The Republic and the Nicomachean Ethics

Writing Assignments

Your answer is to take the form of a short essay that demonstrates that you understand the historical and philosophical issues related to the question.

Assignment #1

Arguments have premises and a conclusion. The function of the premises is to support the truth of the conclusion.

• To "present" an argument is to state its premises and its conclusion. Further, you must quote the passages in the text in which you take the premises and conclusion to occur.

• To "explain" an argument is to explain the technical terms and present the evidence for the truth of the premises. The technical terms are the terms in the argument whose meanings are not immediately clear. There are two sorts of evidence for the premises. The first is evidence the author of the argument presents. You must quote the passages in which the author gives this evidence. The second is the evidence the author does not present explicitly but seems to assume.

• To "evaluate" an argument is to determine whether it is sound. An argument is valid iff its conclusion cannot be false if its premises are true. An argument is sound iff it is valid and its premises are true. In general, soundness is difficult to determine. You must provide reasons for your view.
In book I of the Republic, Socrates introduces the notion of "function" as part of an argument to show that "injustice is never more profitable than justice."

• Present, explain, and evaluate his argument.

Assignment #2

In Book II of the Republic, Glaucon states a view many hold about justice.

• Explain this view and compare it with the conception of justice in the city Socrates sets out.

Assignment #3

Once Socrates and his interlocutors have found what justice is in a city, they turn to the search for what justice is in an individual human being. One the basis of a principle about the use of words, they conclude that the soul must have parts like the city. This leads them to take up the question of what the parts of the soul are and how these parts work together to produce action.

• Present, explain, and evaluate Socrates' argument for the Tripartite Theory of the Soul.

Assignment #4

In Book IX of the Republic, Socrates argues that the just life is more pleasurable than the unjust life because just human beings have the "truest possible" pleasures.

• Present, explain, and evaluate his argument.

Assignment #5

"To say that the best good is happiness is apparently something generally agreed, and what we is a clearer statement of the best good is. Perhaps then we shall find the best good if we first find the function of human being (τὸ ἔργον τοῦ ἀνθρώπου)" (Nicomachean Ethics I.7.1097b).

• Aristotle gives an argument on the basis of the function to show that happiness for a human being consists in some sort of life of "reason." Present, explain, and evaluate his argument.

Assignment #6

• Explain what Aristotle thinks a "choice" (προαίρεσις) is. Since he thinks that "choice" involves "wish" (βούλησις) and "deliberation" (βούλευσις), be sure to explain what he thinks "wish" and "deliberation" are and how they are connected to "choice." Aristotle also thinks that we can "choose" to do something only if it is "up to us" (ἐφ᾽ ἡμῖν). Explain what he means.

Assignment #7

• Aristotle thinks that "contemplation" (θεωρία) is the activity in accordance with the virtue of the "intellect" (νοῦς) and that intellect is the cognition most proper to human beings. Further, he thinks that what is most proper to a thing is most pleasant for it.

Does it follow that the life of "contemplation" is the happiest life for a human being? Explain your answer. In your explanation, be sure to present and explain Aristotle's argument

Bibliography

The bibliography project is a summary of five journal articles or book chapters from the scholarly literature on issues related to the Republic or Nicomachean Ethics. In your summary, you are to outline the argument and make a judgment about its interest and plausibility.

The bibliography project, in this way, is a set of notes about what you have read and to which you can return in the future. Here is an example of what an entry might look like.

• "A Fallacy in Plato's Republic," David Sachs. The Philosophical Review, Vol. 72, No. 2. (Apr., 1963), pp. 141-158. Sachs argues that Socrates commits a fallacy that Sachs calls the the "fallacy of irrelevance" (141). Glaucon asks Socrates to prove that the just life is better. In this request, according to Sachs, Glaucon has in mind what Sachs calls the "vulgar" conception of justice (141). Socrates agrees to Glaucon's request and thus argues that the just life is better. The problem, however, according to Sachs, is that Socrates' argument is not about the "vulgar" conception of justice. It is about what Sachs calls the "Platonic" conception of justice (142). Sachs thinks that this equivocation "wrecks the Republic's main argument is due to the lack of connection between two conceptions of justice that Plato employs" (141). The difference in the conceptions of justice is present, just as Sachs claims, but it is unclear to me that this "wrecks" the argument. From Socrates' point of view, the vulgar conception of justice is a misunderstanding of what justice is.



go back go back