makes supported by the text? Would you make another kind of connection between these tow things, or perhaps none at all? 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 class on April 4.

Due April 11

(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 argument analysis.  The passage to focus on: Timaeus 26c-30d.

        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 any character 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.
        Your response should include, but need not be limited to, answers to the following questions:

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 class on April 11.

Due April 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: Response/analysis of primary and secondary source materials.

In "Necessity and Persuasion in Plato's Timaeus," Morrow argues that Timaeus' account up to about 52c is just the kind of account that Socrates claimed to seek in the Phaedo, namely one that included the purposive or normative causes without which other causes (according to Socrates) could not act as causes. Morrow further suggests that Timaeus's account is able to explain what we consider mechanical causes, and chance, and the presence of norms and purposes both in human endeavors and in the universe as a whole. Morrow does not claim that Timaeus' account is factually correct, only that it is coherent and consistent.

Would you agree that Timaeus' account is able to incorporate necessity, chance, and purpose while maintaining consistency? Explain. If according to Timaeus good is "built into" or reflected in the cosmos by the craftsman god who fashioned the cosmos (29a-b), is Morrow correct to argue that in Timaeus' account humans (and others) have real choices to make, i.e. that our actions are not determined by our history or our physical makeup and environment? 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 class on April 18.

Due May 2

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 2; or you can submit one paper on either Option One or Option Two; or you can submit no short papers that week.

Option One
(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: Response/analysis of primary and secondary source materials

In "Derrida's Khôra, or Unnaming the Timaean Receptacle," Giannopoulou argues that the khôra in Timaeus' account "is malleable, adaptable, and enduring, an all-receiving entity that becomes temporarily qualified, as particulars go in and out of existence, while itself remaining permanent" (176), and that it "possess[es] a kind of ontological fixity, a strange selfsameness" (178). In "A Testimony of Anaximenes in Plato," Graham argues that "Plato's understanding of Anaximenes' matter [as represented by Timaeus' account of the khôra] seems to preclude anything remaining the same through a transformation," but that the khôra "is taken as always present" (334).
        Are Giannopoulou and Graham in agreement concerning what if anything persists through change in the portion of Timaeus' account in question? How if at all do they differ? What does Graham refer to as 'anything' when he says that Timaeus' account "seems to preclude anything remaining the same through a transformation"? Does the text of the dialogue support either (or both) of their views? 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 and the articles mentioned in the question; 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 class on May 2.

Option Two
(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 argument analysis.  The passage to focus on: Timaeus 89a-92c.

        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 any character 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.
        Your response should include, but need not be limited to, answers to the following questions:
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 and the articles mentioned in the question; 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 class on May 2.

What is a research question?

What is a preliminary annotated bibliography?

Back to PHIL 681-001 Spring 2011 main page