We begin this week with some of the critics of the social contract theory of authority. The social contract theorists were part of the "modern" era of philosophy but their differences were significant and prevent them from all being considered theorists of "liberalism." Hobbes's and Rousseau's justification of an unlimited sovereign power is not consistent with the liberal notion of (1) limited government authority and (2) the maximum scope of individual responsibility and freedom that is consistent with an ordered society.
We also cannot lump all of the critics of the social contract theorists into one: Hume and Burke were both British Whigs, champions of Parliamentary authority as opposed to monarchical authority. Niemeyer, an American conservative, also favored limited government and individual freedom. The focus of the criticism of the social contract theorists was on the latter's theory of political authority, not on whether the monarch or the parliament should be "sovereign."
We will begin this section with two essays by the British philosopher David Hume, a contemporary of Rousseau and, along with Hobbes one fo the founders of what is often called empirical or analytic philosophy. Please read Hume's "Of the Origin of Government" and "Of the Original Contract."
Friday is the mid-term. Bring a couple of blue or black ink pens—no pencils—and your student ID numbers. I will ask all of you to put all your personal belongings at the front of the room and to sit at least one seat apart throughout the room. You will not be allowed to touch an electronic device or piece of paper other than the exam questions and the blue books during the exam.
Let me repeat that the exam will contain two essay questions, one or both with an identification component in which you identify quoted passages by author, title, and some other characteristic. You have to be familiar with the readings by Lippmann, Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau—not Aristotle or Machiavelli—for the identifications. The essays will ask you to discuss, compare, and contrast the writers on the basic ideas that we have been studying so far: the basis of political authority, the essential function(s) of society and government, the form of the social contract, the state of nature, and the basis of human equality. I am looking for as much detail as possible (and as is relevant to the question) from the readings, not the lectures and class discussions. As I explained on the syllabus, this is a course of readings, and the class discussions are aimed at helping you to understand what you have read. Do not spit back at me examples and ideas that I told you in class: give me material from the texts.
If you have read the assignments and if you show me evidence of that on the exam, you will do OK.
On Tuesday, the last class before the mid-term, we will discuss Hobbes's, Locke's, and Rousseau's understanding of government and its functions. We have focused thus far on the three men's ideas of authority and the sources of legal-political authority and the related concepts of freedom, equality, the state of nature, and the form of the social contract. If you review what we have read thus far, you will find very little reference by the writers to government itself and the form—democracy, oligarchy, monarchy—that government should take.
Therefore, on the subject of the forms and specific functions of government, please read the first half of chapter 19 of Hobbes's Leviathan, sections (§§) 123-135, 149, 203-204, & 211, and review Book III, chapter one of Rousseau's Social Contract (which was already assigned).
For each of the theorists, ask again what the social contract created—did it create society, government, or both? Ask how government is properly determined if not by the social contract. Ask what the theorist understands the proper functions of government to be. It is this kind of comparison and contrast of the basic ideas like government, freedom, the state of nature, and so on, that will be on the mid-term (and final) exams.
For Friday, please read Rousseau's Social Contract, Book One, chapter 7; Book Two, chapters 1, 2, 3, 4, 7; Book Three, chapters 1, 10, 11; and Book Four, chapter 2. According to Rousseau, what is the General Will? Is it the same as the will of all? of a majority? of at least some part of the sovereign people? Try to figure out from these excerpts how the people, acting as Sovereign, are supposed to be able to discern the General Will. What are the necessary conditions, according to Rousseau, for the people to make laws reflecting their General Will? Rousseau discusses several such qualifications in the assigned reading. Try to find four or five such necessary conditions.
For Tuesday, the paper is due and there is a short reading assignment below on which there will be a quiz.
Paper. The question to address in your one-page paper for Tuesday is "Which philosopher, Hobbes or Locke, makes the best contribution to the public philosophy, which Lippmann argues is necessary to maintain liberal democracy?" You may argue that Hobbes or that Locke makes the best contribution, that neither do, or that both do! I am looking at this first paper as a writing sample and as providing some evidence of how well you understand what we are reading and how well you can relate different readings to each other.
The purpose of the references is to enable me to find the exact passage you are quoting or paraphrasing or otherwise referring to. For this paper there are only a couple of sources for you to cite—Lippmann's article and the readings by Hobbes and Locke. As I explained in class, references to passages in Lippmann are cited by page number, to Hobbes's Leviathan by chapter, and to Locke's Second Treatise by section number. Be careful. I expect you to be able to do take the Chicago-style footnotes seriously and to try your best.
Also, remember: the footnote is placed AFTER the last mark of punctuation in the sentence, and the second quotation mark—if there are quotation marks in your sentence—goes AFTER the final period of the sentence. For example: The Frankforts said, "Symbols are treated the same way."1 PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE GET THIS SEQUENCE CORRECT=the FINAL MARK OF PUNCTUATION, then the END QUOTATION MARK, and then the FOOTNOTE.
The other punctuation to be mastered at this time (after all, all of you are at least nineteen years old, and some older than that!) is the introduction of quotes. If you introduce them using the word "that," then you do not put any punctuation before or after the word "that." Thus, you might write the following: Marx said that "the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles." Note: no comma after "that" and the word "the" in the quote is not capitalized because it is in the middle of a larger sentence. On the other hand, you may introduce the quote this way: Marx said, "The history of all hitherto existing society is a history of class struggles." Here, a comma follows the verb "said," and the first word of the sentence is capitalized. Go, my dear students, and write likewise!
For Friday, February 3d, please read the first ten paragraphs or so of the Second Part of Rousseau's Discourse on the Origin of Inequality and Modern Philosophers' Rejections of Classical Philosophy, which consists of three statements by three leading "moderns" of their reasons for rejecting the classical tradition of philosophy. This section of the Rousseau work contains his explanation of the true origins of civil society. (Since the mid-term and final exams ask you to identify certain passages from the readings by author and title, you should make a point to learn the titles of the works we are reading and, of course, the correct names of the authors (and how to spell them). The identification part of the exams counts just a few points—the exams consist of one or two essay questions that generally ask you to discuss the ideas we are studying and compare and contrast the views of the different authors on those ideas—but those few points can be the difference between an "A" and a "B+".)
For Tuesday, January 31st, we will try to move from Hobbes to Locke to Rousseau on Tuesday. Please read Rousseau's account of the "state of nature," which is set forth in Part One of the Discourse on the Origin of Inequality, also referred to as the "Second Discourse," available via a link on my main webpage in the "Western Political Concepts I & II Readings" section. There are a series of study questions about Rousseau's Second Discourse via the link immediately below the Discourse on the Origin of Inequality link. Read the Preface and Introduction and all that good stuff, too, but not Part Two of the Discourse. It is fairly long, but it reads like a story, not a philosophic essay. Compare what Rousseau says to what Hobbes and Locke said about man's natural condition, too. (Rousseau's Social Contract on Tuesday the 7th.)
We will also talk about the paper, which will be due on Tuesday, February 7. The following are the usual rules for the papers in this course:
Anne Aichele asked me to announce or post the following:
"A volunteer note-taker is needed in this class. This is an easy and beneficial job which may afford you a small stipend for simply sharing your class notes with an individual who has a diagnosed disability. If you are interested in assisting with this program, please contact Anne Aichele, the Director of Disability Support Services as soon as possible." Please contact anne.aichele@marymount.edu or 703-284-1615
She adds:
Students could also come by my office located in Gerard Hall, near the Student Development Office. I need one person per class, but please encourage students to participate in the program wherever they hear of the need. They may wish to know about this opportunity for another class. It is a great opportunity for students to give back to others, make a little bit of money, and it is something great for their resume.
Readings from Hobbes and Locke for Friday, but please bring you copy of Tuesday's Aristotle reading with you, too. The Hobbes and Locke material can be accessed through the links on the main webpage under "Western Political Concepts I & 2 Readings." Scroll down the list until you find them.
Please read chapter 13, Paragraphs 1-4 of chapter 14, chapter 16, and chapter 17 of Hobbes's Leviathan, and section/paragraph 4-21, 95-99 (found in chapters 2, 3, and 8) of John Locke's Second Treatise of Government. Compare their views concerning (1) the natural condition of man (the "state of nature"), (2) what freedom is, (3) what equality is, and (4) how people should behave in the absence of government. Keep in mind the question of authority: Who gives you the right to tell me what to do? If we ask this question of government, what is Hobbes's answer? What is Locke's? Who has the right to tell us what to do, according to each philosopher?
Please read Chapters/Sections 1 & 2 of Book VII of Aristotle's Politics (Jowett translation) (an alternative and better translation by H. Rackham is available here via the Tufts University Perseus website.) and chapters 15, 17, and 25 of Machiavelli's Prince. The Rackham translation is not divided by sections but by the Bekker or Berlin numbers: read numbers 1323a14, 1323b, 1324a, 1324b, and 1325a. Use the blue arrows in the upper left-hand corner of the text to move forward or back. These five pages of the Rackham translation are the equivalent of chapter 1 & 2 of the Jowett translation.
When we read political theory, we usually look for the author's views of (1) the source of political and legal authority and (2) the functions that government is expected rto perform. What evidence, if any, is there of these two subjects in the Aristotle and the Machiavelli readings?
Please read the Lippmann handout on the public philosophy. As always, extra copies are available in the rack on my office door in Ireton, Room G107.
The Lippmann essay, "The Eclipse of the Public Philosophy," from his Essays in the Public Philosophy. Ask yourself what Lippmann's main point, his "thesis," is in this essay. What does he means by "the eclipse"? How did the eclipse occur? What is "the public philosophy"? Or is it just "a public philosophy"? What is the "great vacuum"? What is "natural law"? What is the danger caused by the eclipse or the vacuum? Does Lippmann seem to be writing for an American audience or a European audience? What do you think Lippmann would say about the present attempt to "democratize" all the countries of the world? Do you think he would say that "democracy" is absolutely the best form of government and that every state should adopt a democratic form of government? Why? Why not? These are the questions that we will consider in class. The book from which this essay is taken is a great book for students to read and it is back in print. I highly recommend it to you.
There will probably be a total of three questions on the final exam. As I explained in class, the final exam do two things: the first part will ask you to select one or two traditions and tie all five of the fundamental conceptions—cosmology-ontology, epistemology, philosophical and empirical anthropology, ethics, and politc—together to sho how the political theories or conceptions follow from the other conceptions. The whole course has been focused on enabling you to do this. We used the examples of Aristotle as well as the ancient Egyptian state—called a "cosmological society"—on Friday. You should be able to do this for all four traditions that we have studied. The second part of the final exam will ask you about the material on ethics and politics that we have studied since the last mid-term exam. Be prepared to identify passages from these works.
On Tuesday, we will finish the discussion of the Epicurean conception of politics and turn to the classical conception. Please read Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, I.1-2; VI.8; Politics, I.1-2; III.1-4. On the main web page, in the list of Western Political Concepts readings and links, there is a link to some helpful questions to consider as you read the assignment. There will probably be a quiz. Class participation has been lacking lately.
For Friday, the assignment is the handout that I gave you on the ancient Egyptian state. We will also complete the discussion of Aristotle's political theory, so bring your Aristotle materials with you.
We will try to cover double ground and look at the political theories representative of two of the traditions: the classical-Christian and the Epicurean. Remember, political theory should address the issues of the purpose of government and the source(s) of political authority.
For the classical-Christian response to the millenarian tradition that we looked at on Tuesday, please read Book XXII, ch. 22, of Augustine's City of God and Question 95 of the so-called "Treatise on Law" by St. Thomas Aquinas. For the Epicurean, please read chapters 16 and 17 of Hobbes's Leviathan. Scholars have commented with some irony that Augustine, in his political views and views of human nature generally, is a Christian version of Hobbes. Do you see similarities in Augustine's and Hobbes's views of the purpose of government?
You may want to take a look at Questions 91 and 94 of the Treatise of Law" in order to better understand Question 95.
The scholastic format of the Summa Theologica or Summary of Theology (or, "Everything You Ever Wanted to Know about Christian Theology but were Afraid to Ask") of St. Thomas takes some getting used to. He divides the treatise up into numbered Questions. Each numbered question is then divided up into Articles. Each Article is divided into a series of Objections, which turn out to be criticisms of the point that Aquinas ultimately wishes to make, followed by a section headed "On the contrary," which marks the beginning of the argument for St. Thomas's position. Then follows the "I answer that" section, which is the key to St. Thomas's argument, and a series of replies to the initial objections. Focus on the "I answer that" paragraphs and then look at the Objections and their Replies. We will go over this and a few other Questions for the Summa in class.
Please read the handout on apocalyptic prophecies (and the introduction material) that I gave out last Friday. And try to take a half hour or so and think through one of the traditions that we have been studying this semester. The exams were pretty good. Some of you are really getting the message, and I think more of you will if you take the time to think through what we have read (it is called "meditation"). See you when we get back.
Paper Due (see below). The ethics reading assignment is from St. Augustine: City of God: Book X.1, XIV.1, 2, 4, 13, 25 and Book XIX.11.
As you prepare your paper, please refer back to material that we read for each tradition concerning anthropology—both philosophical and empirical. You will notice that in the classical and classical Christian traditions in particular, the line between anthropology and ethics is very faint: their views of the nature of man lead into their views of what is right and wrong.
The paper topic is this: "Select two of the four traditions and explain how their ethical theories—their ultimate standards of right and wrong, good and evil—follow logically from their anthropologies." This is another exercise in tying the fundamental conceptions of each philosophic tradition together and understanding how each of the conceptions is necessary for their conceptions of politics. One paragraph of four or five sentences on each tradition should be enough. Lots of footnotes. The usual rules governing one-page papers apply:
For Tuesday, we will discuss another example of classical ethics, this time from the Stoic Epictetus. Please read his Enchiridion, a short manual on practical ethics similar in form, though not necessarily in content, to the "Principle Doctrines" of Epicurus that we read last week. Be sure to bring your hard copy to class with you, and also bring the assigned reading from Aristotle (Book Two of the Nicomachean Ethics) that we discussed on Friday. We are not finished with it.
I noticed that several of you did not have the Aristotle handout with you. As I indicated at the beginning of the semester, if you do not bring the reading, I do not consider you present. I also assume that you have not read it. So bring the assigned material with you.
The assignment for Friday will be a handout on Gnostic morality that I will provide on Tuesday. I will put extra copies in the rack on my office door after class.
Finally, as you may have noticed above, I have moved the paper deadline from Friday to next Tuesday. I think you will welcome the delay, and I certainly do. I still want to get your exams back this week.
Please read Book Two of Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics. A link to the Nicomachean Ethics is on the main webpage.
Most of you did well on the identifications in the mid-term. I will try to have the exam corrected by Friday or next Tuesday at the latest.
Mid-Term Exam
Bring a couple of blue or black ink pens and your student I.D. numbers. No phones or other devices!
The second mid-term will have the same format as the first exam. It will cover all of the material assigned since the last exam. There will be two essay questions, either or both of which may require identifications of quotations by author, title, tradition, and, perhaps, subject matter (fundamental conception)—such as epistemology, philosophical anthropology, or empirical anthropology. You should clearly understand the meaning of each of these terms.
You should be able to identify the general views of each of the four traditions on epistemology, philosophical anthropology, and empirical anthropology. Thus the best way to study is to reread the material and look for the different understandings of epistemology, philosophical anthropology, and empirical anthropology in the works. Reread the relevant sections of the introductory essay on political theory and political philosophy that I handed out the first day of class if you want to review the meaning of these terms labelling the fundamental conceptions and the traditions upon which the course is built.
We will continue to discuss the Gnostic "In Quest of the Priceless Pearl" (or Hymn of the Pearl). Please also read the Ernst Cassirer excerpt that I handed out. Extra copies are in the rack on my office door (G107 Ireton).
For Friday, please read the Gnostic The Hymn of the Pearl.
Next Friday (November 4th) is the second mid-term exam. It will cover the readings on epistemology and on anthropology that we have been studying. Like the first mid-term, it will consist of two essay questions. One or both will also require identification of passages from the readings. If you have any time, you can start preparing for the exam by re-reading the assignments since the last mid-term. Now that you have a better idea of what they mean, you will be able to read them much faster than the first time. Don't put it off.
Continuing with our study of anthropology, please read Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, Book I Parts 4, 5, 7, 9, and St. Augustine, City of God, Book XIV.1, 2, 3, 4, 11, 28. Again, try to distinguish between the empirical and the philosophical anthropology in these pages. Bring along your Plato reading from last time.
For Friday (and Tuesday) we will look at the classical view of man. Please read Plato's Republic, Books II.358c-362d and VI.489d-497a. What parts of these two readings bear on empirical anthropology and what parts bear on philosophical anthropology: "human nature" v. "the nature of man."
Over the next couple of weeks, we will be reading about anthropology. As described in the "Introduction to Political Philosophy" essay that we read at the beginning of the semester, the study of man has two parts—philosophical anthropology, or the place of man in the cosmos, and empirical anthropology, or the observable behavior of man. The first we may call the "nature of man" and the second, "human nature." Philosophical anthropology is tied directly to ontological and cosmological inquiry; empirical anthropology is based on our observation of people's behavior and our experience of human interaction.
As we have with the other philosophical conceptions this semester, we will begin with the Epicurean tradition. Please read the Epicurean writers on anthropology: Lucretius, On the Nature of the Universe, II. lines 1-61; V. lines 925-1010; Hobbes, Leviathan, ch. 13.
Which aspect of anthropology are Lucretius and Hobbes discussing? What do you think they would say about the other aspect? (Haven't had a quiz in a while.) I'll try to get the papers back by Friday; next Tuesday at the latest.
As we discussed in class, we are now studying epistemology, the theory of how we know things and what we can know, and how a philosopher's epistemology ties in to his ontology and cosmology. This is the subject of the second paper: Choosing two of the following three traditions, explain how the Epicurean (Lucretius and Hobbes), the Classical (Plato), or the Classical-Christian (St. Augustine) epistemology determines or reflects the ontology-cosmology of that tradition. Choose the two traditions that you best understand. Briefly explain how the epistemology ("what we can know") is consistent with the ontology (what really exists) of the tradition. As in all papers, the following rules apply. Albert Einstein is supposed to have said, "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." I think this is a better definition of stupidity than of insanity. Don't be stupid! Don't make the same mistakes you made on the first paper and expect different results! Correct them on this paper.
The purpose of the references is to enable me to find the exact passage you are quoting or paraphrasing or otherwise referring to. For this paper there are four possible sources for you to cite: (1) The passages from Lucretius's poem are to be cited by book number (Roman numeral) and line numbers (Arabic numerals) as illustrated in the sample paper I handed out. You should know this by now. (2) Passages from Hobbes's Leviathan are by chapter number. We read chapters 1 to 7, so take it from there. (3) Passages from Plato's Republic are to the Stephanus numbers (506 to 517) that mark the progress through the reading. (4) Passages from St. Augustine's On Christian Doctrine and City of Godare to the book and chapter numbers. Book numbers in Roman numerals; chapter numbers in Arabic numerals.
Remember the footnote is placed AFTER the last mark of punctuation in the sentence, and the second quotation mark goes AFTER the final period of the sentence. For example: The Frankforts said, "Symbols are treated the same way."1 PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE GET THIS SEQUENCE CORRECT=the FINAL MARK OF PUNCTUATION, then the END QUOTATION MARK, and then the FOOTNOTE. Here are sample footnotes for Hobbes, Plato, and St. Augustine (you already used Lucretius's poem in the first paper) :
1Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, ch. 7.
2Plato, Republic, 508a.
3St. Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, II.7.
4Ibid. (A reference to the same source in the very next footnote. "Ibid." refers back to the source in the previous footnote.)
5Republic, 506a. (A subsequent reference to a source cited before, but not immediately before. You cannot use "Ibid.," so you abbreviate the previously cited sources so that the reader recognizes what you are referring to.)
6St. Augustine, City of God, XXII.24. (new source)
7On Christian Doctrine, II.7. (A later reference to the first Augustine source that is cited. You must make sure that the reader does not get the two Augustine works confused.)
The other punctuation to be mastered at this time (after all, all of you are at least nineteen years old, and some older than that!) is the introduction of quotes. If you introduce them using the word "that," then you do not put any punctuation before or after the word "that." Thus, you might write the following: Marx said that "the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles." Note: no comma after "that" and the word "the" in the quote is not capitalized because it is in the middle of a larger sentence. On the other hand, you may introduce the quote this way: Marx said, "The history of all hitherto existing society is a history of class struggles." Here, a comma follows the verb "said," and the first word of the sentence is capitalized. Go, my dear students, and write likewise!
Please read Plato's Republic, Book VI (506b) to Book VII (517c): the account of the divided line and the famous allegory of the cave. Don't let the literary nature of the reading distract you from figuring out how Plato explains what we can know and how we know it.
The next paper, which will be graded, is due Friday the 14th and will focus on epistemology. I will give you the topic and discuss the paper a bit on Friday.
We will continue with Epicurean epistemology. We will discuss the rest of the Lucretius reading from Friday. The new assignment for Tuesday is chapters 1 to 7 of Thomas Hobbes's Leviathan, a link to which is on the main web page under the "Western Political Concepts I & II Readings" heading.
Is Hobbes's understanding of how we learn things fundamentally different from Lucretius's? Does Hobbes subscribe to the same materialist ontology that Lucretius does? (You might want to read chapter 46 of Leviathan for the answer to that question.)
By the way, there is still a bit of popular interest in old Lucretius. Click on this radio spot, compliments of Alumna Maria Madden, for an interesting story on Lucretius.
Now that the mid-term is out of the way, We will begin our study of epistemology, the theory of knowledge—How do we know things? What kinds of things can we know? Do we know everything in the same way? Is there a difference between knowing what something is and knowing how to do something? Or between knowing what a physical object is and knowing what the answer to a math question is? What does "knowing" mean? Before you start reading, ask yourself these very questions.
As with the section on cosmology, we will begin with the Epicureans. Please read Lucretius, On the Nature of the Universe, Book IV, lines 26-614, 722-1036, and ask yourself what Lucretius's answers to these questions are. I included his explanations of vision and hearing but not taste and smell. You might want to check out one or more of those explanations, but they all follow logically from what he says in the first part of Book IV on vision and touch.
I will get the exams back to you within two weeks.
Finally, I want to remind you one last time: don't forget to sign up for an appointment to discuss your paper! Each of you must make a fifteen minute appointment to come to my office and discuss your paper. Email me for one of the following times this week, though a number of the times have already been taken:
Every fifteen minutes during regular office hours on Friday, September 30, from 10:00 to 11:00am, 1:00 to 2:00pm.
The last day to meet with me is Tuesday, October 4th, 10:00 to 10:30am, 1:00 to 2:00pm.
That's it! There are no more times. Over these two-and-one-half weeks I have scheduled more than fifty slots with times available every day, Monday through Friday. Please do not tell me that no time was possible for you; I will not believe it.
Don't put it off. It is worth 2% of the final grade, and all you must do is meet with me for fifteen minutes!
Bring a couple of blue or black pens—no pencil!—to the exam, along with your student ID number. I'll supply the test and the blue books.
A good essay answer does two things: (1) it directly addresses the question that is asked, and (2) it demonstrates the level of your understanding by providing accurate, precise, and specific/detailed information. Do not write in broad general statements. Use specific details from the readings and show me, if you are asked, that you understand what the fundamental conceptions and the four historical traditions are. If you need to review the fundamental conceptions and the traditions, re-read the essay on "Introduction to Political Theory" that began the semester.
The mid-term will be an essay test and will consist of two questions, though the questions will have several parts. The exam will cover all of the material that we have read so far and will focus on the concepts of ontology and cosmology in the four traditions or philosophical outlooks that we have identified: the classical, the epicurean, the Gnostic and the Christian (St. Augustine). You should be able to identify the general views of each of these four traditions on ontology and cosmology. I will ask you to identify, by name and work, passages from the writers of the primary materials that clearly represent their views. (I will not ask you to identify writings of the Frankforts and me.) Thus the best way to study is to re-read the material and look for the different understandings of cosmology and ontology in the works. You should also have a clear idea of what ontology and cosmology are. Re-read the relevant sections of the introductory essay that I assigned the first day of class if you want to review the meaning of these terms.
Please read the Gnostic writing, The Apocryphon of John for Friday. Mid-term on Tuesday.
Please read the following from St. Augustine's City of God: Book VII.29-32; VIII.1-5; XIX.12-13. This comes to a little less than 15 pages. You may use either the online version, linked on my main webpage (you will find the link in the "Western Political Concepts I & II Readings" section, directly below the "Course Syllabi" section), or the new Penguin Bettenson translation available in the bookstore, which is cheap and good. What is Augustine's view of the cosmos?
Please read these excerpts from Cicero, Epictetus, and Marcus Aurelius that exemplify Stoic cosmology. The Stoics, along with Plato and Aristotle, are representatives of the classical tradition, one of the four broad traditions that we are following this semester (the others being the Epicurean, the classical-Christian, and the Gnostic traditions).
I will correct the papers and return them next Tuesday, September 20th.
Two things are due Tuesday: first, of course, is the paper. Please review the rules below. You must follow them closely. Second, please read Aristotle's account of the four causes in Book Two of the Physics, Parts 3, 7, & 8
. This is an example of ontology in the classical tradition. It is a short assignment, but it is the basis of Tuesday's class. I will expect you to be able to identify the four different "causes" that Aristotle discusses and will begin the class with a short quiz. Otherwise, experience has taught me that most students will only work on the paper and not do the reading assignment.In the poem, On the Nature of the Universe by the Roman poet Lucretius, we have an account of the complete philosophy of the Greek Epicurus. The theory of Epicurus, called Epicureanism, is one of the four broad philosophical traditions that we will follow in this course. Using the prose translation available in the bookstore, On the Nature of the Universe, translated by R.E. Latham and John Godwin (New York: Penguin Classics, 1951, 1994), please read Book One, lines 146-634, 921-1113, and Book Two, lines 62-477. The poem is divided into several numbered books, and you will find the line numbers of the poem in the margins of the page in the Penguin edition that is in the bookstore. The assigned readings generally begin at the beginning of paragraphs and end at the ends of paragraphs in this prose translation.
The question to address in you paper for next Tuesday is the following: "Is the cosmology reflected in Lucretius's poem On the Nature of the Universe the same as the cosmology of primitive man as described by the cultural anthropologist Henri and H.A. Frankfort? Explain."
The purpose of the references is to enable me to find the exact passage you are quoting or paraphrasing or otherwise referring to. For this paper there are only two sources for you to cite. The passages from Lucretius's poem are to be cited by book number (Roman numeral) and line numbers (Arabic numerals) as illustrated in the sample paper I handed out. Since I handed out the excerpt from the Frankforts' essay taken from two different editions of the same book, your citations must refer to the particular version I gave you. The page numbers of the two versions are different. If the excerpts I gave you is from the Intellectual Adventure of Ancient Man text, use the example in the sample paper I handed out. If the excerpts I gave you was from the book Before Philosophy, identify that text and cite the page numbers from that version. The first footnote would look like this: H. and H.A. Frankfort, "Myth and Reality," in Before Philosophy, ed. H. and H.A. Frankfort et al (Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1949), 26.
Remember the footnote is placed AFTER the last mark of punctuation in the sentence, and the second quotation mark goes AFTER the final period of the sentence. For example: The Frankforts said, "Symbols are treated the same way."1 PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE GET THIS SEQUENCE CORRECT=the FINAL MARK OF PUNCTUATION, then the END QUOTATION MARK, and then the FOOTNOTE.
The other punctuation to be mastered at this time (after all, all of you are at least nineteen years old, and some older than that!) is the introduction of quotes. If you introduce them using the word "that," then you do not put any punctuation before or after the word "that." Thus, you might write the following: Marx said that "the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles." Note: no comma after "that" and the word "the" in the quote is not capitalized because it is in the middle of a larger sentence. On the other hand, you may introduce the quote this way: Marx said, "The history of all hitherto existing society is a history of class struggles." Here, a comma follows the verb "said," and the first word of the sentence is capitalized. Go, my dear students, and write likewise!
As explained in class, please read to page 20 (or 29 if you have the same excerpts from the Before Philosophy text) of Henri and H.A. Frankforts' "Myth and Reality." No matter what else was included in the handout that I gave to you, this is all that it is necessary to read. Of course, you have a legal right to read as much additional material as you wish. Extra copies of the handout are in the rack on my office door, G107 Ireton.
Please read the essay entitled "Introduction to Political Theory," linked on the main webpage under the Michael Crichton quote in the Section on "Western Political Concepts I & II readings."
The first paper, which will be due on Tuesday, September 13th, is a completely no-risk assignment: hand in a good faith effort on time and no matter what its quality, you get full credit (5% of the final grade). Hand it in late, you get a zero. No reading or research other than the readings already assigned in class are required. Since I will accept absolutely no excuses for a late paper, start working on it as soon as I assign the topic.
Attendance: As the syllabus indicates and as I have explained in class, I am very liberal about excusing absences and lateness to class, but I do not accept every reason for missing class as the basis for an excused absence. I will excuse you if you are sick and have been to or are going to visit a doctor or nurse (a "health professional") for treatment. I will also excuse absences because you must keep an appointment or your employer requires you to be somewhere else or you must go home on family business. I may ask for written documentation of these reasons, but generally I do not ask.
I have received a number of emails and other messages in the past from students informing me that they will not be in class on a particular day for one reason or another. Merely informing me ahead of time does not mean I excuse the absence, though I appreciate your courtesy. I will not excuse your absence because you are simply not feeling well or because you choose to do something worthwhile other than come to class even if you inform me ahead of time. If you are coughing and sneezing and coming down with a cold or the flu, and you don't want to spread your virus to your classmates, staying home is probably the right thing to do, but it is not an excused absence. For that I need documentation. You all get three unexcused absences to use as you see fit, and it is your decision to use them to stay home when you don't feel well or want to attend some other event or need to prepare for another class instead of going to my class. Use them for good reasons: that's what they are for.
Make-up Exams: The same basic rules about excused absences apply to taking mid-terms (papers are always due on the due date--no exceptions). You may be excused from taking a mid-term if you are certifiably sick or your job prevents you from attending class or you have a serious family or personal emergency on the day of the test. If one of these applies and I am informed in a reasonable time before the exam, you may take the exam on the same day as the final exam. If none of these reasons apply, you may not take the exam at another time, and you will get a zero for the exam. My policy of giving makeup exams on the same day as the final, which is provided in the syllabus, does NOT mean that you may choose to take the mid-term exam on that day rather than on the regularly scheduled day: it is not an alternative test date. To be eligible for a makeup, you must qualify for an excused absence, and this you should do a reasonable time before the day of the mid-term, if that is at all possible. Remember also, if you are late for the exam because of events outside of your control, let me know immediately or as soon as possible and I will let you take the exam later that same day if possible.
Excessive excused absences may also be a problem, and we should discuss such situations well before the last month of the semester. If your job or an illness keeps you away from class for more than a third of the semester, it will definitely affect the class participation component of your grade and may be a good reason to drop the course and take it another time. All of us find ourselves in these situations from time to time and have to deal with them appropriately.
When in doubt about any of these policies, please come and talk to me: don't make me seek you out. You should also review the University's policies on absenteeism in the University Catalog.
A political theory explains the basis of political-legal authority and also the proper functions of government.
Please read Lucretius, On the Nature of the Universe, Book One, lines 146-634, 921-1113, and Book Two, lines 62-477. The poem is divided into several numbered books, and you will find the line numbers of the poem in the margins of the page in the Penguin edition that is in the bookstore. In other editions, the line numbers are also usually indicated, and it is the (1) book number and (2) the approximate line numbers of the poem that you cite in your references. For the Frankforts' essay, you will cite the page numbers.
Please read the following from St. Augustine's City of God: Book VII.29-32; VIII.1-5; XIX.12-13. This comes to a little less than 15 pages. You may use either the online version, linked on my main webpage (you will find the link in the "Western Political Concepts I & II Readings" section, directly below the "Course Syllabi" section), or the new Penguin Bettenson translation available in the bookstore, which is cheap and good. What is Augustine's view of the cosmos?
Please read these excerpts from Cicero, Epictetus, and Marcus Aurelius that exemplify Stoic cosmology. The Stoics, along with Plato and Aristotle, are representatives of the classical tradition, one of the four broad traditions that we are following this semester (the others being the Epicurean, the classical-Christian, and the Gnostic traditions).
Please read the Apocryphon of John. It is pretty short, and I think you will enjoy it. Again, try to figure out the writer's understanding of the nature of the cosmos, reality, and God(s) and compare this to the other views we have read so far.
Please read Aristotle's account of the four causes in Book Two of the Physics, Parts 3, 7, & 8. This is an example of ontology in the classical tradition.
Classical tradition: Stoic cosmology, as reflected in writings from Cicero, Epictetus, and Marcus Aurelius.
Please read the essay on the classical Greek conception of cosmos by Hans Jonas. Jonas is a student and critic of Gnosticism. According to him, what are the key differences between the classical Greek understanding of the cosmos and the Gnostic understanding? What, according to Jonas, accounted for the development of the Gnostic conception in the ancient Hellenic world?
The article is both a good account of Gnostic cosmology (keep the Apocryphon of John in mind as you read it) and also the classical Greek. A good review for the exam. Compare what he says with what we read in Lucretius (a classical view?), Aristotle, and Augustine. How does the primitive view fit?
We begin our study of epistemology, the theory of knowledge—How do we know things? What kinds of things can we know? Do we know everything in the same way? Is there a difference between knowing what something is and knowing how to do something? Or between knowing what a physical object is and knowing what the answer to a math question is? What does "knowing" mean? Before you start reading, ask yourself these very questions. Then please read Lucretius, On the Nature of the Universe, Book IV, lines 26-614, 722-1036, and ask yourself what Lucretius's answers to these questions are. I included his explanations of vision and hearing but not taste and smell. You might want to check out one or more of those explanations, but they all follow logically from what he says in the first part of Book IV on vision and touch.
Please read Hobbes, Leviathan, chapters 1 to 7.
Please read the excerpts from Michael Polanyi's Tacit Dimension for next time.
Please read Ernst Cassirer's account of man's symbolic nature for next time.
Please read Plato's Republic, Book VI (506b) to Book VII (517c): the account of the divided line and the allegory of the cave.
Please read Aristotle's account of "the four causes" in Book Two of the Physics, (Parts 3, 7, & 8). It is short. Be able to give me short definitions of each of the four causes that Aristotle describes. Bring your Lucretius text with you for in-class comparisons.
St. Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, Book II, chapters 7 (paragraphs 9-11), and City of God, Book XXII, chapter 24. In Book II of On Christian Doctrine, Augustine discusses how to study Scripture, but his entire discussion is relevant to epistemology. Feel free to use the embedded links in the reading for more information. In Book XXII, chapter 24, of the City of God, he discusses the rang and limitation of the human intellect without God's grace and with God's grace.
Over the next couple of weeks, we will be reading about anthropology. As described in the "Introduction to Political Philosophy" essay that we read at the beginning of the semester, the study of man has two parts—philosophical anthropology, or the place of man in the cosmos, and empirical anthropology, or the observable behavior of man. The first we may call the "nature of man" and the second, "human nature." Philosophical anthropology is tied directly to ontological and cosmological inquiry; empirical anthropology is based on our observation of people's behavior and our experience of human interaction.
Which aspect of anthropology is Lucretius and Hobbes discussing? What do you think they would say about the other aspect?
Please read the Epicurean writers on anthropology: Lucretius, On the Nature of the Universe, II. lines 1-61; V. lines 925-1010; Hobbes, Leviathan, ch. 13.
Please read the following assignments on the classical view of man:
Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, Book I Parts 4, 5, 7, 9.
Plato's Republic, Books II.358c-362d and VI.489d-497a. What parts of these two readings bear on empirical anthropology and what parts bear on philosophical anthropology: "human nature" v. "the nature of man."
Please read St. Augustine, City of God, Book XIV.1, 11, 28, and Book XXII.22.
Please read the Iranian Gnostic Hymn of the Pearl and paragraphs 1-12, 18-21, and 33 from the Oration on the Dignity of Man by the Renaissance writer Giovanni Pico della Mirandola.
With the Hymn of the Pearl, you will have to speculate about the Hymn's views on empirical and philosphical anthropology. Be prepared to give reasons or evidence for your conclusions.
Please read the following on ethics: Epicurus's Principal Doctrines and Hobbes, Leviathan, chapters 14 & 15, available through a link on my main web page.
Please read Book Two of Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics. A link to the Nicomachean Ethics is on the main webpage.
Please read Epictetus's Enchiridion, a short manual on practical ethics similar in form, though not necessarily in content, to the "Principle Doctrines" of Epicurus.
Please read the following excerpts from St. Augustine's City of God: Book X.1, XIV.1, 2, 4, 13, 25 and Book XIX.11.
On Gnostic ethics, please read the excerpts from Hans Jonas, Norman Cohn, and Ronald Knox in the handout.
Please read the handout on apocalyptic and millenarian eschatologies by Norman Cohn.
Please read the account of the ancient Egyptian state by John Wilson.
On the final fundamental conception of political philosophy—politics—read Lucretius, On the Nature of the Universe, Book V, lines 1011-1240, and Hobbes, Leviathan, chapters 16, 17, 18, and 20.
The Classical conception of politics: Plato, Republic, Book V, 471c to 480a; Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, I.1-2; VI.8; Politics, I.1-2; III.1-4. On the main web page, in the list of Western Political Concepts readings and links, there is a link to some helpful questions to consider as you read the assignment.
Plato's theory in the Republic assumes that the philosopher is one who has mastered the highest knowledge described in the divided line and Myth of the Cave accounts that we discussed earlier. Aristotle did not directly prescribe a philosopher-king, but his idea of those best able to govern is also based directly on the ideas of happiness and virtue that we discussed earlier in the semester.
Christian writers on the nature of politics and the purpose of government: St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, "Treatise on Law," Question 95, Of Human Law; St. Augustine, City of God, Book XXII.22.
Please read the following relatively short assignment: St. Augustine, City of God, Book XIX, pt. 11 & 13; St. Thomas Aquinas, the so-called "Treatise on Law" in the Summa Theologica, Question 91 (Of the Various Kinds of Law), and Question 95 (Of Human Law). You may also want to take a look at Question 94 in order to better understand Question 95.
The scholastic format of the Summa Theologica or Summary of Theology (or, "Everything You Ever Wanted to Know about Christian Theology but were Afraid to Ask") of St. Thomas takes some getting used to. He divides the treatise up into numbered Questions. Each numbered question is then divided up into Articles. Each Article is divided into a series of Objections, which turn out to be criticisms of the point that Aquinas ultimately wishes to make, followed by a section headed "On the contrary," which marks the beginning of the argument for St. Thomas's position. Then follows the "I answer that" section, which is the key to St. Thomas's argument, and a series of replies to the initial objections. Focus on the "I answer that" paragraphs and then look at the Objections and their Replies. We will go over this and a few other Questions for the Summa in class.
Excerpts from Edmund Burke's Reflections on the Revolution in France. Niemeyer, Hume, and Burke must all be understood as critics of some of the fundamental ideas of the modern philosophers Hobbes, Locke, and Burke. Niemeyer, Hume, and especially Burke are generally classified as "conservatives" in American political terms, but all three were also committed "liberal democrats," as Lippmann used that term in the opening essay on the eclipse of the public philosophy.
One question you might ask to tie Rousseau and the modern theorists to Niemeyer and the conservatives is "which existing governments on earth today are 'legitimate'"? That is, which existing governments, if any, act with authority: the ability to obligate their citizens or subjects with binding laws? The different answers to this question given by the different writers, or sets of writers, providing a telling contrast in their theories.
Please read Rousseau's Social Contract, Book Two, chapters 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7; Book Three, chapters 1, 10, 11; and Book Four, chapters 1, 2, 3. Try to figure out from these excerpts how the people, acting as Sovereign, are supposed to be able to discern the General Will. What are the necessary conditions, according to Rousseau, for the people to make laws reflecting their General Will? Rousseau discusses several such qualifications in the assigned reading. Compare this to Locke's qualifications for a legitimate vote by the memebers of a civil society.
Please read Locke's views regarding happiness, morality and law in his Essay Concerning Human Understanding, Book II, ch. XXI, section 43 ("Happiness"), and Book II, ch. XXVIII, sections 4-13. Compare Hobbes on "felicity," chapter 6, last two paragraphs of Leviathan. Compare Locke's arguments with Hobbes's, and also Locke's with Locke, as set forth in the Second Treatise.
Please read the following: Machiavelli, Prince, ch. 15, 25; Hobbes, Leviathan, ch. 13, 17, 21; "Modern Philosophers' Rejections of Classical Philosophy." There are links for each of these readings on the main web page--one for Machiavelli's Prince, one for Hobbes's Leviathan, and one for the "Modern Philosophers' Rejections"--under the heading of "Western Political Concepts I & II Readings." Look for them.
Please read Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, I.1-2; Politics, I.1-2; St. Augustine, John of Salisbury, and St. Thomas on Political Authority. For Friday, we will read Machiavelli's Prince, chapters 15 & 25; Hobbes's Leviathan, chapters 13, 17, 21; and the excerpts entitled "Modern Philosophers' Rejections of Classical Philosophy" (I fixed the link!). Links to these readings are on the main webpage under "Western Political Concepts I & II Readings."
The issue of interest running throughout all of these readings and also the readings for the next few weeks is the issue of authority: what is the source or foundation of political, legal, ethical authority—that is, the ability to create duty or obligation. Coercion and force alone can create obedience, but not duty; authority alone creates duty. See Rousseau, Social Contract, Book One, Chapter 3, for example. The question that takes us through the political writings of the modern era is "What right do you have to tell me what to do?" or some variant of this question. As you read the materials, ask how the author answers this question. Robert Paul Wolff, In Defense of Anarchism, also bears on this question.
Look to your previous papers for guidance on what constitutes serious errors. Einstein has supposedly said that insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting different results. It does seem that the definition better fits the nature of "stupidity": making the same mistakes over and over again expecting a better grade. Don't be stupid.
For this paper, since the approaches are all found on the website, simply refer to the author of the approach you choose: Frederick Watkins (forget Kramnick), Norman Cohn, or Eric Voegelin; no footnotes for these are necessary. For Hitler, if you use the version on the website, which I believe all of you are in fact using, cite the page number of your downloaded copy. I know that this will differ from student to student, but it will give me a rough idea of where in the chapter your quote or reference is located. I do check quotes for accuracy--they have to be letter perfect! For Marx, do the same thing if you download; cite the page number of the Harlan Davidson text that I saw most of you using if that is your source. Because some of you downloaded and some of you are using the book you bought in the bookstore (and some might be using still another version) you must indicate which version you are using in your first footnote. This is not necessary for the Hitler reading. So your footnote might look like this: Karl Marx, Communist Manifesto (Arlington Heights, IL: Harlan Davidson, 1955), 17. (The "17" is the imaginary page number of this imaginary footnote reference.).
Bring a couple of blue or black pens—no pencil!—to the exam, along with your student ID number. I'll supply the test and the blue books.
A good essay answer does two things: (1) it directly addresses the question that is asked, and (2) it demonstrates the level of your understanding by providing accurate, precise, and specific/detailed information. Do not write in broad general statements. Use specific details from the readings and show me that you understand what the five fundamental conceptions and the four—five if we include Hermeticist—traditions are.
The first POL 210 mid-term exam will be on Tuesday, September 27th. It will be an essay test and will consist of two questions, though the questions will have several parts. The exam will cover all of the material that we have read so far and will focus on the concepts of ontology and cosmology in the four traditions or philosophical outlooks that we have identified: the classical (Aristotle), the epicurean (Lucretius), the Gnostic (John and the material written by Hans Jonas), and the Christian (St. Augustine). You should be able to identify the general views of each of these four traditions on ontology and cosmology. I will ask you to identify, by name and work, passages from some of these writers that clearly represent their views. Thus the best way to study is to reread the material and look for the different understandings of cosmology and ontology in the works. You should also have a clear idea of what ontology and cosmology are. Reread the relevant sections of the introductory essay on political theory and political philosophy that I handed out the first day of class if you want to review the meaning of these terms.
this page for copies of old instructions for the mid-term exams. Most of those instructions will apply to the mid-term next Tuesday, September 23d.The first POL 210 mid-term exam is on Tuesday! The exam will cover all of the assigned readings since the beginning of the semester. It will be an essay exam consisting of two questions, one of which will include quoted passages form the texts that we have read and that you must be able to identify (author, title, subject). The two main subjects that we have covered are (1) cosmology-ontology and (2) epistemology. We have read representative materials from four basic philosophical outlooks of Western Civilization: (1) the classical, (2) the Epicurean, (3) the gnostic, and (4) the "classical-Christian." You should be able to identify the different authors that we have studied with the philosophical outlook that they represent and understand their distinctive views of ontology (the nature of reality) and epistemology (their theories of knowledge). Review the syllabus and my handout on political theory and political philosophy for basic background if you must.
The second mid-term will have the same format as the first exam. There will be two essay questions, either or both of which may require identifications of quotations by author, title, tradition, and, perhaps, subject matter—such as epistemology, ethics, philosophical or empirical anthropology. You should clearly understand the meaning of each of these terms.
The exam will cover the material since the last exam, but particularly the material assigned from the week of October 18th (the Jonas and Niemeyer excerpts) through last week. This material was not part of your earlier paper.
The second POL 210 mid-term exam will be an essay test and will consist of two questions, though the questions will have several parts. The exam will cover all of the material that we have read so far and will focus on the concepts of ontology-cosmology and epistemology in the four traditions or philosophical outlooks that we have identified: the classical (Plato and Aristotle), the epicurean (Lucretius and Hobbes), the Gnostic (John and the material written by Hans Jonas), and the Christian (St. Augustine). You should be able to identify the general views of each of these four traditions on ontology-cosmology and on epistemology. I will also probably ask you to identify, by name and work, passages from some of these writers that clearly represent their views. Thus the best way to study is to reread the material and look for the different understandings of cosmology and epistemology in the works. You should also have a clear idea of what ontology, cosmology, and epistemology are. Reread the relevant sections of the introductory essay on political theory and political philosophy that I handed out the first day of class if you want to review the meaning of these terms.
For the POL 210 Final: As discussed in class: one seventy-five minute essay in which you tie together the five philosophical components or fundamental conceptions—ontology/cosmology, epistemology, anthropology (empirical and philosophical), ethics, and politics—for either the classical tradition OR the classical Christian tradition OR the epicurean tradition and contrast that tradition point for point with the gnostic tradition. I will give you a choice of two of the three traditions I just named (you must be familiar with the gnostics in any case), so you must study the classical, the classical Christian, and the epicurean writers because you do not know which tradition I will not include on the exam. The gnostic tradition, though it is definitely on the exam, will be of secondary importance to the tradition you choose to summarize. You will use the gnostic ideas simply as points of comparison or contrast to that tradition. See you Tuesday at 3:00pm!
You have a choice of questions for the first one-page paper: "What would Machiavelli say about Lippmann's public philosophy argument?" Or, if you prefer to focus on the readings from Hobbes rather than Machiavelli, "Is Hobbes's explanation of the founding of a commonwealth consistent with Lippmann's argument for the public philosophy?" This is not a research paper; use only the assigned readings. It is primarily a writing sample.
Tuesday is the first POL 211 mid-term. It will consist of two essay questions on the assigned readings by Lippmann, Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, and the anonymous writer(s) of "What We're Fighting For" (but not the Niemeyer excerpt). One question will be of the comparison-contrast type comparing the views of the three social contract theorists (Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau) on the main ideas we have been discussing in class. A useful list of these ideas is, as I showed you in class, on the "Memo: Political Concepts Related to Social Contract Theories," linked on my main webpage under "Useful Links." There are also some very useful study questions on that page.
The second question will also involve comparison and contrast of views but will focus on a separate question that I ask you on the exam. The essays by Lippmann and the anonymous author of "What We're Fighting For" may also be included in this question. The question may be something like, "Consistent with their theories, what whould each of the social contract theorists and Walter Lippmann say is wrong with American democracy today?" This will force you to think about their views in a different context.
One of the two questions will also include an identification section: I will quote unidentified passages from the different works that we read by the three social contract theorists and Lippmann and "Anonymous" and ask you to identify the author and the work by name. I will select distinctive passages that are clearly associated with the particular writers we studied.
The second POL 211 mid-term exam will be given on Tuesday the 27th. As I briefly explained in class, the exam will consist of two questions: (1) one will be an identification question in which there will be four or five quotes that you must identify and discuss the common theme or ideas addressed in the passages; (2) one will be a straight essay question that either asks you to compare and contrast the ideas of different authors (I explained this in class) or that asks you to explain the views of the different authors on a common issue. All of the readings assigned thus far in the semester are fair game, and that includes the Lippmann essay with which we started the semester (extra copies of which are in the rack on the wall across from my office door) as well as Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Madison, Jefferson, Hume, and Burke. You should be comfortable with the five fundamental conceptions that are discussed in the "Introduction to Political Philosophy and Theory" essay that was also assigned (and is also in the wall rack) during the first week in class, but I will not ask anything directly about the "Introduction" essay. Bring blue or black pens and your student ID numbers: no names on the blue books.
Only students with a medical excuse or other legitimate excuse for an absence will be permitted to postpone the exam until the day of the final exam. Please review the policy in the syllabus.
For the second POL 211 mid-term, review all of the readings since the last exam: Hume's essays, the excerpts from Burke's Reflections on the Revolution in France, the excerpts from Mazzini's Duties of Man, the excerpts from Adam Smith's two books, The Wealth of Nations and Theory of Moral Sentiments, the excerpts from Mill's two books, Utilitarianism and On Liberty, and, yes, the excerpt form Niemeyer's article "On Authority and Alienation." (I had forgotten that we discussed the Niemeyer article after last exam.)
There will be two essay questions, as on the first exam, and one will have passages to identify by author and title. Both questions will focus on the aforenamed writers, but these writers all were responding to and reacting against the ideas of the social contract theorists that we studied for the first exam. Therefore, even though I will not ask you any questions that focus on Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, or Lippmann, a good answer-essay should include necessary information about those earlier writers. The questions will both require some degree of comparison-contrast of the ideas of the later writers (Hume, Burke, Smith, et al) on the main subjects we have focused: authority, liberty, human nature, natural law or natural rights, and the ultimate ethical standards.
As I indicated in class, the POL 211 final exam will consist of two parts. Like the previous two mid-terms, it will have two essay questions on the material that we have covered since the last mid-term--namely, the material on political ideologies. It will also have one essay question on material from the readings of the entire semester.
Of the two questions on political ideologies, one will have quotes from the readings for you to identify, again like the previous two mid-term exams. You might keep in mind that our readings on ideology, unlike the previous readings in the course, consisted mostly of secondary sources--readings about ideologies rather than readings that were examples of ideologies--and even the Communist Manifesto contains Marx's own theory of "ideology," all the while the Manifesto itself is considered by most students to be the paradigm of political ideology, though not the kind of ideology that Marx himself describes. Thus, the readings by Crick, Ellis, and Jaggar are studies of ideologies, not ideological themselves. Your essays should reflect your recognition of this distinction. In addition, you should be familiar with several of the brief summaries of concepts of ideology and related concepts that are linked on my web site and that you used in your papers: the concepts of Watkins, Cohn, Voegelin, and Niemeyer (his concept of "axiological critique") or some of them, will be on the exam and I will expect you to be familiar with them. As before, my primary concerns in grading your essays are (1) their response to the specific question you asked to address and (2) their reflection of your knowledge of the readings, not the lectures. There was not a lot of reading in terms of total pages this past month, so reread as much as you can of the assignments and study the different analytical concepts (Watkins, Cohn, Voegelin, Niemeyer, Crick) as much as you can. As I indicated in class, the very nature of "political ideology" is in controversy--no dictionary, no encyclopaedia, no one theorist has the correct definition of "ideology," just as none has the correct definition of "politics." Be careful when using the term to identify the meaning you attach to the term with one of the sources we have read or with your own formulation of the concept based on those readings. Wow, a class of budding theorists! That's what the course is supposed to produce.
The remaining part of the final will ask about the whole range of readings this semester, perhaps including the material on ideologies as part of the larger picture of modern political theory. We studied the origins of modern and liberal political theory in the social contract theorists; then we looked at several theorists that criticized or rejected some of the social contract ideas--are these critics still within the modern/liberal tradition? Are the political ideologies--or some of them--within the broad "liberal" tradition? After all, several of the ideologies claim to be theories of "liberation" or freedom from something. In answering broad, sweeping questions such as the ones I am suggesting here, you should refrain from broad, sweeping generalizations that you do not support with careful, specific information from the readings. Generalize only to the extent you can justify. I am still looking for your knowledge of the reading material--for solid evidence that you have read and have studied the readings--rather than grand statements that you can find most any place, like on Wikipedia. By the way, here again you are out of luck if you attempt to look up the definition of "modern philosophy" or "liberalism": no such absolute definitions exist, but you have read and studied precisely the materials that give rise to the fact that most students of theory today argue that there is such a thing as "modern political theory" or "liberal political theory" because of several fundamental similarities or areas of agreement among the writings. More grist for your theorizing minds!
BOOK REVIEWS. Book reviews should (1) be five pages long plus a title page, (2) identify the author's thesis and method of supporting the thesis, (3) contain specific evidence to prove that you read the entire book, and (4) include at least two pages of critique—a maximum of three pages of description, a minimum of two pages of your comments. Your comments may be based upon other readings in the course or in other courses (or in no courses at all!), but they should be aimed at identifying the author's fundamental assumptions and relating them to the basic approaches to political theory that we have been studying in this course. Use footnotes to identify the sources of the passages that you quote or paraphrase.
The purpose of the references is to enable me to find the exact passage you are quoting or paraphrasing or otherwise referring to. For this paper there are only two sources for you to cite. The passages from Lucretius's poem are to be cited by book number (Roman numeral) and line numbers (Arabic numerals) as illustrated in the sample paper I handed out. References to St. Augustine's City of God and Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics are to book and chapter and references to Hobbes's Leviathan are to chapter, as you have done in previous papers. References to statements from Epicurus's Principal Doctrines and Epictetus's Enchiridion are to the numbered sections. References to the material in the handout on Gnostic ethical theory must cite the particular author (Jonas, Cohn, or Knox), work, and page number to which you refer. Be careful. I expect you to be able to do footnotes competently by this time and will count mistakes as part of the overall limit of three.
Also, remember: the footnote is placed AFTER the last mark of punctuation in the sentence, and the second quotation mark—if there are quotation marks in your sentence—goes AFTER the final period of the sentence. For example: The Frankforts said, "Symbols are treated the same way."1 PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE GET THIS SEQUENCE CORRECT=the FINAL MARK OF PUNCTUATION, then the END QUOTATION MARK, and then the FOOTNOTE.
The other punctuation to be mastered at this time (after all, all of you are at least nineteen years old, and some older than that!) is the introduction of quotes. If you introduce them using the word "that," then you do not put any punctuation before or after the word "that." Thus, you might write the following: Marx said that "the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles." Note: no comma after "that" and the word "the" in the quote is not capitalized because it is in the middle of a larger sentence. On the other hand, you may introduce the quote this way: Marx said, "The history of all hitherto existing society is a history of class struggles." Here, a comma follows the verb "said," and the first word of the sentence is capitalized. Go, my dear students, and write likewise!
The Lippmann essay, "The Eclipse of the Public Philosophy," from his Essays in the Public Philosophy. Ask yourself what he means by "the eclipse." How did the eclipse occur? What is "the public philosophy"? Or is it just "a public philosophy"? What is the "great vacuum"? What is "natural law"? What is the danger caused by the eclipse or the vacuum? Does Lippmann seem to be writing for an American audience or a European audience? The book from which this essay is taken is a great book for students to read and it is back in print. I highly recommend it to you.
Extra copies of the syllabus and all handouts are in the rack on the wall across from my office door, Rowley 62A.
Bernard Crick defines "politics" as the following:
the activity by which differing interests within a given unit of rule are conciliated by giving them a share in power in proportion to their importance to the welfare and society of the whole community.
In other words, Crick assumes that politics applies to societies made up of diverse interests or groups of people who resolve differences and decide on policies by discussion and orderly, participatory procedures. Emergencies, he says, warrant the assertion of absolute power and command, but emergencies are extraordinary situations. Politics applies in ordinary times. Keep this in mind as Crick defends "politics" from ideology, especially totalitarian ideology.
Hans Jonas excerpt
Some Views of Politics and Government.
Benito Mussolini's "Doctrine of Fascism"
Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf.
The Communist Manifesto by Marx and Engels.
Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, "Herbert Spencer"
Chapter One of Auguste Comte's Course of Positive Philosophy (abridged). (HistoryGuide.Org).
Auguste Comte's Positive Philosophy
(There are actually three different sites with Chapter One of Comte's text on this web page: the link above, another link to a slightly abridged version toward the end of this very assignment page, and a third site linked in the list of Western Political Concepts readings on the main web page. Take your pick, but only read Chapter One.)
Hegel, s.v. the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy entry, "Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel."
John Stuart Mill, On Liberty.
Chapter Two of Mill's Utilitarianism
.John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism.
Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, Volume One, "Unlimited Power of the Majority in the United States, and its Consequences".
Richard Price, "The Evidence for a Future Period of Improvement in the State of Mankind".
Richard Price, "Discourse on the Love of our Country".
John Adams, Dissertation on Canon and Feudal Law
Thomas Paine's Rights of Man.
Burke's Reflections on the Revolution in France.
Excerpts from Edmund Burke's Reflections on the Revolution in France (excerpts).
A few readings from Adam Smith
David Hume, "Of the Origin of Government" and "Of the Original Contract"
Thomas Jefferson's Declaration of Independence
Chapters One and Four of Jeremy Bentham's Principles of Morals and Legislation
Jeremy Bentham, Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, ch. 1.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Social Contract.
Locke's Essay Concerning Human Understanding
Hobbes, Leviathan, chapters 16, 17, 18, 20.
St. Thomas Aquinas, the so-called "Treatise on Law" in the Summa Theologica, Question 91, and Question 109, Article 2
The scholastic format of the Summa Theologica or Summary of Theology (or, from St. Thomas's view, "Everything You Ever Wanted to Know about Theology but were Afraid to Ask") of St. Thomas takes some getting used to. He divides the treatise up into numbered Questions. Each numbered question is then divided up into Articles. Each Article is divided into a series of Objections, which turn out to be criticisms of the point that Aquinas ultimately wishes to make, followed by a section headed "On the contrary," which marks the beginning of the argument for St. Thomas's position. Then follows the "I answer that" section, which is the key to St. Thomas's argument, and a series of replies to the initial objections. Focus on the "I answer that" paragraphs and then look at the Objections and their Replies.
Marsilius of Padua, Defensor Pacis (selections).
John of Salisbury, Policraticus, Book Four (selections)..
Stoicism on the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Stoicism on the Ecole Initiative
Epictetus, Enchiridion
Epicureanism on the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
St. Augustine, City of God, Book XIV.
Rosen on St. Anselm's onotological argument.
Christian Classics World Wide Study Bible
Stoic cosmology: Cicero, Epictetus, Marcus Aurelius.
Bekker Numbers (Aristotle) Wikipedia
Plato, Republic, philosopher king Book V, 471c to 480a
Plato's Republic, Books II and VI, on human nature
Plato's Republic, Book VI, 506b to 518d, on the divided line and the Parable of the Cave.
Ethics in Plato's Republic, Book II, 367a to 369b, and Book IV, 427c-d to 445b.
Plato, Gorgias (Adelaide)
Aristotle's account of the causes of coming-to-be and passing-away in Book Two of On Generation and Corruption (Parts 8, 9, & 10) MIT
Metaphysics, Book XII, 1071b (Perseus)
Aristotle's account of the Prime Mover in Book Twelve of the Metaphysics (Parts 6, 7, 8, & 9) MIT
Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics (Ross trans.)
Aristotle's account of the four causes in Book Two of the Physics, (Parts 3, 7, & 8) MIT
Aristotle, Politics, Book VII, parts 1, 2, & 3.
Aristotle, Politics, Book III, parts 4, 6, 7, 8; Book IV, part 1; Book V, part 1.